America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.I know I've read that somewhere... I've never played Go. PArt of my personal problem with Chess, is I can no longer see many moves in the future. Hopefully just out of practice.
I'm not really sure how to describe Go but, compared to Chess its often a very indirect game. To defend yourself you don't parry the attack but parry what will be the attack if the aggressor keeps pushing into your territory.
Furthermore when you do attack its often the case that what initially appeared to be land grabs turn out to be a smothering assaults from multiple directions. The game can be taking place a really large number of moves in the future. So a player will be calculating whether he can rupture a defensive position before the defender can make it invulnerable and he'll be going the the sequence 'if I go here then he'll go here'...for as many as two dozen moves in advance. The game rewards, foresight, subtlety and patience.
|
When a liberal looks at an oppressive left wing government, they fail to see past what that government wants, and they automatically assume that the government in question is representative of the people. They might admit that the elections are phony or rigged, but that is just the softener so they could argue that the government must have the support of the people otherwise they would rise up and overthrow it.
Sorry, but what? Liberals generally oppose oppressive governments of any stripe. Liberals certainly don't actively support the likes of Saddam.
Frankly, if you want to go down that road, I might bring up the likes of Suharto, the multiple military dictatorships set up by the CIA in South America and American support for Saddam Hussain in the 1980's and the Shah of Iran previously. Anti communism, from mainly American governments and institutions, let to the success of a lot of tinpot dictators around the world, who inflicted misery and suffering upon their people.
When a liberal looks at an oppressive left wing government, they fail to see past what that government wants, and they automatically assume that the government in question is representative of the people. They might admit that the elections are phony or rigged, but that is just the softener so they could argue that the government must have the support of the people otherwise they would rise up and overthrow it.Sorry, but what? Liberals generally oppose oppressive governments of any stripe. Liberals certainly don't actively support the likes of Saddam.
Perhaps he is referring to Hollywood liberal types such as Sean Penn and Danny Glover (and their disciples) who can often be seen supporting Castro, Chavez, and wearing Che Guevarra (sp?) t-shirts.
Supply and demand still move the market when it isn't working optimally, but the resulting equilibrium price is not what it would be in a free market.Would you please state your disagreement in economic terms?
I mean NO disrespect: I've took two years of economics in college, and so I have a pretty good handle on the terminology. If my post wasn't clear, or you think you may not fully understand it, please ask and I'll explain.
Specifically:
Why do you think my point about elasticity is incorrect? Demand for basic necessities is certainly inelastic.
Why do you (apparently) think the fact that laborers have very little information with which to set the price of their labor is irrelevant?
Put another way:
The value of something less the cost of the labor, the land, the capital, etc. is what a Capitalist calls the rightful reward of entrepreneurship, and what a Marxist calls the exploitation of the proletariat. But whatever one calls it, I can't see how it is accounted for by the labor market, which to me undermines the idea that our system accurately rewards the right people for the value produced.
Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place for the sort of feedback I'm fishing for; I don't know.
From what I've seen, "educated" and "thoughtful" aren't exactly in sync much of the time. "Educated" and "insufferably arrogant" on the other hand...
Heck, when I was locked up, the "educated" guys (the white collar guys) were so intelligent, they didn't realize that being an arrogant, condescending ass was what caused so many of their stitches. "Educated" and "common sense" seem to rarely go hand in hand as well.
This is from IRL experience. Haven't met too many blue collar snobs in my day.
And your counter example is way too often the actual case, which is why I'd rather sit around drinking PBR at the ice house than martinis in Midtown...
I don't care that I went to college, read over ten thousand books, whatever, I'm more comfortable around the salt of the earth than the intellectual types.
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that some of them they might actually known and understand things that you don't? If not, that's what I'd call arrogant.
Your best off staying out of threads like this if reading them causes you to loose your temper.That's one way to look at it. Another is that perhaps we all hold each other to a more rigorous standard of focusing on the position, not the person.
Because there is no method of enforcement and no consensus on what constitutes focus on a position versus a person.
Much of the time we can't really separate our ideas from ourselves - in attacking our beliefs and values one is always attacking 'us' to a greater or lesser extent.
Hence when I disagree with person X's ideas who decides whether the wording of my disagreement meets the desired level of good taste? It can't be the subject really because the subject is currently biased by the fact that their beliefs and values are under assault.
Unfortunately, your analysis of those numbers are a little off...
...So, that was an example.In the case of military spending in Eurpoe, they do all spend less. And how you examine those numbers gives different stories, too. But what we know, is we can't have national health care like they do and enjoy American life. We'd have less stuff, less privacy and would in fact have to drop our defense spending considerably to handle it the way they do. France only gets away with it becvause they only pay a portion, and then private insurers pay the rest (kind of like Medicare supplements). And, in fact, there is a general sense of panic when we consider reducing troops, closing bases moving them around, etc. SOme of that is local economic impact, some of that is strategic defense help that other nations couldn't handle themselves. You'll recall Poland's reaction when Obama chose the anniversary of the invasion of Poland to announce US troop reduction. It's a broken agreement and they consider it bad for their defensive capabilities.
European nations might be number 2-3 in defense. And might even outstrip us percapita in defense (with a smaller population), but they can't afford state programs and pay for their own defense.
The European Union is actually slightly larger then the US About 400 million compared to around 300 million Americans.
In any case I'm not arguing that they don't like having US bases in Europe - I'm arguing that they don't need them for actual defense from an outside threat. China's too far away, Russia has not been this weak since before Catherine the Great, are unlikely to recover for decades and may never do so. Even if they do they are likely to be preoccupied to a great extent with Asia. There are no other states or combination of states that could reasonably threaten Europe except really the USA itself.
|
From what I've seen, "educated" and "thoughtful" aren't exactly in sync much of the time. "Educated" and "insufferably arrogant" on the other hand...
Heck, when I was locked up, the "educated" guys (the white collar guys) were so intelligent, they didn't realize that being an arrogant, condescending ass was what caused so many of their stitches. "Educated" and "common sense" seem to rarely go hand in hand as well.
This is from IRL experience. Haven't met too many blue collar snobs in my day.
And your counter example is way too often the actual case, which is why I'd rather sit around drinking PBR at the ice house than martinis in Midtown...
I don't care that I went to college, read over ten thousand books, whatever, I'm more comfortable around the salt of the earth than the intellectual types.
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that some of them they might actually known and understand things that you don't? If not, that's what I'd call arrogant.
Has it ever occurred to you that, if someone does possess knowledge, relaying that info in a smug, condescending way is a good way to be labeled a snob and an [expletive deleted as to not offend certain sensibilities]. When I said "IRL" I meant first hand, not on a computer screen, you know, meat space, where tone and attitude are easily interpreted.
As to what people know, and whether I listen: when Kirth (IRL) starts going on about geological stuff, I shut up and listen. I was a communications major (RTF), not a science major. I know jack all about geology. When my trauma surgeon friend starts talking about her job, I shut up and listen. Most scientists I know are hardly "intellectual", they're knowledgeable.
Has it ever occurred to you that, if someone does possess knowledge, relaying that info in a smug, condescending way is a good way to be labeled a snob and an [expletive deleted as to not offend certain sensibilities]. When I said "IRL" I meant first hand, not on a computer screen, you know, meat space, where tone and attitude are easily interpreted.As to what people know, and whether I listen: when Kirth (IRL) starts going on about geological stuff, I shut up and listen. I was a communications major (RTF), not a science major. I know jack all about geology. When my trauma surgeon friend starts talking about her job, I shut up and listen. Most scientists I know are hardly "intellectual", they're knowledgeable.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how what you're doing is any different than if I declared your "salt-of-the-earth" to be uneducated mouth breathers. You're generalizing, plain and simple. But that's your prerogative.
Supply and demand still move the market when it isn't working optimally, but the resulting equilibrium price is not what it would be in a free market.Would you please state your disagreement in economic terms?
I mean NO disrespect: I've took two years of economics in college, and so I have a pretty good handle on the terminology. If my post wasn't clear, or you think you may not fully understand it, please ask and I'll explain.
Specifically:
Why do you think my point about elasticity is incorrect? Demand for basic necessities is certainly inelastic.
Why do you (apparently) think the fact that laborers have very little information with which to set the price of their labor is irrelevant?
Put another way:
The value of something less the cost of the labor, the land, the capital, etc. is what a Capitalist calls the rightful reward of entrepreneurship, and what a Marxist calls the exploitation of the proletariat. But whatever one calls it, I can't see how it is accounted for by the labor market, which to me undermines the idea that our system accurately rewards the right people for the value produced.
Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place for the sort of feedback I'm fishing for; I don't know.
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for. You want to know your worth, there is a thing called the help-wanted ads. Look in there. See what kind of job you could possibly get. Compare its pay (might have to call if they don't list it) to your current pay. If it is more and it is worth the switch, go apply for the job. If you get it, you have just increased the worth of your work. Repeat as necessary.
Has it ever occurred to you that, if someone does possess knowledge, relaying that info in a smug, condescending way is a good way to be labeled a snob and an [expletive deleted as to not offend certain sensibilities]. When I said "IRL" I meant first hand, not on a computer screen, you know, meat space, where tone and attitude are easily interpreted.
As to what people know, and whether I listen: when Kirth (IRL) starts going on about geological stuff, I shut up and listen. I was a communications major (RTF), not a science major. I know jack all about geology. When my trauma surgeon friend starts talking about her job, I shut up and listen. Most scientists I know are hardly "intellectual", they're knowledgeable.
I once went to a Borders book store with a friend of mine - a smart guy, but not college educated - maybe you'd call him a salt of the earth type.
This was back when Borders was still on the upswing, before the internet took over etc.
As we were walking in, he said he felt distinctly uncomfortable, as if people were looking down at him there. No one had so much as glanced at us. No one was the slightest bit rude, no one said a word. It was no different than any other bookstore he had been in a million times and never felt this way.
I'm not sure if it was the great selection, the coffee shop, or maybe just the crowd, but I am sure that his feeling of being looked down on was just his insecurity talking.
Maybe at least some of the smug condescension is in the eye of the beholder, and not in the intellectual types?
I don't deny that some people are smug jerks, but I'l equally sure that some people who would give them stitches - in prison or anywhere - are insecure jerks with their own issues (I don't mean you, houstonderek). And tone and attitude can easily be misinterpreted when colored by someone's issues or state of mind.
I just don't think the generalizations are as one-sided as you're painting them - the salt of the earth isn't always in the right when they feel put upon.
edit: I should mention, my friend since had gone back to that same Borders many times, and never felt weird about it again - it really was just insecurity.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Wow, now who's the one misrepresenting someone elses words?
There is a big difference between using examples and putting words in someone's mouth. I sense that some people are more here for an argument than for a discussion. I might not be the most expressive writer, but I am not such a poor communicator that my point can't be grocked by someone who puts a little effort into it. You are free to disagree, but I think it's the impulse to look for something to disagree with that turns civil conversations into less civil ones.
The suggestion that ANY fee of ANY kind ought to be weighted by a person's income out of some kind of fairness is flawed. That I mentioned what a person has and what they do with it is not the government's business several times the last few posts makes it very clear what I am saying. I welcome responses, but I prefer honest dialogue to finding a reason to disagree with someone and accuse them of twisting someone else's words around.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
"Educated" and "common sense" seem to rarely go hand in hand as well.Dude, are you really trying to make the statement that people with an education have inherently less common sense? I really hope not because that’s dumb as hell. Maybe you need to interact with more educated people who aren’t in jail? Oh, and just so you don’t think I’m trying to defend my self or that I’m taking person offence to the statement I don’t have anything beyond a High School Diploma.
