Well, I'm sure if we discuss it for just a few more pages, we can figure it out.
I'm here, now. I'll guide you through.
Well, I'm sure if we discuss it for just a few more pages, we can figure it out.
Uh-oh
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday could be a big day. The public health / sanitary conditions is an interesting way to frame the issue.
Did he?Are we so corrupted we need despotic government?
No, not yet I suppose. It'll be more of an oligarchy than a despot, I'd imagine.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday will be an interesting day.
I hope in a good peaceful way and not in a "may you live in interesting times" way.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday will be an interesting day.
Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday will be an interesting day.
Yup. It's a privately owned public space - I think there are some zoning laws that prevent it from being closed. The building owner contracted to provide a public space in order to be exempted from other laws.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml
Privately Owned Public Spaces, abbreviated as "POPS", are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area.
A side question - Should private property laws trump an inalienable right to assemble and protest (however you folks phrase it down there).
The tea and ships involved in the Tea Party were private property were they not?
Complex rights balancing question.
And Smarnil I'm not trolling this thread, just bringing my dissenting view. If you want to make a "Support the OWS" thread I'll make a point to stay out of it, this isn't that place. And not everyone who dissents with your view is a troll, deal with it.
Hey, you are the one giving away good citizen / bad citizen awards based on your interpretation of the writings of a bunch of long dead guys (aka the founding fathers)... :)
BTW, you failed to answer my post about the irrelevance of said dead guys opinions in a discussion about modern economical matters. Come on, no answers came to mind? Are we in agreement?
Your dissenting view (basically, that OWS is astroturf) would be more intersting to discuss if you had arguments to shore it up (other that "it's obvious to see" or your own opinion on the matter).
Returning to first principles is a good idea, your founders were smart folks - but you can't just transplant them across time and space ahistorically. Their ideas and ideals were a product of a situation that doesn't exist in the world today.
My point exactly. Wholeheartedly agreed.
Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday will be an interesting day.
Yup. It's a privately owned public space - I think there are some zoning laws that prevent it from being closed. The building owner contracted to provide a public space in order to be exempted from other laws.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml
Privately Owned Public Spaces, abbreviated as "POPS", are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area.
Ah, ok. For a second I was just mind boggled by the attitude.
Still if the private owner is obligated to "maintain" the area (instead of say, letting it become a toilet for the homeless), then I would assume they have some kind of say on its use legally.
Man, it's like the blind leading the blind here.Well, I'm sure if we discuss it for just a few more pages, we can figure it out.I'm here, now. I'll guide you through.
I've got remove blindness on my class spell list!
Gather 'round, children, and I will dispense such wisdom as you can handle.
|
|
Wait, they are at a private park, and the park's owners want them out so it can be cleaned, and they believe they have a right to stay?http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65892.html
Friday will be an interesting day.
Yup. It's a privately owned public space - I think there are some zoning laws that prevent it from being closed. The building owner contracted to provide a public space in order to be exempted from other laws.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/pops/pops.shtml
Privately Owned Public Spaces, abbreviated as "POPS", are an amenity provided and maintained by a developer for public use, in exchange for additional floor area.Ah, ok. For a second I was just mind boggled by the attitude.
Still if the private owner is obligated to "maintain" the area (instead of say, letting it become a toilet for the homeless), then I would assume they have some kind of say on its use legally.
They've also raised some liability concerns - water getting into the electrical lights mounted at ground level and shocking people. Do you sue the owner for negligence? What if people get sick or injured...
I find it disturbing that the left vs. right schism has become so entrenched that they cannot even agree that they agree on a topic of mutual interest. When being in agreement with the opposition is so horrifying that people cannot even admit it to themselves there is a serious problem, especially when the habit of latching on to superficial differences and touting the minutia above all else becomes more the goal than the actual goal.
I also find it hilarious that in a society that espouses relativism people are so angry at others who bend the rules, abuse loopholes, or flout the law outright. When a guy is taught that morality and ethics are relative, and then he goes on to become CEO of Enron, what do you expect him to do when faced with hard decisions. This same principle applies equally when the same person learns the same relativistic outlook and then is elected President of the United States, or is appointed head of the SEC.
A side question - Should private property laws trump an inalienable right to assemble and protest (however you folks phrase it down there).The tea and ships involved in the Tea Party were private property were they not?
Complex rights balancing question.
'Should' makes this different question than fits the answer I'll offer.
Private property rights do trump it. You have the right to protest, but the owner can refuse to allow you to so on their property. You have to shift to public property if they ask, else you are trespassing.
As for the original tea party, yes, their actions were illegal.
|
Man, it's like the blind leading the blind here.Well, I'm sure if we discuss it for just a few more pages, we can figure it out.I'm here, now. I'll guide you through.I've got remove blindness on my class spell list!
Gather 'round, children, and I will dispense such wisdom as you can handle.
You want to touch groups of children?
I think both of them are a little misguided, but that was a well written letter.
You want to touch groups of children?
Just enough to grab them and feed them to my demon-god.
I think both of them are a little misguided, but that was a well written letter.
How are they both misguided?
I also find it hilarious that in a society that espouses relativism people are so angry at others who bend the rules, abuse loopholes, or flout the law outright. When a guy is taught that morality and ethics are relative, and then he goes on to become CEO of Enron, what do you expect him to do when faced with hard decisions. This same principle applies equally when the same person learns the same relativistic outlook and then is elected President of the United States, or is appointed head of the SEC.
Right, because when we had "objective" morality, none of these shenanigans went on.
Really? Relativism? THATS what you think the problem is?
How are they both misguided?I think both of them are a little misguided, but that was a well written letter.
The younger one is misguided because he thinks all people in OWS are lazy bastages lookin for a handout.
The letter writer is misguided because he believes that Wall Street is solely responsible for the crash in '08.
Right, because when we had "objective" morality, none of these shenanigans went on.
Really? Relativism? THATS what you think the problem is?
It's an easy drum to beat, because it provides yet another simple way to identify the bad people (the moral relativists).
|
I think he holds back. If he were to lay it on us like that all the time, we'd worship him.Impressively cogent post.Wow -- that was seriously an amazing piece of writing for a message board. How do we get you to make serious more often?
Wait...is this Sebastian's dad? ;-)
Please, his ego is big enough ;)
I blame a certain chatter for this post...
Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.
The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while -...
I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.
Ok, I agree we need to divorce coprorate and gov't involvement.
Like a seperation of Corporation and State.
We probably won't agree on how to do that, but hey! Baby steps.
Man, I can't keep up with all this. But I'll try:
I don't understand the world's fascination with what Thomas Jefferson thought. The guy stood at the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, hated what he saw, and drew up a philosophy based on America being a land of gentlemanly yeomen farmers (who might or might not employ slave labor) which it hasn't been for almost 150 years.
And, of course, none of the Revolutionary founders gave any credence to the idea of redistributing wealth--they were all rich! That didn't stop them from taking a bunch of stuff that didn't belong to them, however. It's all fine and good to say that all countries are built this way, which is, of course, true. But what no one seems to be willing to admit is that the key to America's greatness has been its better-than-average ability to loot everyone around them with a straight face and claim the moral high ground. See Big Norse Wolf's list from a couple of pages back.
Back to the present day:
Someone was making some comments about the homeless being attracted to OWS events for free food and then there was Comrade Hawkshaw's comments about the reserve army of the unemployed: at the General Assembly meeting I attended in Concord, we "reached consensus" to have our occupation in Manchester SPECIFICALLY because it has the highest homeless population in New Hampshire.
This is really something that shouldn't be overlooked. In the thirties, one of the greatest weapons the unions and the communists were able to wield were the militant, organized Unemployed Leagues (or Councils, their names changed from locality to locality). So, don't scoff at the bums, organize them!
And as far as whether we should be protesting Wall Street or DC--well, if one has been following this thing at all, one would know that it has spread throughout the country and, yes, indeed, one of the cities currently under occupation is Washington, DC. But to address the bigger issue: I don't think they're protesting the wrong people at all. The large financial consortiums whose reckless, blind drive for profits crashed the American economy are the ones who received "handouts" from the government and awarded themselves fat bonuses. A sign I saw on the highway this morning read RISK TAKERS ARE CRASH MAKERS, but what risk is there, really, when the crash maker gets bailed out by the government? I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing this out, which Occupy Wall Street is doing admirably, imho.
The sign I'm readying for the occupation reads:
Coke and Whores for the CEOs
Bankruptcy and Foreclosures for the Working Class
Smash Capitalism!
|
|
I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.I blame a certain chatter for this post...
Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.
The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while -...
Fordism? Late 1940s to the 1970s? Golden era of capitalism? I'm pretty sure that is what he is referencing.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Speaking of polarized thinking...
I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.
Not much else to say about it. As usual, you've gone out of your way to misunderstand someone and misrepresent what they say to fit the talking points you embrace over actual substantive communication. Oh well. Not surprising to see you do it again, but, surprisingly disappointing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I agree we need to divorce coprorate and gov't involvement.
Like a seperation of Corporation and State.We probably won't agree on how to do that, but hey! Baby steps.
Well, neither can the OWS movement. They have a lot of ideas floating arround, some much moore extreme than others. There are a lot of middle/ middle-left people that are getting involed here that were scared off by the far right of the tea party movement, just like there were a lot of middle/ middle-right that are being scared off by the far left of OWS. Really though, they have a lot more in common than they think, which is one of the reasons OWS has been reluctant to release a set of objectives. The moment they do, they remove people who disagree with them from the discussion of what should be done about the problems that they both agree exist.
Coke and Whores for the CEOs
Bankruptcy and Foreclosures for the Working Class
Smash Capitalism!
You recruiting Charlie Sheen?
Not much else to say about it. As usual, you've gone out of your way to misunderstand someone and misrepresent what they say to fit your narrow world view. Oh well; not surprising, but still disappointing.
The thing is, I don't think he's going out of his way; we all tend to perceive things in a way that fits our worldview. In fact, not doing so -- or at least doing so less -- is hard (but oh-so-very important).
Well, neither can the OWS movement. They have a lot of ideas floating arround, some much moore extreme than others. There are a lot of middle/ middle-left people that are getting involed here that were scared off by the far right of the tea party movement, just like there were a lot of middle/ middle-right that are being scared off by the far left of OWS. Really though, they have a lot more in common than they think, which is one of the reasons OWS has been reluctant to release a set of objectives. The moment they do, they remove people who disagree with them from the discussion of what should be done about the problems that they both agree exist.
Be more careful who you vote for.
To that end, maybe we need to take a look at the requirements to hld office, other than the ones listed in the constitution.Like the requirement to have to pay a large sum of money up front, to even get the form to be listed as a canidate. This kind of makes it easier to have to depend on wealthy benfactors...
Fordism? Late 1940s to the 1970s? Golden era of capitalism? I'm pretty sure that is what he is referencing.I seriously doubt it ever did. Nobody was paying people to dig holes and refill them. Ok, maybe during the Depression this was happening, but nobody doing that was getting paid enough put their kids through college or paying for healthcare (well maybe healthcare, since at the time the barber was also probably the dentist, so you could get your hair cut and teeth pulled at the same time). Let's take off the rose-tinted glasses.I blame a certain chatter for this post...
Here's how I view OWS and what they stand for (to me). I believe that every American should have the opportunity to work to support themselves. This means that everyone who wants to get a job should be able to get a job, even if they're incompetent. They shouldn't have a right to the best job, or a high paying job, but at the very least, if they're willing to punch in and work 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, even if that work is digging holes that don't need to be dug and then re-filling them, they should have the opportunity to earn wages and support themselves and their families. Such a job should enable them to purchase nutritious food, it should provide their children with access to education (including college, without student debt), and it should allow them to obtain healthcare.
The current system does not currently support this dream. It did for a while -...
Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then. So claiming the system EVER worked in the way described is a delusion. Claiming we want to "return" to some ideal era is pointless, because no era was ideal for everyone.
And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, neither can the OWS movement. They have a lot of ideas floating arround, some much moore extreme than others. There are a lot of middle/ middle-left people that are getting involed here that were scared off by the far right of the tea party movement, just like there were a lot of middle/ middle-right that are being scared off by the far left of OWS. Really though, they have a lot more in common than they think, which is one of the reasons OWS has been reluctant to release a set of objectives. The moment they do, they remove people who disagree with them from the discussion of what should be done about the problems that they both agree exist.Be more careful who you vote for.
To that end, maybe we need to take a look at the requirements to hld office, other than the ones listed in the constitution.
Like the requirement to have to pay a large sum of money up front, to even get the form to be listed as a canidate. This kind of makes it easier to have to depend on wealthy benfactors...
Part of the problem is: does it matter who you vote for? The democrats are just less obviously in corporation's pockets, but tha doesn't mean they are a good choice. And with the current 2 party system, and the monetary burden to run, you are pretty much gauranteeing that any politician will have to cater to special interests. You will note, vote financing reform is on the list of problems from OWS.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then.And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.
Look, we all know what you're doing. You're carrying the flag, it's what you do. You don't care about talking with someone, or engaging them in serious conversation about making the world a better place. You care about being right, and having your team be right. And if that means you have to change the topic, or insert some unrelated point, or take an extreme position just for the sake of taking an extreme position, you'll do it.
We all know your number pres. You have no pretense of ethical or logical integrity. You will make your point no matter what. If that means reading at a 4th grade level, or inserting your own words in someone else's mouth, or lying, you'll do it.
I used to feel angry. But today, I mostly feel bad for you. It must hurt to go through life hating everyone so much and working so hard to twist their words to protect your fragile ego.
Best wishes to you, pres. May you live a long and prosperous life without ever encountering the type of person you aspire to be.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I did not mean "among Repubs or Demos" I meant in general; we need better choices than a d-bag or a crap sandwich.
To do this we do need to reform the monetary criteria for running for office.So on this, we're pretty much in agreement.
I also find it hilarious that in a society that espouses relativism people are so angry at others who bend the rules, abuse loopholes, or flout the law outright. When a guy is taught that morality and ethics are relative, and then he goes on to become CEO of Enron, what do you expect him to do when faced with hard decisions. This same principle applies equally when the same person learns the same relativistic outlook and then is elected President of the United States, or is appointed head of the SEC.Right, because when we had "objective" morality, none of these shenanigans went on.
Really? Relativism? THATS what you think the problem is?
No, not at all. But I think that it contributes to the problem, and is often used as a convenient excuse for taking the easy way out of tough situations, while also contributing to the larger problem by teaching people that is acceptable to have NO absolutes at all whatsoever.
No, not at all. But I think that it contributes to the problem, and is often used as a convenient excuse for taking the easy way out of tough situations, while also contributing to the larger problem by teaching people that is acceptable to have NO absolutes at all whatsoever.
You don't think immoral people would still be immoral or manage to justify their outrageous abuses of power in a society that has objective values?
When /where was such a society?
Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then. So claiming the system EVER worked in the way described is a delusion. Claiming we want to "return" to some ideal era is pointless, because no era was ideal for everyone.
And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a
time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.
I didn't read what Sebastian wrote as pining for a better age. In fact, I don't think he meant to suggest such an age has ever existed -- rather, I took what he wrote to mean that there was a time when the system (and our culture) genuinely held such promise -- a time when the system "supported the dream."
Rose-colored glasses? Perhaps. But that seems rather beside the point.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't read what Sebastian wrote as pining for a better age. In fact, I don't think he meant to suggest such an age has ever existed -- rather, I took what he wrote to mean that there was a time when the system (and our culture) genuinely held such promise -- a time when the system "supported the dream."Rose-colored glasses? Perhaps. But that seems rather beside the point.
Yup. Thank you, sir. I'm sure pres will take this opportunity to present some out of context quotes and to prove that I was, in fact, advocating building a time machine fueled by dreams, which could travel to a mythical land of honey and milk, which implicitly includes a heavy dollop of racism. Probably McCarthyism while we're at it.
No, not at all. But I think that it contributes to the problem, and is often used as a convenient excuse for taking the easy way out of tough situations, while also contributing to the larger problem by teaching people that is acceptable to have NO absolutes at all whatsoever.You don't think immoral people would still be immoral or manage to justify their outrageous abuses of power in a society that has objective values?
When /where was such a society?
I am certain they would, but I am also certain that the way things stand makes it much easier for it to be overlooked, justified, and hidden. A HUGE part of the problem is the inability to draw any sort of absolute line and say "don't cross it, MR. CEO/politician/investment banker." The very fact that neither the OWS or Tea Party-types can say "This is exactly what we believe is the problem" results in difficulties following that up with "and these are our ideas on how to fix it" which results in a mess of turmoil, ambiguity, and the wonderful pastime of 'movement hijacking for political gain.'
I didn't read what Sebastian wrote as pining for a better age. In fact, I don't think he meant to suggest such an age has ever existed -- rather, I took what he wrote to mean that there was a time when the system (and our culture) genuinely held such promise -- a time when the system "supported the dream."Except even then it wasn't. Sure for a large portion of the white middle class, it was rocking. But if your skin was darker or you didn't live in the industrial centers, you weren't living the high life then. So claiming the system EVER worked in the way described is a delusion. Claiming we want to "return" to some ideal era is pointless, because no era was ideal for everyone.
And to be clear, my bone is with the suggestion that there ever was a
time when people were paid a substantial wage to do meaningless labor (except in government and boards of companies, but I'd hardly call that labor). The whole "It did for a while" part is what I think is silly. No it didn't.
Maybe it is just a language issue, then. I wouldn't say the system "supported the dream", I would say the system had the potential to "support the dream". To me, to say it did "support the dream" would mean that the dream was in effect. I don't think anyone can objectively claim that is true in any kind of absolute sense (sure some people lived the dream, but many did not, just as now, some still live the dream and many do not).
Still I'd question if such a claim (that it had the potential to support the dream) was actually valid. If we had included everybody that we were excluding, would things have acted as they did at the time. Or would there have been a surplus of available (and acceptable) labor and this would have made life harder for the workers at the time.
Heck, that is part of the attraction of labor unions. To limit what labor the company can view as acceptable. This reduces the numbers of workers and often limits the number of them to those that are intimately related to the current workers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A HUGE part of the problem is the inability to draw any sort of absolute line and say "don't cross it, MR. CEO/politician/investment banker."
We've never been able to do that with anything complicated. Relativism has nothing to do with it. You may as well be blaming the crisis on the decline of disco.
A HUGE part of the problem is the inability to draw any sort of absolute line and say "don't cross it, MR. CEO/politician/investment banker."We've never been able to do that with anything complicated. Relativism has nothing to do with it. You may as well be blaming the crisis on the decline of disco.
So you are claiming that people have always been as apathetic as they are today?
And you keep trying to make it sound as if I am "blaming the crisis" on this. I am not, nor am I blaming it on anything else. I am simply pointing out the inability of both sides (and society as a whole nowadays) to freakin' stand for something solid and define their goals/ideals/morality/etc. It exacerbates all of these underlying issues, and causes delays in real action and progress that allow for the rerouting of momentum back towards the status quo.
Look at the claimed inspirations for OWS. The Arab Spring was loud, proud, and concrete in many of their demands. They got results, and they moved things along quickly. The moral of the story is that failure to define objectives causes delays that can be the death of any movement. Momentum is crucial, and being decisive is even more important than appearing decisive.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A HUGE part of the problem is the inability to draw any sort of absolute line and say "don't cross it, MR. CEO/politician/investment banker."We've never been able to do that with anything complicated. Relativism has nothing to do with it. You may as well be blaming the crisis on the decline of disco.
I feel like we shouldn't be so quick to let disco off the hook...
So you are claiming that people have always been as apathetic as they are today?
