Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Others trot out warnings that many businesses fail (though Lookie is right--often they just move on to other projects), as if this is inherent to business, without even considering the reality that a lot of people march into businesses with very crappy plans and practices. They don't have to do it that way.
So why the insistence on disputing what so many people are demonstrating in their daily lives, from the plumber down the street to the dairy farmer with 1000 head to the private consultant to the web page entrepreneur?
* you're apparently desperate to shoot down anything that challenges your comfortable excuses so that you can remain in your comfort zone
* your ego cannot embrace the possibility that perhaps you weren't entirely correct.
It's not that way at all, and in fact, much of the situation you've outlined and the arguments you've made are essentially correct.
But the reality of the situation still is as it is. Regardless of how people get into the traps and pitfalls, whether it's due to their own choices or the choices made by others, that's the situation that society is facing.
But to say "they should make better choices" and leave it at that...that's not a solution, that's a justification. All you're really doing is justifying your own position by saying "others can do it too," so that if they don't do it, it means they won't do it, so your position is justified, and that's the end of the argument in your eyes. All in a nice little package which sounds quite logical and reasonable from a certain perspective.
Trouble is, life doesn't exist in nice little packages. I'm not saying that your view is "wrong," but I think it's too selective and insulated. You're only looking at a few trees and not the entire forest.
quote:
Unfortunately, those two factors make learning impossible for you in any meaningful way. All you can do is continually recreate your current situation.
And then the continual silly assumption that anyone able to create business must be a right wing big-party Republican.
I wouldn't say that, although I think you've said it yourself on more than one occasion when you've mentioned that "Obama is Bush Lite." By the same token, I would say that Clinton was Reagan Lite. The Democratic Party stopped being the "party of the working man" decades ago (if even they ever were).
quote:
Not that it matters for the economic discussion, but I'm a progressive hawk on social issues. I'm for far greater regulation of Wall St. I believe the future of our security and well-being rests with addressing global problems successfully, that difficult as this is, it's essential. I believe Reagan was a douche for not stamping out diseases we had on the run simply because he wanted to save a few bucks in third world counties. And I know that poverty in those countries is far more complicated than sending aid--not that I'm against that, I'm not, but that the political and social realities there severely complicate matters. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be involved -- means it will take more complex solutions. And we have solutions that are working -- ones posters here have ridiculed, but not refuted. Ones that get entire communities on their feet again.
The problems we face on a global level are long-term. To some extent, a large part of the problem that I've observed whenever there are discussions of economics is that there is far too much ideological adherence without much attention paid to the practical reality of what's actually going on. There have been those who equate support for laissez-faire economics with American patriotism, thus introducing an emotional component into the argument which is unnecessary, irrelevant, and rather cheap and convenient.
It also convolutes the argument when support for a free-market global economic system is tied in with US patriotism which also entails support of US interventionist activities around the same globe we claim we want to cooperate and do business with. It's two-faced and hypocritical, and much of the rest of the world can clearly see this, as well as many of us within America. This kind of shit has to stop.
I have mixed feelings on the idea of "foreign aid," depending on where it goes, who distributes it, and how much they end up keeping for themselves.
The thing about the "global economy" is this, at least when looking at it from a more historical perspective. As a long-term consequence of colonialism, imperialism, world wars, and a Cold War, large portions of the world were left in a total mess, not just in terms of the physical/economic damage, but also the psychological damage and the legacy of "bad blood" that still exists.
quote:
I'm an environmental protection hawk. I'm for corporate taxes, and progressive income tax structures. I'm for tighter regulation of lending policies. I think what used to be called usury is now called banking. I'm for prosecution of financial criminals. I think social programs are essential.
On the other hand, I advocate free trade, and believe the solutions to world economy issues need to embrace world solutions, not nationalistic protectionism, which would do incredible damage to the economy at all economic levels.
And that "trickle-down" is the biggest bullshit ever spoken.
You want to live in a world with no options, fine. But closing your eyes doesn't make them vanish. It just means you've cut off your access to them.
Yup, they aren't always rosy options. But it's where to start.
And yes, I see the attitudes portrayed here as pretty defeatist -- by definition, in fact.
Well, of course, there are always options. "Defeatist" is simply a point of view. If I propose options which you oppose, then I could just as easily call you "defeatist." But the thing is, it's not a question of your solutions being "wrong," but it's more a matter of whether you're correctly identifying the problem at hand.
quote:
So enjoy -- go off on another tangent. Figure out another way people who have found solutions are clueless about reality. Build another wall around your cave.
Or, as some posters do, create another story about how bloodshed in the streets is going to resolve this.
Well, if human history is anything to go by, that's how a lot of issues have been resolved. I wish it wasn't that way, and by all rights, it really shouldn't be that way. But we live in a country which has built up a great deal of wealth that way. That's not liberal/leftist prattle, that's just the facts as they are. That's the reality. Sure, we can insulate ourselves, grab a chunk of change and live a comfortable retirement in a gated community with a small army of security guards to keep us safe. Many also believe in keeping their own arsenal of weapons, just in case. What do you think they're afraid of? What are they expecting?
quote:
Granted, the current macroeconomic model is outdated and unsustainable. Already, new ways are sprouting. But solutions need to be grounded in reality--not attitude.
On a global scale, I think we need to be careful about how we carry our attitude and our ideology. I don't think we should get too reckless. The world is too diplomatically and geopolitically conflicted to have a truly organized and law-abiding "global economy" at this point. Domestic politics are also a bit conflicted, rooted in ideological differences. That's nothing new, but those differences and divisions may be outdated as well. Some people still seem stuck in "Cold War" mode.
|
RE: Why are so few people wealthy? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread