Intentions, Coincidences, Correlations, Opinions and Biases

[ASU2003]

What is the actual reality of things going on in the world?

It doesn't matter if it is guns or global warming, each side is trying to get it's base paranoid of the other side. They look for things that may have happened in the past and try and say that the politicians will want to do more of it in the future, even though it isn't the whole story, or may not be a true statement at all now.

Then today, there was talk about how the Goldman lawsuit & profit news broke right when financial reform was having problems and they were trying to 'push' it through. Dodd?s Decision to Snub Republicans Could Stall Financial Bill - Pew Financial Reform Project The Obama regime must have been behind it all, even though they had no proof.

It was the health insurance companies that were raising premiums a few days before the vote on healthcare (for some reason they didn't want to wait, maybe it was in the bill that the rates when the bill was signed would be the benchmark). And all the major news outlets reported that the nuclear summit was a success on the word of the White House (they weren't invited, nor did any real investigative journalism).

There are definitely facts, proof, and truths about what happens in the world. But, how does one sort through the obvious lies and mis-information, to get to what is the real truth? Or would you rather live in your world where things always go your way and match what you think is happening? (I will say I have a really hard time believing that there is an economic problem in this country. People still drive lots, people are still shopping, and things haven changed in my world for the better.)

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

What is the actual reality of things going on in the world?

I think most people know the difference between political spin and reality. In some cases when their side does it they simply tolerate it and when the other side does it they get frustrated. There is a small minority on both sides who get caught up in the b.s. and can not see reality. In my opinion, and it is ironic, many of the most so called elite thinkers and leaders are the ones who appear to be most caught up in the b.s. When people refuse or can not answer simple direct questions that is my first clue that they are full of it. For example: what role should tax policy play in our society? Some people clearly believe it should be punitive, and serve the purposes of social engineering and wealth redistribution - but they would never come out and say that.

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by ASU2003

(I will say I have a really hard time believing that there is an economic problem in this country. People still drive lots, people are still shopping, and things haven changed in my world for the better.)

This sentence makes your avatar so much more appropriate.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

This sentence makes your avatar so much more appropriate.

Proves his point. Our economy has always been fundamentally sound even during the worst parts of the "crisis", recessions are a normal part of economic business cycles, and there is a lot of data suggesting a return to strong economic growth. Some are touting evidence of a "V" shaped recovery rather than a "U" or a "W" (double dip recession) shaped recovery.

Obama's bailout plan was clearly misdirected and should have had a greater focus on jobs, but recessions don't last forever, even in-spite of bone-headed actions by those in Washington.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

For example: what role should tax policy play in our society? Some people clearly believe it should be punitive, and serve the purposes of social engineering and wealth redistribution - but they would never come out and say that.

That's a great example, but not of what you think it's an example of.

Let's consider terms like "punitive", "social engineering", and "wealth redistribution". That you used those terms is very enlightening about YOUR position on tax policy. You then project that onto what people say, and for YOU it seems like what they "really mean" when they're maybe talking about something completely other than that.

And it's not "how ace doesn't listen". This is fundamental to our makeup as human beings. We really actually know NOTHING about "reality". The point at which I interface with reality is the exact same point where I interpret my perceptions into meanings. Which means I'm NEVER seeing things as they are, I'm ALWAYS seeing things through a layer of interpretation. And then I interact with those meanings and interpretations as if they are the real and objective truth.

Look at the object nearest you. Notice that RIGHT THERE IN THE LOOKING AT IT, you know what it is, its name, what it's used for. That's one aspect the layer of interpretation I'm talking about. It's not just what it is--a lump of something with the properties that make it real (it exists in space and time, and has a shape). No, to you it's (in my case) a "wallet". Well, it's not, really. That's the name we give that thing.

[rahl]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama's bailout plan .

Don't you mean Bush's bailout plan?

