A simple question
Without trying to describe or justify a whole politcal or philosophical system, I'd like to ask a question. If we could improve equality, is the question below what needs to happen?
Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself?
Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself?
Comments (183)
Most of the time I accept the status quo with a measure of equanimity because some of the advantaged people (some artists, performers, surgeons, etc.) share their good fortune with everyone by the way they live their lives. On the other hand, some of the advantaged people are plugs in the bowels of grace, and it it would be a good thing if they disappeared. Most advantaged people are in between the extremes.
Then there are the disadvantaged people. A good share of those who did not receive advantages live (lived) exemplary lives and we can be grateful for their existence. Some of the disadvantages wouldn't have done anything good had they been showered with cash. It just isn't in them to do great things.
Life is not fair. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
It sounds like you are saying there is no point in even raising the question.
For me, its a question that needs to be asked if the human race wants equality. For it is inequality that separates humanity. Maybe most of us dont want equality, but I dont believe that. There is good will, but at what point does that good will stop?
Should it come down to people who have a lot, having most of their lot taken away to support those that dont? You know, the greatest good for the greatest number.
Make everyone an impoverished slave and feed them all the same bowl of gruel everyday.
That's the problem with "equality." If you have a system that allows everyone to thrive at their own level of ability and ambition, you'll get lots of great art, science, and wealth. Lots of excellence among the excellent. You'll also get lots of inequality. And if you hammer down every nail that stands up, you'll get all the equality you want ... good and hard.
You mean, by paying income tax?
It's a very politically-incorrect fact that not all people are equal. All people should be treated equally by the law, and generally should have equal opportunity to participate in the economy. But not every one is equal in respect of their abilities, proclivities, talents, desires and intentions. To try and impose equality ends up being a recipe for totalitarianism, as Orwell prophesied so eloquently.
In some cases yes, in other cases no. Most people saying "yes" would be lying.
A set of principles? Given the fundamental nature of principles in general, why would a set of them benefit the opportunities of one person over another?
If it is the case life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental principle, and each member in a community is subject to that principle, why would I need to relinquish anything in order for any of them partake in it?
No, I would not be willing to give up my job, such that the next guy could claim the income from it. On the other hand, I might be willing to relinquish something in order to facilitate the opportunity for another to be subject to that fundamental principe, ranging from going to war, or merely going to vote.
Hardly a simple question, methinks, insofar as the domain of the query itself is more anthropological/psychological than philosophical, but the response is predicated entirely on a moral disposition, which is altogether philosophical. The ol apples/oranges thing.
-
HA!!! You beat me by scant seconds.
I would not because it is immoral; such an arraignment is premised on the exploitation of those who accept the principles. The arraignment is also unjust insofar as it does not consider those who are deserving or undeserving of the prospects and opportunities you mention.
Equality is most certainly not a virtue. We may seek justice, fairness, equity and the like, but we are all different and unequal.
Equality is the mantra of the Marxist.
In a society, you can set for principles of equality if you say what kind: equality under the law, equal rights of voting, equal rights to freedom of speech and association; equal pay for equal work; equal access to education and health care; equal opportunity.
As to the principle, John Rawls had the right idea: design a society that you would be happy to live in. The catch is, when you design it, you don't know where you will fit, what your circumstances will be in that society.
The part I grapple with is, as I am almost forced by "honesty" to answer no, why is there a nagging sensation "telling" me that is wrong? And if that same nagging is generally universal, even for those who might suppress it with reasoning or pride, why does our honesty compel us to answer no? There are competing interests within an individual, I know. But why in this case do we readily choose no, while simultaneously lingering in yes?
Because the question is phrased in such a way as to threaten you, whichever answer you give. If you say yes, something you have will be taken away. If you say no, you're being mean to people less fortunate than yourself.
But that's not really the issue. The issue is, do you want to live in a fair society?
We don't have to contend with scarcity; we have to contend with disparity.
Right now, we're suffering an eardrum shattering scream from the advocates of mega-wealth at the prospect of 1% rise in taxes on their billion-dollar profits. Nobody likes to give up what they have, no matter how unfairly they got it.
Well put.
I thought that a free market meant that everyone had equal access to it and equal rights of contract and property.
Marxism isn't bothered by inequality, but by unfair exploitation. The slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" is not about equality.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. Sometimes fairness means equality. But sometimes equality is unfair.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
It depends on the principles. The right to property bestows rights on everyone. Essentially, it's a deal - I accept restrictions on me because others concede something to me. People accept that because they benefit enough to make the deal worthwhile. The same applies to contracts.
What people do not think about is the fact that the first state welfare was instituted by Bismarck in Germany, not because he was overwhelmed by an altruistic impulse, but because he thought there would be a massive rebellion by the workers unless he did something. See Wikipedia on State Socialism in Germany.
But there is also an argument that a state welfare programme is not altruism, but insurance. (In the UK, those programmes are technically insurance, not hand-outs.) Everyone benefits from insurance against unemployment, sickness and so forth. Even the retirement pension is essentially funded by workers on the basis that they will benefit later on. Only a state policy can offer unlimited cover for these things - and, actually, there are limits to what even states can do.
Is altruism appropriate in this context? Good question. I don't see why a community should not collectively decide on some altruistic actions - but it would be politically undesirable unless there is a consensus at least to accept them.
Quoting fishfry
In one sense, it is true that "equal" means the same, but this is not an absolute. Thus, in a democracy, everyone (i.e. all adult citizens, with some exceptions) gets one vote. Not more, not less. But there are not many contexts in which that sameness is appropriate, or acceptable. The idea that equality means that everyone is the same, or should be treated in the same way in all contexts is little more than political propaganda. No-one believes that.
Which of the specific kinds of social equality I mentioned is unfair? [equality under the law, equal rights of voting, equal rights to freedom of speech and association; equal pay for equal work; equal access to education and health care; or equal opportunity]
It's quite true that it would be unfair to try a child in adult court or expect a disabled veteran to perform physical labour - but these exemptions come with criteria and limits that can be agreed on by consensus, rather than decreed by a ruler.
Quoting Ludwig V
So did Ayn Rand. But only a very few are born into property, and everyone else has more access to debt than to property. There is no free market and there never has been.
Did I suggest that any of them was? If so, I apologize. Perhaps I was a bit lazy in not giving a list. I hesitated because I'm not sure your list is complete.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. One has to be careful here. What if people who are excluded protest that they should be included? (Slaves, women, children). There's a particularly awkward question about exclusion of those who are or might be regarded as incompetent, such as very young children.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree. Adam Smith's model was never really more than that - a model. At the very least, a market needs a legal and social structure with power to settle disputes and enforce the rules.
Not specifically. But in response my having been specific, you remarked that sometimes equality can be unfair. I'd already dealt with the sameness herring.
Quoting Ludwig V
Exemption doesn't mean exclusion. When it does, people do protest and clamour for change. Social organization is an on-going negotiation among interested factions. But if the constitution is set up fairly in the first place, there is less room for contentions.
Yes. It is hard to put right an inequity that has become established but perhaps even harder to prevent one getting established in the first place.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. If only we had the opportunity to start from scratch with people who did not differ in their negotiation skills.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's all very well. But what if the privileges are themselves the result of exploitation? Or what if the privileges are used to exploit people? Then, right-minded people at least would accept. It does happen, surprisingly often. I think the point is that everyone deserves prospects and opportunities.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. Enabling that process to satisfy all parties is the really important and difficult bit.
If someones lack of prospects was the result of exploitation or injustice, and not, say, by choice, then I would gladly accept a set of principles that would increase his prospects at the expense of my own. In my mind, he would be deserving of my support.
In our current bureaucratic trajectory, though, we do not differentiate between the deserving or undeserving, and do so according to more trivial factors such as class or tax-bracket.
I gu3ess that's the point of social and ethical philosophy. With the right set of mental tools, one comes prepared to the conference table, demonstration or barricade.
If only. The new word is "equity" and it DOES mean that everything should be the same. Equality of outcome and not just opportunity; and if outcomes are unequal, call people racists. Tear down statues And a lot of people think that way these days. So "no one believes that" is false. Marxism is coming back into vogue, whichever side of of the matter one may happen to be on.
What's that to do with equality or equity? Outcomes owe a whole lot to beginnings. It doesn't mean that everything (??) should be the same or that everyone should be the same, it means that everyone should have the same chance of a positive outcome.
A whole lot of quite nasty people have had their statues erected in public squares, at public expense. I guess the public has a right to reject them. There are places elsewhere for the images of great men out of favour special parks for the no-longer-wanted statues.
That doesn't denote anything even close to equality or equity in those places. BTW, Marx is in both parks, though he doesn't deserve it.
Some people in the public square these days would burn you at the stake for arguing for equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. And for exactly the reason you mention, that outcomes are highly influenced by the random social circumstances of one's beginnings.
I agree with you in principle that equality is good, but these days that's not enough for a lot of people, and you seem to be denying that's the case.
I'm confused by your post. @Ludwig V said, "The idea that equality means that everyone is the same, or should be treated in the same way in all contexts is little more than political propaganda. No-one believes that." And I responded by noting that these days A LOT of people believe that. Then you kind of jumped in and defined equality, ignoring my point that many these days reject equality in favor of equity, which is equality of outcomes combined with grievances against racial groups they think are holding them down.
Indeed. The myth of the level playing field is pervasive.
I hope you exaggerate.
I agree that insisting on equality of outcomes is more complicated than is usually acknowledged. Where outcomes are influenced by random factors, differences do fall into the category of the unfairness of life. But where they are systematic and not random, they are a problem. So inequality of outcome can be an indicator or symptom of a systematic problem.
There is another problem, which is distinguishing between issues that can be fixed, and those that can't.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, the case of Eastern Europe is instructive. They seem to be developing a sensible approach. They had the advantage of a widespread consensus about what should be done. Clearly, that doesn't hold in the West, and, to be fair, it isn't the same situation.
Quoting fishfry
Your system (or lack of it) sounds great. But you can't justify it just by appealing to the high achievers. An ethical system needs to recognize and have space for the majority - the mediocre. It also needs to ensure that high achievement is at least possible for everybody and that the achievements benefit everybody.
Hammering people for any reason is not something that I could approve of, whatever the reason.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm not sure what you mean about not differentiating between the deserving and the undeserving. Freedom from inappropriate discrimination should not be restricted to the deserving, whoever they may be. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not to be handed out to only to those who deserve them.
Improvement in equality can happen in many ways. The Bubonic plague brought about greater equality because it killed off so many slaves. Those who were left had an improved bargaining position. This enraged the aristocracy, but there was nothing they could do about it. They weren't willing to accept any new set of principles, but they had no choice but to pay more for labor, and money is power. Equality is about power distribution.
Seem to be denying? I didn't notice that. I was responding to the OP question. Equality was always unpopular with the people who considered themselves better than others through birth and wealth, more worthy of acclaim and privilege. And those are the people who have traditionally made the rules for everyone - they still largely do.
If you mean that some people are demanding compensation for long-entrenched inequities, I don't deny it. Some tipping of the imbalance might be appropriate. If you mean that some people demand special treatment for various reasons, I don't deny that either, and would consider the demands case by case. I certainly wouldn't pass judgment on the basis of a blanket accusation.
Quoting fishfry
Some people in the public square these days would shoot you on sight for being a judge or not wanting a baby or wearing a rainbow teeshirt. Violent times, these. I have not seen it demonstrated that anyone demands similarity of outcomes. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by "outcome".
Everybody doesn't want to be an artist or doctor or executive, but none of the artists, doctors and executives could do the work they do or live the life they live without all the farmers, builders and mechanics who maintain the world.
What I mean by equality of outcome is a reasonable life: satisfying work, physical safety, access to good nutrition, shelter and health care, freedom of movement and personal autonomy.
Why not simply give every citizen the chance to achieve their own ambition and fulfill their own potential, and respect each for his or her contribution?
Quoting Ludwig V
That's because some Westerners still think slavery was a good idea and defending it was heroic.
Personally, I'm all for public art, but totally opposed to monuments. Today's hero is almost certain to be tomorrow's villain.
That strikes me as simple common sense.
Quoting Vera Mont
I've never met anyone who actually said that. Still, one never knows... But I have encountered people who offer excuses, usually as a way of avoiding responsibility. On the other hand, I gather there are some places in the world that still practice it, though perhaps under another description.
