Going to hang out with Frick and Frack today. Kind of excited to do that, Going to a baseball game with Paul on Sunday. Maybe gonna brew beer on Saturday. I sense a good weekend a coming.
Back on the eating less portion of the weight loss program. Gonna try for another thirty pounds by the time Thanksgiving rolls around.
I will turn the rostrum over to Mike. Good work needs a better venue that this, but I am still honored.
Michaels Post
Discussion - Stealing from the Poor
I feel that Michael is still hopeful that common sense and good faith will rise …..
First: My friend, let me say that if you are less optimistic than I, then your tank is completely empty, and may god help you.
Next: I honestly can’t see where we have opposing thoughts; maybe you will need to explain more.
I think you have two fine points, but it is important to consider that they are connected.
1) Oligopoly is invulnerable/permanent, and 2) people are too selfish and vulnerable to manipulation with regards to both consuming and propaganda. You made a third point too, but later on that.
Question: did the power and wealth of (1) not end up concentrated among those who best capitalized on (2)? In the case of capitalism, this would seem to be an honest description of the goal - from top to bottom. In this sense, capitalism hasn’t faltered. So (1) and (2) go together well and (2) is fostered.
Combining your two points gives: we the people, get what we deserve, when we sell ourselves out, which we probably won’t stop doing. I agree with this but note that it says “probably”. Even you left this thread of a possibility. I think that the bottom-line issue here is simply (one word - not “plastics”, but:) morals.
I cannot think of any way that an effort to make a profit can be helped by morals, never mind the typical effort to maximize profit. If companies do only what they are supposed to do, nobody should expect a moral result. Thus, failure to protect the environment or to help workers displaced by changes to the economic model, etc., should not be blamed on the powers of the oligopoly, they should be blamed on politicians who allow the powers to have any say in these matters at all.
It seems to me that the failure here is a failure to tax and regulate in a manner that factors in the moral requirements of the society that contains the economic machine. Obviously, the results being achieved via politics do not align with beliefs, even if they do align with human weaknesses/flaws.
Look at the output of the EPA over the past two years - it is truly Orwellian in that it has been 100% anti-environmental protection. Same goes for Dept of Interior with regards to protecting (vs unprotecting or selling off) public lands. Somehow, we must get politicians who are not beholden scoundrels - Bernie and a few others seem to be the only major league examples. Why so few?
This question points back to the uncomfortable fact that all these immoral but profitable acts do appear to reflect our morals. This is undoubtedly true to a significant degree, but I see two areas for hope - two besides the standard hope that enough people will not be complete douchebags.
The first is straightforward - that greedy people do not like to be ripped off by frauds. Maybe some big groups of little thieves will get together and kill off some big thieves.
The second area for hope is that the expression “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”, is true.
Let’s define a scoundrel as one who would put making a buck ahead of any moral consideration involving people, environment or anything else. A CEO is, appropriately, a scoundrel - by definition I say. These individuals are expected to be scoundrels and fired if they aren’t. The scoundrel nature of these professional businessmen scoundrels should and could be disabled as necessary by the powers within the political sphere.
The article is based on an observation - that every politician who would take from the business scoundrels to give to the destitute, or unemployed or mentally ill or sick or old, is being attacked by a scoundrel politician for being unpatriotic.
There are two avenues of attack being used by scoundrel politicians - the first is that socialism is un-American, and the second is that helping non-Americans, in any way, is un-patriotic - which is the issue covered in the article.
The second issue is interesting because, near as I can tell, all the politicians who want to help non-Americans, want to help poor Americans too - in fact, always more than their accusers.
Note that to work as intended, the anti-American accusation relies on the expectation/understanding that money for any new poor will come from the existing poor, rather than from scoundrels who have gained from the plight of the new poor and become wealthier.
See if you can find an example of a senator or representative or presidential candidate who seems to be fighting for causes that will help working people and poor people and old people, who is not being attacked for being unpatriotic/un-American. Look how many are said to hate America?
So, to conclude on the first two points, the other hope is that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. If so, there are no more refuges for the scoundrels to hide in.
Your third point is that the tax burden on the working class is “nothing new”. I think this is true in one sense, but not in another. I think that the perception of burden is nothing new, but from 1940 to 1964, for example, a worker might also have sympathized with a millionaire when the top tax rate was never below 90%. Now, the top rate is more than two thirds less, and just look at the damage done by handing moral decisions over to scoundrels. I get the sense that the scoundrels are sweating it a bit with regards to public opinion of their taxes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