[roachboy]

huh..the largely neo-liberal imf thinks ace is wrong. how about that?
but wait! here's some information

this goes to the new world economic outlook report:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...1/pdf/text.pdf

here's a little blurb about the report:
Western economies too weak for spending cuts, IMF warns | Business | The Guardian

there's an interesting philosophical problem that's raised through the op to do with how open-ended you understand your immediate environment/situation to be, how self-contained it is (or not as seems to me the case)...even at a kind of ordinary banal level, the illusion that what you see around you is self-contained it a problem (turn on a faucet---unless you think that water is implied by the existence of a faucet, there's a problem.) this sort of problem repeats at almost every level (think globalizing capitalism as a distribution system). and this isn't to even go near the problems of perceptual boundedness by scale (you know, at the biosystem level all kinds of stuff's going on all around you all the time and you don't see it and often when you do see it you misrecognize it) or, more hair-raising still, questions of what time is.

almost any answer to the question "what's really going on" that goes beyond the fatuous (well, i turned on my faucet and now there's water coming out of it.) entails a construction of one kind or another. and you could say that it takes a whole lot of work---and entirely bourgeois socialization---to convince people that there's a noun in the expression "common sense" and that empiricism is a viable stance toward the world.

of course it may well all be just an aesthetic thing and if you like the idea that the world is comprehensible as it's presented to you then you can tell yourself that and you'll probably also think that you can know lots of stuff about another person from a photograph. like what happens immediately before and after. because it's all so predictable the world.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Proves his point. Our economy has always been fundamentally sound even during the worst parts of the "crisis", recessions are a normal part of economic business cycles, and there is a lot of data suggesting a return to strong economic growth. Some are touting evidence of a "V" shaped recovery rather than a "U" or a "W" (double dip recession) shaped recovery.

Obama's bailout plan was clearly misdirected and should have had a greater focus on jobs, but recessions don't last forever, even in-spite of bone-headed actions by those in Washington.

I think we're in for a deeper recession simply because Obama didn't focus on jobs. Wages are still falling like a rock, I have friends who do graphic design and are losing jobs because India is outbidding them for pennies on the dollar.

As we adjust so will the rest of the world, I am a firm believer we are in an economic war and those fighting us knows this is the only way to bring us down. We lower wages to compete, they lower wages also. We lower standards, they lower standards. Etc.

The problem with this is we have a president that is a blithering idiot. He didn't focus on anything that will last in this economic stimulus. He spent far more than the government will ever take in, thus raising taxes. And they will do it in ways to hide them, more on businesses and in areas where costs will go up but we "won't notice".

Wages are decreasing school tuitions are increasing.... thus people will be forever paying back student loans.

Wages decreasing means a lower tax base that has to pay a higher bill. This means taxes have no choice but to be increased one way or another.

Greed of the wealthy continues (CEOs still wanting more pay while their workers get less, colleges increasing tuition while paying their presidents more, and so on), while the workers are barely making a living... the class gap widens and worsens.

Regulating the finance district maybe needed but we have allowed it to become so powerful we may not be able to control it without destroying the whole economy.

I see the economy doing more of a little y in that it will go up, but because of government idiocy and not creating permanency in this so called "stimulus" we'll see the economy rise (as we are) but peak fast and fall even further with an extremely low bottom. With the feel of the land and the partisan hatred and people not wanting to lose what they have, there will be a point of revolt.

This may sound radical and ya all can argue all you want and come up with all kinds of arguments it won't happen, but I think there is no way to stop it now and I believe it will happen within the next year.

There are only 2 things that can stop this: increasing tariffs on imports (which will never happen) OR some national disaster (man made terroristic act or natural) either of which would only be a temporary pause to an economy that is doomed.

When you allow the class gaps to get so wide, government worries about foreign relations more than their citizens carbon taxes, very low tariffs, etc...), mass government corruption and spending where there is no realistic way of EVER paying it back lowering the standards of living (and having a certain percentage almost eager to allow it and make excuses why it is ok), and so on.... there's no stopping it and I truly believe there are those in government that want this to happen for power and personal gain.

But call me nutty... pick out one little period placed wrong and argue about that so we don't have to focus on ALL I said to state my argument and belief.

[filtherton]

I think we should start from the premise that anyone who seems sure of what is actually going on and who isn't also directly involved with what's going on is probably more certain than is justified.

There is never enough information to make completely informed decisions and so, to differing extents, we all have to make assumptions about salient details.

Problems arise when people fail to acknowledge that their assumptions might be misplaced. For instance, people with a superficial understanding of economics tend to misapply the notion of supply and demand. They understand this basic economic concept enough that they can intuitively apply it, but they often aren't aware of the underlying mechanisms.

I think that a lot of people evaluate every bit of political/economic news based on the underlying assumption that Obama/Democrats are socialist tyrants who are trying to ruin the country. These people are then easily exploited by opinion makers seeking to consolidate their own power (ahem, congressional republicans and large financial backers of the tea party movement). An identical process works on the left too.

As with all things, people have the tendency to see what they want to see unless they are explicitly aware of this dynamic and actively try to counteract it.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think we should start from the premise that anyone who seems sure of what is actually going on and who isn't also directly involved with what's going on is probably more certain than is justified.

There is never enough information to make completely informed decisions and so, to differing extents, we all have to make assumptions about salient details.

Problems arise when people fail to acknowledge that their assumptions might be misplaced. For instance, people with a superficial understanding of economics tend to misapply the notion of supply and demand. They understand this basic economic concept enough that they can intuitively apply it, but they often aren't aware of the underlying mechanisms.

I think that a lot of people evaluate every bit of political/economic news based on the underlying assumption that Obama/Democrats are socialist tyrants who are trying to ruin the country. These people are then easily exploited by opinion makers seeking to consolidate their own power (ahem, congressional republicans and large financial backers of the tea party movement). An identical process works on the left too.

As with all things, people have the tendency to see what they want to see unless they are explicitly aware of this dynamic and actively try to counteract it.

I think people believe what affects them. The media or government can put spins on it for a short period of time but in the end a person's reality and belief of what is going on is based on their experiences and what those close to them are going through.

If I come from say, the Buffett/Walton/Gates etc family, I am going to believe that there are no economic problems and if there are they are overblown and not as bad as people say. Why? because I don't pay attention and I don't experience the economic ills, like those who aren't in my class. I truly have no pressure financially and thus economics in my reality don't mean much. I can buy what I need and want and not worry. Government is controllable and I have money so that taxes don't bother me much, besides we have accountants paid well to make sure we pay as little as possible.

If I come from a Ford/GM/Goodyear etc family, I'm going to see wages declining and be trying to watch my budget and just make ends meet. I am under pressure to make ends meet but I still can eke out a little for "luxuries" like movies and because of the Wal marts I can buy some "higher end" goods (e machine computers, Dell, a tv, etc) cheap and be ok, I still have credit and I'll just make minimum payments, pay one thing off buy another if need be. Government seems to maybe try but they aren't truly doing anything to help and what they do seems to hurt us more. I can't really afford more taxes but maybe I can cut back a little more. I'll get my refund in April.

If I come from a service sector/$10 an hour job/small business owner that is losing to the national corporations...I'm going to see an extreme decline. I'm fighting to keep what I got, I may be able to afford some luxuries but not really... everything I can get is on credit or borrowed from this bill where I am behind but not so bad I'll lose service because I play bill ping pong.i have to go to thrift second hand stores, Dollar General stores, etc. to buy clothes and some things if not all I need. I'm 1 blown tire, 1 serious car problem, 1 missed paycheck from losing everything and the pressure has gotten to me. I feel I no longer have a voice and government does not care about me at all. My reality is that I watch celebrities, pay attention to reality show tripe, I drink/drug and live haphazardly with no true "stability" so that I can relax from the real world. Taxes eat up 33% of my paycheck and I can't afford that, let alone sales taxes and taxes on items I buy that are hidden into the prices.

The middle example is fastly becoming a part of the last example. This allows government to be more corrupt and to create more gaps in the classes. This administration, much like the Bush and end part of Clinton Administrations when you could see this happening are and won't do anything to change the course.

So the reality is determinate upon which "class" example you fall into or are closer to.

[roachboy]

you know, there's a side of what you're saying that seems to me obviously the case, pan: class distinctions are getting wider. the reason for that is the absence of state action, however. under the reagan administration, the united states saw the largest transfer of wealth into the top 5% and away from everyone else that has yet been recorded. the stratification of classes in the united states is by far the worst in the industrialized world. but the reason for that is that the united states is by far the least social democratic of the industrialized countries--the most conservative, the most phobic about the state as a mechanism to redistribute wealth and maintain a politically viable class structure.

this seems a matter of historical fact, so is not really movable. the interpretations of why this is the case are variable (as interpretations are, after all) but the fact of the matter isn't.

it's a consistent tic of yours (and you are far from alone in it)...so i don't get where it comes from.

it runs toward the idea you seem to have that capitalism on its own distributes income in a flat manner that's somehow distorted by the action of the state through taxes. that's upside down.

it also runs toward the idea that somehow or another the state is **Responsible** for the reorganization of capitalist production that's happened over the past 30 years and which is, at bottom, the explanation for structural unemployment---which might well be what we're looking at across this transition period, a massive expansion of structural unemployment. but the fact is that the government deregulated industry, created tax incentives and otherwise collaborated with the vaporization of american jobs--this under both republican and democratic forms of neoliberalism--but it was capitalist firms that did the actual reorganizing.

but this is all obvious.

where does the idea come from that the state is driving all these problems, pan?\
like i said, i think it's empirically not the case.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, there's a side of what you're saying that seems to me obviously the case, pan: class distinctions are getting wider. the reason for that is the absence of state action, however. under the reagan administration, the united states saw the largest transfer of wealth into the top 5% and away from everyone else that has yet been recorded. the stratification of classes in the united states is by far the worst in the industrialized world. but the reason for that is that the united states is by far the least social democratic of the industrialized countries--the most conservative, the most phobic about the state as a mechanism to redistribute wealth and maintain a politically viable class structure.

this seems a matter of historical fact, so is not really movable. the interpretations of why this is the case are variable (as interpretations are, after all) but the fact of the matter isn't.

it's a consistent tic of yours (and you are far from alone in it)...so i don't get where it comes from.

it runs toward the idea you seem to have that capitalism on its own distributes income in a flat manner that's somehow distorted by the action of the state through taxes. that's upside down.

it also runs toward the idea that somehow or another the state is **Responsible** for the reorganization of capitalist production that's happened over the past 30 years and which is, at bottom, the explanation for structural unemployment---which might well be what we're looking at across this transition period, a massive expansion of structural unemployment. but the fact is that the government deregulated industry, created tax incentives and otherwise collaborated with the vaporization of american jobs--this under both republican and democratic forms of neoliberalism--but it was capitalist firms that did the actual reorganizing.

but this is all obvious.

where does the idea come from that the state is driving all these problems, pan?\
like i said, i think it's empirically not the case.

I don't think capitalism is this great economic thing. I believe we do need to some degree government involvement BUT the ways government has involved itself are far more damaging and going in the wrong directions.

I believe in tariffs. Call it protectionism or what have you, but EVERY OTHER COUNTRY has far higher tariffs than we do. Some countries have tariffs on our goods so high we can't compete and our market is losing steam because of this. We need new markets but we are tariffed out of them. Yet, we'll import goods cheaper and in some cases foreign governmentally subsidized so that they are far cheaper than our goods.

What do we do? We don't go to government to increase tariffs or to find ways to prevent this..... NO we blame the workers and tell them they make too much so we outsource and lower wages (but increase exponentially executive pay) and government sits and allows this to happen.

Capitalism unchecked and unregulated (or under regulated) creates NOTHING but greed and widening gaps in classes so that class warfare is constantly prevalent. Government is happy with this scenario because they get more power over people's lives and become more corrupt and it continues to spiral out of control.

People say well we need to educate better to compete. But then school levies come up and people can't afford the property taxes, government continues to cut education spending (which should be #1 priority AFTER military) and colleges continue to increase tuition and spend on new buildings, stadiums, etc not on educating or helping people afford them. Case in point, Obama states he's increasing Pell Grants.... Ohio Colleges raise tuition 5-10%. That pretty much will eat away any gain. Yet, with the increase of tuition comes the increase in University president pay and so on. Then they talk about the need to cut staff.

That is a microcosm of what corporate America has become with government allowing capitalism free reign. Which again allows government to become more corrupt and lead us down the wrong path.

So no, I see government can and IS the solution, just our leaders continue to do the wrong things.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's a great example, but not of what you think it's an example of.

Let's consider terms like "punitive", "social engineering", and "wealth redistribution". That you used those terms is very enlightening about YOUR position on tax policy. You then project that onto what people say, and for YOU it seems like what they "really mean" when they're maybe talking about something completely other than that.

Assuming I understand your point, I am not sure I do, I disagree. The terms I used have clear meanings. For example, there is a component of taxing smoking that is punitive, or having the intent to punish those who smoke and those who profit from smoking. There is also a component of social engineering, those who don't like people to smoke want to discourage smoking. And there is a component of wealth redistribution, for example smokers being taxed for SCHIP (health care for children in low income families). I support taxation of smoking only to the degree that it imposes costs on society. This view is not about me or what I project, it is what it is.

And it's not "how ace doesn't listen". This is fundamental to our makeup as human beings. We really actually know NOTHING about "reality". The point at which I interface with reality is the exact same point where I interpret my perceptions into meanings. Which means I'm NEVER seeing things as they are, I'm ALWAYS seeing things through a layer of interpretation. And then I interact with those meanings and interpretations as if they are the real and objective truth.

This is an example of doublespeak in my opinion. What is real is pretty clear, it easy to define and easy to understand. it takes effort to convolute truth.

Look at the object nearest you. Notice that RIGHT THERE IN THE LOOKING AT IT, you know what it is, its name, what it's used for. That's one aspect the layer of interpretation I'm talking about. It's not just what it is--a lump of something with the properties that make it real (it exists in space and time, and has a shape). No, to you it's (in my case) a "wallet". Well, it's not, really. That's the name we give that thing.

There are certain "things" in the universe subject to illusion, "looking at" stuff may be one of them, on the other hand there are certain "things" in the universe that are not subject to illusion, i.e., 1+1=2. Perceptions of the severity of a recession is subjective, but the calculated economic indicators used to measure economic activity are not. For example, Obama only talks subjectively about the economy unless a data point supports his political cause at the time he says it, people who actually take the time to look at data points are not fooled by subjective commentary. There is a known and objective reality.

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------

Originally Posted by rahl

Don't you mean Bush's bailout plan?

Bush presented a plan to bailout Wall St., which was passed after modification and was paid back with a profit to the treasury, Obama presented and implemented a plan to save us from the brink of the worst economic disaster in the history of mankind. I was talking about Obama's over the top rhetoric and his failed plan. So, perhaps I am not clear on when Obama actually takes ownership, all I know is that things really dived after his election.

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Originally Posted by roachboy

huh..the largely neo-liberal imf thinks ace is wrong. how about that?

Wrong about what? You link to a 216 page report, say I am wrong, but provide nothing specific???? What am I to respond to? Perhaps your first step would have been to ask me to define my terms, to provide yourself with a better understanding before making a declarative conclusion on me being wrong. Hence the point of the OP, "fundamentally strong" is a vague subjective concept, but the data points supporting or disputing that concept are not. In this case you did not take the time to understand.

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by pan6467

I think we're in for a deeper recession simply because Obama didn't focus on jobs. Wages are still falling like a rock, I have friends who do graphic design and are losing jobs because India is outbidding them for pennies on the dollar.

As we adjust so will the rest of the world, I am a firm believer we are in an economic war and those fighting us knows this is the only way to bring us down. We lower wages to compete, they lower wages also. We lower standards, they lower standards. Etc.

The problem with this is we have a president that is a blithering idiot. He didn't focus on anything that will last in this economic stimulus. He spent far more than the government will ever take in, thus raising taxes. And they will do it in ways to hide them, more on businesses and in areas where costs will go up but we "won't notice".

Wages are decreasing school tuitions are increasing.... thus people will be forever paying back student loans.

Wages decreasing means a lower tax base that has to pay a higher bill. This means taxes have no choice but to be increased one way or another.

Greed of the wealthy continues (CEOs still wanting more pay while their workers get less, colleges increasing tuition while paying their presidents more, and so on), while the workers are barely making a living... the class gap widens and worsens.

Regulating the finance district maybe needed but we have allowed it to become so powerful we may not be able to control it without destroying the whole economy.

I see the economy doing more of a little y in that it will go up, but because of government idiocy and not creating permanency in this so called "stimulus" we'll see the economy rise (as we are) but peak fast and fall even further with an extremely low bottom. With the feel of the land and the partisan hatred and people not wanting to lose what they have, there will be a point of revolt.

This may sound radical and ya all can argue all you want and come up with all kinds of arguments it won't happen, but I think there is no way to stop it now and I believe it will happen within the next year.

There are only 2 things that can stop this: increasing tariffs on imports (which will never happen) OR some national disaster (man made terroristic act or natural) either of which would only be a temporary pause to an economy that is doomed.

When you allow the class gaps to get so wide, government worries about foreign relations more than their citizens carbon taxes, very low tariffs, etc...), mass government corruption and spending where there is no realistic way of EVER paying it back lowering the standards of living (and having a certain percentage almost eager to allow it and make excuses why it is ok), and so on.... there's no stopping it and I truly believe there are those in government that want this to happen for power and personal gain.

But call me nutty... pick out one little period placed wrong and argue about that so we don't have to focus on ALL I said to state my argument and belief.

Obama is a walking, talking blob of contradictions. I have no idea of what he is really trying to do or accomplish, so we get billion dollar Wall St bailouts, while Main St. pays the price. We get credit reform that allows banks to raise rates and cut off credit when people need lower rates and new credit at the worst time, we get health care reform that primarily benefits health care insurance companies. We get high unemployment while big corporation posts profit blowing expectations out of the water. I don't get it.

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Proves his point. Our economy has always been fundamentally sound even during the worst parts of the "crisis", recessions are a normal part of economic business cycles, and there is a lot of data suggesting a return to strong economic growth. Some are touting evidence of a "V" shaped recovery rather than a "U" or a "W" (double dip recession) shaped recovery.

Obama's bailout plan was clearly misdirected and should have had a greater focus on jobs, but recessions don't last forever, even in-spite of bone-headed actions by those in Washington.

Did you borrow his bag?

As for the rest of this thread, it seems better placed in Philosophy. For example, I would believe that the motivations of the people in our government are greedy, covetous, and power hungry. Others would assume that they work under a greater sense of good and only wish to help all of the masses better their lives, rather than beguiling the masses and fellating their benefactors. Reality, is that neither of us could look inside their souls and know what motivates them. I just know that I am correct, and others are wrong.

[roachboy]

ace--you could, you know, read the report. o i know it's a terrible burden to place on someone to do some research before they wave their hands about and declare in that alan greenspan kinda way that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" as if there's any fucking agreement about what that means.

there was a plot summary linked below so you didn't have to tire yourself out looking at information.
and i posted the imf report in part because it just came out and in part because the imf is a neoliberal organization in the main--has been since the 80s---a prime generator of neoliberal economic crisis and instrument of extending debt peonage as a mechanism for american imperial power---but that's all Far Away Stuff and "common sense" doesn't give access to it---ANYWAY the point was that

--advanced industrial economies are really quite rickety
--that such recovery as there is has been unfolding along multiple speeds and looks quite different in different places with the us starting late but looking among the stronger and the e.u. in a much more complex spot (for example)
--employment is a problem but the imf seems to think that the main way to deal with it is by extending unemployment longer.

i thought you'd find it interesting since the imf tends as an organization to argue along lines parallel to you except without the assurance that data doesn't matter.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace--you could, you know, read the report.

I am not a speed reader, but so far (first line in the Executive Summary), nothing disputes anything I have written here:

In 2010, world output is expected to rise by about
4¼ percent, following a ½ percent contraction in 2009.

Do you call a 1/2 percent contraction in 2009 a catastrophe or whatever the word being used is? On a macro level, I argue that a 1/2 contraction is not abnormal and underlies a fundamentally sound, in this case, global economy. Further, to have a 2010 rise of 4 1/4% after a contraction happens when there is a fundamentally sound economy. If you think I am wrong, support your charge!