Quoting Vera Mont
It would be better if we could recognize people as both. Very few are simply one or the other.
Or another name.
Quoting Ludwig V
Indeed. I'd also be grateful if we stopped naming schools and libraries after politicians and rich benefactors - I doubt we could find one of either in the world, dead or alive, without some dark deeds to hold against them. Let us name our schools for educators, our parks for the place they occupy and our libraries for literary figures, just as priests name churches for their saints.
You have more faith in educators and literary figures than I do. But it would be best if we could accept that most people - even educators and literary figures - may turn out to be a mixture of good and bad, admirable and despicable.
No, it just inflates their vanity. And they should neither donate to nor own schools and libraries: these institutions should be publicly funded and operated. Nobody should be immortalized for a tax write-off.
It's quite icky enough having to attend plays, concerts and sporting events under the giant name in lights of some robber baron.
There are people who deserve prospects and those who do not. Someone who has become impoverished through no fault of his own, for instance, deserves his communitys help, while the one who has impoverished himself and his community through crime and malfeasance does not.
There are those who find themselves on hard times because of illness or tragedy, and those who find themselves on hard times because they prefer getting high as soon as they wake up. Will you sacrifice your opportunities for both of them equally?
It's not faith. I don't care if they were good or bad people, just so they contributed to the body of knowledge and literature, just as I think we should name hospitals after health scientists and airfields after aviators. It just seems appropriate to name things according their function.
OK. I doubt I would sympathize with the criminals. It depends how they got in to crime. You would sling them in jail for a long time - at your own cost, not theirs. When they come out, without any prospects or help, what do you think he will do? He needs food and shelter and he craves social connection. As we all do. What will he do?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes. I would even sympathize with both. In any case, it is in my interest to get him off his addiction.
Quoting Vera Mont
OK. That makes sense.
Im not wondering about sympathy. Having feelings is the very least one can do. Im wondering if you can be just in your redistribution.
Personally, I wouldnt put anyone in jail. But I certainly wouldnt reward their behavior and subsidize their lifestyle by sacrificing my own and others.
Your feelings and interests sound nice, sure, but Im curious about your actions, specifically what you are willing to sacrifice and if you would sacrifice for both of them equally.
Quoting NOS4A2
You are already paying a price by not preventing them from continuing in their life of crime. Passing laws, buying alarms and locks, and funding the police hasn't worked. Try investing in something else, more effective.
Quoting NOS4A2
The same argument applies.
It would be effective to kill them, but effectiveness can often be immoral and unjust. So utility is not any kind of goal for me.
I very much agree with the first sentence.
So you are content to sit on the side-lines watching what goes on, paying your share of the price for letting it all happen and telling those people how undeserving they are - and, no doubt, generously helping those you consider deserving.
I confess that I get increasingly annoyed at the widespread acceptance of the view that welfare is somehow equivalent to charity. It isn't. It is enlightened self-interest. See Wikipedia - Enlightened self-interest (But I don't think, as Wikipedia seems to think, that this is a complete ethical theory.)
I am content being just and moral, and yes, helping those who I think need and want help.
Welfare certainly isn't equivalent to charity. Welfare is simply the means through which people can absolve themselves of their responsibility to members of their own community, and worse, to delegate that responsibility to a some cold bureaucracy. The most a welfarist can say he's done to help others is pay a little taxes. Charity at least involves some sacrifice and effort.
I can't read you the news. I don't think you and I live in the same reality if you believe what you wrote.
Not by much.
This appears to be the case.
There's truth in that.
Quoting NOS4A2
There is a problem around that. But welfare is more than that. "Simply" misses the point.
Quoting NOS4A2
... and earing the money to pay the taxes for welfare programmes doesn't involve time and effort? Charity cannot offer more than special treatment for some people - and does not necessarily benefit the most deserving cases. Welfare achieves better results, because everyone has the same rights.
Quoting Vera Mont
More or less my opinion. If people can claim compensation for what happened before the birth of anyone now living, where does it stop? Can they really return everything that has been looted even in just the last hundred years? Wikipedia - Supreme Court and Affirmative Action Case gave me pause for thought.
Of course not - except some of the Native land claims. But they can recognize the consequence of those deprivations and benefits on the present generation of inheritors: that one group has unearned material and cultural advantages, because their forebears deprived another group of opportunity and property. To tip the imbalance, all that's required is something like Affirmative Action, or favourable zoning laws or low-interest business loans, or more equitable policing to let the dispossessed group catch up - by its own efforts, in fair competition. It's hard to win a race when your starting line is a 100 yards behind the other runners.
The reason I asked the question, was because after reading Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he states, page 13, in the revised version, that, "Offhand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of greater sum advantages enjoyed by others."
Based upon the majority of replies to this tread, Rawls is right. We have proved his statement to be correct. It seems most are in favour of not redistributing wealth so others can have the basic goods to the extent that others have them. Or am I wrong?
However, I was thinking, and I am assuming this here, most of us do not have excess wealth to give away to those who may be in need of help. So it's simply a matter of supply and demand. We don't have the supply to meet their demand.
When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? Does it mean if you have enough wealth and you have the opportunity to increase the prospects of others you should.
I give a small amount each month to a charity. I always think that those who can afford to do this should. It could only help make things more equal for some others.
When you simply say the word 'equality' you leave the audience with no idea what you mean. We can all read into what you mean, but why do that? You SHOULD have started with a very specific definition of what equality means to you for this question.
So, ALL, yes ALL efforts towards equality of outcomes are doomed as ridiculous on the surface of the idea.
That is because reality itself does not support the idea. All aspects of Consequentialism, and judging choices by their outcomes is only that, are immoral/deceptive.
BOTH political parties are deluded about the issues surrounding equality for one specific reason. That is as follows:
Right wing order-apology or fear-side thinking conflates inequality of function with inequality of intrinsic worthiness. They are wrong to do so. We all are intrinsically equally worthy, and what we do, our function, DOES NOT morally change that value.
Left wing chaos-apology or desire-side thinking conflates equality of intrinsic worthiness with equality of function. They are wrong to do so. We are all capable of only doing differing things well, despite the truth of intrinsic worthiness. So, it's NOT true at all that just anyone can do anything well, like .,.. vote.
---
So, to finally answer your question, there is no possible MORAL principle that increases the prospects of others and not also me. So, your proposition or principle would have to be immoral to have that consequence.
Yes, we do, but we waste too much of it on non-essentials, and bury too much of it in useless accumulation of wealth.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
No. It means a few people who have gained a great deal of excess - by whatever means - decide at some point to give away part of it. That's not a social contract; that's voluntary largesse: it can be give one day and taken away the next, without ever addressing the fundamental, systemic, entrenched inequities.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
So do I, as and when I can afford to. But it only affects a momentary hurt, not the long-term problem.
I seem to have misjudged you. I should not have presented you with a completely inappropriate argument. I can only respect your position. There are some questions, but I don't think they are particularly relevant to this thread.
I'll give you this. It is simply wasteful to try to help people who won't co-operate. All one can do is to minimize harm, so far as that is possible. That's hard to accept, but needs to be recognized.
Quoting fishfry
Well, I do agree that there have been a good few incidents that are outrageous, completely inappropriate and arguably counter-productive.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Yes, that's a good analysis, though I would have put it rather differently. I hope there are people who are not locked into one or other position, because any resolution must work out what intrinsic worthiness means in practice and how enable each person to play to their respective strengths and/or pursue their various ambitions and desires without oppressing anyone else. However, I also think that basic needs, which we all have in common, (food, shelter, security) are in a different category, just because they are common to everyone.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I quite agree. But I do think that inequality of outcomes can be a symptom of unjustified discrimination.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
I'm sure that is so and certainly it is true of me. But I'm not sure I could look a homeless person in the face and tell them that, and I suspect that most of us would find that difficult.
Whether it is true, is another question. How far it is reasonable to expect people to contribute to charitable causes is yet another. Whether it is reasonable to require people to insure against certain events or provide for them if they are inevitable is yet another. It's incredibly complicated.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
As individuals, certainly not. But when there is enough food to feed everyone and some people are starving to death, it is not a problem of supply and demand, but a question of distribution and that's a complicated problem. Or, to put it the other way round, in times of famine, the rules change and sharing becomes the only moral option - and people seem to accept that, on the whole.
Quoting Rob J Kennedy
I'm not sure there is a consensus view here. Is Rawls is putting a proposal to his council (when we're all pretending not to know who we shall be), or simply assuming that we are all already in an equal situation (which, actually, is the situation we are in on this forum). In either case, in such situations, it would be irrational to concede an advantage to others at a cost to myself. Either way, that is quite different from the actual (unequal, or at least varied) situation in our wider society, and I think we have all been talking about that. In a way, that's a problem. But I don't think that the proposal is particularly interesting, so I don't mind much. The debate is interesting and I've learnt from it.
There is a problem with that - a really big one. Remember, historically, all charity work, taking care of the sick and the aged, educating poor children, raising orphans, etc. was done by the church - and not always tenderly. The ruling elite took no responsibility for society's casualties.
The more slack we pick up with charity, the less government needs to redress social ills. So, the 'conservative' faction can claim that the human collateral damage is the purview of charities, so let's not tax the rich. This means that all redistribution of wealth takes place in the lowest economic tiers, while wealth keeps accumulating in the top ones.
That is one tremendous big problem.
As for shelter and medicine, collectively, at the government level, we spend a whole lot more on things designed to make people dead than on things designed to make them well.
It depends whether I am already at an advantage or not. As I would say is the thought of many facing the question.
I have self esteem. I don't want to be further trodden down and walked over. Similarly I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of being born with a silver spoon in my mouth that I didn't earn, especially when it means more disadvantage for it others.
If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way.
That's because they're material. Materials can be hoarded. Ideas and personal natures cannot.
It seems what you're saying is merit-based privilege is acceptable (the wealthy hardworking surgeon that saves countless lives), innate privilege is not (a lottery winner that "showered with cash" blows it all on drugs, sex and gambling for example).
The issue with a purely merit based privilege - is that the most unremarkable people - the lazy, the unambitious, the highly social welfare dependent or even the societally deviant - criminals could be argued as not even deserving the innate privilege of life itself. And that is rather eugenic or a "culling of the weakest links".
However in doing so we created an infinite regress of the "worst person" . And that is not sustainable because taken to its extreme it leaves only one highly meritable "perfect" example of humanity. The irony there is that I would expect such a person to not wish this system to be the case. They would obviously be generous charitable people.
Compassion for those we don't identify with but no less value - is the way forward I think.
I fear taking away the wealthies money is equivalent taking away their ambition. If they're super talented and hyperintelligent yet never benefit from applying those gifts, they may resign themselves to letting lesser able people to flounder without their assistance.
On the other hand, because money and assets are material, for one to have much, another has to have little. That is a problem indeed.
In an ideal world, everyone is equally talented in diverse and complimentary ways, everyone has equal opportunity to demonstrate said personal talents/gifts, everyone has the resources they need to do so, and everyone is equally supportive and encouraging of one another rather than ruthlessly competitive.
Sadly that simply isn't the case. Some people cannot access their innate talents through education and opportunity, some are unambitious/lazy, some are easily dissuaded/highly doubtful and others are psychopathic - lacking all compassion and willing to destroy if they cannot be on top.
I agree. Competition is healthy. People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia.
Furthermore competition is a natural phenomenon within and between species, and the basis for natural selection and evolution.
That being said, competition can be upheld without detriment to the quality of life of the loser. We are an animal with a sophisticated ability to not only communicate but also to imagine. And it is through these that we generate healthy competition - think the Olympics, video games, arcades, art and literature competitions etc. All ultimately arbitrary forms of reward and loss that don't directly threaten our survival.
We must subvert our tendency to compete so that we do not do so in a directly oppressive manner to society and human rights. Entertainment is the opium of the masses.
Without it, we would become toxically bored and engage in competing directing with and oppressing one another for our entertainment needs. To feel superior. A healthy society can have universal healthcare and universal income so long as we are happy consuming healthy competitions so we don't create unhealthy ones out of a desperate need for purpose and flexing our competitive prowess.
I'll quit when I'm ahead here then :-)
Quoting Benj96
Many issues with long wait times at NIH in Great Britain. And in Canada, they offer assisted suicide for depression. I'd like to see some datapoints where universal health care has worked. Not an expert on health care policy, just repeating anecdotal evidence re Britain and Canada. Not necessarily defending the expensive US system, but it's a complicated issue. Just giving people free stuff is not a panacea. Who pays for the free stuff? As Margaret Thatcher once noted, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Quoting Benj96
Even the middle can have an opinion of what's right and wrong with his social arrangement and how it might be improved. Anyway, only one person can perfectly in the middle; all the rest of us are somewhere on the spectrum.
Quoting Benj96
Games and sports don't always carry 'lucrative' prizes. The winner used to be content with the acclaim of his peers, a reputation for accomplishment in some specialized area, perhaps increased social status.
Material rewards turn games into business, to the detriment of both the players and the standard of fair play.
Just for light conversation ... when I say that a lot of people these days are advocating for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity ... you do not know what I am referring to? The DEI movement, social justice, wokitude, and the like? Disciplinary standards relaxed in schools, admission criteria relaxed in universities, the criminal justice system biased in favor of criminals, massive social change for the purpose of balancing out racial categories?
This news has not yet reached your province?
I just noticed this. What means would you use to bring this about?
Imagine the nerve of somebody demanding fair treatment for all kinds of people, even the designated victims! Appalling, innit?
Indeed it is. I quite share your sensibilities, or at the very least I have great sympathy for them.
But the larger point is that you have heard about people these days who prefer equity to equality, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You in fact seem to happen to be one of those folks.
But earlier, you claimed there were no such people.
So I take it that you have conceded my point. I'm not arguing the point of view pro or con; only that the point of view exists. That in fact you exemplify and represent it. So what you initially said, that you did not believe there were many of these people, was not quite true. Have I got that right? I don't want to presume, I may have misunderstood you.
Secondly, and again purely for conversation, on the issue of criminal justice. Do you follow New York City politics and current events? Do you support Alvin Bragg? Can you see how some people might think that compassion to criminals, no matter how well intentioned, can end up becoming a pronounced lack of compassion for their victims? Some of the folks pushed onto subway tracks by individuals previously treated gently by the criminal justice system might see it that way. Can you at least see that?
The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that she thought that a dumb quip is a substitute for serious thinking. But then, she was a politician. She also believed that there is no such thing as society.
Quoting fishfry
I agree that equality of outcome is not a reliable index of equality of opportunity and that people often talk, lazily, as if they were. But if equality of opportunity does not result in changes to outcomes, then it is meaningless. The only question is, how much change is it reasonable to expect? If 50% of the population is female and only eight of UK's top 100 companies are headed by women (Guardian Oct. 2021), don't you think it is reasonable to ask why? I agree that it doesn't follow that unfair discrimination is at work, but it must be at least a possibility. No?
Quoting fishfry
There are always issues with the NHS in the UK. But that's not about universal health care or not. It's about what can be afforded, what priority it has. Difficult decisions, indeed, but anyone with sense knows they must be made. That's why we have the national institute of clinical excellence. It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to make rational decisions; other systems do not even attempt to do that.
Of course, when my life, or my child's life, is at stake, I will put the system under as much pressure as I can to try everything. And to repeat, it's not about charity or robbing the rich. It's about insurance.
The complication is that the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. That was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be suprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. I don't think one can draw a clear line.
Quoting Benj96
That sounds good. Not easy, though. There are always free riders and malcontents.
Quoting Benj96
There is always a problem about excessive competition. There are usually systems in place to control it and they are at least reasonably successful.
I've heard of people who want equity, yes. I have no idea what all this "outcome" babble is about. What exactly is being demanded in terms of the "outcome" - that is result - of what endeavour? Is someone demanding that children should all have decent food and shelter and a safe environment, so that they can do well in school? Is someone demanding that adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
Is someone demanding that people who do the grunt work of society be compensated with a living wage? Or that claiming that a man who has four-hour lunches doesn't deserve 400 times the pay of the man who welds car chassis? Or that the people most likely to be arrested for crimes should not have the worst legal representation? Yes, I've heard those things. Yes, I want those things, too.
Quoting fishfry
I have no reason to give a flying fig about New York politics.
Quoting fishfry
The fucked-up criminal justice system is just another symptom of a generally fucked-up political and economic system. Far too big a topic for idle conversation.
Quoting fishfry
AFAICT, you ain't got nothin' right.
In a society that monetizes everything, and sucks the joy out of everything but money, yes.
Quoting Ludwig V
It's not. Modern Olympic games are business. Huge government contracts to build new arenas, huge financial losses for the public sector - but, hey, some jillionnaire will buy the arena cheap, plaster his name all over it and charge exorbitant ticket prices to the people who paid for the building of it. As for the athletes, if they survive with body and mind intact, their best hope is to sell their name to a corporation.
I'm so sorry. There's a small typo in what I said. It should have read:-
Quoting Ludwig V
Though you are also quite right to observe that there are also financial opportunities in creating and running the opportunities to acquire acclaim and success. Not to mention in training and looking after the competitors.
Quoting Vera Mont
There's a valid complaint here, because our society does tend to suck the joy out of everything. But I'm not sure it is money that is the problem. The thing is, money represents resources. It isn't possible to set up or compete in sport without any resources. Ditto art and pure science. Or raising a family.
It would be better to say that the tendency to measure the value of everything by reference to money that sucks the joy out of everything, because that measure misses the point. Money isn't worth anything for in its own right. Its value is what you can buy or do with it.
You're right. Money is just the thing that's being misused. The problem is a society founded on the concept of portable, cumulative wealth, that puts a monetary value on every thing, every place, every man, every idea.
Quoting Ludwig V
A field. A road. A frozen pond. A set of hurdles made of trestled logs. People used to compete before arenas and giant monitors. Kids still do, if we let them.
Quoting Ludwig V
I did say that. Everything but money - because joy also has a dollar value. Just watch the ads if you don't believe me.
Sorry, I didn't think I was contradicting you. Just expressing the point differently.
They do, they are just playing dumb. If you go back to 2017 these would be the people openly talking about microaggressions and reparations. Now that the whole planet is swinging right and people are tired of woke, they are just dissimulating their views while still defending them. See:
They try (and obviously fail to) to blur the lines between human rights and what you are talking about, to pretend they are the same thing, using cheap sophistry such as the above.
Soon enough they will be recanting their views. I wonder what they will do if (when?) we go totalitarian. Will they be staunch supporters, like everybody (especially women!) was in Nazi Germany? Relevant snippet by JBP before he went crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVCAhGL0ohw
[hide="Reveal"]And by the way, a minority of this political group of people were in the mainstream trying to promote ped*philia just a few years ago, use the link to see the news headlines but be warned they are disgusting https://i.imgur.com/pcEru9K.png [/hide]
Die by the thousands, as usual. Evil always wins; it's not hindered by scruples, compassion or shame.
Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities.
Good question. The short answer is, public discussion followed by a political deal - not because it is right, but because it is practical. A consensus would be a good basis, but one would probably have to settle for a majority view that is acquiesced in by those who don't agree. But I think with reasonable good will, one could make an initial deal and go from there.
Everybody needs food, shelter and security. But when you get down to details, it gets difficult. One question is what level of needs is appropriate - the level of bare survival or the level required to function as a member of society. Is health care part of the package or not?
Level of ability is not too hard, but very difficult if you are trying to assess what level someone is capable of achieving, rather than what level they are at. Enthusiasm or commitment is, in practice, part of the package as well.
But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what.
The trick is, to find something that is objective, or at least rational, or at least acceptable to those who are rejected. As things are, the first two are achieved to some extent, but the last is often suspected of being primarily acceptable only to those in power. Hence all the business with equality of outcomes.
Yes, it's either that or it is imposed by the authority of power, and that goes for any society, whether capitalist or communist.
Quoting Ludwig V
Quoting Vera Mont
Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. Under most communist regimes, people simply get what they are given by the powers that be.
LOL. I'm just trying to take the subtle approach.
It's a beautiful living experiment in what's known as restorative justice.
Crime is rampant and the DA is busy prosecuting the victims. People don't feel safe. It's going to sink Mayor Adams's once-promising political career.
I would think that many people interested in politics do follow New York City politics. But if you don't, that's cool. Not sure you are qualified to comment on the social justice approach to crime, though. It's failing in New York City in a very obvious way.
Interesting. Under capitalism, you think that people get things from an entirely passive system, and under communism, the system dishes things out to people who are entirely passive. That's far too simple. The systems are far more alike than you seem to think. Under communism, people manipulated the system as much as they could to get what they wanted, and under capitalism, the system exercises its power as much as it can. Though it is true that each system does to present itself in the way you outline.
You may be thinking that I'm saying that the two are as bad as each other. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not a black and white issue. I would not choose to live under a communist system as we knew them. But I would not choose to live under a pure capitalist system, as in the 19th century, either. We live under a modified capitalist system and that seems to me a reasonable way to go - at least, I don't know of a better. But that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.
By the way, you recognize that any welfare system modifies capitalism and that is true, and those systems are very important in making it possible for many more people to live in a more civilized way than pure capitalism can. But the various regulatory systems that West has introduced are also critically important to making capitalism liveable.
Quoting fishfry
So is it possible that a different version of the social justice approach might be more effective? Is it possible that other places may be implementing it in a better way?
I thought it was on point. People in the US like "forgiving student debt." But every nickel is just passed on to the taxpayers. Government doesn't have any money that it doesn't take from someone else. Or borrow and print, that's a nice game that has to end at some point too.
Quoting Ludwig V
I agree. We need a balance between trying to homogenize society, and old-fashioned notions of merit.
Perhaps it's a matter of pendulum swinging and patience.
Quoting Ludwig V
Health care policy's hard, I agree. I've only heard anecdotal evidence about NHS.
I wasn't implying that under communism or capitalism people wouldn't try to play the system. I have no doubt there is criminal activity, for example, under both systems. I can't think of any totally unregulated capitalist systems. On the other hand, communist systems, insofar as they are anti-democratic (which most seem to be and to have been) exercise far more control over their citizens.
I also did not want to imply that the differences between the systems is black and white. In the modern world it is money which effectively rules, and governments are, to a large extent, bought. The CCP on the other hand controls the money because it effectively owns the business it seems.
In a society that cared about its members, there would be no people rejected. You don't need a whole lot of objectivity to figure out what people need. What people are able to contribute, they do, if they're given the chance. Nobody wants to be left out; nobody likes being useless. A badly organized society creates many malcontents and disrupters; a well organized one tends to give rise to very little crime and abuse.
Quoting Janus
In whose movie? How can you know what the capacities are of a child who doesn't get healthy food or adequate care? What good are capacities where honest work doesn't earn a living wage? What are people supposed to do with their capacities when a company closes its operations and moves to China, leaving entire towns up Shit Creek? Some turn their intelligence and agility to crime. Every economic and political system produces the kind and amount of crime that showcases the capacities of its neglected members. (Except for the mass shootings - that's about internal conflict. Eventually, it becomes civil war.)
Well, I should have said "capacities and circumstances"by " capacities" I really meant to include circumstances. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia that's basically how it has been, but government red tape is making it ever harder for the small entrepeneurs. Those who have the capacity to deal with that red tape can get ahead. I don't deny it is barely possible for manyequal opportunity has been a dream and is becoming ever more so.
Why does government red tape make things difficult for small entrepreneurs but not for big ones? I hear the same complaint in Canada. I find it hard to believe that either government is deliberately trying to harm small businesses. What red tape is designed to hamper small business?
Is it, perhaps, that legislators try to make regulations for all businesses, and the big corporations can get around the regulations, while the small ones get caught?
(I don't know - I've only been involved in a tiny business and had no trouble with red tape.)
I guess it depends on the business, but in the building and home improvement trades, there is licensing, ongoing training requirements, quality assurance documentation, insurance and superannuation, which together require significant financial and administrative resources, and make it ever harder for small businesses to compete with the larger ones. The trio of supermarkets have pushed out a large proportion of small shopkeepers and the same goes for the building and hardware suppliers. I have no doubt the same applies in many sectors of retail as well as primary production.
Large corporations are also notorious for being able to deploy the financial and legal resources to avoid taxation, which throws the burden back onto the average wage earner and small business and although our governments frequently make noises about their intention to do something about that it never happens. It seems it's just virtue signaling designed to net votesour governments certainly appear to be bought by the plutocracy..
Well, yes. A market can only exist in a legal framework, which is a form of regulation. I'm only referring, n short-hand to the movement at the end of the 19th century to palliate (welfare) or control (additional regulation) some of the anti-social consequences of capitalism.
Quoting Janus
Far more overt control, yes. Capitalism is subtler. I prefer the second, of course.
Quoting Janus
So either the people who control the money or the people who are members of the CCP are in charge. It doesn't look like a particularly exciting choice. Who looks after your interests and mine?
Quoting Vera Mont
H'm - tempting
Dictatorships are quite good at creating an organized society, but at a high cost. Democracies (and free markets) seem to be chaotic, but the social costs are lower.
The critical factor is the extent to which the organization has consent, and has enough flexibility to give space to minority and unpopular interests.
The difference between a police force and an army is that the police must have the consent of those being policed and must be an integral part of the community, while an army needs neither.
Well, be careful. Most anecdotes have an agenda behind them - not that statistics don't. You wouldn't believe the impression I get from the anecdotes I hear about the US "system". I just don't believe that it can be as bad as that.
Quoting fishfry
The issue behind the student loan question is the question how far state-funded free education should go. If you want a level playing field in careers, everyone who can benefit should get higher education - and that means that almost everybody should be entitled to have a go. At the same time, if people benefit financially, there is a good case for saying that some of that benefit should go back to whoever funded it. Ironically, in the UK, the financial benefit from higher education is rapidly shrinking and, some say, has disappeared, mainly because it has been extended so widely. The proportion of student loans that is actually repaid is astonishingly low. (I can't remember the actual figures.)
Nobody has any money they don't take from someone else. We all give something in exchange. But even Government has to provide something in exchange. Sure taxes are compulsory, but is food and housing voluntary? They are certainly not classified as discretionary spending by economists.
Electronic money seems to be on the way, and that is going to making the arbitrary printing of money look like a tea party, if the existing private systems are anything to go by.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, it probably is. That's one of the few things that my mother told me that I have found to be true.
Quoting fishfry
II would prioritize effectiveness in the job (in the widest sense) above everything else. If that's what you mean by merit, then I agree.
That's right. So the students majoring in unmarketable majors are subsidized by people who skipped school and went into the trades. That doesn't seem fair. It's just that the college grads vote for Democrats and the tradesmen vote for Republicans, so the Democratic administration forgives billions in student loans -- illegally, as the Supreme Court has already ruled -- in an election year.
And not just that. The Democratic party use to be the party of the tradesmen and no longer is. When did the left abandon the workers, and why? I gather the Labour party in the UK has undergone a similar transition, is that right?
Quoting Ludwig V
Compassion for criminals is anti-compassion for their victims. New York City is a great lesson in restorative justice gone too far. I think the first duty of civic authorities is to provide for civic order. What's weird is that the voters themselves vote for the faux-compassion that ends up hurting them.
So the real solution to our problems is better voters!
Oh. So, the regulations are designed to protect customers and workers from exploitation. My guess is that the bulk of the abuses to which the government is responding was perpetrated by large corporations - not because they're worse people, but because of the machinery of profit - and the small ones who have no intention of short-changing their customers or abusing their workers get caught up in it.
OTOH, I'm aware of some pretty awful scams in the building trades that are perpetrated by small contractors, so I can imagine how regulation and oversight would be reassuring to customers. OTTH, a under-the-table deals are made all the time by small contractors and complicit customers to cheat the government and circumvent regulations.
It's not so easy, governing a monetized society!
Quoting Janus
In a monetized society, where political campaigns run on money, officials can't afford to cross the people who finance their election. And of course, financial interests and entrenched privilege have their staunch supporters, not only in the press and broadcast media (which they own, and which control the reputation of officials) but also among the voting and tax-paying public. A whole lot of the victims of mega-capital are willing to attack anyone who moves against the status quo.
Quoting Ludwig V
To a very large extent, this is a question of economic disparity. Where the gap between richest and poorest is minimal, all the people have common interests and points of agreement.
https://ssir.org/books/reviews/entry/spirit_level_greater_equality_societies_stronger_richard_wilkinson_kate_pic
Where the gap between the richest and poorest is an immense chasm, many are disenfranchised, marginalized and driven to despair. Not only because subsistence is hard won at the bottom, but because the bulk of the resources are concentrated in the numerically small upper tiers and there is not enough left for the much bigger lowest tiers. This means everyone in the second, third and fourth economic bracket is in constant fear of being displaced by someone from the tier below.
The advocates of capital depict an open field of competition, where anyone who "works hard" can achieve their goals and climb the social ladder. In fact, there is very little competition at the top, and a good deal of collusion. If the haves can keep the have-nots fighting over scraps, nobody will come for their loot.
As for the difference between police and armies - don't count on in it. Police forces in many countries are increasingly militarized, insulated and alienated from the community they're meant to protect; in many communities, the citizenry and the police are locked in a cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire.
H'm. In principle, that is a valid complaint. But, back when I was involved, something like 60% of vacancies for graduates (i.e. those requiring a BA degree or higher) did not specify the subject. That may have changed. But you might be surprised at where Eng. Lit. and Fine Arts graduates end up.
I'm not sure how education for professions and trades differs now; there's a lot of emphasis on training all the way up to BA level and higher. Many Universities are re-casting their non-vocational qualifications as vocational and there's effort going in to tracking what level of job graduates actually get. I've heard anecdotes that some vocational programmes don't do very well. It's complicated. I suspect that the identity of the awarding institution is more important than the subject. Whether it is question of reputation, prestige or snobbery depends on how polite I'm feeling.
Quoting fishfry
Oh, I wondered why that business about the student loans was happening now. Not pretty, but then, one has to please one's voters.
Quoting fishfry
It has happened gradually over two or three decades. I hesitate to get too detailed. It's mainly about social liberalism/conservativism - abortion, gay rights &c. Curiously, the Conservative party now seems to be at least as socially liberal as the Labour party, if not more so. There is certainly an issue in the Labour party that the liberal metropolitan elite now vote for Labour and this often clashes with the conservative social values of many "working class" people (not a politically correct classification any more.)
Originally the Labour party was explicitly a party for the working class - it was founded by the Trade Union movement. The Conservative Party tended also to have foundations in the "higher" parts of the class system; but now it's more about economics - free market vs state intervention (not Socialism as such). It does seem that many people in what used to be the working class who might well have voted Labour in the past now vote Conservative. This is all not very reliable. I'm not an expert.
Quoting fishfry
I don't see why it has to be. Except, of course, that a victim may be more vengeful than the system is. But I don't see that as a question of compassion or not. Support for victims (in the UK at least) has been pathetic, but is now improving (but not nearly perfect).
Quoting fishfry
Of course that's true. Part of the argument is that sympathetic ("humane") treatment of criminals and addicts gets better results in preventing recidivism - and a huge proportion of crime is recidivism. There's empirical evidence for that.
Another part is that more severe sentences are not effective in preventing crime. Effective detection and police work is much more effective. It makes sense. 20 years in jail is not much of a deterrent if you aren't going to get caught. But if you know you won't get away with, you know also that you won't benefit much, whatever the penalty. (Some crimes are not deterred even by the high likelihood of getting caught, but those are unlikely to be deterred by severe penalties.) I know, I know, justice demands.... That, in my book, is not about justice; it is about revenge. Prevention is more important than revenge.
Tell me about it. It isn't an easy problem to shift the views of the rich and (therefore) powerful. It doesn't help that there is no objective criterion for what the right distribution would be. I think it comes down to a deal - not a formal deal, but a state of affairs that most people are prepared to acquiesce in. But neither side seems willing to acknowledge that and work with it, so I'm not optimistic. I cling to hope because I remember Bismarck. That story tells you that you are just as likely to get a solution from a right-winger as from a left-winger.
Quoting Vera Mont
Oh, I know that. But if the difference was implemented, most of those problems would go away. Very few people actually want chaos or a "cold war that occasionally erupts in gunfire". They want order without repression.
Who makes these systems? Is power and authority not a trait of the "winning faction" of any competitive environment?
Constructive or healthy modes of competition. We cannot eliminate our desire to win or outcompete one another. We like reward, acknowledgement and status. All we can do is steer the compulsion away from competition that worsens the the wellbeing or basic rights of the losing group.
Oh, please don't fall into the 'both are as bad as each other' fallacy. They're not. The billionnaires want to keep taking more and more; the wretched just want a little of it back. Some of the advocates of the wretched are bellicose, a few are even violently angry, but their violence is mere fleabites compared to the might of property-defending police and mercenaries. Not to mention all the upper middle class who benefit from enabling and stroking the super-rich, the portion of the middle class that fears being worse off if there is any change and - especially - the persuadable lower middle class buys into the system, in hopes of betterment, in fear of a potent underdog, in misdirected resentment of the very authority that tries to regulate their exploiters, in moral outrage over the reputed erosion of their cherished values, in defense of the little advantage they have over some other group.
At the present level of disparity compromise is impossible; the "sides" far too unequal to negotiate.
Quoting Ludwig V
Not without major reconstruction of the justice system. But that's doable - would save a lot of resources, too. This is the bit the right wingers don't get: it's cheaper for society to assure everyone a reasonable life than to protect the wealth of a few. Money is a very, very expensive commodity.
I'll tell you what - I'll promise not to fall into that fallcy if you'll promise not to fall into mine. OK?
Here's my side of the bargain. Quoting Ludwig V describes the present socio-political situation; I am not making a moral judgement.
The fallacy I'm asking you to avoid is the fallacy of stereotyping groups of people. Deal?
I think we agree that the present situation is seriously wrong. So, a question. Do you know what the right distribution of wealth across our society should be?
Quoting Vera Mont
So what is your recommendation. Surely not civil war?
Quoting Vera Mont
True.
Our only hope is substantial and persistent political pressure. What else is there? How else would you ensure "constructive and healthy competition", given that the people in power have substantial political support?
The history of the 19th and early 20th century gives ground for hope.
Where? In Australia? I don't know who the 'sides' are there. It would take me a while to catch up. In Canada, I think the sides do understand the problem but are uninclined to work together, since one side wants to eliminate the problem, while the other wants to reinforce it. Most of the political spectrum fall somewhere in the middle, groping their way from crisis to crisis, dispensing duct tape on the Titanic. Quoting Ludwig V
I didn't think I was. I meant to describe political positions. I'm quite aware of the magnanimous billionnaires who use their money for culture and charity, as well as larcenous beggars.
Quoting Ludwig V
No. I have trouble dealing with the concept of wealth in any distribution. I'd rather think in terms of resource allocation and sharing.
I believe everyone should have enough food, shelter, security and leisure, a chance to contribute to their community and be recognized for their effort, access to education and the freedom to fulfill their potential. I believe nobody should have more of anything than they can use and enjoy in one lifetime.
I believe no child should start life materially better off than others of its cohort, and those who start life with a handicap should be offered all available support by the community, as should any adult who falls ill, is injured or grows feeble.
I believe we should not take from the Earth more than we collectively need, and dispose of our waste in a productive manner.
I realize it's a pipe-dream.
I'm sorry if I took you the wrong way.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't understand this. Money represents resources. So the distribution of money is allocation of resources. Sharing is more complicated, but the family is partly about sharing resources, isn't it? Perhaps you are just talking about an attitude? Or do you have in mind a reform of property laws?
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't have a problem with pipe-dreams. I understand your objection to inherited wealth. But I'll spare you any flat-footed objections about practicalities.
Therein lies the rub. When dealing with symbols, you're dealing with abstracts: the interpretation is more important than the thing being represented. If a loaf of bread has a price tag, that figure doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of wheat, yeast and water it contains, nor the amount of time someone spent on preparing and then assembling the ingredients plus the energy it took to bake the bread. It represents, instead, an arbitrary value placed upon it by an arbiter - usually not the baker nor the consumer. Monetary values are assigned to things according to desirability or rarity or branding of some kind. The price can be at great variance to the resource-content of the item.
When it comes to remuneration for work, the time/effort component is the least consideration: it's valued according to a wholly arbitrary standard - stockbroker starting salaries (before bonuses and perks) are approximately double that of a teacher or construction worker (no bonuses or perks) You judge their relative contributions to the society. Or, you could always go back to the 400/1 ratio between the assembly line worker who actually makes the profitable product and the CEO who attends meetings and makes decisions. Not figuring in the people who do nothing but lend/invest money at interest.
Then factor in the cost of money itself: printing, storing, guarding, counting, shipping, tracking, exchanging, accounting, taxing and redistributing, litigation over it, stealing it and punishing the thieves... All those costs to society are added on to the price of commodities.
Add to this, the portability and morphology of money. A wagon load of turnips, you can readily calculate its nutritional value and the labour, time and land it took to produce. You can't disguise it as something else, can't spirit it out of the country, hide it in a vault or turn it into a gold coin and pocket it. When money exists mainly in electronic form, any kind of magic tricks can move it, transfer it or disappear it. A painting of two hazy orange squares by John Smith is worthless. A painting of two hazy orange squares by Mark Rothko is worth $45,000,000 - same canvas, same paint, same aesthetic. Not a resource-base valuation!
The practicality is not yet upon us. I don't think reform is feasible.
House-of-cards economies like the one we're living in periodically collapse. The last depression adversely affected much of the world and was followed by a crazy big war. This time the global interconnections are even less extricable. When one economy defaults on its debt, all the still viable ones have to rally round with loans and service-reducing, tax-hiking regimens - they have to, because the whole edifice is in danger. Debt is accumulating everywhere at a rate that bodes imminent collapse. Add the damage of climate events and the pressure of human migration.... Does the current system implode or explode?
There will be casualties. Lots of them. Maybe whoever's left standing can start over with a different model. I hope they get it right, but won't be here to see it.
What ruling body decides on that? Steer the compulsion away if it "worsens the wellbeing?" Are their commissars for that? Your idea sounds like top-down authoritarianism in the guise of being caring. "We're crushing your competitiveness for your own good, Comrade. Enjoy your stay at the Gulag."
In the DEI departments of university administrations I imagine.
Quoting Ludwig V
Point being that pipefitters shouldn't be shouldering the cost of the loans forgiven for social justice majors.
Quoting Ludwig V
It's a scandal. The executive branch (Biden) actually has no authority to forgive those loans and foist them on the taxpayers. The Supreme Court already ruled on that. Biden's actions are illegal. Just election year pandering. And of course we're seeing this week who those students are.
Quoting Ludwig V
Right. The "liberals" used to be for the working classes. Now the liberals support the elite against the working classes. Bit of a puzzler.
Quoting Ludwig V
Violent criminals are being put back on the street to re-offend. That's not fair to the victims. Violent criminals belong behind bars.
Quoting Ludwig V
People can't re-offend if they're locked up.
Quoting Ludwig V
Perhaps I just spend to much time following NYC politics. They're having a problem with soft-on-crime politicians leading to a great decrease in public safety.
You are not alone. I also think the prospects are very very gloomy. I have the impression that many people all round the world have a sense of impending doom. I wish I could be more optimistic.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. Any economic/social system is vulnerable to catastrophic events. But life goes on. People pick themselves up and work out what they will do next. That's not a facile optimism. It would be much, much better to avoid the disaster in the first place, but it isn't always possible.
Your analysis of where we are is quite familiar, but doesn't help much. Capitalism has been in crisis practically ever since it was invented. It is extremely resilient and adaptable, which is both a curse and a blessing. The obvious alternative is Socialism, which is as polymorphous as capitalism. It seems to be more effective as way of modifying capitalism than as a system in its own right. We seem to be working out how to blend the two, and that seems to me to be the right way to go
Quoting fishfry
Not so. I don't know what data is available to you, but perhaps you should look around. All I'm saying is that you cannot assume that every vocational programme provides marketable qualifications nor that every non-vocational programme does not. It's up to the market to decide what it wants.
Equally, it is up to students to decide what they want, even if they make choices that you think are unwise. It's not as if we can predict and provide what the economy wants.
Quoting fishfry
Well, if the cost is funded by general taxation, the contribution will depend on their income. That doesn't seem unreasonable - unless you think that people should not study social justice. But I think it is a good thing that as many people as possible should understand what social justice is.
Quoting fishfry
It's complicated. In the UK, liberals in the 19th century were, by and large, members of the elite. They were never particularly enthusiastic about supporting the working classes. They were much more interested in free trade, political issues like voting rights and moral/social issues like divorce, gay rights &c. (Conservatives supported protection and social conservatism). The working classes, by and large, had to fight their own battles, which they did through the Trade Unions.
But I'm sure the alignments were different in the USA.
Quoting fishfry
Quoting fishfry
You can't imprison violent criminals forever, unless you can prove them criminally insane. Sooner or later, they have to hit the streets again. That's why rehabilitation is so important.
Quoting fishfry
Nothing wrong with that, so long as you are open to new ideas occasionally.
I don't know the details, but my instinct is to suggest that if the rehabilitation programmes in NYC aren't working, find a better programme, don't give up on the attempt. Money spent on effective programmes to keep people out of prison is a good investment. Back that up by improving detection and arrest, which is by far the most effective deterrent. Tossing people out of prison into the general population will not work and putting them back in prison later on is very expensive, not only in running the prisons, but also in the damage inflicted on families and children.
You'd think somebody would've twigged that it's not the best possible system?
Quoting Ludwig V
That's not an alternative; it's a modification, an attempt to cushion the impact of a profit-driven economy.
All monetized systems - all shades of capitalism - are subject to the same internal and external dangers, but the Socialist versions are more sustainable, just because they eliminate the lower extreme where most of the casualties occur. In fact, if democracy is allowed to operate unhampered, all monetized societies tend toward Socialism, because the beneficiaries - i.e. the majority - vote to keep their benefits.
As for Communism, in a monetized economy, that's an oxymoron; a chimera at best. Money is infinitely corruptible and it tends to infect people who control too much of it.
Quoting Ludwig V
We were on the right track - UK, Australia, NZ, Canada, most of Europe and even the US - for a large portion of the 20th century. (Chastened by the depression, governments curbed big capital and invested in the population at large) Then, starting about 1980, the political pendulum was pushed hard to the right. Now, the far left is where the moderate right (remember them?) was in 1976. Now, we're heading toward fascism at a fair clip.
Side-bar, Your Honour
interesting bulletin from New York City
It seems the upticks are in transit crime and hate crime - sign of the political climate, I imagine. That, of course, is what FUX news reports, without mentioning the overall decline.
You'd almost think New York was doing something right.
I haven't found any mention of the crimes that do occur being committed by miscreants who had received civil summonses due to Criminal Justice Reform of 2016 https://council.nyc.gov/legislation/criminal-justice-reform/ but then, public urinators were never dangerous. The big issue seems to be
And here it comes:
Reform is an uphill battle.
I won't disagree with any of that. The obvious questions are when the pendulum will start to move the other way and how much damage will be done before that finally happens. Oh, and whether it is just a pendulum but more of a spiral - upwards. I happy to answer the first with "eventually". The others require "Don't know"
Quoting Vera Mont
Well, yes. Obviously a downhill battle would be better, but I'll settle for that.
Thanks for the clips. Very instructive.
Maybe it already has, and a lot of damage is already done. Trouble is, you're right: it's not so much a pendulum as a long spiral staircase upward and a steep slide down. Things take more time and effort to build than to destroy.
Other trouble is, we're running out of time.
Perfectly correct. Then why should the taxpayers shoulder the burden of those who make bad choices? Doesn't that create what they call a moral hazard?
"In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk."
Why shouldn't I take out $100,000 US in loans to study underwater basket weaving, if I'm reasonably sure some future administration is going to transfer my loans to the taxpayers? "Cancelling" student loans, a deliberately misleading euphemism for transferring the debt to the taxpayers, incentivizes more bad choices.
Quoting Ludwig V
I ask again. Why should a pipefitter pay off someone else's student loans? And if someone borrows large amounts of money to major in a financially unrewarding pursuit, why shouldn't they bear the burden of their own choice?
Quoting Ludwig V
I think it's the same. "Classical" liberalism, which is more like conservatism today. Although conservatism is pretty muddled, what are they really for? Hard to tell these days.
Quoting Ludwig V
You can put them away for a little bitty while, can't you? In major US cities, soft-on-crime DA's won't even do that. And their victims are starting to notice.
Quoting Ludwig V
I'm very open to new ideas. I used to be way more of a liberal. I still am. It's the liberals who have gone way too far recently.
Quoting Ludwig V
There's no rehabilitation going on. There's a revolving door of people committing violent crimes, being put back on the street, and re-offending.
That was attempted back in 2016 with the whole "DESTROYS sjw with facts and logic", it only got worse. Some of the people on that "side" are victims, I imagine they don't even have an inner monologue so they can't even filter what information is fed to them.
Regardless of whether they even know what they are saying, the time to be subtle with people who want you gone and your culture burned was long ago, nobody cares about being called racist/sexist/theosophist any longer. There is no god anymore, everything goes.
Yeah I care. I spend most of my time on this forum in mathematically-oriented threads. I'm dipping my toes in the political waters over here and treading lightly. So far, anyway.
I'm sorry about this rant, but I don't know how else to respond.
It depends on your philosophy of education. The thinking behind all education is a mess; the thinking behind higher education is even more of a mess; and the thinking about adult education is practically non-existent. You can think about in terms of vocational (career) benefits and non-vocational ("for fun") programmes and a combination of private benefits (for the student) and public benefits (for society in general). There's also an issue about benefits to employers, but these are rarely thought about in their own right.
Underwater basket weaving looks like a bad career choice, but possibly a good choice for fun. Either way, the student should pay. Some programmes, like IT skills (and mathematical ones) lead to extremely profitable careers in the finance industry; again, the student should pay. But if there's a serious shortage of welders, such that various industries cannot find the workers they need, there's good reason why employers, and/or the state, might want to pay. Then there are programmes like social work and nursing, which require specialized professional training, but don't pay well. Isn't there a good case for state support? What abaout high-level professional careers which could be financed by students, but where that is impractical because of their high costs whether in infrastructure or time required; again, public subsidy makes sense. Another category is risky careers, like acting or archaeology or philosophy; again, there's a case for public subsidy, not only to ensure a supply for the labour market, but because the existence of those careers is a public good.
If you thought that was a mess, consider the non-vocational subjects, or those subjects which can be studied for vocational reasons and can also be studied for fun. The catch here is that all the specific vocational careers presuppose some level of basic, general skills and knowledge, which enables people to function in society in general, both within and without their vocations; these skills are also the basis of good citizenship. These include reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also extend (In the UK) to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (practice needs theory, after all) and to various skills under the heading of good citizenship - philosophy, literature and history and the arts. Those last four are often regarded as purely for fun, so I don't claim that the idea that they are not just for fun is uncontentious. Perhaps the most effective argument for them is that democracy cannot function properly without them. J.S. Mill recognized this, but it seems now to be ignored, which is a pity. Mind you, the idea that an understanding of the humanities was essential for a decent society took a very serious knock in WW2. But it is far from dead.
Underwater basket weaving? Probably not. Philosophy? Fine Art? There's at least a case to think about, isn't there?
PS. I forgot to explain how students should pay when they need to. Through the tax system. If their career choice pays off, they will pay increased taxes, so the public purse will benefit and their debt "repaid" - or, if you prefer, the public investment in their career pays off. Where their career does not pay off in that way, the public (and employers) will benefit from an increased supply of highly qualified labour. Where their career is not directly developed by their qualification, it will have been helped by the "transferable skills" developed in their programme and by the improved contribution they can make by their contribution to social and political life.
In other words, payment through the tax system is perfectly well justified by the multiple benefits provided by higher education. Nobody has a problem with that way of paying for schools. Why would higher education be any different?
Quoting fishfry
That process - what was liberal and new, becomes old hat, and conservative. That what's happened to feminism, etc. The agenda has moved on. It's very disappointing to those of us who thought the problems were solved. But there are unsolved and unconsidered issues and big gaps in even the basic rights that one thought had been established.
Quoting fishfry
If that's so, there is a problem.
Quoting Lionino
That's perfectly possible. But if you want them to develop one, it's as well not to tell them about it. Shouting about it just breeds resentment and resistance.
Because two of the students are his own children, but he doesn't earn enough to pay for their higher education all alone. And because, even if he doesn't have children, he's helping to train up the well taxed caregivers and inventors of helpful products for his old age. And because he's making the world safer and better to live in for himself and his family. And because the industry that employs him depends on other industries and technologies that all need competent people to run them; he may find himself redundant, in need of training in a new skill; a public education fund can bail him out. And those underwater baskets may one day save his life by fishing out the plastic he'll otherwise choke on.
Totally agreeunfettered capitalism would be a disaster for all but the few.
Quoting Ludwig V
As do I. I am no fan of Churchill, but I tend to agree with the statement (probably falsely attributed to him and loosely paraphrased) "Democratic capitalism is the worst of all possible systems, apart from all the others".
Quoting Ludwig V
Those who do, or us, or perhaps no one, I guess.
We have no disagreement then. People should pay off their own loans that they knowingly agreed to pay.
Quoting Ludwig V
That's exactly the point. Welders don't have student loans. If you want to have a program where everyone who graduates from high school gets a couple hundred thousand in cash, to go to college or start a welding business, then let Congress pass such a law.
Quoting Ludwig V
If state support is a social good, let Congress pass a law. There is no law authorizing Biden to "forgive," always in quotes, student loans, and pass the costs onto the taxpayers without Congress having authorized such an expenditure.
If you think the government should fund college and trade school for everyone, that would be a reasonable question. But that's not the loan bailouts we're talking about here. This is a transfer of wealth to the students camping out on university lawns this week, coming from the workers who had to pick up the trash after the police raids. All the more reason the students at "elite" colleges should not have their debts paid by the working class.
Quoting Ludwig V
I don't disagree with anything you say. The question isn't the virtue of the liberal arts. The question is Biden's bailouts of college students at the expense of everyone else.
Quoting Ludwig V
Think about having the taxpayers assume the legal obligations of privileged university students? No, I don't think so. Forgive me, am I mistaken that we were talking about Biden's student loan bailouts as opposed to the general virtues of education? We're not having the same conversation any more.
Quoting Ludwig V
I haven't given these matters enough thought to converse sensibly about how post-secondary education should be paid for. I apologize if I've given that impression somehow. I have only been talking about Biden's transfer of billions in student debt to the taxpayers, most of whom didn't go to college. And this debt transfer, which is illegal by US law since only Congress can spend money, is happening not for any lofty goal of a more educated citizenry; but as a direct bribe to students to vote for Biden in an election year.
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes, a lot of positions have changed in the past couple of decades.
Quoting Ludwig V
I follow New York City news. It's a revolving door. It's actually a bad situation.
Churchill does quote it, but doesn't take credit for it. Also, there are various forms of it. See Quote Investigator.
Quoting fishfry
I thought I had already said that I don't have a problem with that. When I said that politics is a messy business, best not really be conducted in public, I was also accepting that it was a bribe to voters. All democracies do that - it's an inevitable outcome of the system. Non-democratic governments do it as well. Politicians have to keep their supporters sweet. I'm not even saying it is right, or all right, just that it always happens.
Quoting fishfry
Each country has its own system. In the UK, the "trades" like welding and pipefitting, do get government support - and this is a "right-wing" government. See Skills for careers. Some people regard this as a blatant subsidy for employers, who should be paying. But there are complications.
Higher-level professions depend on degree-level courses, and these get student loans. But these are repaid on a sliding scale, dependent on you income. (Effectively, it's an additional income tax). The Government assumes that 35% to 40% of the total will never be repaid. There's your forgiveness, but sanctioned by Parliament.
Re-training is more of a problem.
The working class should fund the education of the cognitive elite who will vastly out-earn them in their respective lifetimes? Did I understand you correctly?
Pretty good deal for the Eloi, but once in a while they get eaten by the Morlocks.
I believe Churchill also said that the greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. :-)
Quoting Ludwig V
Biden's bailout is particularly egregious, being flagrantly illegal in the first place.
Quoting Ludwig V
That's very interesting! I wouldn't mind government subsidies if they're fairly distributed among the college and non-college individuals.
Yes, he did say that. He was also right about that, as well.
People are making a mistake when they think that voters need to decide on specific measures. That way, madness lies. The classic reference for this is the expedition to Sicily by Athens in 415413 BCE. See Wikipedia - Sicilian Expedition. A better model is the Spartan one (which was a democracy, of sorts, despite rumours to the contrary); that is about consent, not decision. Which is the other point people don't seem to understand. The vote is, or should be, about legitimizing the regime, and all that requires is acquiescence, not decision. A majority vote with a choice is a way of palliating the opposition - much better than repressing it. But then, it does require that the opposition accepts defeat; when that breaks down, the system is in serious danger. (Trump!) The Government needs to secure approval of the election arrangements from the opposition - too many of them neglect that.
Quoting fishfry
H'm. It's true that there is government support for both groups, but many people feel that there is less support for sub-degree programmes and complain about that - with justification in my view. Others complain the employers should pay for these programmes, as the primary beneficiaries - and they do pay for, and are involved in the delivery of, many of them by providing work experience.
No, you obviously don't. A pipe-fitter can have intelligent children.
Quoting fishfry
Hardly; they're food source, life insurance and pension plan for your dear Morlocks.
The entire population (wherein the rich are taxed heavily, the working class lightly and the poor not at all) should fund the education of the society's young, so there is no predetermined high-earner class in the next generation.
I suspect a nation of welders would starve to death pretty fast. And a debt-driven society will inevitably collapse under the burden. Student loans - agreed to by unemployable youth who hope for a future, come at 5-15% interest. They won't earn enough to live on, let alone pay off $50, -100, 000 for years after they graduate, so the interest just keeps on accumulating. So the most ambitious and clever of them will vie for the lucrative corporate and money-shuffling jobs that do nothing for the population - because they can't afford to work in low-paid public service or helping professions.
That welder who'd rather see his taxes go toward militarizing the police is doing his family no favours.
Can. But most likely won't.
Why? Do pipes mess up adults' DNA?
IQ is highly inheritable under normal conditions. Profession correlates strongly with IQ. Therefore, in an unskewed sample of pipe-fitters, most of them will not have intelligent children.
Profession corresponds strongly to background, expectation, opportunity and the economy. Even the dumbest offspring of CEO's and department store magnates are aimed at university from their gold-plated cradle, through top-flight nursery school through tutors at prep school, and if that doesn't work, their parents can buy a test-stand-in or a department chair. Even the brightest offspring of dock-workers have a hard time getting through high school.
Quoting Lionino
In a capitalist system, there are no unskewed samples of anything.
Quoting Lionino
My father was a member of Plumbers & Pipe-fitters Local No. 5 for 35 years, though he spent most of that standing at a drafting table, cigarettes burning in three different ashtrays because every time he stopped to think he'd light a new one, then put it aside when he got back to it. He made beautiful drawings the men (and occasionally women) at the job site could actually use, full of thought.
I can string thoughts together pretty well. My brother, on the other hand ... Well, there's your sample.
You just made those up.
Quoting Vera Mont
It doesn't quite work like that.
The truth is that in a volatile society (pick your examples), environmental factors will be stronger. In a more equal and stable society, like the Scanvinavian countries before the refugee crisis, we see the true extent in which genetics plays a role. The same happens between sexes, where at MENA women often pick up engineering, while in more equal societies men pick up sciences and tech while women go for health and arts.
As we see from the graph, years of education is just as or less important than intelligence. If intelligence wasn't that important, we would see much higher variation in those less privileged occupations. But it isn't so, most fall under 95, the variation is small.
Such is the reality of genetic determinism, life sucks.
Actually it's Biden who engaged in election denialism this week when he gave the Presidential medal of freedom to Al Gore, in part for not disputing the 2000 election that he allegedly won. In truth, Gore did lose that election, and he also did dispute the hell out of it, all the way up to the Supreme court.
I'll bow out of this thread now. I engage in partisan politics on this forum on a very limited basis these days. I prefer not to take this bait any more than necessary. Appreciate the insightful chat about education policy.
A nation of farmers would live a lot longer than a nation of comparative literature majors, I'm sure you agree. The trades are "real work." Tradesmen built the college buildings, they operate the plumbing and the electricity and haul the trash. Without them, the lotus eaters would not be able to function at all. That's the parable of the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi forgot how to make or build or create or maintain. All that's done for them by the dirty, underground, loathsome Morlocks. A metaphor for the attitude of the elite towards the working class today. And that's why it's good to recall that the Morlocks eat the Eloi from time to time.
Quoting Vera Mont
The US is $35T in debt and still spending like a drunken sailor. Though as Ronald Reagan quipped, at least the drunken sailor is spending his own money.
Quoting Vera Mont
There's a reason the cost of school keeps going up: government guaranteed student loans. Under that system the schools have no incentive to keep costs down. The banks are willing to lend to people who will never pay them back, since the taxpayers backstop the loans. The result is massive inflation in college costs, far outpacing the inflation rate of other goods and services. And now the students don't have to pay the loans back at all, and the $35T-indebted taxpayers get loaded up with still more debt.
When this whole thing crashes everyone's going to go, "Oh how did we let it get this bad?" But till that day ... party on. Stick the grandkids with the bill. It's really a depraved thing, what the US is doing with its own economy, running up a tab it can never pay.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, and this is my point. Government-backed student loans that then don't even need to be paid are a moral hazard and a great distortion of the labor market. Better to give each high school graduate $100k and let them spend it in college or trade school or party it all away. It would be a better system than what we have now.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's not the welders who have militarized the police. That trend started when the big-name Democrats like Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Schumer, and Biden (as Senator) signed on to Bush's illegal wars. When the wars wound down, all that military hardware was given to local police departments. We then saw the MRAPs and other military hardware on the streets of the US during Occupy and later at Ferguson. It wasn't the welders. They don't set government policy.
Sure. But a society needs a variety of skills. And it needs to recognize the need for education, and the need for recognition of talent, in whatever class, whether they can play basketball or not, whether they can afford a huge debt-load or not.
Quoting fishfry
You're lecturing a communist about the working-class and elitism?
Quoting fishfry
On many of the wrong things, because they're bound by old obligations, treaties, contracts, attitudes and fears. Investing in youth is one of the right things it should be spending on.
Quoting fishfry
Don't they always? Then, for about 20 years, the ultra-rich keep their greed in check and their profile low. Then they start buying up politicians and smaller businesses and countries again.
Quoting fishfry
Of course it isn't. But that's where their taxes go anyway, because the people who have lots of property want it protected at public expense.
I don't believe I've said anything to lead you to believe I'm against education. I'm against Biden's illegal, election year transfer of lawful debts from the people who signed for them. to the taxpayers. Have I said anything more than that?
Quoting Vera Mont
You prefer Stalin? Or Mao? You endorse mass murder? Some of what you said sounded a bit elitist.
Quoting Vera Mont
If the US government wants to "invest in youth," as you call it, why doesn't Congress pass a law forgiving all student debt? They didn't do that. Biden has no actual authority to do it. The Supreme court has already ruled on his previous debt bailout.
I am not arguing about investment in education. I'm arguing against Biden's election year bailout of college students at the expense of the working class, whose interests you should in theory be defending.
If you are a communist, you should be agreeing with me about this! Right? Workers of the world unite, take on the debt burden of the people who will out-earn you by millions over their lives. That the story you're going with?
Quoting Vera Mont
ok
Quoting Vera Mont
You said the welders militarized the police. I pointed out that's not true.
You're quite anti-worker for a communist. Am I out of date on my understanding of communist ideology? Are today's communists all for the bourgoisie?
Only for people who can't afford it. Quoting fishfry
No i didn't. I said
Quoting Vera Mont
Don't tell me there isn't one single yahoo in the welder's union who wouldn't rather beef up the police than give some pansy a degree in social work. There is. And he's an idiot.
Quoting fishfry
No, I'm anti representing all working class people as thinking like you.
But I did not say that. I said that Congress should pass a law funding college costs if that's what they want. Biden's action is illegal. And as a self-described communist, I'm surprised to see you cheering on the transfer of billions of dollars in debt from the elite to the working class. You sure you're a commie? Or are all the commies elitists these days? That's what it seems like.
