sound chaser

Capitalism generally produces more overall wealth in a society, since person are free to buy, sell and make profits.

but would you say that capitalism hurts the poor or makes the poor poorer? does capitalism make consumerism worse?

i think the argument against the poor presumes that capitalism is a zero sum game. kind of like if brazil beat argentina at football or soccer, one team has won and one has lost.

i do think though that in the future, we might move beyond capitalism.

Willravel

Capitalism, imho, works so long as it's tempered with pragmatism and ethics. I'm more socialist than most people in the US, but I still feel that capitalism can work when we hold the rich responsible. A lot of very, very rich people get away with a lot of very illegal and unethical behavior in the US, and the fact of the matter is that many of them cannot be stopped without violating the ideals behind capitalism. In a capitalist system, those who behaved illegally or unethically would have to be punished by the market reacting to their behavior. Take Haliburton, for example. They get no bid contracts, which means that the market really can't punish them. It falls to the legal system, which is a bit torn on Hal. The solution to Haliburton seems to be somewhere outside of capitalism.

Cynthetiq

That's not true at all. You are very mistaken in that Haliburton quote.

HAL - Halliburton Company - Google Finance

Haliburton is a publically traded stock. The market sure can punish them. It has happened before just like any publically traded stock.

If they were a privately held company maybe you'd have a little something there, since privately held companies can basically do as they please as long as it falls within the legal framework.

I'm all for capitalism. I believe that it has produced better selection and quality of goods. It also allows for poor quality goods as you get what you pay for and what the market will bear. People know this and buy cheap products because that's how much value it has to them.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Charlatan

My issue is not with capitalism per se... as envisioned by Adam Smith, it isn't all that bad of proposition. Unfortunately, like most systems on paper (Marx and Engle's vision of Communism, for example) is a Utopian thing that is, at its essence unachievable.

Capitalism left to its own devices typically ends up with monopolies, exploited workers, etc.

What is required is a set of laws and regulations to temper the negative aspects.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ratbastid

I think will isn't so much referring to the stock market so much as the common market where services are traded for money, and prices are set according to rules of supply and demand. I think you'd agree, when a supplier can set any price they want without any question from the customer, and the customer pays it as a matter of law, policy, or crony preference, that market is broken.

The_Dunedan

Quite correct. Such a situation is a market distortion, ie a system in which such things are practiced is not Capitalist, rather Mercantilist.

Capitalism left to its' own devices proved a myriad of means by which such issues can be addressed. Lawsuit, boycotts, strikes, etc etc. Mercantilism, in which Corporations are supported by the Government, removes these means by lessening or eliminating their impact.

Or a -lack- of those laws and regulations which -cause- such negative aspects.

Quite correct. So why not remove the laws (Corporate Personhood and welfare, just to start) which prevent this from happening? Fujifilm, Smith & Wesson, and the Montgomery Transit Authority can all relate how effective such means can be when the Gov't gets out of the way.

Cynthetiq

That's not a market in any definition of the word.

That is a problem with the mechanics of that CLOSED system. The customer is free to choose something different and by matter of law, policy, or preference (cronyism notwithstanding) it is the SYSTEM that is broken, not the market.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

samcol

As a firm believer in capitalism I actually agree with you for the most part. You can call it capitalism, crony capitalism, communism, fascism, or whatever, but when governments get involved in markets and don't follow through with policing them it's not good for consumers at all.

I for one think governments should be involved in fewer markets, whereas you might think they should be involved in more.

However, I hope we both agree on the problem of governments entering markets and not following through with it's job to police these corporations (like a no bid to Haliburton and then allowing them to get away with murder, literally). That is a bigger problem than the socialsim vs. capitalism debate.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

loquitur

The problems with capitalism usually arise from government interference. Beyond providing basic infrastructure (such as courts, law enforcement, defense and a money supply), most govt'l interference is, with the best of intentions and with a desire to help, deleterious. There are a number of reasons why this is so, starting with inability to get complete information from a remove; inflexibility of structure once implemented; free-riding by political constituencies; lack of market or other consequential discipline for the decisionmakers; disregard of moral hazard; agency costs; failure to prioritize outside crisis; one-size-fits-all decisions, etc etc etc etc. The bottom line is that govt is just not well-equipped to make economic decisions or forecasts. That doesn't mean the govt is incapable of doing some good things, but as a general rule the less involved the govt is in the economy, the less distortion there is. And that applies to everything from health care to real estate.

Willravel

Haliburton gets no bid contracts. It doesn't fulfill it's contracts and is ripping off Iraq and the US government. The stockholders won't do anything to stop Haliburton until their stocks are effected negatively. This is a no brainer.

Is this clear? Assuming the shareholders behave in a capitalist manner, Haliburton can continue to behave unethically so long as they keep showing growth and the the shareholders keep making money.

Cynthetiq

Yep no different than people continuing to invest in companies that pollute the environment via vehicles and oil spills. The investor gets to have a choice, they can either also be ethical and sell their stocks and lose potential gains or invest and make gains.

It again is very simple. It's clear that you don't understand.

Stockholders aren't about ethics or morality. They are about making returns on their investment.

You'd like them to be, that's a different world that you would like us to live in. The reality is that CalPERS and other major pension fund holders want to give good returns to their funds and thus their pensioners. They aren't in it for the morality, they are in it to be able to give people the pension that they were promised over time.

But in your world, you'd rather them not have that ability and rather that they be moral and just.

They have heavy interest and investment dollars at stake. It's not about being moral and just, it's about being able to pay all those that paid into the system. This isn't just America, but many other countries too.

WORLD'S LARGEST PENSION FUNDS: $10 trillion strong - Pensions & Investments

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

To make this statement more clear: an investor can choose to be ethical or unethical.

Those who choose to be unethical are favoring their investment over ethics, and that is a failure. Did you read my first post?
So we're in agreement: capitalism isn't always ethical. I see that as a failure. If you don't, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I believe more strongly in ethics than I believe in financial stability. I'm pretty sure that's been consistent for the past 4 years I've been on TFP.
You never need to condescend to someone to get your point across.

Cynthetiq

It is clear that you don't understand how businesses and investors operate, you don't want to understand because you stop at ETHICS and don't want to hear more than that. I don't care that it's not ethical, in fact the next time you get that itchy feeling that you don't want some of that cash in your wallet or bank account, you just feel free to send it this way.

See there are ethical companies, just like there are ethical people. There are companies that do the right things and there are companies that do the wrong things, but because some do wrong you seem to rather toss out the baby with the bathwater.

You'd rather there be nothing because you can't live with any duality. That's great! Everything in your life must equal failure at some point then... good onya!

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

According to you, that's my choice:
This seems clear, though you seem certain that selling stocks in an unethical company automatically means an opportunity cost. That's really not necessarily the case. When and if there is a serious shift in government, Haliburton could find itself not just in financial trouble, but legal trouble as well. At that point, the stocks will sell low and all of those people who chose your supposed gains over ethics will be SOL.
It's not tossing out the baby with the bathwater, though. It's tossing out theoretical gains with the bathwater (or blackwater, nyuk nyuk), and it's doing so in order to make the world a better place. For some people, myself included, that's a different kind of investment. It's just as theoretical, but it's something I'm happy with.
This is a strawman. I never said anything about "nothing". All I said was that one should bear ethics in mind and not just be profit-centric in their economic decision making. I stand by that.

robot_parade

I disagree. I think government interference (code for regulation) is required to keep a capatalistic society healthy. Capitalism is great for maximizing profits. Pure, unfettered capitalism is great if you want a society that looks great on the quarterly basis - profits are up! But I think it's safe to say that money isn't everything. Profit should not be the end goal of society. There are other things that people want. Clean air. Social mobility. Safe working conditions. To have these things, capitalism must be tempered with common sense, and, yes, regulation.

Clear, simple, efficient regulation, to be sure. But without limits, capitalism would tear our society apart.

Stare At The Sun

More then any other system.

Bilbert

The board and top executives will get a nice big golden parachute. It's unlikely that they will even be fined. If you make the right political contributions and play golf with the right people you can kill a plane load of people and get away with a slap on the wrist. Haliburton might be a special case but I'll believe it when I see it.

Only the small investors who get the news last will really get hurt.