It comes and goes, but by and large yes. People go for centuries putting up with junk they shouldn't have to before going bonkers enough to do something about it.
I am simply pointing out the inability of both sides (and society as a whole nowadays) to freakin' stand for something solid and define their goals/ideals/morality/etc.
I think the fact that we are solidly standing for things that we didn't used to gets overlooked. We're not perfect, but we've at least figured out that owning other human beings isn't allowed.
Look at the claimed inspirations for OWS. The Arab Spring was loud, proud, and concrete in many of their demands. They got results, and they moved things along quickly. The moral of the story is that failure to define objectives causes delays that can be the death of any movement. Momentum is crucial, and being decisive is even more important than appearing decisive.
the WHAT people want is easy. Its the HOW thats as complicated as all get out. The financial system is as complicated as it is insane, and most people don't know the particulars.
the WHAT people want is easy. Its the HOW thats as complicated as all get out. The financial system is as complicated as it is insane, and most people don't know the particulars.
Yup. Part of the problem is people have a hard time understanding that you can't eat your cake and have it too. They want X to happen, but when you point out that if it does then Y also will happen, they say they don't want Y to happen. You try to explain, you can't really have X without Y happening, but they want X to happen and Y not to happen. Because the systems involved are often multi-leveled, they just can't accept that sometimes you have to accept undesirable consequences in order to have something you want and you have to weigh which out come is what you truly want.
the WHAT people want is easy. Its the HOW thats as complicated as all get out. The financial system is as complicated as it is insane, and most people don't know the particulars.Yup. Part of the problem is people have a hard time understanding that you can't eat your cake and have it too. They want X to happen, but when you point out that if it does then Y also will happen, they say they don't want Y to happen. You try to explain, you can't really have X without Y happening, but they want X to happen and Y not to happen. Because the systems involved are often multi-leveled, they just can't accept that sometimes you have to accept undesirable consequences in order to have something you want and you have to weigh which out come is what you truly want.
Is this a preamble to a following assertion that regulating business will hurt taxpayers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this a preamble to a following assertion that regulating business will hurt taxpayers?the WHAT people want is easy. Its the HOW thats as complicated as all get out. The financial system is as complicated as it is insane, and most people don't know the particulars.Yup. Part of the problem is people have a hard time understanding that you can't eat your cake and have it too. They want X to happen, but when you point out that if it does then Y also will happen, they say they don't want Y to happen. You try to explain, you can't really have X without Y happening, but they want X to happen and Y not to happen. Because the systems involved are often multi-leveled, they just can't accept that sometimes you have to accept undesirable consequences in order to have something you want and you have to weigh which out come is what you truly want.
That could certain be something, honestly I am not sure as to what extent it would, and I would imagine it would depend on to what degree of regulation we were talking about. But let's say it did, would that in itself mean that we shouldn't increase regulations, even if it did cause some difficulty for taxpayers. Even in that case we should still consider if the gains by the regulation would outweigh the pain felt by the taxpayers. And again, I don't personally know if that would be the particular trade-off. Maybe the trade-off might be that you disincentives people from starting small businesses because there are just too many regulations for them to jump through. That might not directly harm taxpayers but it may harm us as a society. And again, I have no idea if that would actually be the trade-off.
The point is that there is going to be a negative effect of any choice we make, including, like you suggest regulating businesses more. And that negative consequence may not just be limited to the wallets of corporate fat-cats. We need to look for these consequences and weigh them against the gains to be had, and maybe we can't seem them until we make a change.
So, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't change things, but also don't go in thinking every change is going to work out perfectly, they aren't.
EDIT: As another example, say people wanted us to take a harder stand on trade with China. Maybe we should put on extremely high tariffs on imports from China, until they start playing fair on their end. Ok, but what if that means that Paizo goes out of business because they no longer can print materials at a price that enough gamers would purchase them. Wizkids goes under, because they can't afford to make cheap PPM. "But I don't want that to happen." But it might. Does that mean we shouldn't put those tariffs in until China gets their stuff right? We as a society would have to decide that.