Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
An interesting conversation.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="curiousbrain" data-source="post: 827151" data-attributes="member: 31608"><p>I am not quite as cynical (or, a harsh critic might say I'm not as realistic) as that, although I do concur that there is quite a bit of planning going on during federal budget planning - in particular, I find the subsidies to be particularly distasteful. Now, maybe I just don't know enough about some archaic or erudite rule of capitalism, but subsidies seem decidely uncapitalist (especially to large, well-established organizations). Given enough time plus the (continued) ignorance of the people en masse, there is a possibility we arrive at a purely statist model, where large firms are essentially put on life support by the federal government and become "zombie" actors.</p><p></p><p>Although, my mind does entertain the reverse possibility, as well - that the government can no longer function effectively without the backing of these large, well-established firms, and thus becomes an appendage of private enterprise. That seems just as plausible.</p><p></p><p>A further possibility - which seems somewhat more likely given the dynamic nature of things, and one which may have been alluded to somewhere else on this board - is a synergy of the two.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That has always struck as fascinating, that there is a great divide in this country (at times) between conservative/liberal, and yet both parties are schills for cash. To put it more simply, do people honestly believe that the party machinery takes money without offering something in return, such as legislative favors? That is the height of ignorance, in my own humble opinion. Why would anyone, pure philanthropy and idealists aside, give money year after year and not expect anything in return? It'd be like paying your electric company, not getting any electricity, and keep paying month after month in the belief that "it will get here eventually."</p><p></p><p>Perhaps that is being a little too critical, but it is a bit of a sore spot.</p><p></p><p>To the UNH point, it strikes me that if health coverage is essentially mandated, that seems like good business. Here is the government telling 300 million people, "Go buy health insurance." If I sold health insurance, I'd be pretty jazzed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Far be it for me to speak for anyone except myself, and as such I would make a completely arbitrary distinction of two different meanings of public policy: the altruistic one, and the malicious one.</p><p></p><p>The altruistic one being real, actual, public policy: certain environmental programs (wetlands, as much as I hate dealing with those SOB's, is an alright idea in theory), non-partisan equality initiatives (equal rights for women, for example), so on and so forth. At the risk of being longwinded, I would admit that yes, some of these are promulgated by the government, but the core principles are respectable and not shrouded in malice.</p><p></p><p>The malicious one being what you described: a (dare I say, centralized) plan obscured from public view so as to make the true nature of it not readily apparent. An example of this might be our tax system, certain foreign policy plans, etc. Additionally, I think the dominance of the formulation of public policy via so called "think tanks" (AEI, CFR/Trilateral, etc) helps to bolster your point about this.</p><p></p><p>To your other point about both sides having correct points but continue to gnash their teeth at each other because of conditioning, I would tentatively agree; however, I would draw a distinction between the rank-and-file ignoramus' (perhaps myself included) and the folks at the top, whose job it is to herd the sheep. I really do believe that there are those who understand "the system", whose job it is to maintain the status quo, and they perform that duty willingly - in fact, I have a begruding amount of respect for a person who can so detach themselves.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Although dated, I quite enjoyed that. This is somewhat arbitrary and out of context, but the passage where he says the following struck me:</p><p></p><p>A less scrupulous individual might read that and say "See! The Man wants everyone to be poor." I don't believe this is what Mr. Blough was driving at, but again, it struck me for that reason.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Now <strong>that</strong> was thought provoking; I very much liked that, thanks for posting that. I did a little work in college that bordered on evolutionary computation (genetic algorithms, etc) - it always left me in a state of brain euphoria; constantly amazed me at what might be possible if I could just learn one "deeper" thing about it. Again, great video; might watch it again.</p><p></p><p>As to how it pertains to the topic at hand, I for one find it more mentally palatable and easier to support because the notion of "why things are the way they are" arising from previous systems and their interactions with each other is one I happen to believe in. And, as a previous point made in this thread (and I'm sure a plethora of other places, as well), the best of intentions in regards to intervention (in this case, a result of hunter-gatherer mentality) mixed with the political reality as it is today resulted in exactly the opposite of what was intended.</p><p></p><p>The whole thing was good, but the last five minutes were very poignant; those two need to go on This American Life for a full hour ...</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>I would take an initial stab at that question by putting forth the idea that if you can't fit it into a 140-byte SMS/text message, the average citizen these days will not want to hear it. We can discuss the finer points of education and how to fix it, but (to me) the issue is that the average person simply does not care (and by "care", I mean pressure the large news organizations to do reporting on this/these issues) and the content of the large networks reflect that.</p><p></p><p>At least, that's what I would offer; I would counterpoint myself by pointing out that perhaps there is an element of "subconscious trust" (does that mean ignorance? I don't know) in that the people at the top are smart enough to figure it out; I, as an average person, don't need to understand these complex issues because no one in power cares what I think anyway. That strikes me as a weak counterpoint, but it's what is off the top of my head.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="curiousbrain, post: 827151, member: 31608"] I am not quite as cynical (or, a harsh critic might say I'm not as realistic) as that, although I do concur that there is quite a bit of planning going on during federal budget planning - in particular, I find the subsidies to be particularly distasteful. Now, maybe I just don't know enough about some archaic or erudite rule of capitalism, but subsidies seem decidely uncapitalist (especially to large, well-established organizations). Given enough time plus the (continued) ignorance of the people en masse, there is a possibility we arrive at a purely statist model, where large firms are essentially put on life support by the federal government and become "zombie" actors. Although, my mind does entertain the reverse possibility, as well - that the government can no longer function effectively without the backing of these large, well-established firms, and thus becomes an appendage of private enterprise. That seems just as plausible. A further possibility - which seems somewhat more likely given the dynamic nature of things, and one which may have been alluded to somewhere else on this board - is a synergy of the two. That has always struck as fascinating, that there is a great divide in this country (at times) between conservative/liberal, and yet both parties are schills for cash. To put it more simply, do people honestly believe that the party machinery takes money without offering something in return, such as legislative favors? That is the height of ignorance, in my own humble opinion. Why would anyone, pure philanthropy and idealists aside, give money year after year and not expect anything in return? It'd be like paying your electric company, not getting any electricity, and keep paying month after month in the belief that "it will get here eventually." Perhaps that is being a little too critical, but it is a bit of a sore spot. To the UNH point, it strikes me that if health coverage is essentially mandated, that seems like good business. Here is the government telling 300 million people, "Go buy health insurance." If I sold health insurance, I'd be pretty jazzed. Far be it for me to speak for anyone except myself, and as such I would make a completely arbitrary distinction of two different meanings of public policy: the altruistic one, and the malicious one. The altruistic one being real, actual, public policy: certain environmental programs (wetlands, as much as I hate dealing with those SOB's, is an alright idea in theory), non-partisan equality initiatives (equal rights for women, for example), so on and so forth. At the risk of being longwinded, I would admit that yes, some of these are promulgated by the government, but the core principles are respectable and not shrouded in malice. The malicious one being what you described: a (dare I say, centralized) plan obscured from public view so as to make the true nature of it not readily apparent. An example of this might be our tax system, certain foreign policy plans, etc. Additionally, I think the dominance of the formulation of public policy via so called "think tanks" (AEI, CFR/Trilateral, etc) helps to bolster your point about this. To your other point about both sides having correct points but continue to gnash their teeth at each other because of conditioning, I would tentatively agree; however, I would draw a distinction between the rank-and-file ignoramus' (perhaps myself included) and the folks at the top, whose job it is to herd the sheep. I really do believe that there are those who understand "the system", whose job it is to maintain the status quo, and they perform that duty willingly - in fact, I have a begruding amount of respect for a person who can so detach themselves. Although dated, I quite enjoyed that. This is somewhat arbitrary and out of context, but the passage where he says the following struck me: A less scrupulous individual might read that and say "See! The Man wants everyone to be poor." I don't believe this is what Mr. Blough was driving at, but again, it struck me for that reason. Now [B]that[/B] was thought provoking; I very much liked that, thanks for posting that. I did a little work in college that bordered on evolutionary computation (genetic algorithms, etc) - it always left me in a state of brain euphoria; constantly amazed me at what might be possible if I could just learn one "deeper" thing about it. Again, great video; might watch it again. As to how it pertains to the topic at hand, I for one find it more mentally palatable and easier to support because the notion of "why things are the way they are" arising from previous systems and their interactions with each other is one I happen to believe in. And, as a previous point made in this thread (and I'm sure a plethora of other places, as well), the best of intentions in regards to intervention (in this case, a result of hunter-gatherer mentality) mixed with the political reality as it is today resulted in exactly the opposite of what was intended. The whole thing was good, but the last five minutes were very poignant; those two need to go on This American Life for a full hour ... I would take an initial stab at that question by putting forth the idea that if you can't fit it into a 140-byte SMS/text message, the average citizen these days will not want to hear it. We can discuss the finer points of education and how to fix it, but (to me) the issue is that the average person simply does not care (and by "care", I mean pressure the large news organizations to do reporting on this/these issues) and the content of the large networks reflect that. At least, that's what I would offer; I would counterpoint myself by pointing out that perhaps there is an element of "subconscious trust" (does that mean ignorance? I don't know) in that the people at the top are smart enough to figure it out; I, as an average person, don't need to understand these complex issues because no one in power cares what I think anyway. That strikes me as a weak counterpoint, but it's what is off the top of my head. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
An interesting conversation.
Top