Cynthetiq

The shift doesn't happen in a vaccum, it doesn't just happen in a 24 hour period. Hey, maybe in the revolution right? If it did, then you'd see a sharp cliff in the link that I posted for their trading value.

But see, that's the best part about this captialism, if any investor is smart, they pay attention to the news, they pay attention to what happens in the world. And that's when they divest their holdings and move onto a better opportunity.

Simply you don't like the fact that there's winners and losers. Winners and losers. In order for there to be some profit, someone has to have a loss.

Maybe the stock market can be just like the rest of the pussification and we just give increases because then no one's feelings gets hurt. You know, like particiapatory sports where everyone gets a trophy and no one is a loser.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Charlatan

I am not so sure that that is accurate. Capitalism is about the exchange of one thing for another... Who is the loser if I give you money in exchange for services or goods?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Cynthetiq

If there are others selling the same goods and services for different prices, and I pay more than you did for the same goods and services, I lose something don't I? I've lost potential savings or ability to spend the difference on another good or services.

In the investment side of this, which is where we've pushed the discussion, the goods and services is performance of a stock. If I buy today and the stock is high, versus if you bought several weeks ago when the stock was lower. I've lost potential profits.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Sun Tzu

Competition. On the bright side there is innovation, a hopeful devotion to providing quality service or producing high grade products. The dark side (if you consider it dark) giants like Walmarts can sink the smaller scale operations with convenience and lower prices. Personally, I won’t shop at Walmart because I don’t like their ethics and have a willingness to pay 2% more for a higher grade product.

As a whole I don’t think America’s application to capitalism would be successful, if opportunity didn’t exist. Anyone from any walk of life can achieve their financial goals- if they have 100% intention. There are not many situations that provide an atmosphere where someone can be born in poverty, work hard, and become as financially successful as they choose to be. The thought that the more successful a person is the more they should pay seems backwards. Perhaps if all I had known was learned from experience living in a socialist or communist society, then my mindset would differ. It’s too late to take the blue pill.

Denmark was found to be the happiest country on Earth. A majority of the population agreed that this was due to their expectations being low. IMO having the government completely pay for a college education, provide medical coverage, and even give males maternity leave is not worth the price of being taxed 50-70% of earnings.

We are all taking a test in the morning. The group is informed everyone taking the test is going to get the same grade of 75% (C). So regardless of how long or little time is devoted to preparing for the exam every will receive the same grade. Why study at all? That just seems like a dismal existence.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

roachboy

where does this idea come from that left to itself, capitalist market relations are rational, are ethical (on utilitarian grounds)?
it certainly doesn't come from the history of actually existing capitalism *anywhere.*
it has no relation to a description of present reality--certain not of the world that neoliberalism (the premises of which are simply being repeated in this bizarre little profession of faith thread) has made in the southern hemisphere---certainly not of the united states' socio-economic system, which is in fact a pretty intricate system of intertwined state and market functions---any market is an intertwining of state and non-state if you think about it, at least in the modern context--capitalism and the modern state are twins, they developed as an ensemble, they are of a piece one with the other.

most of the folk above seem to imagine capitalism as natural phenomenon which exists in some pure state in principle outside the pages of 18th century political economy books and which has been progressively sullied by the influene of the state---that is a delusion,

a type of platonic delusion no less--because you have the noun "capitalism" there must be some eternal form "capitalism" and because the world as we know it is subordinated to the world of forms, "capitalism" must exist---well, folks, this "pure capitalism" you speak of is a fantasy. it does not, has not and will never exist. it is far more utopian than whatever you imagine marx's vision of communism because whatever you imagine that to be at least it was defined as something human beings actually would make, so as something that would arise through a particular history---"pure capitalism" has no material history apart from the material histories of the books that elaborate it, a genre of fiction writing.

more hilarious still, folk use this fiction "pure capitalism" to rationalize many of the uglier effects of the existing order: so there are "winners and losers" and so those who benefit from the system deserve to and so those who are excluded deserve it and so no-one has to think too much about anything. what is is natural and is normal, whatever it is.

this is the reactionary american gospel according to neoliberalism.
bless me capitalism for i have sinned. i have wondered whether the consequences of the system are necessary. please forgive me.
in the reactionary little world of the united states, it seems that a socio-economic order that created indoor plumbing and mass electrification cannot and should not be able to address its more complicated social irrationalities. so this fiction "capitalism" is on the one hand the natural order of things, and on the other is too weak to adjust itself;
it is a system which has generated some lovely things, but it is too narrow to be made to address its human and environmental side effects.
it disempowers all but the holders of capitalism, but is so fragile that it is not permissable to even wonder if that disempowerment is a LIMITATION and not a natural outcome, the result of a natural hierarchy. so in the reactionary little world of america, the prevailing move is to imagine yourself amongst the holders of capital regardless of your actual system.
perhaps this is the political consequence of a consumer culture--this is the dominant fantasy that mediates relations to the world--focus on the dance of objects within the system, don't worry a whole lot about how they're made, how they got into this dance of objects, who owns the means of production, who controls the theater in which the dancing of commodities occurs---just sit in your fucking chair and think "the world would be just dandy if i could own all these things" and to own all these things you need capital and so and so and so.

in the reactionary little world of america, we are apparently told to see capitalism as the image of america itself" extremely powerful in principle, shot through with irrationalities in fact, dynamic in principle, afraid to look at itself in fact; all-powerful and abject in the way fading empires are.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

loquitur

capitalism hasn't existed because the government can't resist meddling, and because a fair number of people would prefer getting the playing field tilted for them by the govt rather than compete on the merits. The REAL reactionaries, Roachboy, are the ones who think that if only they and their acolytes had power, they could fix the ills of society. That scam has been going on since long before capitalism was a figment of anyone's imagination, and still lives today.

ratbastid

Yeah, isn't that odd? Sort of nails the prevailing situation, though.

Capitalism is like Tinkerbell--she can pull through if we all believe hard enough.

Believe, friends! Believe!

abaya

Yeah, my first thought upon reading the title was, "Believe?" That's like asking, "Do you believe in evolution?"--I mean, personally, I live capitalism. I have to. Even though I am currently residing in a socialist (welfare) state, there is no lack of capitalism here, I can guarantee you that. There is no escape from it. It doesn't matter whether I "believe" in it or not, it exists and perpetuates with or without me.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

guyy

Complete nonsense.

Capitalism cannot exist without the modern state. Without "meddling" (e.g., enforcement of contracts, legal standards, guarantees of value through currency & central banking) capitalism could not last one minute. Without state prodding and subsidy of infrastructure (roads, railways, airports, communications) it would be a bigger mess than it is today. "Just in time" and all that crap is unthinkable without massive government participation in the economy. Without the New Deal (=complete Evil, according to you) there would be no consumerism, no Ford, no GM no P&G, no Starbux, no Amazon.com...

It is well known fact of internet life that people tend to be ruder on-line. I wonder if the illusion of unmediated communication also makes them more prone to believe in these Robinsonades/Kindergeschichten.

roachboy

loquitor:

guyy's right.
plus he used robinsonade, which is a favorite old chestnut.

anyway, once the topic gets turned to actually existing capitalism and to it's history, you cannot win this argument.
the only way you can do it is to work against reference to actually exisiting capitalism and it's history.

so the thread is a religious question: do you believe in capitalism has the same sense as do you believe in the intercession of the saints or do you believe that dousing rods locate water or do you believe that there is a geometer god who made a geometrical world and ordered everything in it. do you believe that there are eternal forms that dance about the mind of this god, do you believe that meanings happen when reflections of these forms drop onto our mortal coil.

because "do you believe in capitalism" asks about a religious committment, you can believe anything you want. but it's nothing more than a religious question.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

guyy

No, you don't. Show me how Icelandic workers are in control and i'll believe you.

I hafta say, considering the rhetoric here, Joe McCarthy and the Juan Birch Society won. What y'all are saying is essentially the same thing, i.e., New Deal = "socialism".

The US had and continues to have an active & powerful anti-capitalist Nazi-Commie-Pinko 5th column or ZOG, depending on whether it's more expedient for individual bearers of ideological structure to pose as embattled freedom fighters or defenders of civilisation.

Baraka_Guru

This is essentially why I've stayed out of the thread until now. I'm not sure what the intent is.