I think what he means is that people who exude an aire of educated-ness often lack common sense or knowledge-in-action, which is to say posturing and a fine vocabulary is not a substitute for a workling knowledge of something. If that's what Matt meant, I concur. If that's not what Matt meant, I'll wait to see what Matt meant. : }
I do agree not every smug-seeming smart person is a jerk, of course. We never know until we get to know someone over time. But I am a hypocrite when I say that. If I feel for five whole minutes someone is just too full of themselves to admit they don't know anything about at least one thing, I usually don't offer a chance at a second impression.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Hasn't it ever occurred to you that some of them they might actually known and understand things that you don't? If not, that's what I'd call arrogant.
Surely, though, you'll admit there's a difference. If you're intellectually honest, hen someone talks about something you know nothing about, you learn from it. If it's your only source you maybe take it with a grain of salt, but you expand your knowledge base by paying attention and trying to understand.
However, I think you'd admit we all know some of those people who are never without authority on a sibject, and the compulsion to keep talking wears down your patience. In conversation, I'm the equal of everyone I talk to. Not because I know as much as everyone, but becuase mypart is to engage equally. I am either listening and prcessing, or I am sharing what I can to enlighten someone, or I am correcting someone who needs to be corrected. There are tons of things I wish I knew more about. I struggle with the chance to set something else aside and learn them, and sometimes with trusting the folk I could be learning from. I think I'm capable of just admitting I don't know something and trying to fill that void (I do not suggest we have to take interest in and learn everything we're exposed to). But there are some people that are clearly full of sand and need to be admonished.
I don't think Houston or anyone else here is suggesting that someone with a degree is an 'educated idiot' and someone with more worldly experience is necessarily superior or more honest.
He was, nevertheless, found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
America is playing chess. China is playing Go.I'll take a very elementary stab at this. American military chess would be moving pieces with different ranks. We rattle a sabre here, demand human rights reform there, ask the UN to not be corrupt - we make pretty obvius moves designed to intimidateor attack or defend or influence a direct outcome.
Chinese military go is more a long-term strategy of wearing out your opponent's resources, sometimes very passively, and surrounding them with equal pieces. There's no queen in go. Just your beads vs the other guy. SO you make small moves over time that change your opopnent's strategy or reach a critical mass and dominate the board.
And sometimes in go you can win by letting your opponent hang himself. Which sounds very China vs America right now. Just a few more years of debt, deflated currency value and anti-America demagoguery, and we'll hardly be able to defend ourselves from ANYONE's predations.
{I am not calling anyone a predator, I am remarking on our current state of irresponsible spending and destructive tax policy}
|
|
Actually, I'm interested in the conversative viewpoint on this. Despite what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps one day in Iran, red war is slowly going the way of the ostrich. Combat has shifted to Wall Street and the stock market, and I think this is where America as a country needs to focus with China especially. I agree wholeheartedly with Z, a stable American dollar...
They are moving on you.
Want to sleep in your stew of moral rectitude and kill Iraqis? No problem. China loves that.
America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.
you want subtle? I'll show ya subtle.Actually, I'm interested in the conversative viewpoint on this. Despite what's going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps one day in Iran, red war is slowly going the way of the ostrich. Combat has shifted to Wall Street and the stock market, and I think this is where America as a country needs to focus with China especially. I agree wholeheartedly with Z, a stable American dollar...
They are moving on you.
Want to sleep in your stew of moral rectitude and kill Iraqis? No problem. China loves that.
America is playing chess. China is playing Go. In chess the moves are aggressive, easy to see, and the progressions are predictable. In Go everything is subtlety and patience.
There's another guy standing just behind tank #3 - it's easy to miss, but a brilliant strategy!
|
|
Wow, now who's the one misrepresenting someone elses words?There is a big difference between using examples and putting words in someone's mouth. I sense that some people are more here for an argument than for a discussion. I might not be the most expressive writer, but I am not such a poor communicator that my point can't be grocked by someone who puts a little effort into it. You are free to disagree, but I think it's the impulse to look for something to disagree with that turns civil conversations into less civil ones.
The suggestion that ANY fee of ANY kind ought to be weighted by a person's income out of some kind of fairness is flawed. That I mentioned what a person has and what they do with it is not the government's business several times the last few posts makes it very clear what I am saying. I welcome responses, but I prefer honest dialogue to finding a reason to disagree with someone and accuse them of twisting someone else's words around.
It's not a FEE, Steven, it's a FINE. Perhaps that's the problem. You look at it as a purely economic transaction, and we look at it as a punishment that has to actually matter to the person involved to be effective?
From what I've seen, "educated" and "thoughtful" aren't exactly in sync much of the time. "Educated" and "insufferably arrogant" on the other hand...Maybe, maybe I just dislike the company of eggheads and prefer regular, down to earth types.Surely you realize this is the same as me posting:
"Maybe I just dislike the company of the intellectually inferior and prefer educated, thoughtful types."
Labels are labels, dude.
How about everyone being careful about those generalizations.
I am well educated, but I'm also the only guy in my building who knows the name of the garbage picker who lives off our waste, and I sure don't treat him like they do.
I'll take a very elementary stab at this. American military chess would be moving pieces with different ranks. We rattle a sabre here, demand human rights reform there, ask the UN to not be corrupt - we make pretty obvius moves designed to intimidateor attack or defend or influence a direct outcome.Chinese military go is more a long-term strategy of wearing out your opponent's resources, sometimes very passively, and surrounding them with equal pieces. There's no queen in go. Just your beads vs the other guy. SO you make small moves over time that change your opopnent's strategy or reach a critical mass and dominate the board.
And sometimes in go you can win by letting your opponent hang himself. Which sounds very China vs America right now. Just a few more years of debt, deflated currency value and anti-America demagoguery, and we'll hardly be able to defend ourselves from ANYONE's predations.
{I am not calling anyone a predator, I am remarking on our current state of irresponsible spending and destructive tax policy}
I'd say that's a pretty good description of the way I see things.
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b$#**~$+. America is looking out for itself.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
How about everyone being careful about those generalizations.
I am well educated, but I'm also the only guy in my building who knows the name of the garbage picker who lives off our waste, and I sure don't treat him like they do.
One of my favorite expressions in Korea was, "The stalk of rice with the heaviest head bows the deepest." They mean that the really smart guys were the most respectful. It seemed to be true. There were always a lot of sort of smart guys going around acting like jerks but the really smart ones didn't. Is that the same where you are?
I do get what you guys are saying about some educated people being self-important. However, I've gotten a lot of flack on this thread for spouting logic "mumbo-jumbo" in order to sound self-important. I'm not. Those things have meaning, and I use the terms because it's faster than explaining. I suggest those of you who think I'm simply being self-important aren't taking the time to understand what I'm saying, and instead latching on to the terms themselves as evidence I'm looking down my nose at people.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b@!&%#&*. America is looking out for itself.
America looks out for its own interests,and there's nothing wrong with that. However, the US (and her allies) do dedicate money and soldiers across the globe to oppose evil and help those less fortunate. But what's best about that isn't government aid or redistributing our wealth through a corrupt UN. It's the actual people - generous private citizens. The three most comprehensive foreig aid forces in the world are American private organizations, although one of them is Catholic Charities, and so there's tons of cooperation from outside the US as well.
My point is simply that nations don't have to be viewed as predators. Very often, there is a humanitarian goal in what we and other countries do. Some nations solely are predators. But not all of them.
I do get what you guys are saying about some educated people being self-important. However, I've gotten a lot of flack on this thread for spouting logic "mumbo-jumbo" in order to sound self-important. I'm not. Those things have meaning, and I use the terms because it's faster than explaining. I suggest those of you who think I'm simply being self-important aren't taking the time to understand what I'm saying, and instead latching on to the terms themselves as evidence I'm looking down my nose at people.
Yeah, my apologies to going off on you like that. I should know better. I let things that were eating me up in real life get me down and it showed up in my postings. My apologies go out to anyone else that I might have offended as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I suggest those of you who think I'm simply being self-important aren't taking the time to understand what I'm saying, and instead latching on to the terms themselves as evidence I'm looking down my nose at people.
I appreciate you don't want to be thought of as a pseudo-intellectual posturer. I give you credit for the scaling down of insults and that you are no longer actively insulting anyone's intelligence.
But accountability requires me to remind you that you called someone a 'pseudo-intellectual', and that you tutored us on very basic concpets of poor logic, which we all knew, while directing us to a web side that, should you really be a humble student of sound reasoning, would have caused you to vomit. I know I threw up in my mouth a little reading that page.
I submit a number of us did take time and had ample reason to conclude you were present for an argument to win, and not to relate to folk and try to broaden your understanding of someone else's perspective.
I don't ascribe those things to you, I am saying if some of us felt that way, it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. It seems when you calmed down, most of the rest of us did. And I am grateful to have you in the talk as a friedn, and not someone who feels the need to teach me something I already know. : }
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
It's not a FEE, Steven, it's a FINE. Perhaps that's the problem. You look at it as a purely economic transaction, and we look at it as a punishment that has to actually matter to the person involved to be effective?
Your point is semantic and argumentative. The principles outlined in multiple posts are clear. It is nonsense to scale any economic transaction based on someone's ability to pay more. It is folley to assume that someone doesn't fee a pinch just because they have more. The most salient point is repeatedly ignored: people who are successful generally make better decisions. There is ome luck, there are some random circumstances, but successful people apply themselves better in those situations. As such, they are less likely to make callous mistakes than someone who probabl would be hurt by a ticket. I have friends who are wealthier than me. They are disciplined, fair people. They don't speed or live wrecklessly any more than others, and probably less. They have a nicer car, care about the perceptions of others, and the primary reason they have more money is because they value it more and have a sense of discipline about it. They won't speed, because even though an $80 ticket won't hurt bad, it isn't in the budget.
I tire someone of making this point and having to respond to semantics. If you'd like to ask someone else their opinion of your small point, I think you'll find more engagement there. I have a deadline to chase.
It's not a FEE, Steven, it's a FINE. Perhaps that's the problem. You look at it as a purely economic transaction, and we look at it as a punishment that has to actually matter to the person involved to be effective?
I think this nails it. A very rich person can, in principle, pay for the "right" to commit some crimes (the ones punishable by fines), if such fines were low enough compared to his wealth.
Of course, the idea of fines is not to create such a situation, but to actually prevent people from commiting crimes, lest they find themselves losing a relevant part of their wealth.
By sticking to a fixed-value fine, one does not reach this goal, since the actual punishment is different for people with different amounts of money. A poor guy will surely have to think twice before crosssing the speed limit, since losing 100$ is quite important to him (a severe punishment), while a very wealthy guy has no disincentive to speed, as losing the same amount of money is meaningless to him (a mild punishment, or even non-punishment).
Expressing the fine in terms of percentages of possessed wealth does not make the law unequal, in the same way that a 1% tax over income is not unequal.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."
Seneca, Roman dramatist
"Shallow men believe in luck, believe in circumstances. Real men believe in cause and effect."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"The harder I work, the luckier I get."
Samuel Goldwyn
"The less we deserve good fortune, the more we hope for it."
Molière
"The prudent man really frames his own fortunes for himself."
Plautus
"Luck favors the prepared, darling."
Edna Mode in The Incredibles, originally from Louis Pasteur
The most salient point is repeatedly ignored: people who are successful generally make better decisions. There is ome luck, there are some random circumstances, but successful people apply themselves better in those situations. As such, they are less likely to make callous mistakes than someone who probabl would be hurt by a ticket. I have friends who are wealthier than me. They are disciplined, fair people. They don't speed or live wrecklessly any more than others, and probably less. They have a nicer car, care about the perceptions of others, and the primary reason they have more money is because they value it more and have a sense of discipline about it. They won't speed, because even though an $80 ticket won't hurt bad, it isn't in the budget.I tire someone of making this point and having to respond to semantics. If you'd like to ask someone else their opinion of your small point, I think you'll find more engagement there. I have a deadline to chase.
