Assuming some of us share this feeling,
When did things go to pot and why?
I'll avoid the obvious Jan 2016 and instead go for 1990.
My reasoning, sorting through a pile of old gig tickets, I was struck by that year concerts seemed to start costing more than a tenner!
:gasp:
Before in the 80s gigs were cheap, for instance Rush for little more than five.
So what's you're preferred watershed?
Maybe parents shouldn't reply in this thread. :D
2011 was the first time I experimented true financial hardship in all my life, so on a personal level it's definitely that.
September 2001.
1963.
1776?
Diet of Worms. :x
Quote from: celedhring on February 02, 2019, 02:15:27 PM
2011 was the first time I experimented true financial hardship in all my life, so on a personal level it's definitely that.
The roots of those troubles go way back though. As far back as Aznar's zoning reforms.
3 November 1992.
Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.
-Ecclesiastes 7:10 KJV
;)
In my opinion the present day is the result of two different events; the rise of the internet and the banking crisis (and subsequent recession.) The internet created a number of new business opportunities; but devastated a number of existing industries. In a lot of ways this is similar to the first Industrial Revolution; we have a group of super-wealthy businessmen with undue influence in the government; and we have a government which doesn't understand the new technologies and doesn't have a good way to regulate them. The problems arising from the internet have been compounded because one of the industries that it altered profoundly is journalism which is a cornerstone of democracy.
The banking crisis created a long period of slow job growth and economic pressure on the working class. At the same time they didn't have the satisfaction of seeing the people who caused the crisis sent to jail. It's given a number of people the perception of a broken system which protects the wealthy and punishes the poor.
That being said, I'm with Kohelet. We're in a period of transition, like the Gilded Age or the Depression. Radical voices are making sense to some right now (as they did in the those other periods) but they won't forever.
Quote from: Savonarola on February 02, 2019, 06:38:22 PM
Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.
-Ecclesiastes 7:10 KJV
;)
In my opinion the present day is the result of two different events; the rise of the internet and the banking crisis (and subsequent recession.) The internet created a number of new business opportunities; but devastated a number of existing industries. In a lot of ways this is similar to the first Industrial Revolution; we have a group of super-wealthy businessmen with undue influence in the government; and we have a government which doesn't understand the new technologies and doesn't have a good way to regulate them. The problems arising from the internet have been compounded because one of the industries that it altered profoundly is journalism which is a cornerstone of democracy.
The banking crisis created a long period of slow job growth and economic pressure on the working class. At the same time they didn't have the satisfaction of seeing the people who caused the crisis sent to jail. It's given a number of people the perception of a broken system which protects the wealthy and punishes the poor.
That being said, I'm with Kohelet. We're in a period of transition, like the Gilded Age or the Depression. Radical voices are making sense to some right now (as they did in the those other periods) but they won't forever.
But how much damage will they do in the meanwhile.
The US is weathering it pretty well. The UK however....
There's no specific date. It's always been a shit sandwich.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 02, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
There's no specific date. It's always been a shit sandwich.
I had assumed Mongers was talking about the Anglo-American part of the world, not France.
Quote from: dps on February 02, 2019, 11:01:03 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 02, 2019, 10:29:52 PM
There's no specific date. It's always been a shit sandwich.
I had assumed Mongers was talking about the Anglo-American part of the world, not France.
*rimshot*
Thank you for the sound effect. :)
He'll be here all week folks, try the veal.
Swedish perspective: The liberalisation during the 90s and 00s. Whilst on paper very good, more freedoms and less taxes and lot's of niceties it also created present day inequalities. The rich get richer faster than ever and the poor get richer slower than the rich. This creates tensions which causes political extremism.
Never ever have almost all people had it so good, but there is an impression of huge differences where the quite well off and quite spoiled working class turn to extremism because of them feeling poor. The leftist and rightist populist movements strengthen those feelings and try to aim them at the rich and the immigrants.
So, whilst on paper the liberalisation has meant more freedom and more wealth and a richer and happier populace, it has left a feeling of inequality that risks a counter-reaction.
The lesson to be learned is probably that the ruling elite needs to better explain their actions and perhaps that too much inequality is a bad thing that should be addressed.
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 06:55:33 AM
Swedish perspective: The liberalisation during the 90s and 00s. Whilst on paper very good, more freedoms and less taxes and lot's of niceties it also created present day inequalities. The rich get richer faster than ever and the poor get richer slower than the rich. This creates tensions which causes political extremism.
Never ever have almost all people had it so good, but there is an impression of huge differences where the quite well off and quite spoiled working class turn to extremism because of them feeling poor. The leftist and rightist populist movements strengthen those feelings and try to aim them at the rich and the immigrants.
So, whilst on paper the liberalisation has meant more freedom and more wealth and a richer and happier populace, it has left a feeling of inequality that risks a counter-reaction.
The lesson to be learned is probably that the ruling elite needs to better explain their actions and perhaps that too much inequality is a bad thing that should be addressed.
A piece in the New York Times this weekend had a similar take. The culprit identified was what they called the Great Inflation of the 70s, which lead to the politics of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich etc. which occurred in the 80s and created the situation we are now in.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2019, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 06:55:33 AM
Swedish perspective: The liberalisation during the 90s and 00s. Whilst on paper very good, more freedoms and less taxes and lot's of niceties it also created present day inequalities. The rich get richer faster than ever and the poor get richer slower than the rich. This creates tensions which causes political extremism.
Never ever have almost all people had it so good, but there is an impression of huge differences where the quite well off and quite spoiled working class turn to extremism because of them feeling poor. The leftist and rightist populist movements strengthen those feelings and try to aim them at the rich and the immigrants.
So, whilst on paper the liberalisation has meant more freedom and more wealth and a richer and happier populace, it has left a feeling of inequality that risks a counter-reaction.
The lesson to be learned is probably that the ruling elite needs to better explain their actions and perhaps that too much inequality is a bad thing that should be addressed.
A piece in the New York Times this weekend had a similar take. The culprit identified was what they called the Great Inflation of the 70s, which lead to the politics of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich etc. which occurred in the 80s and created the situation we are now in.
Might be so. I have warmed to the idea that we should focus on happiness. And happiness, once your basic needs are satisfied, isn't more money or a better wage. From what I understand from research happiness is, to make a trivial example, not to own a Rolls Royce, happiness is that your neighbour does not have a better car than you. If you have a Mercedes and he has a Rolls Royce you will be less happy than if you both drove Fiat. Your basic needs are satisfied and you both have nice cars.
What the deregulation and liberalisation did was the first, everyone got it better but some got it even betterer, perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
Might be so. I have warmed to the idea that we should focus on happiness. And happiness, once your basic needs are satisfied, isn't more money or a better wage. From what I understand from research happiness is, to make a trivial example, not to own a Rolls Royce, happiness is that your neighbour does not have a better car than you. If you have a Mercedes and he has a Rolls Royce you will be less happy than if you both drove Fiat. Your basic needs are satisfied and you both have nice cars.
What the deregulation and liberalisation did was the first, everyone got it better but some got it even betterer, perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Fiats are fun, but not reliably so.
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2019, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 06:55:33 AM
Swedish perspective: The liberalisation during the 90s and 00s. Whilst on paper very good, more freedoms and less taxes and lot's of niceties it also created present day inequalities. The rich get richer faster than ever and the poor get richer slower than the rich. This creates tensions which causes political extremism.
Never ever have almost all people had it so good, but there is an impression of huge differences where the quite well off and quite spoiled working class turn to extremism because of them feeling poor. The leftist and rightist populist movements strengthen those feelings and try to aim them at the rich and the immigrants.
So, whilst on paper the liberalisation has meant more freedom and more wealth and a richer and happier populace, it has left a feeling of inequality that risks a counter-reaction.
The lesson to be learned is probably that the ruling elite needs to better explain their actions and perhaps that too much inequality is a bad thing that should be addressed.
A piece in the New York Times this weekend had a similar take. The culprit identified was what they called the Great Inflation of the 70s, which lead to the politics of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich etc. which occurred in the 80s and created the situation we are now in.
Might be so. I have warmed to the idea that we should focus on happiness. And happiness, once your basic needs are satisfied, isn't more money or a better wage. From what I understand from research happiness is, to make a trivial example, not to own a Rolls Royce, happiness is that your neighbour does not have a better car than you. If you have a Mercedes and he has a Rolls Royce you will be less happy than if you both drove Fiat. Your basic needs are satisfied and you both have nice cars.
What the deregulation and liberalisation did was the first, everyone got it better but some got it even betterer, perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
I like to have a society where kids can get better than basic healthcare and education.
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Or perhaps the guy with the Mercedes can just get over it.
That anyone is so unfortunate as to own a Fiat makes me sad.
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 03, 2019, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 06:55:33 AM
Swedish perspective: The liberalisation during the 90s and 00s. Whilst on paper very good, more freedoms and less taxes and lot's of niceties it also created present day inequalities. The rich get richer faster than ever and the poor get richer slower than the rich. This creates tensions which causes political extremism.
Never ever have almost all people had it so good, but there is an impression of huge differences where the quite well off and quite spoiled working class turn to extremism because of them feeling poor. The leftist and rightist populist movements strengthen those feelings and try to aim them at the rich and the immigrants.
So, whilst on paper the liberalisation has meant more freedom and more wealth and a richer and happier populace, it has left a feeling of inequality that risks a counter-reaction.
The lesson to be learned is probably that the ruling elite needs to better explain their actions and perhaps that too much inequality is a bad thing that should be addressed.
A piece in the New York Times this weekend had a similar take. The culprit identified was what they called the Great Inflation of the 70s, which lead to the politics of deregulation, tax cuts for the rich etc. which occurred in the 80s and created the situation we are now in.
Might be so. I have warmed to the idea that we should focus on happiness. And happiness, once your basic needs are satisfied, isn't more money or a better wage. From what I understand from research happiness is, to make a trivial example, not to own a Rolls Royce, happiness is that your neighbour does not have a better car than you. If you have a Mercedes and he has a Rolls Royce you will be less happy than if you both drove Fiat. Your basic needs are satisfied and you both have nice cars.
What the deregulation and liberalisation did was the first, everyone got it better but some got it even betterer, perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Yes. I think this is heavily tied in with the whole conspicuous wealth thing that many poor people fall victim too; blowing their money on the latest phone and nicest clothes just to prove that they aren't actually poor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 04:42:42 PM
Or perhaps the guy with the Mercedes can just get over it.
Or perhaps the guy with the Porsche can just stop being so greedy.
More seriously, democracy relies on the sentiment of equality in dignity, in citizenship, and before the law. The way that the Mercedes guy can "get over it" is to go back to the sort of deeply unequal political societies that have dominated the West for millennia. The point is not the Mercedes, or the Porsche: it's that the Mercedes and the Porsche stand as proxies for our relative condition in the eyes of other.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 04:42:42 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Or perhaps the guy with the Mercedes can just get over it.
What is the point of comments like this?
It's like saying that we could reduce depression if depressed people just quit being so unhappy.
OK. I guess it would be great if we could just change human nature by feeling smug, but given that apparently that doesn't really work, doesn't it make more sense to talk about how to make a workable society given that people are in fact greedy and often irrationally envious?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 04:42:42 PM
Quote from: Threviel on February 03, 2019, 03:53:35 PM
perhaps we should have aimed for Fiats for everyone.
Or perhaps the guy with the Mercedes can just get over it.
What about the guy with the bus pass?
Quote from: mongers on February 02, 2019, 01:52:28 PM
When did things go to pot and why?
January 7, 1966. Trust me on this one...
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 06:06:54 PM
Or perhaps the guy with the Porsche can just stop being so greedy.
More seriously, democracy relies on the sentiment of equality in dignity, in citizenship, and before the law. The way that the Mercedes guy can "get over it" is to go back to the sort of deeply unequal political societies that have dominated the West for millennia. The point is not the Mercedes, or the Porsche: it's that the Mercedes and the Porsche stand as proxies for our relative condition in the eyes of other.
You're mixing arguments. Equality before the law is not the same thing as social status. And envy of social status is exactly what I'm saying Mercedes boy should get over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 07:54:32 PM
You're mixing arguments. Equality before the law is not the same thing as social status. And envy of social status is exactly what I'm saying Mercedes boy should get over.
They are obviously intimately intertwined. I can't even claim it: it was one of Tocqueville's most astute observations. In a democratic society, because of equality before the law is upheld as a principle, social status has to be made a lot more amorphous than in strictly hierarchical societies with legal privileges. That uncertainty leads to a lot more comparison between you and your neighbors, a form of inherent restlessness. If you want the Mercedes person to be a stoic and not care about social status, you ought to require the same from Porsche guy (that is the virtuous Republic that many Enlightenment figures espoused), or you want to enshrine different social status in some form of caste - and that is obviously undemocratic.
And this is even before considering the more material argument that equality before the law is heavily skewed by wealth.
Quote from: Berkut on February 03, 2019, 06:17:07 PM
What is the point of comments like this?
It's like saying that we could reduce depression if depressed people just quit being so unhappy.
OK. I guess it would be great if we could just change human nature by feeling smug, but given that apparently that doesn't really work, doesn't it make more sense to talk about how to make a workable society given that people are in fact greedy and often irrationally envious?
The point of comments like this is to present an alternative view of the issue, but I imagine you already knew that, and asked the question as a rhetorical device to express your outrage.
It's nothing like saying depressed people should just be happy, because depression is a chemical condition. AFAICT, envy is not a chemical condition.
That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share. There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others. Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 08:50:09 PM
That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share. There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others. Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?
No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 08:50:09 PM
The point of comments like this is to present an alternative view of the issue, but I imagine you already knew that, and asked the question as a rhetorical device to express your outrage.
It's nothing like saying depressed people should just be happy, because depression is a chemical condition. AFAICT, envy is not a chemical condition.
That envy is an unalterable part of human nature is an assumption that I don't share. There appear to be people in the world who are not envious of others. Do they suffer from a lack of human nature?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. You have a bunch of random statements that don't amount to an argument, let alone "an alternative view of the issue." Whether "envy is an unalterable part of human nature" or not seems out in left field - we are talking about the effects of perceived unfairness, and what it would take to eliminate envy doesn't seem germane. Problems aren't solved by telling people "get over it."
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 09:02:36 PM
No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?
I don't think that the issue with the Porshe and Mercedes is an issue of envy, it is an issue of perceived unfairness. "I don't envy my boss for having a better car, I resent the fact that he got the job when I was better-qualified for it." Income inequality isn't always an issue - some footballers make more in a month than i will in my life, but I don't resent their salaries because they can do something at the highest level that I struggle to do at the lowest. It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 09:02:36 PM
No, much like there are many people in the world who aren't greedy. But our legal and economic systems are built upon assumptions about human nature, rewarding certain behavior, and condemning others. In this instance, why condemn envy, but not greed? Why is one something someone ought to get over, and the other something that ought to be left alone?
Because greed is the handmaiden of ambition, drive, motivation, and work. Greed produces output that increases the utility of people that consume that output.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
I don't think that the issue with the Porshe and Mercedes is an issue of envy, it is an issue of perceived unfairness.
Fair point. I read recently an interesting essay attempting to distinguish the varieties of envy, between envy for a situation in which one could conceivably imagine oneself in (i.e., winning the lottery), envy for someone's ability (related to your footballer's example), and envy for things that are actively being put out of reach (a contentious inheritance, for instance). Part of the author's point was that envy relies on a sentiment of equality, which in our democratic regimes is equated to unfairness - medieval peasants could resent the powerful for being powerful, but they couldn't really be envious, because their world would never have made it possible for them to either enjoy, reach, or even imagine themselves in such situations (and therefore, it wouldn't be labelled as unfair).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 09:18:51 PM
Because greed is the handmaiden of ambition, drive, motivation, and work. Greed produces output that increases the utility of people that consume that output.
I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile that with your condemnation of envy? How can greed mean anything other than through comparisons with others?
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 09:33:57 PM
I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how do you reconcile that with your condemnation of envy? How can greed mean anything other than through comparisons with others?
I can prefer the taste of lobster over ramen noodles without any reference to others. If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 09:41:04 PM
I can prefer the taste of lobster over ramen noodles without any reference to others. If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster
Again, disregarding the fact that lobster and ramen noodles have never existed outside of a frame of reference that have profoundly intertwined pleasure with meaning, what profound, inherent preference is being expressed by your 7th luxury car? By your 15th million dollars, that the 14th could not assuage?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 09:41:04 PM
If I was the last human on earth I would still prefer lobster
If I were the last human on earth I would prefer whatever gives me enough calories to continue. Lobster or spam, it is not that important - I prefer to live, not to taste...
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 09:49:07 PM
Again, disregarding the fact that lobster and ramen noodles have never existed outside of a frame of reference that have profoundly intertwined pleasure with meaning, what profound, inherent preference is being expressed by your 7th luxury car? By your 15th million dollars, that the 14th could not assuage?
I give up.
Are you proposing a society in which you and I (standing in for the majority) decide which preferences are profound and inherent and which are not and disallow the former?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2019, 10:30:56 PM
Are you proposing a society in which you and I (standing in for the majority) decide which preferences are profound and inherent and which are not and disallow the former?
I don't understand how that follows. I know of no preference that emerges out of nothing. If greed has emerged to be the motor of ambition, it is precisely because we live in a monetized world, and thus accumulation allows for superiority of status over others. The people who want to be filthy rich do so because of how it makes them exist in the gaze of others, not because they somehow prefer having 256 millions instead of 255.
How you can simultaneously condemn envy, and celebrate ambition thus seems to be fundamentally contradictory. If you want a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy. If you don't want a world based on envy, then you have to celebrate for form of renunciation that seems incompatible with greed. Some form of severe redistribution, for instance.
What I am proposing is simply the essence of democracy: recognizing that our preferences are, in fact, the result of our constant interactions, at times severely constrained by our social status, and that we therefore collectively, and politically, decide on what sorts of preferences ought to be favored, and which one ought to be deterred. If you prefer blue over red surely has some effect on me, but it is orders of magnitude different from your "preference" to move your inherited fortune offshore.
Is it just me, or is Yi's response basically "Let them eat cake"?
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 03, 2019, 11:00:59 PM
How you can simultaneously condemn envy, and celebrate ambition thus seems to be fundamentally contradictory. If you want a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy. If you don't want a world based on envy, then you have to celebrate for form of renunciation that seems incompatible with greed. Some form of severe redistribution, for instance.
You seem to be missing some intermediate logical steps here, so I'll fill in what I think the blanks are and you can tell me if I'm right or I'm off.
Greed is, at least in part, driven by the desire for status. I do not dispute this. According status to others is synonymous with envy. Status cannot exist without envy.
Tell me if I'm right, because I already have my objections loaded up.
Just to be clear, I did not mean to advocate some kind of communism or something like that. My thought is that perhaps even though it is ethically questionable perhaps there should be more in the way of progressive taxation, wealth tax, property tax, inheritance tax or income tax or something else. As to how much and at what level and what kind, let some professional calculate that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2019, 12:15:56 AM
According status to others is synonymous with envy.
I certainly don't agree with that. According status to others is synonymous with respect. But then I don't judge a person's status by their wealth or material possessions.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.
Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.
Quote from: dps on February 04, 2019, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2019, 12:15:56 AM
According status to others is synonymous with envy.
I certainly don't agree with that. According status to others is synonymous with respect. But then I don't judge a person's status by their wealth or material possessions.
I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 02:21:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.
Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.
Could you please elaborate on that?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2019, 02:42:59 AM
I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.
dps had it right. And that's one of the flaws I see in that (unmade) argument.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 02:21:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.
Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.
The Economist looked into this a few years back, for the CEOs of FTSE-350 companies iirc. Their conclusion was that, in general, there was no risk of them being poached by international rivals if their pay was greatly reduced as they were mainly mediocrities. They also pointed out that remuneration committees consisted of exactly the same sort of people as the CEOs and very senior management and therefore had an inflated idea of the value of a mediocre board-level manager. OTOH the high pay gets normalised, even if one is not particularly greedy, there is a problem with accepting a low-ball offer as you will be judged by your peers and found wanting.
I reiterate that this is the Economist that said this, not the Morning Star ( https://morningstaronline.co.uk/ ).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2019, 02:53:06 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 04, 2019, 02:42:59 AM
I think he means the two are irrevocably linked.
dps had it right. And that's one of the flaws I see in that (unmade) argument.
"Status can't exist without envy." This sounds reasonable. But they are still terms for different things, not synonymous. I don't think respect and status are necessarily synonymous either.
Well, at least there's still some corporate professions that receive pay commensurate to their work. :P
(https://i.postimg.cc/0NMNTkKD/Advisers.png)
1973.
(https://i.imgur.com/LWG38ev.png)
Quote from: ulmont on February 04, 2019, 10:21:09 AM
1973.
(https://i.imgur.com/LWG38ev.png)
And that gap, under the current straight up capitalist/free market/supremacy of capital system will keep getting larger. It is 100% inevitable given technology and where it is going. There is no market "fix" for that - indeed, the standard free market system sees that gap as a feature, not a problem.
I don't know what "Go to Pot" means but Everything went to shit on September 10 2008.
Quote from: Threviel on February 04, 2019, 02:52:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 04, 2019, 02:21:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2019, 09:16:46 PM
It irritates me when CEOs get that kind of money because I know that you could get a bunch of guys who could do that job for 1/10 the salary.
Also (and this is related) because the process by which that compensation is set does not inspire much confidence.
Could you please elaborate on that?
CEO compensation and employment terms are set by boards of directors that are often picked by, beholden to, or have other reasons to be friendly to the CEO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2019, 12:15:56 AM
According status to others is synonymous with envy. Status cannot exist without envy.
Tell me if I'm right, because I already have my objections loaded up.
No, that's not quite it. First, just to clarify, according status to people is not synonymous with holding them in high esteem. It's simply ascribing a place to them. It's something we always do as humans, because we want to know where we stand in our groups. Status can be high, low, rigid, or flexible, decreed by law, or awarded by social interaction. There has been multiple ways to accord status to people in human history: caste, nobility, law, prowess, whatever. It doesn't have to be fueled by envy: in many societies, status is simply granted as a matter of birth.
Not so in democratic societies, where status is never asserted in law. So there is an inherent tension in democracy between the refusal to distinguish classes of citizens in law, and the obvious considerable privileges (and social consideration) that wealth affords. On the one hand, we aspire to be considered equal in dignity - but the sorts of interaction when this equality is forcefully asserted are rare. On the other hand, we know we live in an unequal society, in which the pursuit of wealth is highly valued, as one of the most powerful, legitimate way to create distinction - and these material comparisons are easier to perform daily. In other egalitarian societies in history, that tension is reduced through enforced redistribution, and the valuation of other forms of engagement - like warrior prowess. The specific form of desire to rise to the level of war heroes is usually called "emulation".
That is why I think your stance is contradictory. The active (and insatiable) pursuit of wealth (which you value) continuously creates social distinctions that go against the fundamental egalitarian principle at the heart of democracy. The more wealth creates distinction, and the more that distinction creates a gulf between citizens, the more envy of that status you will create - if only because we all aspire to some form of dignity and recognition. So, it's not envy in the sense that I desire a Porsche for the Porsche's amazing qualities. I desire the Porsche because I see the reaction it produces, and the signal it sends. All of publicity is aimed at stoking this desire.
It's a fundamental tension in our weird version of an egalitarian society, and historically, people who argued that others should be content with their lot in life were either usually enemies of democracy, or were arguing for a much more demanding form of republican virtue (and wealth redistribution) than you are ready to support, I believe. The other option is to ask everyone to be indifferent to their fellow citizens - and I highly suspect such indifference creates in fact, more greed than it eliminates. See: Mono.
That is a great post Oex. Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. :)
It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law. This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law. But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong. It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all.
And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.
I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument. If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2019, 11:42:15 AM
That is a great post Oex. Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. :)
It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law. This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law. But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong. It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all.
And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.
I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument. If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.
There exists a strictly self-interested reason to want fairness for all under the Rule of Law: it is that only a system that provides fairness for all under the Rule of Law can
ensure fairness for
me, no matter what may happen to me in terms of status.
Other systems are better for me if I happen to be at the top (or the bottom) of the hierarchy of status; but only the Rule of Law can provide fairness if my status is subject to change ...
This is one reason, I think, a system in which social inequalities are subject to a lot of variation over one's lifetime and between generations is more compatible with support for the Rule of Law: if your status becomes entrenched, you no longer have to consider in a self-interested manner the question of justice for
all, because you know you, or your children, will not fall in a higher or lower class than yourself. In a stratified society lacking lots of social mobility, the rich need only self-interestedly care about the rich, and the non-rich need only self-interestedly care about the non-rich. Unless things get so unbalanced that social mobility becomes an issue again (for example, the rich may self-interestedly care about the non-rich if the non-rich are so disenfranchised that they threaten to tear down the rich).
Quote from: Oexmelin on February 05, 2019, 01:13:27 AM
No, that's not quite it. First, just to clarify, according status to people is not synonymous with holding them in high esteem. It's simply ascribing a place to them. It's something we always do as humans, because we want to know where we stand in our groups. Status can be high, low, rigid, or flexible, decreed by law, or awarded by social interaction. There has been multiple ways to accord status to people in human history: caste, nobility, law, prowess, whatever. It doesn't have to be fueled by envy: in many societies, status is simply granted as a matter of birth.
Not so in democratic societies, where status is never asserted in law. So there is an inherent tension in democracy between the refusal to distinguish classes of citizens in law, and the obvious considerable privileges (and social consideration) that wealth affords. On the one hand, we aspire to be considered equal in dignity - but the sorts of interaction when this equality is forcefully asserted are rare. On the other hand, we know we live in an unequal society, in which the pursuit of wealth is highly valued, as one of the most powerful, legitimate way to create distinction - and these material comparisons are easier to perform daily. In other egalitarian societies in history, that tension is reduced through enforced redistribution, and the valuation of other forms of engagement - like warrior prowess. The specific form of desire to rise to the level of war heroes is usually called "emulation".
That is why I think your stance is contradictory. The active (and insatiable) pursuit of wealth (which you value) continuously creates social distinctions that go against the fundamental egalitarian principle at the heart of democracy. The more wealth creates distinction, and the more that distinction creates a gulf between citizens, the more envy of that status you will create - if only because we all aspire to some form of dignity and recognition. So, it's not envy in the sense that I desire a Porsche for the Porsche's amazing qualities. I desire the Porsche because I see the reaction it produces, and the signal it sends. All of publicity is aimed at stoking this desire.
It's a fundamental tension in our weird version of an egalitarian society, and historically, people who argued that others should be content with their lot in life were either usually enemies of democracy, or were arguing for a much more demanding form of republican virtue (and wealth redistribution) than you are ready to support, I believe. The other option is to ask everyone to be indifferent to their fellow citizens - and I highly suspect such indifference creates in fact, more greed than it eliminates. See: Mono.
This I think is the flaw in your argument. As mentioned by dps, wealth does not create universal distinction. Not everyone toadies to wealth. And not everyone who does toady to wealth does so out of a belief in the superiority of the wealth holder. Many do so out of a profit motive. The salesman, the university president, the fund raiser, the maitre d', just to name a few. And those that desire the same status do not necessarily have to feel envy. It's perfectly possible to desire one type or another of achievement without envying those who have already attained that achievement.
Envy is a choice, not a inescapable outcome.
Quote from: Malthus on February 05, 2019, 05:34:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2019, 11:42:15 AM
That is a great post Oex. Reading your thoughtful comments is one of the things that keeps me coming back. :)
It got me thinking about the concept that a liberal democratic society does not assert status through force of law. This is the ideal, and that is certainly the principle that was the foundation of my legal training which stressed the importance of the Rule of Law. But over the last few decades liberal democracies have accorded differing status to individuals based on the characteristics of the group to which they may belong. It has been done for, in my view, laudable reasons, and in part to mitigate the power imbalances which occur in a society where economic benefits and opportunities are not equally open to all.
And so there is a paradox, in order to try to achieve the closest approximation of treating everyone equally under the Rule of Law, we necessarily need to create protections for some but not all.
I think that is the main weakness with Yi's argument. If we were all engaged in the war of all against all to attain status, we would not be concerned about the conceptions of fairness for all under the Rule of Law.
There exists a strictly self-interested reason to want fairness for all under the Rule of Law: it is that only a system that provides fairness for all under the Rule of Law can ensure fairness for me, no matter what may happen to me in terms of status.
Other systems are better for me if I happen to be at the top (or the bottom) of the hierarchy of status; but only the Rule of Law can provide fairness if my status is subject to change ...
This is one reason, I think, a system in which social inequalities are subject to a lot of variation over one's lifetime and between generations is more compatible with support for the Rule of Law: if your status becomes entrenched, you no longer have to consider in a self-interested manner the question of justice for all, because you know you, or your children, will not fall in a higher or lower class than yourself. In a stratified society lacking lots of social mobility, the rich need only self-interestedly care about the rich, and the non-rich need only self-interestedly care about the non-rich. Unless things get so unbalanced that social mobility becomes an issue again (for example, the rich may self-interestedly care about the non-rich if the non-rich are so disenfranchised that they threaten to tear down the rich).
Sure, that is often a defence of the Rule of Law and the need for an economic system that allows for social mobility. But there is also a moral position to take rather than assuming everyone thinks in mercenary terms of the horrible hypothetical of an individual or their own family falling on bad times. Some people simple prefer a just society because it is the most beneficial for all. Although I recognize we are mostly (if not entirely) saying the same thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2019, 06:18:09 PM
Envy is a choice, not a inescapable outcome.
Of course. Nothing is inescapable. But we are talking about social dynamics, not about choice. Not every rich person is greedy either. But just like greed is a choice that is being heavily encouraged, envy is a choice that is being actively stoked. Envy doesn't necessarily mean toadying to the wealthy, but it does afford one considerably more social attention - whether or not that attention is genuine or self-interested is irrelevant, because it remains murky. I can indeed be envious of what you are able to do with your vast wealth without necessarily think you should be treated differently - but the world will do its utmost to prove me wrong... To prevent wealth from exacting that sort of pressure, you need to have strong egalitarian alternatives, or strong alternative markers of social worth. Tocqueville praised community and civic organization as being capable of doing just that. Which one of these remain?
"In a world based on greed, you have to celebrate envy."
That's not inescapable?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 05, 2019, 06:50:15 PM
Sure, that is often a defence of the Rule of Law and the need for an economic system that allows for social mobility. But there is also a moral position to take rather than assuming everyone thinks in mercenary terms of the horrible hypothetical of an individual or their own family falling on bad times. Some people simple prefer a just society because it is the most beneficial for all. Although I recognize we are mostly (if not entirely) saying the same thing.
Yup. There are more than one routes to the same conclusion: a moral position, that fairness is a positive good, can lead to the same place as a motive based on pure self-interest.
As an aside, it is interesting that one of the seven so-called "Noahide laws", the basic laws of morality that Jewish philosophy insists apply universally to Jews and non-Jews alike, is basically the establishment of the Rule of Law: "to establish courts of justice". It is, in fact, the only positive law; the rest are all prohibitions (no murder, no theft, etc.)
As I drift close and closer to my fifties, full blown curmudgeonhood seems to be inevitable. I have embraced it, surrendered to it. I find this thread irresistible then.
1. In US comic books the decision by the big two, Marvel and DC to abandon cheap newsprint comics and broad distribution and focus on "collectors" and expensive paper, printing and specialist comic book stores in the early and mid nineties. I have to grudgingly admit however, that creatively English speaking comics are currently experiencing a golden age. It's not happening at Marvel and DC though. Grrr.
2. In British comics its when 2000ad moved from black and white to color. Or colour. That was 1989 or thereabouts. Pfffft.
3. I'd tentatively like to add the introduction of the term "graphic novel" by publishers marketing people in the early eighties. It's amazing to me that people are still using this term. Still grovelling for approval. Poltroons.
4. The arrival of earpieces in professional cycling in about 1993 or 1994. Ruined everything. Individual riders no longer needed tactical nous and mastery of reading fast changing situations, an omniscient voice in their ear turned the sport into a trial of strength only. Bah!
5. The move away from a more social democratic model to a more Capital is unfettered model in the 1970's in the UK and the US and elsewhere to a lesser extent. I liked the world better before the tax revolt of the very rich. Job creators my ass.
6. The new Ford Ranger. Jesus fucking christ who is responsible for this monstrosity. Lets take the name of a beloved North American automotive masterpiece, a small truck of endless appeal, affordability , repairability and robustness, a utility for the common man and attach it to an overpriced "feature packed" SUV with a three foot truck bed bolted onto it. Kill me.
7. Could probably go on with this list, but I have to get ready for work.
Quote from: fromtia on February 08, 2019, 01:06:06 PM
As I drift close and closer to my fifties, full blown curmudgeonhood seems to be inevitable. I have embraced it, surrendered to it. I find this thread irresistible then.
1. In US comic books the decision by the big two, Marvel and DC to abandon cheap newsprint comics and broad distribution and focus on "collectors" and expensive paper, printing and specialist comic book stores in the early and mid nineties. I have to grudgingly admit however, that creatively English speaking comics are currently experiencing a golden age. It's not happening at Marvel and DC though. Grrr.
2. In British comics its when 2000ad moved from black and white to color. Or colour. That was 1989 or thereabouts. Pfffft.
3. I'd tentatively like to add the introduction of the term "graphic novel" by publishers marketing people in the early eighties. It's amazing to me that people are still using this term. Still grovelling for approval. Poltroons.
4. The arrival of earpieces in professional cycling in about 1993 or 1994. Ruined everything. Individual riders no longer needed tactical nous and mastery of reading fast changing situations, an omniscient voice in their ear turned the sport into a trial of strength only. Bah!
5. The move away from a more social democratic model to a more Capital is unfettered model in the 1970's in the UK and the US and elsewhere to a lesser extent. I liked the world better before the tax revolt of the very rich. Job creators my ass.
6. The new Ford Ranger. Jesus fucking christ who is responsible for this monstrosity. Lets take the name of a beloved North American automotive masterpiece, a small truck of endless appeal, affordability , repairability and robustness, a utility for the common man and attach it to an overpriced "feature packed" SUV with a three foot truck bed bolted onto it. Kill me.
7. Could probably go on with this list, but I have to get ready for work.
Excellent points there Formtia.
Your curmudgeonardlyness has developed nicely. :worthy:
I prefer blockbuster movies with hundred million dollar budgets to drawings, so I think comics are doing pretty well.