That and I figured it was only a matter of time before someone brought up Ayn Rand.

Oh, crap. The cat's out of the bag.

As long as we can agree that capitalism is amoral as opposed to immoral, I don't see any real reason for me to continue here.

I should also state that I think it is improbable that we can "move beyond" capitalism. I think the alternatives are either utopian and therefore impossible or a regression and therefore totalitarian.

Either way, I think we should work within the capitalist system.

There will be no revolution. It isn't coming. But if it were, it wouldn't be televised. At least not for long.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

abaya

Perhaps you missed the sentence after the one you quoted, where I said that there was plenty of capitalism to go around in Iceland. What I meant by it being "socialist" was the emphasis on a welfare state, as I put in parentheses--we all pay a goodly part of our taxes into a nationalized system of education and health care. Also, I don't know if this applies to your question or not, but all workers in Iceland are required to be members of their respective unions. This applies even to higher-skilled workers. They are not "in control," but the unions have more power and representation here than I have ever seen in the US.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Baraka_Guru

Yes, Canada is the same way. A good proportion of the House of Commons is made up of socialist representatives. These are mostly social democrats and democratic socialists (yes, there's a difference). What this means is that there are a number of socialists with influence in Canadian politics who don't want a Marxist revolution nor want to take down the capitalist system. They want sensible socialist change within what's currently at play, and they want to reinforce the socialist elements that have already been implemented (national healthcare, workers' rights, etc.).

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

loquitur

actually, guys, I believe that I said elsewhere that the state provides infrastructure for capitalism, such as a legal system, law enforcement and defense. My issue isnt with that sort of thing. My issue is with attempts to pick winners and losers, to second guess economic outcomes, to prefer certain groups at the expense of others, and other such things. Contrary to your contentions, history amply demonstrates the folly of such activity. Friedman demonstrated, for instance, that the federal govt turned a manageable business downturn into a Depression. Japan just had a 15 year recession because it was unwilling to have a market shakeout.

And almost invariably the governmental schemes become instruments of corruption of one sort or another - corruption that is much harder to root out than in a business and, because it's at the governmental level, much more dangerous and insidious because it affects more people and requires years -- several elections plus legislation plus enforcement - to get rid of. "Corruption" as used here refers to invocation of public machinery for private purposes, usually cloaked under hifalutin' rhetoric about the public good.

robot_parade

"Friedman demonstrated, for instance, that the federal govt turned a manageable business downturn into a Depression."

No he didn't. He *argued* that the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve failed to stop the Great Depression. This interpretation is still up for debate, but he certainly wasn't arguing against regulation - he was in favor of the Federal Reserve, he just thought they made the wrong call. A lot of economists these days agree with that assessment, but it's not exactly like you can test these things. :-)

Absolutely, this happens quite a lot. That's why regulation should be clear, simple, and transparent.

Consider the bailout of Bear Sterns, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac. Letting them crumble would be absolutely devestating to the economy. But, by bailing them out, the guys who made the irresponsible decisions at the top get off mostly scott free (not all of them, but I'm sure the big guys are doing fine). So how is there any incentive against them doing the same thing all over again?

Poppinjay

I wonder if Jus' Stuff is still in business?

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

loquitur

RP, you should read the Larry Summers article that I linked and quoted over in the minimum wage thread. He dealt with exactly this issue re FNMA etc.

dc_dux

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Beyond that......wake me when the discussions in TFP Politics return to politics and not economic theories (and/or the value of CEO salaries, which strayed beyond recognition from the political issue of a minimum wage that was the focus of the OP in an adjoining thread.)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Baraka_Guru

The minimum wage isn't an economic issue?

Economics fits into Tilted Politics better than any other area of The Academy.

Economics isn't politics, but politics deals with economics.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Actually, it's probably better in knowledge.

Baraka_Guru

I respectfully disagree. That would imply that economics is more of a theory or body of study than a real-world entity that is influenced by and influences people with and without power.

Suddenly, it sounds a bit more like politics.

How much of public policy is directly and indirectly related to economics? How much of an influence does economics have on public policy, both nationally and internationally?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cynthetiq

You could also post a political thread instead of waiting for someone else to do it... just a thought.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.