Quoting Vera Mont
"There you go again," as Reagan once said to Jimmy Carter. Trashing the welder. You don't think much of the working class? You sure you're a commie? I mean you say you are, but your words say otherwise.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yahoos. So either you're a commie with disdain for the working class, or else communism is now a faddish pastime of the elite. Which is exactly what it is these days, at least in the US.
Quoting Vera Mont
I couldn't actually parse that except that I must have done something bad.
I think you said quite a lot more than that.
Quoting fishfry
I'm not aware that the elite had been paying for student loans. Citation?
Did we discuss restructuring taxation at all? I have some views on capital gains, shell corporations, off-shore accounts and price-gauging that wouldn't affect most union members.
Quoting fishfry
Just that one. He probably beats his wife and votes for T***p, too.
Quoting fishfry
I don't think you've done anything at all.
Such as ...?
Quoting Vera Mont
Citation? Jeez I don't have to read you the daily newspapers, do I? The college students having their loans "forgiven" aka transferred to the working class that you apparently don't like very much, will out-earn the working class by millions of dollars over their lives.
I am really surprised to see a self-described communist want to burden the working class with the student debt of people who will vastly out-earn them. I wonder if you could address this point.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, I'm trying to keep it simple. Biden's illegal and quite regressive transfer of student debt from students to blue collar workers.
Quoting Vera Mont
With commies like you trying to saddle him with billions in debt, it's no surprise. You just explained Trump's popularity. The left's abandonment of the working class has a lot to do with it.
Quoting Vera Mont
LOL. Ok I guess we're done. Nice chatting with you. Hope you'll give some private thought to why you are defending the transfer of debt to the working class, whom the communists are supposed to have an affinity for. But that was 50 years ago, wasn't it. Now the left loves the deep state, loves the intel agencies, loves the wars, and hates the working class.
That's why the welder loves Trump. Because the Democratic party and apparently even the communists stopped caring long ago.
I understand. It's probably best not to comment any further.
Thanks, I hope that didn't come out too ... however it came out. J6 is a sore point on both sides of the issue. If I said anything at all I'd be inviting discussion so I'll just refrain. Anyway some of the discussion about education policy was outside my area of expertise and interest, so I haven't got much else to say here.
I have been known to take my bat home when I think that a discussion has become fruitless, even before it gets bad-tempered.
'Vastly' is a big word. By quick look-up, the average welder's pay is $22.55/hr, while the average primary school teacher's is $23.44/hr. The teacher starts working life with a $58,000 student loan; the welder gets certification for $475.
You keep saying it's the working class who will be 'burdened' by educating its children, so that they can still work when all the working-class jobs except home renovation and domestic service are automated out of existence. Why do you think poor people's kids shouldn't have a choice of careers?
As for transferring the tax burden from the elite to the working class - - - ? I guess it depends what newspaper you're reading.
You keep defending that one deluded man, and don't care how his co-workers struggle to give their children a chance in a fucked-up capitalist society.
I saw a pretty funny sign last night:
"Did anyone think to unplug America and plug it in again?"
The system's been cracking for a long time; all anyone can do, short of smashing it and starting over, is apply patches here and there.
Cherry picking teachers is misleading. A quick Google search on "how much to college graduates earn?" said that they make $50k their first year. "Average college graduate salary" yielded $67,786.
But still, you said you're a communist. Aren't communists supposed to be on the side of the workers? Why should the welder pay the teacher's debts, or anyone else's debts? Why shouldn't everyone pay their own debts? And again, if Congress wants to change that, let them pass a law. The president is not authorized to transfer billions of dollars of student debt to everyone BUT the people who agreed to pay that debt.
Quoting Vera Mont
Do you still beat your wife?
What kind of question is that? It has nothing to do with anything. You're just changing the subject. And arguing that the working class should assume the debts of the college grads. Some commie you are! You still haven't explained this to me.
I'm the one on the side of the workers. I'm a better commie than you are and I'm not even a commie. I used to be one, then I learned something about the world.
Quoting Vera Mont
The debt is not cancelled. It's transferred to the taxpayers. Can we at least be clear about that?
Quoting Vera Mont
Not a nickel of debt is cancelled. It's transferred to the taxpayers. I'll concede that you seem to have paid more attention to the details of the plan than I have.
If Congress wants to pass subsidies for the debt of low-income people, let him do that. But why stop at college debt? Why not transfer everyone's credit card and mortgage debt to the taxpayers as well? After all, isn't home ownership a social good?
Quoting Vera Mont
I read the ones that say Biden is cancelling some student debt. By definition, that excludes non-students, people who didn't go to college and didn't take out student loans. So the non-students pay (via taxes and inflation due to the additional borrowing required to pay off the banks) the legally contracted debt of the students.
What do your newspapers say?
Quoting Vera Mont
Is this a campaign ad?
Another Google quickie revealed that Biden's inflation has cost the average family $8,508 relative to before Biden took office. We could play this game all day. What do Biden's tax cuts have to do with his illegal student loan forgiveness?
Quoting Vera Mont
Sorry, what? What one deluded man am I defending? Whose co-workers? Fuck capitalism, down with the man, eat the rich, up the revolution!! Can you try to focus on the conversation?
Quoting Vera Mont
I'll grant you that Marx's predictions about late-stage capitalism seem to be coming true. We don't actually have much capitalism anymore, we have an oligarchy causing unsustainable inequality leading to a revolution or a cyber totalitarian nightmare. The system's broken. In fact the economy is only being held up by government borrowing and printing at this point. You and I may be in agreement on some things.
I can sign up to that. It all went wrong in the 1990's, when the West and capitalism indulged in triumphalism instead of recognizing the need to spread prosperity around the world. (WTO is supposed to help with this, but does not work - at least, not anything like enough.) They should have started with a Marshall Plan for Russia and then similar plans for all the other underdeveloped areas of the world. Very expensive, but cheaper than yet another world war.
I mention this because it is a case of the general problem posed for this thread and to have an excuse for promoting the argument for enlightened self-interest as a way of breaking through the reluctance of the wealthy to share their wealth (beyond charity, which they remain in control of).
Life certainly does suck. But I'm not at all sure that genetic determinism is the explanation and even less sure that IQ tests measure it. The most important point is that the validity of IQ tests is controversial and so is the very concept of intelligence or general cognitive ability.
For more details, see Wikipedia - Intelligence Quotient
It is not controversial at all. That IQ correlates to academic success and that human ancestry predicts average IQ are two of the most replicated findings of psychology.
Quoting Ludwig V
I will never read a book again before I have to use that website.
Quoting fishfry
Which is quite reasonable. Plumbers make about $60,000; a welder's average is $47,000. Still not vast, and they don't start out $50,000 in the hole.
If their graduate kids make a little more, they can buy their old parents a cruise of something.
Quoting fishfry
It's not been easy. But I learned some things.
Quoting fishfry
Student loaninterest forgiveness for low earners.
Only that no tax burden of the kind you've been ranting about is being placed on the working class.
Quoting fishfry
So long as the workers are being oppressed. Once social justice and balance are established, there are no sides and classes. Everybody shares the resources and contributes to the community. That means, every child has the opportunity to learn as much as he or she is able to and wants to, without penalties. A just society would have no such thing as student debts, or any other kind of debt-load that keeps growing, even while you're paying. A just society would outlaw compound interest and 90% of the other financial legerdemain on Wall street.
You're make a big show of defending the workers - represented by a skilled occupation, the holder of which probably considers himself middle class, anyway - while assuming that the working class is a static, unchangeable entity: nobody in, nobody out, beleaguered forever by white collar workers.
That's as gross a misrepresentation as that of NY crime and that of Biden's policies.
Quoting fishfry
That is the inevitable outcome, every cycle. Boom, growth, consolidation, wealth concentration, political corruption, bust, depression, protest, repression or revolution.
Other way 'round I think. Clinton and the neoliberals did spread prosperity around the world, at the expense of the manufacturing base of America. The 90's is when offshoring really took off. Don't get me wrong, I loves the Clinton economy. The 90s were great. Maybe the last great decade we ever had.
Quoting Ludwig V
Oh yes. After the fall of the Soviet Union we should have honored and made friends with the brave Russians who overthrew our great enemy. Instead, we just made Russia the new enemy and pushed NATO ever eastward after promising not to. Leading to the war in Ukraine. A neocon/neoliberal/CIA plot all the way. Exactly what they wanted. Now they're going to blow up the world.
In my opinion, getting Americans to hate the Soviet Union after they had saved our bacon in WWII; and then getting American to hate Russia after they'd thrown over the Soviet Union, is one of the greatest psy-ops in the history of the world. We hated the Soviets and now we hate the Russians, who overthrew the Soviets and just wanted to be friends. It's a terrible thing what's happened. 30 years in the making. Hollowing out the heartland at home and pressing NATO against Russia abroad. Russia asked to join NATO, we turned them down. They just wanted to be friends, but the neocons only want war.
Quoting Ludwig V
Share the wealth meaning what? Higher taxes for handouts to their politically connected friends? That's not working very well. Like the covid bailouts. $600 checks for the proles along with a humongous transfer of wealth from the middle to the upper classes. Shutting down mom and pop so Walmart can eat their lunch. Inflation destroying working stiffs.
Not sure I share your trust in the ability of our leaders to "spread the wealth around," as Obama put it. I don't see the Obamas spreading their copious wealth around, do you? "I got mine, Jack," is their mantra.
Quoting Vera Mont
Ok fine. You convinced me. Let's transfer the legally contracted debt of people who signed for it, to those who never took out that debt, never saw any of the money, and are busy working while the kids are partying it up in school.
So how about mortgage debt? Why don't we transfer all of the mortgage debt in the country to those rwho don't own property? That would be fair too, don't you think?
Also I maxed out my credit card on video games and luxury vacations. Would you please pay off my credit card debt? It's not fair that I can't pay my Visa bill this month. I need another vacation.
You know, I think I'll enjoy living under your rule. Everything free, paid for by someone else.
Quoting Vera Mont
Excellent point. Fred has no job or money. He's a low earner. But Fred loves lavish vacations, that's how he maxed out his credit card. By your logic, a frugal person who works and doesn't take vacations should pay off Fred's debt. Fred likes that plan a lot. The person who has to pay off Fred's debt, not so much.
Quoting Vera Mont
That's empty rhetoric. Everyone can claim to be oppressed, especially if being oppressed gets them nice benefits in your communist paradise.
Quoting Vera Mont
LOL. "Come the revolution ..." as we used to say when I was i school. But even then we meant it ironically, mocking those who really believed it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Are you being unintentionally funny?
Quoting Vera Mont
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Quoting Vera Mont
Don't hold your breath for human nature to change. That's the problem with communism. Humans.
Quoting Vera Mont
Right, crime in NY is only a matter of perception. As is Biden's economy. I bet you're a big Paul Krugman fan.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yup.
That's not happening and nobody's planning it.
Quoting fishfry
Well, at least he's not "vastly outearning" the hard-working people who will not have to take up the tax burden! Did he recently graduate from college, try to repay his student loan but didn't earn enough to cover the accumulated interest? In that case, he may be eligible for relief from some of the accumulated interest. On vacation, not.
Quoting fishfry
Does that mean I shouldn't be on the workers' side after all?
Quoting fishfry
That's what communism actually means - nothing to do with Stalin or Mao.
Quoting fishfry
Well, that's the problem with every ideal.
I'm not going to disagree with you. But I think regarding it as a plot in the standard sense is not the best way to think about it. I think it was the result of a consensus or "group think" - everybody agreed about the basics and so acted in concert without needing to deliberately plan or co-ordinate anything. Another factor that contributed was more complicated. The distinction between communists and Russians was blurred, that it was easy to continue the suspicion and hostility even when the ideological cause of it was removed. Russians were "othered" during the communist years and remained under suspicion even after communism fell.
Quoting fishfry
They did so in the wrong way. The banner of free trade was pinned to the eternal search by capital for cheap labour. The irony of it is that the recipient countries didn't benefit all that much. In general, much of the wealth went to a minority of people who formed a new capitalist class in the recipient countries. It was actually a continuation of colonialism in a slightly different format.
