"The biased Forced Choice question where the answer is implied in the question. I love em…"
I’m not sure what you mean by that. The answer isn’t implied by the question at all, since one could quite easily answer it either way, depending on one’s ethical views. Or if you’re complaining that those wouldn’t be the only two alternatives in the real world, I never said that they were; nevertheless, one should still be able to say which one of the two one would find preferable.
**Mark wasn’t too big on personal responsibility. **
Unfortunately, neither is our current administration, nor most of those that voted for it.
Did you hear the inaugural address? Here is a glowing editorial from the Wall Street Journal (another pro-Obama media source ;):
http://online.wsj.com/...249757558600395.html
I’m more interested in results then opinions. How’d the GW bailouts work? Oh, they didn’t do what they were suppose to? In fact, banks have kept that money to do other things besides helping with new loans…
“The name of the game, the stated goal of TARP, was to make loans. Regulators are inside these firms. Why is this not happening?”
At a minimum it is going to take 2+ years to stop the bleeding that started in GW’s administration. The fate of the auto companies is in the air. Should oil prices rise again things will get a lot lot worse everywhere. I am resigned to the fact that things will get worse before they get better.
People seem to forget that we have been in a recession for a year already and it was the American people that helped make this mess. Even today people are still using their credit cards to purchase items they don’t need. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about limiting outstanding personal credit on these cards to 1/3rd of your monthly net? How many people got into trouble because they had lines of credit that far exceeded their earning power? In the final analysis the availablity of credit, without the ability to manage it properly, will have done far more damage to this country then any terrorist organization, and yet the credit card offerings keep coming in the mail…
“We have to establish that the two phenomena, to wit the increase in the incomes of ‘everyone else’ and those of the select few, are independent. IMO, it is a gross oversimplification to draw conclusion exclusively from a single snapshot of the economic growth process. In other words, if such rates are going to be periodically (annually for instance) repeated over a long term, then the principal dispute is about the sustainability of that economic equilibrium rather than the ethical concerns.”
The purpose of the question was to determine what a person finds preferable, based on his personal ethical perspective. For that purpose, it doesn’t matter what the causal factors behind either of the situations is. I agree with you that the sustainability of a social structure is of great importance (you may have noticed quite a bit of analysis of that on my website), but for the purpose of establishing what a particular individual regards as an ethically preferable objective, that again isn’t really relevant. If you’d like, you can pretend that both alternative situations are equally stable and sustainable (although that might not be the case in actual practice).
“How about a more realistic scenario…”
Realism wasn’t the purpose. The purpose was to determine what an individual’s ethical preferences are. It’s interesting that no one here seems willing to state which of the two he/she regards as better or worse. I know what David in FL’s answer would be, but it’s amusing that others seem suddenly tongue-tied.
BTW, I didn’t raise the question rhetorically. I’m really interested in the answer, because I’m always trying to figure out what makes people think the way they do.
“#2 being a society in which everyone’s income is half, except for a few wealthy who… also see a big pay cut…”
For examples of the ‘free market’ check out pretty much any impoverished 3rd world country you like."
It’s amazing that you brought up that canard again, since I soundly refuted it in a previous post to you (http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...earch_engine#2131556).
I would pick option #2 however a 1% raise is decimal dust for just about everyone - even if it was pure disposable income.
No, that isn’t a Karl Marx quote:
The whole and real quote is “The owners of capital will stimulate the need of the working class to take expensive, collateral loans to buy their condos, houses and technological products; and, at the end, these unpaid debts will result in the nationalization of the banks upon their bankrupcy, and so the state will be on the pathway to communism” and belongs to Pat Caufield of the Department of Education in a satyrical United States who started a re-education programme for kids to prepare the transition to communism
.
not tongue tied…out biking.
if (1) is as incomes are today, which have widened (i believe a reports suggested in 1980 top 1% of earners earned roughly 8% of income; recently top 1% earned 22% of income)…
i don’t think that is good and the trend is troubling
but your second alternative (2)in a society where everyone’s income was 1% greater, except for a few people who were already relatively wealthy and whose income was doubled?
some choice: those already far ahead, average, or way behind get a 1%, and a select few get double…that’s not so sweet either. at least a majority of the high earners now relegated to just a 1% may question how is that some people get double (could be justified) that being the case I guess #2, but there are still huge income gaps amongst those that got the 1%.
i guess i am showing my bias against folks like nardelli and thain…
thain 83 million/yr and a 1.2 redo of his office…how in the heck is that exercising personal responsibility.
maybe if you are an hr person you can enlighten me/others on the salaries of people at the top (who set their salaries abetted by their buddies on the board of some of these companies…nice little club)
but as i said i don’t have the answers, but can’t we do better as a society?
Or how about that one?
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
—Thomas Jefferson, The debate over the recharter of The Bank Bill, (1809)
Thanks to you and Lorenzo for your responses. It seems that you both would prefer scenario (2), albeit reluctantly. I find that encouraging, because it indicates that when push comes to shove, you would be willing to recognize that the real issue isn’t “gaps” per se, but rather the material welfare of those who aren’t doing as well. That changes the terms of the whole discussion, since a policy that cuts gaps doesn’t necessarily help those in the lower brackets at all–in many cases accomplishing the exact opposite. You may disagree with some economists about that, but at least there can be some agreement about the goal.
BTW, I’m not an HR (Human Resources?) person. Not sure where you got that from.