Are you really saying that the most salient point is that wealthier people are more reasonable in some sense ? And thus, less prone to commit crimes ? The current economic hell people all over the world see themselves into speaks against this very notion.
The $80 fine may not be on their budget. However, should they feel the need to speed, they may easily hand over $80 bucks if caught doing it, while someone poor cannot do it in such a careless way since the stakes are higher to them.
Yeah, my apologies to going off on you like that. I should know better. I let things that were eating me up in real life get me down and it showed up in my postings. My apologies go out to anyone else that I might have offended as well.
Thank you, Gary.
...I hate when people go and be the bigger man, damn you. ;P
It's not a FEE, Steven, it's a FINE. Perhaps that's the problem. You look at it as a purely economic transaction, and we look at it as a punishment that has to actually matter to the person involved to be effective?Your point is semantic and argumentative. The principles outlined in multiple posts are clear. It is nonsense to scale any economic transaction based on someone's ability to pay more. It is folley to assume that someone doesn't fee a pinch just because they have more. The most salient point is repeatedly ignored: people who are successful generally make better decisions. There is ome luck, there are some random circumstances, but successful people apply themselves better in those situations. As such, they are less likely to make callous mistakes than someone who probabl would be hurt by a ticket. I have friends who are wealthier than me. They are disciplined, fair people. They don't speed or live wrecklessly any more than others, and probably less. They have a nicer car, care about the perceptions of others, and the primary reason they have more money is because they value it more and have a sense of discipline about it. They won't speed, because even though an $80 ticket won't hurt bad, it isn't in the budget.
I tire someone of making this point and having to respond to semantics. If you'd like to ask someone else their opinion of your small point, I think you'll find more engagement there. I have a deadline to chase.
Just because you say that it's semantic and argumentative doesn't make it so.
Besides, such a system is already in place in the US too. Does the word "bail" ring a bell? In criminal cases people with personal wealth are usually demanded a higher amount of money to be bailed out, sometimes even having their passports withheld if they have the means to flee the country.Besides, your anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything beyond those personal friends of yours. They might behave responsibly but that doesn't mean anyone else with wealth does the same (as the real world should provide ample examples of).
Just because you say that it's semantic and argumentative doesn't make it so.
Besides, such a system is already in place in the US too. Does the word "bail" ring a bell? In criminal cases people with personal wealth are usually demanded a higher amount of money to be bailed out, sometimes even having their passports withheld if they have the means to flee the country.
Besides, your anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything beyond those personal friends of yours. They might behave responsibly but that doesn't mean anyone else with wealth does the same (as the real world should provide ample examples of).
Well alot of times, bail is based more on the type of crime than necessarily the person involved. The flight risk issue does come up (see Roman Polanski), and if one has the means of flight and it is a concern the government often times will take measures to try to stop it (taking the passport, denying bail, etc).
I wonder if were to compare the per capita traffic violation rates of the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the population if we would see any disparity between the two.
Just because you say that it's semantic and argumentative doesn't make it so.
Besides, such a system is already in place in the US too. Does the word "bail" ring a bell? In criminal cases people with personal wealth are usually demanded a higher amount of money to be bailed out, sometimes even having their passports withheld if they have the means to flee the country.
Besides, your anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything beyond those personal friends of yours. They might behave responsibly but that doesn't mean anyone else with wealth does the same (as the real world should provide ample examples of).Well alot of times, bail is based more on the type of crime than necessarily the person involved. The flight risk issue does come up (see Roman Polanski), and if one has the means of flight and it is a concern the government often times will take measures to try to stop it (taking the passport, denying bail, etc).
I wonder if were to compare the per capita traffic violation rates of the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the population if we would see any disparity between the two.
I think you would see a disparity, but I'm skeptical that one could draw many useful inferences from it.
I think you would see a disparity, but I'm skeptical that one could draw many useful inferences from it.Just because you say that it's semantic and argumentative doesn't make it so.
Besides, such a system is already in place in the US too. Does the word "bail" ring a bell? In criminal cases people with personal wealth are usually demanded a higher amount of money to be bailed out, sometimes even having their passports withheld if they have the means to flee the country.
Besides, your anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything beyond those personal friends of yours. They might behave responsibly but that doesn't mean anyone else with wealth does the same (as the real world should provide ample examples of).Well alot of times, bail is based more on the type of crime than necessarily the person involved. The flight risk issue does come up (see Roman Polanski), and if one has the means of flight and it is a concern the government often times will take measures to try to stop it (taking the passport, denying bail, etc).
I wonder if were to compare the per capita traffic violation rates of the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the population if we would see any disparity between the two.
Well the claim seems to be that since flat-rate fines "favor" the wealthy, they are more likely to act in inappropriate ways. I just wonder if the data would actually demonstrate that claim. Because if it didn't, then claims that the fine rate has to be commensurate with the person's income to be effective would not hold up.
I hear what your saying, but I think that there are far too many other variables for such direct conclusions to be well supported.
I applaud trying to see what the evidence is IRL. I just think we have to be cautious what we infer from such observations.
Since it seems to have been overlookede the first time it was brought up I will reintroduce it in more detail.
Speeding is a civil offense and people want it controlled for the sake of their own (and others) safety. Still most people hate speed limits and speeding fines regardless of this.
The problem occurs if an individual continues to speed because then he is bucking the system and getting a way with it. That is why there are driver's license points given for speeding which will eventually result in a loss of a driver's license.
The point of this is that repititious speeding will result in loss of driving priveleges regardless of income and wealth.
In general, I don't care whether or not a wealthy person speeds and continues to do so. In general, I don't care whether or not a poor person speeds and continues to do so. It wouldn't bother me if there were no fines up to the point of loss of driving priveleges if not for the fact that this would result in so many speeders that the danger of the roads would increase.
I don't want the government to tell me and everyone else what to do for something as small as a CIVIL OFFENSE (as opposed to criminal) unless the result of not doing so would be very bad for everyone. In this case that very bad for everyone would be dangerous roads. If this CIVIL penalty for one person is more of a hassle than for another I don't care because it is a CIVIL penalty and the repetition will result in similar results anyway: loss of driving priveleges.
A point was made (somewhere up there) about this being a sliding scale based upon the circumstances of the defendant which is similar to those in criminal proceedings but I disagree with this application. Criminal sentences have a range from a low end to a high end which varies with the charge. Extenuating (sp?) circumstances (such as upbringing for instance) are taken into account in criminal sentences to determine where the sentence is obtained from within the range of the sentence. The sentence range is determined by the SEVERITY of the crime: first degree mureder can result in life or the death penalty, for example. I don't see the CIVIL offense of speeding as being so terrible as to warrant such a high end on the spectrum: nearly $300,000.
CONCLUSION
I don't want the government telling me what to do and how to do it unless there is a necessity. In this case the necessity is road safety. Removing all fines up to the point of when driving priveleges are removed would be bad because too many people would speed like crazy up to that point. Increased danger to the public. Making a very, very few people pay a whole lot more for their fines up to the point where they lose their licenses will not make the streets safer in any appreciable way. Further, it does not appear to be a proper (high end of the range) penalty for the act being committed and so, even including extenuating circumstances such as wealth should not push it so high.
|
|
Since it seems to have been overlookede the first time it was brought up I will reintroduce it in more detail.
Speeding is a civil offense and people want it controlled for the sake of their own (and others) safety. Still most people hate speed limits and speeding fines regardless of this.
The problem occurs if an individual continues to speed because then he is bucking the system and getting a way with it. That is why there are driver's license points given for speeding which will eventually result in a loss of a driver's license.
The point of this is that repititious speeding will result in loss of driving priveleges regardless of income and wealth.
In general, I don't care whether or not a wealthy person speeds and continues to do so. In general, I don't care whether or not a poor person speeds and continues to do so. It wouldn't bother me if there were no fines up to the point of loss of driving priveleges if not for the fact that this would result in so many speeders that the danger of the roads would increase.
I don't want the government to tell me and everyone else what to do for something as small as a CIVIL OFFENSE (as opposed to criminal) unless the result of not doing so would be very bad for everyone. In this case that very bad for everyone would be dangerous roads. If this CIVIL penalty for one person is more of a hassle than for another I don't care because it is a CIVIL penalty and the repetition will result in similar results anyway: loss of driving priveleges.
A point was made (somewhere up there) about this being a sliding scale based upon the circumstances of the defendant which is similar to those in criminal proceedings but I disagree with this application. Criminal sentences have a range from a low end to a high end which varies with the charge. Extenuating (sp?) circumstances (such as upbringing for instance) are taken into account in criminal sentences to determine where the sentence is obtained from within the range of the sentence. The sentence range is...
The degree question generally goes along the following lines:
1) Repeat offences tend to result in increased penalties as the first one was clearly insufficient to deter a second offence. The same reason that criminal cases tend to impose higher penalties on repeat offenders. The first punishment didn't work.2) The other one is the question of degree: Going 35 in a 30 zone is a problem but from a danger standpoint there isn't all that much difference between 30 and 35. If they hit you, you have fair chance of surviving. 60 in a 30 zone is more of an issue as the road layout is not designed for that high a speed, thus increasing the chance of an accident and the higher speed increases the severity of the accident as well. Thus, there is a clear need to deter vastly excessive speed, over and above the need to deter speeding as a general public good.
That is why there is a sliding scale. At least in the UK. Switzerland may be different.
2) The other one is the question of degree: Going 35 in a 30 zone is a problem but from a danger standpoint there isn't all that much difference between 30 and 35. If they hit you, you have fair chance of surviving. 60 in a 30 zone is more of an issue as the road layout is not designed for that high a speed, thus increasing the chance of an accident and the higher speed increases the severity of the accident as well. Thus, there is a clear need to deter vastly excessive speed, over and above the need to deter speeding as a general public good.
Similar here in the U.S.
But, beyond a certain point of speed it is no longer the same "offense. The penalty is tiered (based upon speed over the limit) in most states within the US. Also, school zones result in higher fines as do construction zones. It is an added offense that changes the penalty. Depending upon the speed above the limit it may also be considered reckless driving in addition to speeding. Doing 60 in a 30 would fit that criteria, I believe. Further, offenses which result in higher fines also result in more "points" against the individual's driving license and thus result in a quicker loss of drivng priveleges. Some infractions result in loss of priveleges on the first offense.
Still, regardless of the amount over the speed limit, I believe the monetary issue based upon wealth is far too high for the actual offense committed. With increased severity, I believe removal of priveleges is far more appropriate since the public safety is the primary concern.
I believe the penalty in Switzeland (?) is less concerned with the public's safety than punishing the wealthy.
2) The other one is the question of degree: Going 35 in a 30 zone is a problem but from a danger standpoint there isn't all that much difference between 30 and 35. If they hit you, you have fair chance of surviving. 60 in a 30 zone is more of an issue as the road layout is not designed for that high a speed, thus increasing the chance of an accident and the higher speed increases the severity of the accident as well. Thus, there is a clear need to deter vastly excessive speed, over and above the need to deter speeding as a general public good.
Similar here in the U.S.
But, beyond a certain point of speed it is no longer the same "offense. The penalty is tiered (based upon speed over the limit) in most states within the US. Also, school zones result in higher fines as do construction zones. It is an added offense that changes the penalty. Depending upon the speed above the limit it may also be considered reckless driving in addition to speeding. Doing 60 in a 30 would fit that criteria, I believe. Further, offenses which result in higher fines also result in more "points" against the individual's driving license and thus result in a quicker loss of drivng priveleges. Some infractions result in loss of priveleges on the first offense.
Still, regardless of the amount over the speed limit, I believe the monetary issue based upon wealth is far too high for the actual offense committed. With increased severity, I believe removal of priveleges is far more appropriate since the public safety is the primary concern.
I believe the penalty in Switzeland (?) is less concerned with the public's safety than punishing the wealthy.
Or balancing a budget.
Or balancing a budget.
2) The other one is the question of degree: Going 35 in a 30 zone is a problem but from a danger standpoint there isn't all that much difference between 30 and 35. If they hit you, you have fair chance of surviving. 60 in a 30 zone is more of an issue as the road layout is not designed for that high a speed, thus increasing the chance of an accident and the higher speed increases the severity of the accident as well. Thus, there is a clear need to deter vastly excessive speed, over and above the need to deter speeding as a general public good.
Similar here in the U.S.
But, beyond a certain point of speed it is no longer the same "offense. The penalty is tiered (based upon speed over the limit) in most states within the US. Also, school zones result in higher fines as do construction zones. It is an added offense that changes the penalty. Depending upon the speed above the limit it may also be considered reckless driving in addition to speeding. Doing 60 in a 30 would fit that criteria, I believe. Further, offenses which result in higher fines also result in more "points" against the individual's driving license and thus result in a quicker loss of drivng priveleges. Some infractions result in loss of priveleges on the first offense.
Still, regardless of the amount over the speed limit, I believe the monetary issue based upon wealth is far too high for the actual offense committed. With increased severity, I believe removal of priveleges is far more appropriate since the public safety is the primary concern.
I believe the penalty in Switzeland (?) is less concerned with the public's safety than punishing the wealthy.
Excellent point.
I will address this to those who live outside the US.
We have many small municipalities that have their own zoning regulations and budgets. Such places often deliberately create "speed traps" in order to collect fines and fill their "coffers".
For a little info on this, here is a link to wikipedia on speed traps as well as some information (emphasis added myself):
The term speed trap can refer to a point where a speed limit is strictly enforced by police. It may also refer to locations where a speed camera is posted. Alternately, the term may also refer to a speed limit that is enforced by timing how long a vehicle takes to traverse a measured distance. Cities or road sections become known as speed traps where police have a reputation for writing an unusually high number of traffic tickets, especially speeding tickets. Sometimes the posted speed limits are not easily seen; in other places, the limits are set such that many vehicles are caught. In many of these uses, the term speed trap connotes speed limit enforcement for purposes of ticket revenue or traffic deterrence instead of safety. Such speed traps may be referred to as revenue traps.
How common are such things (speed traps in general and revenue traps in specific) outside the US?
I wonder if were to compare the per capita traffic violation rates of the top 20% to the bottom 20% of the population if we would see any disparity between the two.
When you say top 20% and bottom 20%, do you mean strictly by income? It seems so from context, but I want to be sure.
For one thing, some people in the bottom 20% probably don't know how to drive and/or have a car. So the bottom 20% might benefit from that.
Top 20% folks may benefit from a more respectable appearance when it comes time to write the ticket: There is plenty of research that suggests people are treated differently based on their apparent wealth.
Finally, the super-rich (I'm talking top .2%, not the top 20%) probably don't drive themselves around very much. ;-)
In general, though, I think the top 20% would indeed have fewer traffic violations. I also think in general they're more likely to be responsible, and are more disciplined. I do think there is a strong correlation between responsible behavior and financial success.
When I rail against the "rich," I'm not talking about the guy who went to college, works hard, and makes 200k. I don't think that level of wealth requires exploiting others. I'm talking about the guy who is a millionaire because of an IPO for a company that never went on to make a dime (you'd be surprised how many of these are out there if you really look), or a CEO who made a 10 million bonus by maximizing short-term profits at expense of his workforce, or the guy who inherited 18 BILLION dollars from his dad and has never done anything for himself in his entire life (*cough* Walton *cough*). Or against corporations themselves that consistently pay their employees a subsistence income while they make billions of dollars (Wal*Mart), then go on to suggest those employees go on public assistance.
I don't want to destroy Capitalism; it has undeniable value. I just think we over-reward the control of capital, and under-reward labor (largely for the reasons I posted about upthread).
|
|
Also, all nations are predators as far as I'm concerned. There is power, and there are moves. This whole America is the world's police force, America is the force for freedom is b@%%%@@!. America is looking out for itself.
We try to help too.
Compare Germany's treatment at the end of World War One, by the understandably vindictive world community, to it's treatment at the end of World War Two. We try to help. Maybe it's not entirely altruistic, but we try to help.My wife's father flew Chinese troops over the hump to fight the Japanese. He also flew the Berlin airlift.
We try to help.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok let me see if I can put bugley's argument in terms I can follow.
My labor and skillset have worth. If I am working for company A, and company B offers me more for my skillset, I have inclination to take it. I have other reasons (loyalty for one) to not take it. If company B offers me less than I feel my labour is worth, that means, that a) They undervalue my labour or b) I overvalue it.
The fix is in, but not in the way you imagine. The minimum wage distorts the market. (so does illegal immigration, but I'll tackle that in a minute) If the labour/skillset of a job is worth X, but the employer is forced to pay X+ due to the minimum wage, then the market is distorted at that level. The employer must pay the higher amount and is forced to cut somewhere else (quality increased price, number of people employed, etc.).
If someone offers too low a salary, then no one will take it. If someone takes it, then the salary wasn't too low. This is actually part of the reason for illegals in construction. It is backbreaking manual labour, and the illegals make a readily available labour pool that bypasses that minimum wage and provides the 'actual' cost of the labour because the pool exists.
The antibiotics example is flawed for a similar reason. First, for every prescription drug that makes it to market several don't. Not every failed drug can become a sweetener for example. To say that 'the demand for life saving medical treatment' is inelastic is flawed. Without the profit motive, the life saving medical treatment doesn't exist. Without the profits made by drug H to pay for failed drugs a-g, the company can't afford to fail enough to make drug H.
Kind of off topic spoiler:
Unfortuantely it appears, from bugley's argument that he believes 'the capitalist' is some monolithic organization not groups of individuals.
To say that any afflulent person, say above 200K, has to have exploited others is simple bias. To decide that you rail against someone because they inherited a lot of money from their parents and 'have never done anything' with that inheritance is jealousy. To decide that the government has the right to take that money and give it, through social programs, to 'more deserving' is as crazy as taking bugley's paycheck and giving it to the scouts.
Or balancing a budget.
Seems like a good plan to me - you can deter wealthy people and balance the budget at the same time. Those Swiss are pretty smart.
The fix is in, but not in the way you imagine. The minimum wage distorts the market. (so does illegal immigration, but I'll tackle that in a minute) If the labour/skillset of a job is worth X, but the employer is forced to pay X+ due to the minimum wage, then the market is distorted at that level. The employer must pay the higher amount and is forced to cut somewhere else (quality increased price, number of people employed, etc.).If someone offers too low a salary, then no one will take it. If someone takes it, then the salary wasn't too low.
I am someone who works in corporate America, and done very well for himself. My dad came to this country, an ignorant, illiterate peasant (his words) and ran a very successful dinner for 35 years.
I am a lefty and I don’t believe that capitalism is “evil.” Executives aren’t the bad guys, but they don’t always make choices for the good of the company. It is very common for these folks to make decisions in the interest of short-term profit (to meet their numbers so they can get their bonuses) and damaging the long–term profitability of a company. No one “forces” them to do this. An example follows that I saw recently – the facts slightly changed to protect the innocent.
A team inside the company is tasked with creating cutting edge tax software. They are given pretty bad conditions to work under (understaffed, low budget, half the time to deliver final product than is normal, etc.). The understanding is that if they produce, the market will buy the product and they’ll get raises, more staff, budget…
They deliver. The software is a hit – the customers all want it.
The economy tanks, other aspects of the company are not meeting their numbers. The CEO decides to bundle the tax software for free with other software packages to hopefully spike sales. It works. A customer survey reveals that customers still want the tax software but wonder why it is now being given away for free. (Perhaps it’s not as good as they thought? Why they did pay for it earlier in the year and now it is free?) Some customers demand some sort of giveback. Some get it – so profits drop slightly but good overall.
The software team is told they while they delivered, they are not getting the goodies they were promised. The tax software didn’t make the company as much money as it should have (it was given away for free) and they will need to lay off a number of employees and their budget will drop – yet again this year. The CEO gets his bonus.
It’s hard for me to see employers being “forced” to pay minimum wage as a negative or that it “disrupts” the market. A honest wage for an honest day’s work – that’s the price of business. I see too many funky things happening behind closed doors, companies doing their best to avoid paying their share of taxes, corporate perks kept as health care costs are pushed more to employees. I’ve been asked too many times to do things that I feel are not my responsibility and it’s really the company being cheap and not wanting to actually pay someone to do the job – and I love my job!
It’s a complicated issue and some shades of grey there. But I have, I think, a healthy distrust of capitalism even though I thrive on it. There’s too much of employers wanting stuff for free and not paying for it. (A lot of wage theft out there.)
|
|
Ok let me see if I can put bugley's argument in terms I can follow.
My labor and skillset have worth. If I am working for company A, and company B offers me more for my skillset, I have inclination to take it. I have other reasons (loyalty for one) to not take it. If company B offers me less than I feel my labour is worth, that means, that a) They undervalue my labour or b) I overvalue it.
The fix is in, but not in the way you imagine. The minimum wage distorts the market. (so does illegal immigration, but I'll tackle that in a minute) If the labour/skillset of a job is worth X, but the employer is forced to pay X+ due to the minimum wage, then the market is distorted at that level. The employer must pay the higher amount and is forced to cut somewhere else (quality increased price, number of people employed, etc.).
If someone offers too low a salary, then no one will take it. If someone takes it, then the salary wasn't too low. This is actually part of the reason for illegals in construction. It is backbreaking manual labour, and the illegals make a readily available labour pool that bypasses that minimum wage and provides the 'actual' cost of the labour because the pool exists.
The antibiotics example is flawed for a similar reason. First, for every prescription drug that makes it to market several don't. Not every failed drug can become a sweetener for example. To say that 'the demand for life saving medical treatment' is inelastic is flawed. Without the profit motive, the life saving medical treatment doesn't exist. Without the profits made by drug H to pay for failed drugs a-g, the company can't afford to fail enough to make drug H.
Kind of off topic spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **...
Matthew,
As always, I'm not attributing the attitudes here to Matthew, just putting the opposing view to him.And if a disease doesn't make money, it's not researched. So which is more important: malaria or impotence? That's right, it's impotence because the rich get that and will pay bucketloads to stop it. Who cares if hundreds of thousands die from malaria, there's no money in it.
Similarly, which is better for a company to make from a purely capitalist perspective: a cure, or a palliative? Clearly it's the palliative as people will have to pay for that as long as they have the disease rather than a cure which they only need to buy once.
Some things do not do well in a purely capitalist system, health and education are two of those areas.
A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.
A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.
That's a brilliant idea.
A very smart libertarian friend who's worked in healthcare in the States suggested a prize scheme rather than the current model to fund research. A certain problem disease gets targeted and a massive prize, similar to the X-prize for space exploration, is given to the company that produces the first working solution. It keeps the benefits of capitalism but allows them to be harnessed for social goods as well.That's a brilliant idea.
Wouldn't the process simply become politicized?