Quoting fishfry
They seem to lack a sense of bargaining and deal-making. If you regard it as a competition with winners and losers, you have missed the point. It is of the essence that you allow the other side to make its profit.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, "share their wealth" is a lazy way to put it. It already implies taking something away. But see last comment. But my point was not that I expected them to be overcome with generosity, more that it is not in the long-term interest of the wealthy (even of the moderately wealthy) to prevent others from becoming prosperous. It might mean somewhat lower profit margins, but it doesn't necessarily mean actually taking anything away that they already possess. Its like the argument that it doesn't pay to rip off your customers too much, because they won't come back if you do.
I must object to your phrasing. Nearly all work should be considered "real work". Every job that exists exists for a reason: modern society demands it. There is no reason to be classist, insulting people's occupations, because each performs a function considered necessary in some way. To think that tradesmen alone could recreate our civilization without academics or white-collar workers or even the creative types is absurd. Without further specialization of labor, they will only stumble upon new technology, not invent it. They will haphazardly pantomime, not coordinate. And without a culture to enjoy, how will they live?
An occupation's value to society is roughly related to its economic price, and the number of workers in that field. So while tradesmen are undoubtedly essential, they only make up a segment. I do agree that, based on this principle, there should be far fewer "comparative literature" majors, if that is the type of job they are seeking. However, there are far better ways to prove your point than demeaning ordinary people or idolizing one sect at another's expense.
Pimps and organ traffickers too?
That's exactly what's happening. Over $500 billion according to the Wharton School of Economics.
$559 billion transferred from student borrowers to the taxpayers.
How can you sit here and deny reality?
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/4/11/biden-student-loan-debt-relief
You deny the number? You think the debt will be paid by the debt fairy? What on earth can you mean by, "That's not happening and nobody's planning it?"
It IS happening. The Biden administration is planning it. You should get better newspapers.
Five hundred fifty nine billion dollars. That's $3387 for every one of the 164 million taxpayers in the US.
You deny it?
Student borrowers are taxpayers. The question is, which taxpayers are having to pay more? You say the working class; I say the high earners.
Would it be so very terrible if people making over $400,000 a year (many of whom are in the money-lending business) had to pay a little more so that the children of orderlies and fish-packers could get an education?
That's my point.
We hated the Soviets. The brave Russian people overthrew the wicked Soviets. Did we say, "Yay brave Russian people, let's be friend now." No! Instead we just got everyone to hate the Russians.
That's a psy-op. The eastward encroachment of NATO was started by Clinton and continued through Bush and Obama. In 2014 the CIA and the neocons in Obama's State dept overthrew the Russia-leaning government of Ukraine, and started shelling the Donbas region, killing some 14,000 ethnic Russians. That's how we got to where we are today.
Hence CIA/neocon/neolib psy-op.
But I hadn't been intending to discuss the situation in Ukraine, maybe that's a different thread.
Quoting Ludwig V
With you there. Serf's up! There's the new global elite, and there's the rest of us. Time for a revolution? Something's brewing. Much discontent in the air.
Quoting Ludwig V
There's an alternate history in which the world became a much more peaceful and prosperous place after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was one of the great missed opportunities of history. Remember the "peace dividend?" That never happened. The warmongers ate it.
Quoting Ludwig V
In the covid period, massive government spending went to the top tier of the economy, while main street got crushed. The $600 stimmy checks were all the middle class got. Was this massive transfer of wealth upward from the middle class to the elite just an accident? Or was it all a plan? A crisis that the big players didn't let go to waste.
Just looked it up. $50 trillion over the past several decades. That ain't pocket change.
[b]The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%And Thats Made the U.S. Less Secure
[/b]
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/
I would prefer if Congress would pass a law to have high income earners fund college costs. That at least would have the virtue of being legal.
Quoting Vera Mont
Ok, so if the tax rates are progressive enough, you say that would help the students and spare the middle class. I don't necessarily disagree. So let Congress pass a law. It's Congress that sets tax policy, not the president.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, that would be fine. So let Congress pass a law to that effect. We already have a steeply progressive income tax system. The wealthy already pay a lot more.
But no law allows Biden to transfer by fiat half a trillion dollars in debt from the students who signed for it, to the taxpayers -- wealthy or not -- who didn't.
Yes. I've seen some analysis of this. The media told us it was about supporting the workers, but it wasn't. It was about supporting the economy. Actually, there was a real problem about that. In lockdown without support, businesses would have gone bankrupt. A difficult problem. But the solution didn't have to be so skewed.
Quoting fishfry
Yes, I've seen the reports about that. It's much the same picture in the UK and I'm sure elsewhere.
It seems to me that there are three aspects to all this - each interacting with both the others. There's power - physical (The military and enforcement of the law) and social - conditional on social structures. There's psychology - mass and individual. There's ideology. The interactions are conditioned by two opposing tendencies - competition and co-operation.
Perhaps I'm writing the beginnings of another thread. How far it would be philosophical is a question.
Quoting finarfin
The ancient Romans had it right. Bread and circuses. People do not live by bread alone.
Quoting finarfin
Yes, the labour market is a market. But like many others, it isn't a free market - meaning a willing buyer and a willing seller - meaning that both sides can walk away without a deal. Work is like fresh food - it can't be stored when it isn't needed. Roughly, if work means food and shelter, everyone needs work to-day for to-day. The other is social expectations. You don't find out the economic value of dust-
men until they aren't working. Then, all sorts of nasty stuff hits the fan. Dustmen and doctors are both essential to health - and how do you put a price on that? The actual differential between the two is heavily influenced by social expectations.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's good to speak up for those who don't have a voice. But it is better if those who don't have a voice can have their own. But somehow, the system needs a balancing factor - a referee or arbiter, who is neutral. That's a valid position as well. Workers can be greedy, competitive, and self-interested just as much as capitalists - indeed, arguably, capitalism expects that.
Yes, it doesn't have to be a good or legal reason. Excluding certain outliers, the overwhelming majority of jobs are necessary to support our current society, which reflects what we value.
I agree, and I wasn't clear enough with my wording. I think those are examples of the outliers which don't illustrate society's values as a whole. However, they still exist and must be accounted for, which proves that society and individuals aren't perfect. The fact that there remains demand for the work of organ traffickers shows that some value survival or profit over ethics and others. While it's an extreme example, many other examples are more common and more accepted.
Well, who wouldn't? But Congress and Senate are protecting high earners - perhaps because they themselves are high earners?
So you'll probably get your wish: no matter how poor they are, educated people will be crippled with debt before they even get started.
In the UK, the student loan repayment scheme was predicated on the "graduate premium" - that is, the idea that students would earn more money with the degree than they would have done without it. That's what was supposed to fund the repayments. At the time (in the nineties) this idea had something to be said for it - though it was always clear that some students, for whatever reason, would not earn much, if any, premium. Now, graduates are expected to repay their student loans, and a mortgage and repayments for car, white goods, furniture and fittings and save for their pension, and the student premium has largely disappeared (partly because of the increase in the supply of graduates.) The company store seems almost benign by comparison.
Yeah, expectation, economic forecast...
When i was in high school, guidance counsellors were steering anyone with decent grades in math into engineering degree courses - about six years before the engineering jobs were all filled. When my kids were in high school, computing was the most promising career - about six years before programming jobs were outsourced to India and dropped to minimum wage.
Yes. I've heard stories. I was very lucky to be able to work for the same institution for forty years. But I managed that by turning my hand to whatever the institution needed. Few philosophers have taught as wide a range of philosophy as I have and I always had administration on my work programme as well. The best career advice is probably flexibility - even if you have a specialism. But that's wise after the event.
better for young people to find apprenticeships in home improvement and retrofitting trades or munitions factories. But, of course, by the time the 16-year-olds of today get there, all those slots will be filled, and all the minimum wage service jobs will be automated.
Point being that Biden's debt "forgiveness" is illegal.
Quoting Vera Mont
My wish? My wish is for the president to follow the law. Well that hasn't happened since before the Nixon administration, and maybe not ever. Presidents are notorious law breakers.
I don't wish for poor kids to be deprived of an education. Why do you keep saying I do?
You're the one who (in another thread) wants to abort the poor. That would solve the problem of funding their college aspirations. You said it, I didn't.
But you know, the government has caused the cost of higher education to grow much faster than inflation in general. First you have the government guarantee student loans. Next, banks freely lend money to students whose majors show that they'll never be able to pay back the loans. The banks don't care because the government (ie the taxpayers) backstop the loans. Then colleges have no reason to control costs, because the schools are getting paid by the banks, backstopped by the taxpayers.
That's why higher education costs are out of control. In fact if we abolished government guarantees of student loans, the banks would be more careful with who they lend money to, and the schools would work harder to control costs, and college would be more affordable.
It's another problem caused by the government claiming to address the problem.
Only because you seem to be so vehemently against letting them off some of the accumulated compound interest on their student loans.
And maybe because you seem hell-bent on putting an unfair burden of putative working class taxpayers.
And thirdly, because you pretend that government is responsible for everything it cannot possibly control.
And lastly, because you appear to have a peculiarly skewed view of the working class, even as you advocate for its supposed interest.
I would not say vehemently, it's not a core concern of mine. But these are legal loans that students signed for. But the one doesn't follow from the other. I can be opposed to Biden's illegal bailout without saying I want the poor kids to go back into the coal mines and be grateful for their bowl of gruel.
You, on the other hand, would prefer to have aborted them long ago, solving the problem that way. Why not just kill them now?
Quoting Vera Mont
Excuse me? I'm trying to spare the taxpayers. You keep misrepresenting (aka lying about) my positions.
Quoting Vera Mont
Example please? I don't know what you are referring to.
Quoting Vera Mont
Not wanting the tax burden of irresponsible college kids dump on their heads is having a "particularly skewed view" of them?
You just made four lies about my positions. I think you must not have an argument.
Capital, the fetishistic worship thereof.
Quoting frank
I would not agree that money is power. Knowledge is power as it actually helps the universe. Money is a tool that can be used to create knowledge and so there is a correlation at least.
Of all the knowledge in the world, there is none more important than existential knowledge, as it is the reason we are alive in the first place. Any fundamental, intellectual field, such as math, science, etc., are mere attempts at understanding existence at a rudimentary level.
Money by itself is entirely worthless, whereas knowledge in and of itself is infinitely powerful.
If someone wanted to, they could use their knowledge to gain money, just remember where the power came from. :snicker:
How does knowledge gained by a teeny, weeny life-form on a teeny, weeny planet near the rim of an insignificant galaxy help the universe. Helps it to do what, that it could not do otherwise?
What constitutes power depends on the context of the power under consideration. There are many kinds of power. The possessor of knowledge may wield power in one realm, while the possessor of money wields power in another realm and the possessor of his fellow men's trust wields it in yet another.
Some kinds of knowledge can facilitate the acquisition of money, but inherited, stolen or otherwise unearned wealth supplies its owner with more freedom to wield power than someone has who must apply himself to wealth accumulation.
Of course money has no intrinsic value; it is assigned value arbitrarily by the social system that generates and uses it. Knowledge is assigned value according to what is known and who knows it.
I don't see the universe requiring either to function.
True, I just meant that money is power during our time. In a feudal society, military prowess was power. Knowledge can be power in a theocracy or where statesmen rule. The character of the society dictates where the power-hungry put their energy.
This was in response to your saying, "And thirdly, because you pretend that government is responsible for everything it cannot possibly control."
You lost me on the fetish bit. Anyway all I said originally was that Biden's cynical election year loan "forgiveness" is
a) illegal, which is not only my position, but that of the Supreme court; and
b) transfers over five hundred billion dollars of debt to the taxpayers.
I stand by both those assertions.
No, you said that debt was transferred to working-class taxpayers, which is not the case.
Quoting fishfry
I can live with that.
You lost me on the fetish bit.
fishfry
Quoting Vera Mont
I think we're at the end here. Nice chatting with you.
Oh I see, this is to do with social dynamics rather than any underlying force. You truly meant that money is "power" in its most industrial sense of the word.
For me, the abstraction of the word "power" is resident to the domain of scholarship.
I am sorry, but I simply cannot find a single thing in this monologue which is relevant. :snicker:
Take care though.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. I'll try to be more clear next time.
:snicker: