Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Invisible hand? I was not aware that one could "guide" the invisible hand being that it cannot even be seen. Am I wrong in thinking that the phrase was used as a metaphor to describe how the actions of the many--acting in their own self interest--benefit the group? Cutting taxes is a method, not the method. LBJ should have raised them to pay for Vietnam and George II should have done the same for Iraq. My grandchildren are already in economic thrall to the oriental savers and were I not ready for the journey across the Styx, I should be most upset. I malquoteWilly Sutton--tax the rich--that's where the money is (fill in your own definition for rich--a good one is anybody who has more than I do).
WAIT!These are laws. Environmental wackos and Al Gore do not make laws. Obviously the Congress and the various state legislatures had to pass these laws and the executive had to sign them. Is this not calledresponding to the will of the people--democracy? It is our system so long as we wish it to be. If you want to enthrone advocates of the Austrian school of economics and Adam Smith and constitute a governmentbased strictly on their principles, you are free to try.
Good economic policy = "The Invisible Hand"But if you're not going to go that route, then cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, and cut taxes some more and let the people keep more of their money so they can guide the invisible hand however they want.
Profits are necessary for corporations to exist and flourish. In pursuit of this goal do you know of caseswhere the Corporations enlisted the skills of Lobbyists to pressure politicians to adopt policies thatenhance profits to the detriment of the nation. Among many, I pick just one--the mining of coal bytearing off the tops of mountains and letting the water supply suffer. This is well documented and I wold prefer your comments rather than a discussion of the practice--is that possible?
Is the "pressuring" of lawmakers wrong? Aren't unions and any other special interests group responsible for the same? Why should politicians not be able to hold their ground in the face of a bit of pressure? No one said politics was always easy.As to the environmental aspect - so if it is detrimental to society, then Congress outlaws or restricts such practices which are detrimental to the health of those around them. But this is really one example of a particular type of corporate activity. Do you really want to use your broad brush to lay guilt on corporations because of the decisions of some individuals at the head of a corporation who make decisions like this?
It is possible that a politician may favor a Corporation because it does good--either for his constituents or the nation as a whole. However, at this time i cannot think of one that I could offer up without a loud laugh.
Wow - you cannot even cite Walmart as employing how many thousands, if not tens of thousands of people across the nation. Not to mention the value that Walmart provides to millions of low-income customers who find good deals at the store. A truly populist example of how capitalism provides for the masses. Notice how government could not accomplish what Walmart can.
I am of the view that Corporations pay no taxes--you pay them for them whenever you purchase their good or services--it is all built into the price. Do you disagree? It is also unfair to tar the Democrats with building up the bureaucracies. As I used to be in one I can tell you that Presidents from both sides enlarged them--it just was a matter of which ones were supplemented. I also recall that Ronnie and Bush I raised taxes to do so. Am I wrong?
So if Republicans did raise taxes, they were the worse for it. But you can't say that raising taxes by 1% in one area is the same as raising it 10% in multiple areas. Not saying the Dems necessarily did this, but Dems do raise taxes as a matter of policy and Republicans raise them as an exception to the rule. And we remember when they do it.[/quo I was in complete control of my faculties until you mentioned Walmart! As I have a weakened heart and take many pills prudence dictates that I withdraw from the list until my blood pressurereturns to normal. My dirty little secret is that I rail against the GREAT OMNIVOIRE yet, I doshop there from time to time much to my shame. I see by your comments that further discussion woukd, at this time, be futile and my WALMART admission places me in an awkward position.I shall now have some whiskey and seek solace in the fact that for the moment those of my ilk can close our eyes and hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth at the local Republican headquarters.
If Corporations had any other function than to maximize the return on investments for their stockholders,I would feel more comfortable. They do not. Officers of a corporation have a fiduciary responsibility and if they failto live up to their responsibilities, they can be prosecuted.There is no such law governing their social responsibilities. Many corporations contribute much to the community, but it is motivated by a desire to be seen as a good corporate system, rather than anaction prompted by altruism.Corporations, unions and many other groups contribute money to the politicians of their choice. It wouldbe foolish to expect that they would expend the funds to somebody in opposition to their views. Theproblem is that Corporate America has lots of money, is organized by industry--Tobacco, Drugs etc. andhas many legions of lobbyists pushing their agenda. They are the biggest and the best at this lobbybusiness and have used both attack dog and Fabian tactics in the struggle. This is not a political question as both parties do it with varying degrees of success depending on the issue. The lobbyists are really good at their job. They win a lot and dress quite well at parties.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what your problem with the situation is. Of course corporations want profits. If they did not, they would go out of business. And of course they want government policies which help them accomplish this. Where is there wrong in it?
In the back of my head I hear these words which, in light of contemporary events, makes me uneasy--"... government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.I suspect that this is in danger of being altered not to our benefit. How about you?
You're stating something without examining it closely. No one forces politicians to be in favor of corporations. Corporations themselves do not vote for candidates. The people vote for candidates. And we're also missing the flip side of the coin. Have you considered that the reason why politicians may be in favor of corporations because they realize that corporations are actually good? Yes, you heard me - they provide jobs for the masses (read: the "people") and also tax revenue that Democrats then get to use to on their "causes" and to build up their bureaucracies.
I am told that a Senator, once elected, spends a lot of his time raising money for the nest election-SIX YEARS in the future. I know it would be crass to suggest that money can "buy" a politician. but we cansay that certain Congressman and Senators are strongly inclined to vote in such a way so as to keep the funds flowing. This is not a partisan thing nor is it universal. It is however, in my opinion, the way things are usually done. Lobbyists are the cut-outs and the facilitators of this system. This is equally applicable in the house of the PEOPLE and our HOUSE OF LORDS--the Senate.It is possible that a politician may favor a Corporation because it does good--either for his constituents or the nation as a whole. However, at this time i cannot think of one that I could offer up without a loud laugh.I am of the view that Corporations pay no taxes--you pay them for them whenever you purchase their good or services--it is all built into the price. Do you disagree? It is also unfair to tar the Democrats with building up the bureaucracies. As I used to be in one I can tell you that Presidents from both sides enlarged them--it just was a matter of which ones were supplemented. I also recall that Ronnie and Bush I raised taxes to do so. Am I wrong?
WAIT!These are laws. Environmental wackos and Al Gore do not make laws. Obviously the Congress and the various state legislatures had to pass these laws and the executive had to sign them. Is this not calledresponding to the will of the people--democracy? It is our system so long as we wish it to be. If you want to enthrone advocates of the Austrian school of economics and Adam Smith and constitute a governmentbased strictly on their principles, you are free to try.
I got it! I know why the Chinese are doing so well. 1) They use slave labor (saves on the overhead).2) They have an enormous market (us lazy Americans and their own 1.2 billion people).3) They don't follow environmental laws that have been foisted on the rest of the developed world.4) They aren't embroiled in foreign wars all over the globe.5) They are milking Hong Kong and Macao for all their worth.Do you imagine our Corporations envy them. They certainly benefit as so much of what used to be made here is no made elsewhere. Do Corporations have a loyalty to the country in which they are "persons" or just an obligation to their stockholders?Loved your use of the word "foisted" Are these not laws here in the USA--passed by our legislatures?If so, who "foisted"?
The Chinese system is simple. It is a one-party democracy. It doesn't get any fairer than that does it?The Chinese criticizing our system is kind of like Hitler criticizing Britain over their asylum system isn't it? Or as my mom would say, that is "the Pot calling the Kettle black."Report to moderator LoggedAgree with all--except that it is not even a one part democracy--perhaps a gerentocracy, an oligarcy or an aristocracy with the word best defined as an inner party member a la Orwell.Loved the part about your Mom--she must have gone to school with mine. We have no kettles in our house.
We can respond by saying that it is not necessarily true. In the end, the voters must vote candidates in to office. Yes, wealthier candidates can get their messages out better. But the message still has to resound with the voters. Besides, what are corporations made up of essentially but groups of shareholders who want to see their investments prosper? So if these groups of people want to help Candidate A win over Candidate B, how is it any different from Union A or Special Interest Group B giving money to Candidate A to win?Actually wealth people can buy the office. Want to be Mayor of New York?If Corporations had any other function than to maximize the return on investments for their stockholders,I would feel more comfortable. They do not. Officers of a corporation have a fiduciary responsibility and if they failto live up to their responsibilities, they can be prosecuted.There is no such law governing their social responsibilities. Many corporations contribute much to the community, but it is motivated by a desire to be seen as a good corporate system, rather than anaction prompted by altruism.Corporations, unions and many other groups contribute money to the politicians of their choice. It wouldbe foolish to expect that they would expend the funds to somebody in opposition to their views. Theproblem is that Corporate America has lots of money, is organized by industry--Tobacco, Drugs etc. andhas many legions of lobbyists pushing their agenda. They are the biggest and the best at this lobbybusiness and have used both attack dog and Fabian tactics in the struggle. This is not a political question as both parties do it with varying degrees of success depending on the issue. The lobbyists are really good at their job. They win a lot and dress quite well at parties.In the back of my head I hear these words which, in light of contemporary events, makes me uneasy--"... government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.I suspect that this is in danger of being altered not to our benefit. How about you?
Even if what Mr. Li says is true (and I don't deny some of it is true), the real reason why his country cannot adopt our approach is because it allows for more than one "influence" other than the state party. But sooner or later, China will have to adopt some form of our model because they have already embraced capitalism (yes a watered down version) that will only grow to resemble our own eventually because greed will never be completely factored out of the equation.I am at a loss to explain just what the Chinese system is. We were all taught that democracy and freemarkets, regulated, but not dominated by the government, was the magic recipe for a robust economic system and a healthy working democracy. They apparently have another recipe and it seems to be working for them.I do agree that this is temporary. At some point the Chinese government will have to grant a voice tothe governed if for no other reason than to preserve the edifice. History is replete with examples ofwhat happens when totalitarian governments fail to do this or do it too slowly.I must constantly remind myself that when we talk of China, we are referring to a culture that was mature when Socrates was a pup. The Chinese, whether they be mandarins , warlords or pseudoCommunists have been around a very long time. They can smile at our frustrations and tell us that thevexing problems they experienced in the 19th and 20th centuries were merely a blip on time's radar screen. Relatives of mine who have lived in Asia for years have a simple phrase that I believe is worth quoting:"If you think you understand the Chinese, you do not.It will be an interesting future.
I agree willy, my best profs were that type. One would spend about an hour (before class) drawing detailed diagrams of the geologic formations and such that were the subject of the lesson... during class he referred to them in an offhand way and explained what they meant... fleshing out the things that had made us curious. A marvel... I spent years trying to be a weak approximation of that level that level.Most of the crits I got were that I didn't use cooperative learning techniques (good students work in groups with kids less able and help them to learn... teacher being facilitator) which was flavor of the month for a time. Flaw was the good kids did all the work and the others rode their wake. Not very productive but as such a good demo of how communism works.As far as keeping the students awake by not being boring: many have a short attention span and very little cultural literacy; I needed out because there were fewer each year that understood the jokes. Ah--the jokes, the analogies--wonderful stuff--but as you say--fewer got them each year.Also:I exempt films (I am being pretentious here as I discern a difference between films and movies--an elitist position) I always showed them when possible: Some of the biggest hits:Clockwork OrangeQuest for FireThe Last ValleyThe DevilsAll Quiet on the Western FrontThe Battleship PotempkinGorky ParkRedsMatewanNorma RaePlatoonHamburger HillComing HomeWall StreetPattonA Bridge to FarGettysburgLawrence of ArabiaBridge on the River KwaiThe SearchersTo Kill a MockingbirdEast of EdenBonnie and ClydePaths of GloryDr. StrangeloveGunga DinGhandiRob RoyRevolutionThe InformerA Day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch1984Barry LyndonOnce upon a Time in AmericaThese are just a few that I used to use--I cannot think of the others now as it is late and the sandmanhas visited. They key seemed to be the film and then the discussion--wonderful teaching and hopefully adequate learning took place.Buona Notte
I can understand students needing to be kept awake with a presentational style that is not boring. Visual aides are okay to a certain extent, but over reliance upon them is the sign of an instructor who is either lazy or ill prepared. The best lecturers are those who are naturally charismatic and eloquent, but also very knowledgeable in their field. Knowing your stuff makes extemporaneous lectures much more possible and even fluid. It also allows for more interaction with the students since one doesn't have to remain on a rigid script to get through the day.The BEST instructors and professors I had in school used a combination of a lecture sans visual aides or notes--often they strutted in front of the class just doing it off the top of their heads--astonishing to see--better to experience. They combined this with the Socratic method--which--at times--could be humbling. It was not always easy to keep up and participate and one tended to work up a sweatat times, but it was real historical adventuring of the highest order.In graduate school I had the opportunity to do three courses in tutorials--myself and one professor. The G.I. bill paid for the experience. As you no doubt know this is the method used at Oxford and other schools. You met with the professor once a week, turned in an essay you had been given to write and spent the rest of the 3 hour session chatting about the subject matter. Again--the Socratic method or if you are into black jazz--sort of a call and response with the professor calling the tune. This too was awonderful method of learning and I was most fortunate to have had the G.I. bill to provide me with theopportunity. No visual aides were used
Quote from: Phidippides on Yesterday at 09:36:03 PMIt devolves into this:QuoteInspired by popular video games like World of Warcraft, an Indiana University professor is applying game design principles such as clear, well-defined goals and gradual, incremental rewards to his college classes. A hit with students, the approach has some employers showing interest, too.University class swaps grades for experience pointsUgh! Is this what we've come to?Apparently. A friend of mine who still teachers tells me that over the past 35 years he has gone fromteacher to instructor to lecturer to professor to entertainer and not by choice!I concur having been present at the birth of the POWER POINT PRESENTATION. It used to be that theinstructor stood at the front of the class imparting information through his voice and body language.Sometime in the 80's ( a wretched decade) we began to see the erosion of this method and theemergence of the power point presentation. Now the imparter of knowledge stood at the back of the class--a disembodied voice and the center of attention was the screen, splendid in its myriad colors,thrilling the audience with pie charts, graphs, witty epigrams and cartoons. The class was beinginformed and entertained. At first the novelty was amusing, but then the horrid realization set in--this was the future and perhaps a necessary future. We no longer had the patience to sit through a lectureor we no longer had lecturers of sufficient skill to do it without mechanical visual aides. In order to getthrough the thickening skull and into the shrinking brain matter all senses had to be assaulted--thus theterm audio-visual where power point was the latest and best example. By the time I retired allmanagers and supervisors had been trained in the use of the power point process which many liked asit was all scripted and required no thought in presentation. My point is that we now have a generationthat expects learning to be entertaining and perhaps even fun. How this is possible in organic chemistry, mastering a language or literary criticism has yet to be explained to me. If the biologists are correct, and I believe they are, we are descended from apes who love novelty, color and diversion .We betray our origins, but seem to be declining rather than advancing. Would Darwin object if we said that evolution can descend as well as ascend? Perhaps the future fit who survive will find power pointskills to be of some advantage for survival although I am at a loss to suggest just what these might be.History only:A final note. Why not just scrap the schools and the instructors and just show movies of historical periods. You would have a happier student body (most), save money as the same films could be run year after year and the History professors could be assigned useful work. The fact that the films are historically inaccurate is of little consequence--so were many of the lectures. Orwell said it best:IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Wally: Ignoring the Germans was a political/economic/vengeful act. They come from the same stock we do, share the same religions and worship the same cultural gods. Asiatics, in 1919, were stillconsidered inferior--little brown and yellow brothers--heathens and a "yellow" horde. It was not until Hitler made them honorary Aryrans that the scales became tipped a bit. If I recall uncle Ho was a dishwasher in a cafe in Paris. Who would pay him any mind? I'll bet he did not even own a morning suit and top hat.
Wally:As I recall we had a chance to deal with Uncle Ho in 1919 and again in 1945. In both cases we chose the French--in the first case they were white and in the second less communist (sic) than uncle Ho. I agreethat we may well have backed the wrong horse as history has demonstrated that we have a good record of dealing with pseudo-communist or totalitarian leaders on many continents
That is what I am trying to say. Ambiguity begats confusion. The terms Liberal and Conservative are useful in some discussions, but in others they are completely useless. They have been warped, bent and shattered to the extent that an extended rational discussion using the is nigh on to impossible. They are merely imperfect words we cling to because we lack others to describe our confused and disparate beliefs. Fear not. Regardless of what our beliefs are, we will never exchange labels. The proprieties must be observed and I do want to continue to be invited to holiday dinners.
