No Fuzzy. This must be looked at as a political issue. It isn't a pathological issue. 90%(just a guess) of people would behave the same way if they could. It's natural. The only thing to check it is politics and laws. You have to approach this issue rationally. Wealth is power. People love power. Only politics or force can check power.I'm not sure I agree, I think in this case the scum floats to the top of the stew(or cream to the top of the milk from their perspective.) I think most people fit somewhere in the middle of a spectrum of self-centered behaviour. Problems develop when over time the most selfish and often sociopathic individuals(like the Koch brothers) reach a critical point where they can tip the system over to a situation where almost all the wealth and power flows their way. I do agree that's it's a political solution that needs to be applied as the majority of us assert our right to have basic rights. Once you go too far in this direction any real freedom disappears as the wealthy apply tight controls to protect their narrow interests. Which is something we're already seeing in many nations, including Canada and the US.
And these are the people who insist they are being overtaxed!Yes, and being unfairly persecuted because they work so much harder than the rest of us. Even though many of them got and still do get a lot of their wealth from exploiting government subsidies, tax breaks, and needless contracts, there's a good book about this called Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/books/review/Chait-t.html?_r=0
“Free Lunch" consists of 26 chapters, each a case study of a corporation enriching itself through lax or solicitous government: beggar-thy-neighbor state and local tax breaks to lure businesses, government subsidies for sports stadium construction, electricity deregulation and so on. The material comes from Johnston’s journalism over the last three decades, supplemented by the contributions of several reporters he hired to help research the book (and the presence of all these hands may explain its choppy feel). The stories, generally convincing, are rendered in an unremitting tone of blunt, you’re-getting-shafted outrage.So fairly often the ultra rich are getting that way by giving us the bill. This includes professional sports in North America which largely operates under a non-competition system that allows owners to blackmail cities into building very expensive venues then providing lavish tax breaks that allow the massive player salaries and corporate profits. The private security industry depends on publicly funded police departments to answer many of the calls, companies like Cabelas and Wal-Mart use all sorts of different strategies to download costs to taxpayers. Big Agri and Oil also get sweet deals as does Wall Street. To a large degree our economies are rigged systems to allow just a few people to have wealth and luxury that is hard for most of us to even imagine.
Since we're just making up numbers, I posit that 90% is way off. Most people are perfectly happy if the people around them are happy. They aren't out to conquer the world. Nor are they so paranoid that they need the money to make themselves feel secure. Even people who luck into a big income without inventing the next big thing or working 80 hour weeks, simply quit while they are ahead. It is a sort of sickness to accumulate that much stuff.What he said. After a certain point wealth becomes about ego and we can all get taken down the tubes as the ultra-wealthy play silly little games over who has the most billions while completely ignoring the vast destruction going on around them both socially and ecologically.
As far as governments, local, state and federal, providing breaks and subsidies to business: It can be a good thing for economies. The problem is when it is assumed that it, automatically, will be. There is, almost always, no effective monitoring of businesses that receive governmental favors, to determine whether they are actually contributing to things such as increased jobs or providing other economic benefits.
Businesses, in reality, have profit as their primary motive, not expanding the economic success of the surrounding economies.
So it is a double standard when governments provide subsidies and breaks and other supports to businesses, but subsidies, breaks and support for the poorest workers in society are demeaned pejoratively as “welfare” or “income redistribution”. For one thing, it is just as much welfare or income redistribution when such favors are applied to businesses. And more importantly, we are pretty much guaranteed that any income advantages that the poorest workers get, will be immediately spent, i.e., put back into and stimulating the economy. We do not have this automatic guarantee with favors provided to businesses.
“Income Redistribution” is used as a totem term to elicit fears of “communism” and specters of the masses being dependent on the government. The fact is that income redistribution is a fundamental aspect of Capitalism. Every time someone buys or sells something, income is being redistributed.
What we have to decide is whether we will allow this natural aspect of Capitalism to occur unchecked. Do we want the markets to control society or do we want society to implement reasonable controls that will discourage exploitation in either direction. If the market controls society, those who are most adept at exploitation will inevitably attain a grossly disparate portion of the redistributed wealth.
The evidence is clear, today, that income has been grossly redistributed in the favor of the ultra-rich.
"Income Redistribution" is used as a totem term to elicit fears of "communism" and specters of the masses being dependent on the government. The fact is that income redistribution is a fundamental aspect of Capitalism. Every time someone buys or sells something, income is being redistributed. What we have to decide is whether we will allow this natural aspect of Capitalism to occur unchecked. Do we want the markets to control society or do we want society to implement reasonable controls that will discourage exploitation in either direction. If the market controls society, those who are most adept at exploitation will inevitably attain a grossly disparate portion of the redistributed wealth. The evidence is clear, today, that income has been grossly redistributed in the favor of the ultra-rich.Yes, it's never called "income redistribution" when laws favor the accumulation of obscene amounts of money and power by a small percentage of people, while others are exploited and suffee from economic deprivation. It's only called income redistribution if someone calls for a remedy to the cruel imbalance an unregulated system creates. Lois
I'm not sure I agree, I think in this case the scum floats to the top of the stew(or cream to the top of the milk from their perspective.)You are not sure you agree?....you think "the scum floats to the top of the stew"....? Well that's an excellent rebuttal. That clears things up. I state it's a political problem(which it most definitely and empirically is) and you counter with "scum floats to the top" and extreme wealth is a sickness....a sociopathic problem.
I think most people fit somewhere in the middle of a spectrum of self-centered behaviour. Problems develop when over time the most selfish and often sociopathic individuals(like the Koch brothers) reach a critical point where they can tip the system over to a situation where almost all the wealth and power flows their way.The Koch Brothers inherited their wealth. I guess the sociopathy was "inherited" genetically too? Problems develop Fuzzy, when the political system as a whole is run by wealthy people for wealthy people. It's always been that way, it probably always will be. Unfortunately for the last 30 years or so a particularly extreme version of Conservatism has controlled the Republican Party and other politics in other places(Harper). It's an ideology. It is not a pathology.
I do agree that's it's a political solution that needs to be applied as the majority of us assert our right to have basic rights.That's right. It is a political solution. The Koch Brothers are not sociopaths. They were born into wealth and happen to be extremely savvy and adhere to extremely right wing political ideologies. There's no need to further muddle the already murky "Left Wing Kool Aid" with epithets and analogies of "Wicked Kingdoms Ruled by Crazy Kings".
That's right. It is a political solution. The Koch Brothers are not sociopaths. They were born into wealth and happen to be extremely savvy and adhere to extremely right wing political ideologies. There's no need to further muddle the already murky "Left Wing Kool Aid" with epithets and analogies of "Wicked Kingdoms Ruled by Crazy Kings".I'm amazed you can type those words and not catch yourself. "They were born on third base and have convinced the world that they hit a line drive into the warning track." They aren't savvy, they were given something no one else has and weren't taught to appreciate it. You talk like there is some correct political solution but we have a man who is seriously being considered as the Republican candidate for president who bases his politics on a poorly written anti-communism book from the 60's. A philosophy that divides the world into moochers and an elite class of producers that understand everything and do everything. Paul Ryan thinks the world would collapse without him, but if he gets enough power, it will be because of him.
You are not sure you agree?....you think "the scum floats to the top of the stew"....? Well that's an excellent rebuttal. That clears things up. I state it's a political problem(which it most definitely and empirically is) and you counter with "scum floats to the top" and extreme wealth is a sickness....a sociopathic problem.I don't agree that 90% of people out there are just waiting their turn screwing it to the rest of us. I think wealth and power don't just have a corrupting effect, they attract the corruptible. It's not just a political problem it's sociological one, to a degree the ultra-wealthy are a symptom of a deeper imbalance in our species that does include us all I think. But that still doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their actions, and if they're working hard to deny the rights and even the very future of millions of other people then they are acting in a sociopathic manner.
The Koch Brothers inherited their wealth. I guess the sociopathy was "inherited" genetically too? Problems develop Fuzzy, when the political system as a whole is run by wealthy people for wealthy people. It's always been that way, it probably always will be. Unfortunately for the last 30 years or so a particularly extreme version of Conservatism has controlled the Republican Party and other politics in other places(Harper). It's an ideology. It is not a pathology.Fred Koch made millions working for Stalin, two of his sons show little in the way of basic empathy, that seems very sociopathic to me. Working hard to deny things like climate change and any sort of environmental protection that may affect their bottom line really doesn't indicate a willingness to include the interests, health or even existence of those being affected. If that isn't the definition of a sociopath I don't know what is. I think it's evidence of profound pathology, denying basic reality in the pursuit of something that only really has meaning in their tightly defined world.
That's right. It is a political solution. The Koch Brothers are not sociopaths. They were born into wealth and happen to be extremely savvy and adhere to extremely right wing political ideologies. There's no need to further muddle the already murky "Left Wing Kool Aid" with epithets and analogies of "Wicked Kingdoms Ruled by Crazy Kings".They were born into wealth that was probably accumulated by another sociopath who started off working for one of histories great mass murderers, Stalin needed a great deal of help slaughtering the millions he did and Fred Koch was of great assistance building the refining technology that helped power Stalin and his successors for decades. That's not savvy, that's the lack of the ability to experience the effects of actions that are very damaging to others. It's been fairly well established that sociopaths do well at business and politics because they aren't hampered by the human considerations that limit most of us. It may seem like a plus in a very limited personal sense, but the overall effect is highly destructive in the long term. It's what to a large degree underlies a lot of the behaviour that is driving sociological and ecological devastation right now I think. People competing in sociopathic games played at a very high level while the rest of duck for cover and hope to hell there will be something left in the future.
I'm amazed you can type those words and not catch yourself. "They were born on third base and have convinced the world that they hit a line drive into the warning track." They aren't savvy, they were given something no one else has and weren't taught to appreciate it. You talk like there is some correct political solution but we have a man who is seriously being considered as the Republican candidate for president who bases his politics on a poorly written anti-communism book from the 60's. A philosophy that divides the world into moochers and an elite class of producers that understand everything and do everything. Paul Ryan thinks the world would collapse without him, but if he gets enough power, it will be because of him.Bingo, there is no such thing as divine selfishness despite what some of the most wealthy and powerful have convinced themselves of.
I'm amazed you can type those words and not catch yourself. "They were born on third base and have convinced the world that they hit a line drive into the warning track." They aren't savvy, they were given something no one else has and weren't taught to appreciate it. You talk like there is some correct political solution but we have a man who is seriously being considered as the Republican candidate for president who bases his politics on a poorly written anti-communism book from the 60's. A philosophy that divides the world into moochers and an elite class of producers that understand everything and do everything. Paul Ryan thinks the world would collapse without him, but if he gets enough power, it will be because of him.I'm sorry Lausten, but your response here is emotional. My original response was to show that these people clearly are not sick, sociopathic or pathological. What's to catch myself with? You're saying the Koch brothers are not savvy? Seriously? Just because someone is born into wealth doesn't mean that can't be savvy. And the Kochs are nothing if not savvy. The rest of your post is ranting(which I'm ok with...I agree with it.). We need to be rational and have a knowledgeable approach to recognizing the forces we are dealing with in politics. Calling people sick or sociopaths is not accomplishing anything. It makes good Kool-Aid...but....
I don't agree that 90% of people out there are just waiting their turn screwing it to the rest of us. I think wealth and power don't just have a corrupting effect, they attract the corruptible.
It's not just a political problem it's sociological one, to a degree the ultra-wealthy are a symptom of a deeper imbalance in our species that does include us all I think. But that still doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their actions, and if they're working hard to deny the rights and even the very future of millions of other people then they are acting in a sociopathic manner.First. Do you see the direct conflict between your two statements here? Second. Wealth and power attract most people.(I said I was guessing when I said 90%. I'll retract that and hold at 75% for the sole benefit of your scrutiny.) Ever heard of Lotto, for one? The TV shows "Who want's to be a Millionaire", or "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"(and obviously it's modern counterparts...which television is festooned with.) Crime? Crime! The more disparity in income equality, the greater there is crime. Which in actuality can be an extreme attraction to wealth and power. Not all cases, but many.
....and if they're working hard to deny the rights and even the very future of millions of other people then they are acting in a sociopathic manner.No. I know it sounds good. But no. Do you want to treat these people?
First. No, I don’t see.
Second. TV shows as evidence. I can see you are really doing your homework.
And no, I don’t want to treat anyone. You have provided no counter narrative to what Tim, Fuzzy and I have posted.
Honestly, as far as whether it is best to try to categorize some ultra-wealthy folks as sociopathic or simply as dysfunctional to our political and economic systems,… I don’t know.
I am open to looking at the problem from different directions.
Also, as far as the percentage of people who are overly motivated to seek wealth and power, I don’t have a clue as to what that might be. I just know that I am not motivated to seek extraordinary wealth. But if someone handed it to me, I wouldn’t refuse it. I would use whatever portion necessary to maximize the security and comfort of myself and those I am close to. With the rest, I would feel obliged to put to use in some way that would contribute to the greater good for the rest of humanity.
But I know that not everyone shares my particular inherent proclivities nor similar historical life-shaping contingencies. If all the uber-rich were like Bill Gates, this issue would probably not be particularly concerning to me. But since some are like the Koch bros., it is.
Probably, I would come down on the side that says, it doesn’t matter, so much, how we categorize the trouble-makers, as it does to put in place contingencies that will change their behavior, (or at least change the negative impact of their behavior.) OTOH, it is critical to know one’s enemy. But does viewing them as sick or sociopathic give us more information as to who they are? Perhaps, if the assumption is correct, (which it may or may not be). But, I think that, anyway, the information that it suggests is too limited, too general to be of effective use, at this point.
(BTW, I have learned to overlook Vyazma’s sometimes abrasive communication style, so as to be able to take in the rational points that he often makes.)
It’s been said that the wealthy (individuals and corporations) privatize their profits and socialize their losses.
I think that’s true. A different kind of communism, called corruption.
Lois
First. No, I don’t see. Second. TV shows as evidence. I can see you are really doing your homework. And no, I don’t want to treat anyone. You have provided no counter narrative to what Tim, Fuzzy and I have posted.Those questions weren't directed at you. I quoted Fuzzy Logic. That was a dialog we were having. Those were responses to Fuzzy's points. Bill, Mary, John and I could all see that.
It's been said that the wealthy (individuals and corporations) privatize their profits and socialize their losses. I think that's true. A different kind of communism, called corruption. LoisYes a type of corruption no doubt. But it's a corruption that's allowed to fester in the mainly legal confines of political/economic structure. It doesn't take a sociopath or any pathology to take advantage of this. It's legalized corruption. It takes intelligence, money, cunning, charisma, a little luck, sometimes inheritance, sometimes connections. Anybody who is smart enough to game that legal political/economic system and has the drive to do it is no fool. We don't look at the gamers of this system and decide what's wrong with them. There's nothing wrong. This is how it has always been. We look at the system and change it.
(BTW, I have learned to overlook Vyazma's sometimes abrasive communication style, so as to be able to take in the rational points that he often makes.)Well thank you Tim. I'm glad to see you around here again. I'm also glad you wrote "sometimes". :lol:
(BTW, I have learned to overlook Vyazma's sometimes abrasive communication style, so as to be able to take in the rational points that he often makes.)Well thank you Tim. I'm glad to see you around here again. I'm also glad you wrote "sometimes". :lol: I imagine that you have learned to overlook the faults (or I would euphemistically say "irregularities") in my communication style, as well.
First. No, I don’t see. Second. TV shows as evidence. I can see you are really doing your homework. And no, I don’t want to treat anyone. You have provided no counter narrative to what Tim, Fuzzy and I have posted.Those questions weren't directed at you. I quoted Fuzzy Logic. That was a dialog we were having. Those were responses to Fuzzy's points. Bill, Mary, John and I could all see that. You understand that your posts are public right? And I can read them? And if I want to, I can respond to them? Okay, just checking.