Wynton Marsalis on the importance of aggressive inspiration in education ...

[ruger9]

As I see it - regardless of one’s attitude toward the public sector - if you don’t support a strong anti-private monopoly position, either you’re on the gravy train or a bit of a mug.

I'm not sure I know anyone who is pro-monopoly, except perhaps those who believe the govt itself should BE the monopoly, with 100% total control over everything, all the time. But seriously, anti-trust laws are one thing both sides of the aisle seem to be able to agree on (I'm talking amongst actual citizens; not the companies who want to be the monopoly themselves)

[Christian Miller]

I'm not sure I know anyone who is pro-monopoly, except perhaps those who believe the govt itself should BE the monopoly, with 100% total control over everything, all the time. But seriously, anti-trust laws are one thing both sides of the aisle seem to be able to agree on (I'm talking amongst actual citizens; not the companies who want to be the monopoly themselves)

Well Peter Thiel is intensely relaxed about them haha.

needless to say quite a few US libertarian types would rather have a private sector stranglehold on a market than government intervention under any circumstances to break that monopoly. They would insist that the market be allowed to play out its logic.

Which means when push to shove they would choose private monopoly over government intervention. Which means regardless of ideology, it puts them in any practical sense that I can see as pro private monopoly.

[ruger9]

Well Peter Thiel is intensely relaxed about them haha.

needless to say quite a few US libertarian types would rather have a private sector stranglehold on a market than government intervention under any circumstances to break that monopoly. They would insist that the market be allowed to play out its logic.

Which means when push to shove they would choose private monopoly over government intervention. Which means regardless of ideology, it puts them in any practical sense that I can see as pro private monopoly.

Well, putting your assumptions aside, I see your point. Anyone who thinks unfettered/unregulated free market/pure capitalism is the answer to everything is just as misguided and foolish as those who think government/total regulation/socialism is the answer to everything.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

The point would be that the remark about restaurants is poor support for the benefits of competition, specifically because the example offered ("restaurants in big cities [are] better. . . because they HAVE to be") is flawed in at least two ways: It assumes that big-city restaurants are better, and that the cause is the (presumably) competitive environment of the big city. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. (There's also the question of whether competition plays the same role in the restaurant and health-care environments, but that gets abstract and philosophical pretty quickly.)

I am personally wary of monopolies and skeptical of arguments favoring mergers and business-sector consolidations, but I like to build my arguments from solid, specific examples up. I'm also inclined not to sneer at people I disagree with or conduct conversations in a way that in real life would lead to a meeting out in the parking lot.

Stoney enough?

yes that’s better. It’s wrong, but it’s better.

[RLetson]

yes that’s better. It’s wrong, but it’s better.

Hey--participation trophy or I ain't playin' no more.

[Christian Miller]

Well, putting your assumptions aside, I see your point. Anyone who thinks unfettered/unregulated free market/pure capitalism is the answer to everything is just as misguided and foolish as those who think government/total regulation/socialism is the answer to everything.

I understand why people get drawn into these very ‘pure’ systems - especially, typically young men who work in Tech and have a STEM background. The free market of theory is elegant. I found/find stuff like that intellectually interesting.

Even my boy Popper was somewhat sold on neoliberal theory which it seems to me is as eminently vulnerable to his critiques as Marxism is. (It’s also interesting to me that it was Hayek who coined the term scientism.)

(even in science Einstein said ‘elegance is for tailors’ which is funny because his ideas were really flipping elegant)

The first time my wife, who has worked in what we may call High capitalism for decades explained to me the cause of the 2007-8 financial crash, I immediately said ‘astrophysicists came up with this didn’t they?’ I’m not super smart - but I do know how these people think. simplifying assumptions were made for mathematical reasons by brilliant young people with phds from Harvard etc and little experience of the real world which were then taken literally (it matters not whether this was on good faith) by those whose job it is to sell financial products.

See also ‘game theory’, crypto etc

(Otoh Large banks function much like any human bureaucracy.)

No the cows are not spherical. No, they are not in vacuo.

the real world is a mess. Discussion of policy is messy. Systems have waste built in. Markets are poor at dealing with certain things. No one likes bureaucracy but it is both essential and inevitable in both the public and private spheres. Companies will even end up acting like states given the opportunity- see the East India Company for a fascinating historical example. (See also Adam Smith’s thoughts on it.)

For these and many other reasons, I would rather have lines of accountability beyond the market for the provision of public goods, even if we had a free market which in fact we often do not (either because of natural monopolies or endemic rent seeking behaviour. Or like Silcon Valley Bank everyone gangster until shit gets real.). Government or more correctly, the state, is part of that, but the state must be held accountable. I think the US founding fathers had stuff to say on the topic iirc.

[Litterick]

I understand why people get drawn into these very ‘pure’ systems ...I think the US founding fathers had stuff to say on the topic iirc.

They created the first pure system. They had it all worked out. But it was not long before they split into two factions, nationalists and confederationists, which could only be reconciled with a Great Compromise. They wound up with the Electoral College, and a lot more.

[Tal_175]

The problem with all abstract political systems is that they pretend that we are not just all primates. A lot of our traits evolved millions of years before we were even primates. These traits produced survival advantages within a set of constraints that are very foreign to the idealized virtuous citizen in modern civilizations. We are trying to operate in a new environment from which we got zero biological feedback.

All systems in principle promote free speech, equality and welfare for all, eliminate oppression and coercion etc. But that has nothing to do with our evolution. This is like we are trying to do brain surgery with a stick that helped us catch food a million years ago. That's why every system we create turns into a jungle.

[ruger9]

I understand why people get drawn into these very ‘pure’ systems - especially, typically young men who work in Tech and have a STEM background. The free market of theory is elegant. I found/find stuff like that intellectually interesting.

Even my boy Popper was somewhat sold on neoliberal theory which it seems to me is as eminently vulnerable to his critiques as Marxism is. (It’s also interesting to me that it was Hayek who coined the term scientism.)

(even in science Einstein said ‘elegance is for tailors’ which is funny because his ideas were really flipping elegant)

The first time my wife, who has worked in what we may call High capitalism for decades explained to me the cause of the 2007-8 financial crash, I immediately said ‘astrophysicists came up with this didn’t they?’ I’m not super smart - but I do know how these people think. simplifying assumptions were made for mathematical reasons by brilliant young people with phds from Harvard etc and little experience of the real world which were then taken literally (it matters not whether this was on good faith) by those whose job it is to sell financial products.

See also ‘game theory’, crypto etc

(Otoh Large banks function much like any human bureaucracy.)

No the cows are not spherical. No, they are not in vacuo.

the real world is a mess. Discussion of policy is messy. Systems have waste built in. Markets are poor at dealing with certain things. No one likes bureaucracy but it is both essential and inevitable in both the public and private spheres. Companies will even end up acting like states given the opportunity- see the East India Company for a fascinating historical example. (See also Adam Smith’s thoughts on it.)

For these and many other reasons, I would rather have lines of accountability beyond the market for the provision of public goods, even if we had a free market which in fact we often do not (either because of natural monopolies or endemic rent seeking behaviour. Or like Silcon Valley Bank everyone gangster until shit gets real.). Government or more correctly, the state, is part of that, but the state must be held accountable. I think the US founding fathers had stuff to say on the topic iirc.

You really know your stuff, and see the WHOLE picture. Bravo!

[ruger9]

All systems in principle promote free speech, equality and welfare for all, eliminate oppression and coercion etc. But that has nothing to do with our evolution. This is like we are trying to do brain surgery with a stick that helped us catch food a million years ago. That's why every system we create turns into a jungle.

History says that's incorrect. One example is the life of labor before unions. Terrible working conditions, terrible pay, "company stores", even threats... certainly no free speech! Unions evolved for VERY good reasons. In some cases they have gotten completely out of control. I am neither "for" nor "against" unions, I see them as a necessary evil- just as I see government in general. Both are required as a check-and-balance, but both must be kept reigned in as well.

And the reason every system we create turns into a jungle is (IMHO): human nature/corruption. It's not idealism that does it. It's people being career politicians, going to DC to get rich on the gravy train, and stay there as long as possible... and after, get a cushy job in the private sector from the very people they "helped" while they were in office. One hand washes another. As it's always been. It's one of the world's biggest grift operations. It's a shame term limits were not written into our Constitution, because at this point, they will never happen. Enough legislation has been passed in government that the 2-party system has a stranglehold, it can never be changed***, and the 2 parties spend their time convincing their voters to hate each other, so as to keep them NEEDED... it's ridiculous.

***only one thing can change this system. Just as it did over 200 years ago. And if I start talking about it, I'll end up on a "list" somewhere LOL

[DawgBone]

The problem with all abstract political systems is that they pretend that we are not just all primates. A lot of our traits evolved million of years before we were even primates. These traits produced survival advantages within a set of constraints that are very foreign to the idealized virtuous citizen in modern civilizations. We are trying to operate in a new environment from which we got zero biological feedback.

All systems in principle promote free speech, equality and welfare for all, eliminate oppression and coercion etc. But that has nothing to do with our evolution. This is like we are trying to do brain surgery with a stick that helped us catch food a million years ago. That's why every system we create turns into a jungle.

Wi wuz munkees.

[James W]

And I'll repeat again- someone please explain to me how the "universal coverage" system for our Vets is so terrible, if "universal coverage" fixes everything?

I'd hazard a guess that if the system for your vets was seen to be a great success, the idea of universal coverage would become popular and the insurance companies and big pharma would not like that.

It's the 'threat of a good example' which has been seen in the US's brutal foreign policy in South/Central America and various other places across the globe (which the UK has often either been complicit or an active participant in).

[Tal_175]

And the reason every system we create turns into a jungle is (IMHO): human nature/corruption. It's not idealism that does it.

That was exactly my point. We are trying to put square pegs in round holes in idealized systems. So when we evaluate the success of a system, we can't be too harsh. We are just hoping to prevent the worst parts of the human nature run wild by operating within a system. The bar realistically can't be too high.

[ruger9]

I'd hazard a guess that if the system for your vets was seen to be a great success, the idea of universal coverage would become popular and the insurance companies and big pharma would not like that.
.

So, you are essentially saying, "there's corruption in them thar hills".... but that would mean government would have to be complicit, which would mean govt cannot be trusted. SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

[James W]

So, you are essentially saying, "there's corruption in them thar hills".... but that would mean government would have to be complicit, which would mean govt cannot be trusted. SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!

Lousy governments that are in the pockets of capitalists can't be trusted, no.

[ruger9]

governments can't be trusted, no.

Fixed it for ya!

[James W]

Fixed it for ya!

Ok, I'll level with you: while governments/states vary in the degrees to which they're good or bad, some are democratic, others totalitarian or authoritarian, I would venture to suggest that this variety does not exist at the level of private corporations, which are basically as authoritarian as they are allowed to get away with.

This is an important point. I see socialism as workers collectively, democratically owning the means of production, NOT some brutal state bureaucracy (incidentally, there are plenty of examples of complex, populous societies existing without a bureaucracy) however, to the extent that socialism exists or has existed, or aspects of it have existed, it is through things such as trade unions, strikes and indeed at times through democratic change of government (whether voted for or through revolution) that people have been able to make push-backs against their capitalist overlords and demanded something better. I recall an interesting analogy made by Chomsky about this: you're in a cage - the cage is the state/government - but outside the cage are vicious, hungry tigers which represent transnational corporations, and you don't want to get out the cage and be eaten. Hence you need that cage, and would like a bigger one to move around in, even though in the final analysis, you would like to cease the need for that cage.

To sum it up, it's pretty foolish going on about not trusting government because it gives a free pass to the tyrannical corporations.

[m_d]

Ok, I'll level with you: while governments/states vary in the degrees to which they're good or bad, some are democratic, others totalitarian or authoritarian, I would venture to suggest that this variety does not exist at the level of private corporations, which are basically as authoritarian as they are allowed to get away with.

This is an important point. I see socialism as workers collectively, democratically owning the means of production, NOT some brutal state bureaucracy (incidentally, there are plenty of examples of complex, populous societies existing without a bureaucracy) however, to the extent that socialism exists or has existed, or aspects of it have existed, it is through things such as trade unions, strikes and indeed at times through democratic change of government (whether voted for or through revolution) that people have been able to make push-backs against their capitalist overlords and demanded something better. I recall an interesting analogy made by Chomsky about this: you're in a cage - the cage is the state/government - but outside the cage are vicious, hungry tigers which represent transnational corporations, and you don't want to get out the cage and be eaten. Hence you need that cage, and would like a bigger one to move around in, even though in the final analysis, you would like to cease the need for that cage.

To sum it up, it's pretty foolish going on about not trusting government because it gives a free pass to the tyrannical corporations.

A bit unfair to your argument, but Chomsky lost all credibility for me when I learned about his support of the monstrous Khmer Rouge regime, which liquidated about a third of the Cambodian population by some estimates. Apparently those "vicious, hungry tigers" can never be governments for Chomsky. Oh and did he not advocate for putting unvaccinated people in camps? I guess he never learned the lessons of Cambodia. It's rather sad.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Lousy governments that are in the pockets of capitalists can't be trusted, no.

What do you call a government “in the pocket” of the CCP?

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

All systems in principle promote free speech, equality and welfare for all, eliminate oppression and coercion etc.

"All", huh. Ya sure?

[James W]

A bit unfair to your argument, but Chomsky lost all credibility for me when I learned about his support of the monstrous Khmer Rouge regime, which liquidated about a third of the Cambodian population by some estimates. Apparently those "vicious, hungry tigers" can never be governments for Chomsky. Oh and did he not advocate for putting unvaccinated people in camps? I guess he never learned the lessons of Cambodia. It's rather sad.

Complete nonsense. Wonder if you can produce a quote of Chomsky expressing his support for the Khmer Rouge?

[ruger9]

Ok, I'll level with you: while governments/states vary in the degrees to which they're good or bad, some are democratic, others totalitarian or authoritarian, I would venture to suggest that this variety does not exist at the level of private corporations, which are basically as authoritarian as they are allowed to get away with.

This is an important point. I see socialism as workers collectively, democratically owning the means of production, NOT some brutal state bureaucracy (incidentally, there are plenty of examples of complex, populous societies existing without a bureaucracy) however, to the extent that socialism exists or has existed, or aspects of it have existed, it is through things such as trade unions, strikes and indeed at times through democratic change of government (whether voted for or through revolution) that people have been able to make push-backs against their capitalist overlords and demanded something better.

Well, that makes sense, I mean the colonies didn't fight a revolution against a democratic capitalist government, they fought against a tyrannical monarchy (albeit a monarchy with a parliament; it was a sort of hybrid at that time.)

I recall an interesting analogy made by Chomsky about this: you're in a cage - the cage is the state/government - but outside the cage are vicious, hungry tigers which represent transnational corporations, and you don't want to get out the cage and be eaten. Hence you need that cage, and would like a bigger one to move around in, even though in the final analysis, you would like to cease the need for that cage.

So this goes back to Voltaire's "chains they revere" quote. The balance between liberty and security has always been a touchy one, and everyone has a different opinion of where that balance point is.

To sum it up, it's pretty foolish going on about not trusting government because it gives a free pass to the tyrannical corporations.

I'm against both: untrustworthy/corrupt governments AND tyrannical corporations. Which are not mutually exclusive, which you seem to be under the illusion of? It is not an either/or deal. They exist hand-in-hand, scratching each other's backs.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

the tyrannical corporations.

Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Whole Foods, Ben & Jerry's? Who are you thinking of?

[James W]

I'm against both: untrustworthy/corrupt governments AND tyrannical corporations. Which are not mutually exclusive, which you seem to be under the illusion of? It is not an either/or deal. They exist hand-in-hand, scratching each other's backs.

You keep changing the goalposts. A few posts ago you changed my quote to 'governments can't be trusted' and you have consistently argued against the US adopting universal health care, but now it seems you're only against 'untrustworthy/corrupt governments' which would appear to imply you are in favour of good governments; I would venture to suggest that a good government or at least a good government policy would be to adopt universal health care - that is what all the evidence from across the globe points to, and I've already offered an explanation accounting for why your very small example of US vets' health care is purportedly a failure.

[ruger9]

Like Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Whole Foods, Ben & Jerry's? Who are you thinking of?

Certainly not Ben & Jerry's, they are WOKE, remember?

I'd venture a guess the definition is "any corporation who doesn't provide free healthcare, doesn't have unions, and doesn't pay their workers enough." Meaning, 99% of them LOL

Isn't it interesting that corporations are supposed to be thought of as inherently evil (evil until proven otherwise), while government is apparently supposed to be thought of as inherently good (unless conservatives are in control)? LOL

I wonder if these same people consider big Pharma inherently evil, tyrannical, or at least corrupt... OR if they consider them benevolent because they "saved the world" with their vaccines?