User Tag List

First 8910

Results 91 to 93 of 93

  1. #91
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I think it's worth at least considering. One of the authors claims he stumbled onto the correlations as an epidemiologist... and the level of correlation is pretty striking. I admit I'm not qualified to review the original sources and see if the way sources were aggregated is warranted and fair.
    Is there a specific thesis statement or a theme that succinctly represents their ideas concerning inequality?



    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    It's equally easy to argument that the government should do nothing, because the market is always better. To do so is to ignore the way the free market acts without restraint.
    I am not arguing that the government should do nothing, market-oriented theorists from Adam Smith to Henry Hazlitt insisted that the government plays a role in preserving a free economy. The challenging here is ensuring that the government acts with parsimony or only does what is necessary to preserve economic freedom.


    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    Still, you seem to think that the government is always uniquely responsible for creating the imbalance in power, where I see government part of a cycle that can create imbalance over time. There must be anti-monopolistic forces, or monopolies arise. There must be taxation that prevents passing wealth between generations without cost (at least in periods without high growth) or wealthy dynasties arise. As long the the rich get better returns on investment than the poor (with what little they have to invest), the rich get richer. When wealth leads to outsize influence, corruption and distortion seem inevitable.
    The government is merely a resource the elites exploit to rig the game in their favor, a feat that would have been more difficult to accomplish in the absence of superfluous government programs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seymour View Post
    I'm not sure how to prevent the elites from unduly influencing government without laws to the contrary. Would you have a constitution limiting the role of government, or have laws that limit the influence of money in politics? It seems like we've had some in the US, but they've been effectively neutered over the last 20 years. I think that only exacerbates the problem of outsized influence of monied interests. I'd advocate for laws that limit lobbying, campaign contributions, super-PACS, etc. What would you advocate for?
    While these laws may be helpful, it is only a matter of time before the tycoons manage to circumvent them to reignite the incestuous relationship between the public and private sectors. The long-term solution should have a parsimonious government at its core where the regulatory organs of the government are large enough to be effective, but not large enough to be easily controlled by special interest groups.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #92
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Yes. But there is nothing "confused" about it.
    People have always known exactly what extreme right is. The phenomenon exists and existed on both sides of the Atlantic.
    There is something confused about it, because people dont understand the "extreme" part is what is negative and not the "right" part. People dont think that extremists cant be left or center, which they can. Thats how you used thee term too; "extreme right" meant the oppsoite of the left. Hence, my attempt at dismabiguation of the term.

  3. #93
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    There is something confused about it, because people dont understand the "extreme" part is what is negative and not the "right" part. People dont think that extremists cant be left or center, which they can. Thats how you used thee term too; "extreme right" meant the oppsoite of the left. Hence, my attempt at dismabiguation of the term.
    Negative.
    I don't know where you come from. We have had both kinds in this part of the world. Indeed, in all of Europe. They haven't had much extreme left in America, because traditionally the left has been persecuted in America, while the extreme right, especially in the South, has gone scott-free.

    I admit there is an implicit negativeness in both left and right. Extreme right is not the opposite of the left per se, even in my book.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-12-2016, 08:58 PM
  2. Ignorance must be brought to the light. It must be eradicated.
    By iNtrovert in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-19-2014, 03:06 PM
  3. [NT] I must be crazy.
    By Haphazard in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 09:16 PM
  4. I'm this, so you must be this
    By tovlo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO