"The Left"

[Power Raid]

There are issues with both the left and the right.

But the difference is that the left is driven by empathy, which is the tool that drives great design. What I mean there is that it is now understood that designers in all fields strive for empathy to then understand need and design for it.

So for me I am a lefty. It doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the pain points with it. But you need to ask yourself are you for 'getting better' as a society or being arrogant and standing still.

you're right re issues with both sides....however...

empathy? there is a choice of thinking with the heart or the head. one is about as useful as thinking with your dick. it feels good but rarely delivers positive long term results.

unions use the heart to align interests of the masses by using language and rhetoric to mobilise the ignorant. In fact both sides use this as they know more people are motivated by fear than success.....that's why there are less people who are successful as the majority focus on the negative.

the reality is, any sustainable success is delivered by hard work and thinking. other than your mums tit, nothing is delivered solely by empathy.

Personally, I would advocate more to use their brains

 

[Pessimistic]

Plenty of people work very hard but fail to be successful on a capitalist sense

 

[JackOutback]

Plenty of people work very hard but fail to be successful on a capitalist sense

And plenty of 'successful capitalists' did all of f*** all to be successful, inheriting it from their parents.

 

[Subutai]

And plenty of 'successful capitalists' did all of f*** all to be successful, inheriting it from their parents.

and if you go over the 62 people that own half the wealth on earth

many are in that boat

 

[deltablues]

Whatever you guys think you are deciding between with all this academic language, it doesn't seem that you are following through on the gist of your argument - that realism and plain language will save Western culture from "leftists" trying to kill it. At least two thirds of your post commits the same sin you think these "soldiers of the Left" commit.

A lot of academics talk **** and waste good talent to spurious ends. A lot of academics do very good work that is useful to society. People using new phrases have SFA influence on society, yet you take the term "micro-aggressions" and decide it is part of the "weapons of choice" to "control the debate. And not only the language, but now thoughts"... So you are quite obviously talking out your ****.

The "current black armband view of Western history" is a relatively accurate view of history. If you don't think it is 'nice' enough then you can join the brigade of people who write to the paper asking why the news is always depressing.

I get it - you are out of your depth.

Get back to me when you can actually debate the points made, instead of engaging in some kind of reflexive Pavlovian response.

 

[deltablues]

Good stuff.

Lets not forget the emotive co-dependent goo attached....If you disagree, you're a repressive, fascist, heart-less monster.

What Marxism (Hegelian dialectical materialism) truly aspires towards - & it's zealous adherents firmly believe - Is ownership of the high moral ground & it's accompanying righteous sensibility. .... Nay, ownership of morality per se.

When the world is shrunk to economic concerns alone, as the criteria for social justice, then it's difficult to argue with....The key lies in questioning that basic assumption, as the only 'real' measure.

Oh, yes, you nailed it. And the zealots never saw a moral high ground they didn’t like.

And especially dangerous to open discourse is that they seek to justify the kindergarten mindset "safe spaces"/"micro-aggressions" as a refuge from the current social memes of racism, rape, trauma, trans gender, uncongenial thoughts etc.

And words such as "privilege" [subliminally "white" privilege] have become redefined as trigger words now invoked as conversation stoppers and used as blunt instruments wielded so as to inhibit freedom of speech and thought. See my earlier posts on John Stuart Mills.

We are talking here of hard Left "missionary regimes" promoting what they take to be "advanced values." These values are informed by ideas whose status is — or is felt to be — all but unimpeachable. To debate them is beyond the pale. And folk who do so are at risk of being treated as pariahs. Academics who do so risk loss of tenure.Which creates a situation where even raising certain ideas, or challenging others, is deemed to be immoral. Good debating strategy but reminiscent of the facile sophistry - how many times do you beat your wife?

There is a word for this - totalitarianism.

 

[JW Frogen]

Even when my interests lie with the Left, such as on issues of industrial reform, or penality rates, I do not what to be self identified with the Left.

Not when I look in the mirror.

They are just too airy fairy preachy. All Ram Das Gandhi knew nothing about economics but should have ran the country, self indulgent fantasy land weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!.

The main premise of their politics is always ego as masked as virtue.

At least the Right admits they are human bastards.

 

[Power Raid]

Plenty of people work very hard but fail to be successful on a capitalist sense

That's why it's only part of the equation

 

[Power Raid]

and if you go over the 62 people that own half the wealth on earth

many are in that boat

Were they the same richest people (descendants) 100 years ago?

The richest people (descendants) 100 years ago, were they the richest 100 years before that?


FTR I am uncomfortable with concentration of wealth as highlighted but history says wealth does disperse. Dispersing too quickly is as much a concern as not dispersing at all.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I get it - you are out of your depth.

Get back to me when you can actually debate the points made, instead of engaging in some kind of reflexive Pavlovian response.

What genius arguing; you say that I haven't debated and then you don't have to debate the fact you are a hypocrite. But I guess I'm 'out of my depth' by assuming your words conform to standard English language definitions.

Even when my interests lie with the Left, such as on issues of industrial reform, or penality rates, I do not what to be self identified with the Left.

Not many people would. Just as not many would self identify as being of "the Right". Both terms are most often used by political opponents who want to belittle someone else's opinion so they try to put it in a stereotypical box they have some pre-set jokes or opinions about.

And of course even people who self-identify as being from "the Left" or "the Right" would no doubt be contradicted by others who self-identify (e.g. a white supremacist vs a libertarian; or a communist vs a bleeding heart; or anyone of the millions of 'centrists' who are taking a position on a specific issue).

Plenty on the right don't think they're human bastards, either. More often they think everyone else is. i.e. They want to protect the country from people who aren't 'true patriots', or they say things like 'if you can't afford something, just get a better job', 'they're just lazy', etc.

 

[Subutai]

Were they the same richest people (descendants) 100 years ago?

The richest people (descendants) 100 years ago, were they the richest 100 years before that?


FTR I am uncomfortable with concentration of wealth as highlighted but history says wealth does disperse. Dispersing too quickly is as much a concern as not dispersing at all.

no

history shows the mega-rich get richer

62 owns half wealth now
80 last year
300, five years ago

The stats about how the average joe lost a lot during the GFC, and the rich continued to prosper is alarming too ?

 

[deltablues]

That's why it's only part of the equation

Indeed. Money gives you freedom, but it is not the main criterion. Being a well-rounded person is what we try to teach our children. And with an instilled work ethic, working hard and enjoying your work usually means that you will achieve some kind of financial success, especially in a capitalist system which rewards effort and skill (OK, in theory).

But a lot of unhappiness and stress in family life is due to the pressure of bills and mortgages and school fees and cost of living, so there needs to be a balanced approach. Would you push your child to be, for example, a lawyer where he/she might be miserable and rich , or (for example) a basket weaver or poet and be happy but poor?

Sometimes you never know until it is too late and your options are closed out. And sometimes due to family pressures/traditions you have no choice.

And just to go back on topic, I don't think that considering oneself to be Left or Right, politically, is a factor in respect of capitalism. Capitalism is far from perfect, but better than all the other options.

 

[deltablues]

What genius arguing; you say that I haven't debated and then you don't have to debate the fact you are a hypocrite. But I guess I'm 'out of my depth' by assuming your words conform to standard English language definitions..

I'm a sporting guy so I don't think it fair to engage you in any further dialogue - it's too reminiscent of shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Power Raid]

no

history shows the mega-rich get richer

62 owns half wealth now
80 last year
300, five years ago

The stats about how the average joe lost a lot during the GFC, and the rich continued to prosper is alarming too ?

Personally I don't care how much the rich have but I do care about participation and increasing the standards at the bottom and the middle.

That said I don't like high concentration of wealth as highlighted. This will reverse in time but not for 30-50 years. In the mean time we can rejoice more people are entering middle class than ever before.

So yes there are concerns but we shouldn't lose perspective that life has never been so good for so many and we continue this upward trend!

 

[JackOutback]

Personally I don't care how much the rich have but I do care about participation and increasing the standards at the bottom and the middle.

That said I don't like high concentration of wealth as highlighted. This will reverse in time but not for 30-50 years. In the mean time we can rejoice more people are entering middle class than ever before.

So yes there are concerns but we shouldn't lose perspective that life has never been so good for so many and we continue this upward trend!

Is the bolded even true any more or are we coasting on the success of previous years. Income inequality appears to be increasing, personal debt is increasing etc.

 

[Power Raid]

Is the bolded even true any more or are we coasting on the success of previous years. Income inequality appears to be increasing, personal debt is increasing etc.

 

[deltablues]

Is the bolded even true any more or are we coasting on the success of previous years. Income inequality appears to be increasing, personal debt is increasing etc.

Do you have any suggested causes and remedies re decreasing inequality/reducing rising personal debt? Do you think this is a political thing (Left/Right)?

As a starter, increasing wealth inequality has many causes (worthy of a separate thread) outside the average Joe Citizen's control. That is very political.

Whereas personal debt is much more relevant to one's personal debt comfort levels on an apolitical level. In this respect ( debt) the credit card system is in some respects the work of the Devil. As are housing expectations. I mean, many young couples these days expect their first house to have multiple en-suites, fancy kitchen, Vogue furniture, central a/c, with expensive monthly plans for phone and media facilities. And 2 cars all leased.

I am not saying that when I was young I lived in a cut-out kerosene can lined with Burl Ives record covers [this is an old joke] and had to walk backwards to school because my shoes had holes in the toes - but to reduce debt you should cut your cloth according to your income.

Part of it is political, structure-wise, and part a personal decision as to your debt threshhold comfort level.

 

[Power Raid]

Is the bolded even true any more or are we coasting on the success of previous years. Income inequality appears to be increasing, personal debt is increasing etc.

looking at it from a US perspective

middle income and lower income is shrinking and being replaced by upper income. thus the gap looks to be widening but for all the right reasons.

PS. that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to help those most needy and most importantly increase participation

 

[JackOutback]

Do you have any suggested causes and remedies re decreasing inequality/reducing rising personal debt? Do you think this is a political thing (Left/Right)?

As a starter, increasing wealth inequality has many causes (worthy of a separate thread) outside the average Joe Citizen's control. That is very political.

Whereas personal debt is much more relevant to one's personal debt comfort levels on an apolitical level. In this respect ( debt) the credit card system is in some respects the work of the Devil. As are housing expectations. I mean, many young couples these days expect their first house to have multiple en-suites, fancy kitchen, Vogue furniture, central a/c, with expensive monthly plans for phone and media facilities. And 2 cars all leased.

I am not saying that when I was young I lived in a cut-out kerosene can lined with Burl Ives record covers [this is an old joke] and had to walk backwards to school because my shoes had holes in the toes - but to reduce debt you should cut your cloth according to your income.

Part of it is political, structure-wise, and part a personal decision as to your debt threshhold comfort level.

Your last sentence sums it up. Yes, personal debt is a personal decision, but outside factors such as the economic structure, housing prices, banking rules and regulations, expectations on standards of living etc can all play a part in convincing people to take on more personal debt than they should be comfortable with. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time talking to brokers and banks, they are very keen to convince you that high levels of personal debt are manageable. And given the potential consequences to the overall economy of high personal debt, it's an issue that governments should at the very least be aware of and at best, work towards reducing to a manageable level overall.

 

[Subutai]

The number of billionaires has doubled since the start of the financial crisis, according to a major new report from anti-poverty campaigners.

According to Oxfam, the world’s rich are getting richer, leaving hundreds of millions of people facing a life “trapped in poverty” as global “inequality spirals out of control”.

The report found that the number of billionaires in the world has more than doubled to 1,646 since the financial crisis of 2009, and Oxfam says is evidence that the benefits of a return to economic growth are “not being shared with the vast majority”.

The influential report is supported by Bank of England chief economist Andrew Haldane and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. It notes that since 2009 one million women have died in childcare due to lack of basic health care, and that 57m children are currently missing out on any form of education.

The charity, which published the report as part of its new Even It Up campaign, also found that the richest 85 people in the world have the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population.

This group saw its wealth increase by a staggering £412m every day in the last year, while Oxfam now estimates that there are 16 billionaires in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 358m people live in extreme poverty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ubled-since-the-financial-crisis-9826345.html

From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while the bottom 99% incomes grew a mere 0.4%, according to an updated study by University of California Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty.

That means the top 1% took more than one-fifth of the income earned by Americans — one of the highest levels since 1913 when the modern federal income tax started, the economists note. More than that, the top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while the bottom 99% incomes have barely started to recover.

http://fortune.com/2013/09/11/the-rich-got-a-lot-richer-since-the-financial-crisis/

 

[deltablues]

Your last sentence sums it up. Yes, personal debt is a personal decision, but outside factors such as the economic structure, housing prices, banking rules and regulations, expectations on standards of living etc can all play a part in convincing people to take on more personal debt than they should be comfortable with. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time talking to brokers and banks, they are very keen to convince you that high levels of personal debt are manageable. And given the potential consequences to the overall economy of high personal debt, it's an issue that governments should at the very least be aware of and at best, work towards reducing to a manageable level overall.

I certainly agree with you about the banks encouraging high levels of consumer debt - and here in the US the housing loans debacle was very political (the consequences of which were on the taxpayers' nickel) - but it's not government's job to change people's lives and decision-making options: it's a government's job to provide a basic safety net (including border defence) and facilitate a society where people can change their own lives.

I guess it's a philosophical thing as to whether you believe in big government or small.

 

[JackOutback]

I certainly agree with you about the banks encouraging high levels of consumer debt - and here in the US the housing loans debacle was very political (the consequences of which were on the taxpayers' nickel) - but it's not government's job to change people's lives and decision-making options: it's a government's job to provide a basic safety net (including border defence) and facilitate a society where people can change their own lives.

I guess it's a philosophical thing as to whether you believe in big government or small.

I do believe it's the government's job to manage the mechanisms that control the economy. High personal debt, if allowed to rise unchecked, can have negative consequences for the economy as a whole. So I do believe the government should have rules and regulations to prevent banks from taking advantage of consumers.

Yes, people have personal responsibilities, but government also has a responsibility to regulate corporate behaviour for the social good.

 

[deltablues]

I do believe it's the government's job to manage the mechanisms that control the economy. High personal debt, if allowed to rise unchecked, can have negative consequences for the economy as a whole. So I do believe the government should have rules and regulations to prevent banks from taking advantage of consumers.

Yes, people have personal responsibilities, but government also has a responsibility to regulate corporate behaviour for the social good.

I agree with your sentiments in respect of appropriate legislation to prevent abuse, but the issue is to what degree. Too much and you stifle free enterprise, while too little and you reprise the old robber barons. An example of the latter in the US was the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, which let the US banks off the leash whereby they sliced and diced securities, permitted junk bonds and creative debt and generally played a particularly egregious form of financial musical chairs.

 

[JimDocker]

I certainly agree with you about the banks encouraging high levels of consumer debt - and here in the US the housing loans debacle was very political (the consequences of which were on the taxpayers' nickel) - but it's not government's job to change people's lives and decision-making options: it's a government's job to provide a basic safety net (including border defence) and facilitate a society where people can change their own lives.

I guess it's a philosophical thing as to whether you believe in big government or small.

I always like this argument. The banks that apparently do not like big government were all for being bailed out and walking away scot free from the disaster of the GFC that was caused to a large extent by them.

I think the big government v small government argument is again, too black and white. I want good government and that can be big or small.

 

[Subutai]

I always like this argument. The banks that apparently do not like big government were all for being bailed out and walking away scot free from the disaster of the GFC that was caused to a large extent by them.

I think the big government v small government argument is again, too black and white. I want good government and that can be big or small.

thats the communism-part of consumer capitalist democracy

have to save the greedy billionaires with tax money