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am not a speed reader, but so far (first line in the Executive Summary), nothing disputes anything I have written here:



Do you call a 1/2 percent contraction in 2009 a catastrophe or whatever the word being used is? On a macro level, I argue that a 1/2 contraction is not abnormal and underlies a fundamentally sound, in this case, global economy. Further, to have a 2010 rise of 4 1/4% after a contraction happens when there is a fundamentally sound economy. If you think I am wrong, support your charge!

Well, the Fed is holding down interest rates artificially. As soon as they HAVE to let them rise, any real estate recovery is dead. That affects almost every production industry left in America. We also have been shielded by all of the devaluation in real estate. That will have to bear itself out as well. Oh, then there's all the new taxes on the horizon for the $1,400,000,000,000 / year deficit we are STILL ringing up. So, yeah. This would be the bounce you have when you jump off the 20 story building. Brace yourselves for the splat. Of course, this is MY version of reality.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Did you borrow his bag?

You bought into the rhetoric not me. It is earnings season, tune into CNBC, and report back.

I am still concerned about a double dip recession, many business leaders are also, I think the slow jobs recovery is reflective of that sentiment. Also, we have an anti-business administration that has created an environment of uncertainty, not helpful for job creation.

---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:22 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Well, the Fed is holding down interest rates artificially. As soon as they HAVE to let them rise, any real estate recovery is dead. That affects almost every production industry left in America. We also have been shielded by all of the devaluation in real estate. That will have to bear itself out as well. Oh, then there's all the new taxes on the horizon for the $1,400,000,000,000 / year deficit we are STILL ringing up. So, yeah. This would be the bounce you have when you jump off the 20 story building. Brace yourselves for the splat. Of course, this is MY version of reality.

I share your concerns. I have written my concerns about government policy on the economy in many threads. If government get out of the way or minimizes negative effects the economy will do o.k. Long-term there are some material issues we have to deal with, but I think we can. So, why do you need to rolleyes, on my views?

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

This is an example of doublespeak in my opinion. What is real is pretty clear, it easy to define and easy to understand. it takes effort to convolute truth.

This is probably for another thread, but I dispute the existence of "truth", especially in the domain of politics.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

There are certain "things" in the universe subject to illusion, "looking at" stuff may be one of them, on the other hand there are certain "things" in the universe that are not subject to illusion, i.e., 1+1=2. Perceptions of the severity of a recession is subjective, but the calculated economic indicators used to measure economic activity are not. For example, Obama only talks subjectively about the economy unless a data point supports his political cause at the time he says it, people who actually take the time to look at data points are not fooled by subjective commentary. There is a known and objective reality.

You assume, in this paragraph, the reality and existence of at least the following things:
- Numbers
- Recessions
- Economic indicators
- Money
- Data
- Time
- "Being fooled"

It may be that some of these are real (though I could make a case to the contrary about all of them), what I'm pointing out is the ASSUMPTION you're making that they are. Obviously none of them are real the way my desk here is real. If they are real, they're real in a different way. Perhaps they're only real as a shared delusion.

I'm clear I'm the one guy talking philosophy in a political thread here, so... Feel free to ignore this. Seriously. Once I put these thoughts together in a coherent way, I'll start a thread on it specifically.

[roachboy]

yeah see more data-free nonsense. on what planet is the obama administration "anti-business"---i mean apart from the editorial pages of the ibd and in the la-la land of the teabaggers of course. out there is zanyworld anything goes in terms of obama-oriented invective it seems. doesn't matter if its true or not. but you'd think that at some point facts would have to enter into it. like the fact that obama is a political centrist. like the fact that even if he were a social democrat that there's no contradiction between bidness and social democracy. but you'd have to know what you're talking about to get that point. and there's no requirement of that in us politics.

which loops back to the op---it seems that the thread is already a kind of performance of the unwillingness of folk who debate political questions to address the underlying conceptual and/or affective interests/orientations that shape-to-determine their political viewpoints. the exceptions in the thread have already tried to address some of these questions, and the more conservative folk have brushed them aside. i think there's something of interest in that. i wonder if there is in fact a correlation between being somewhere between naive in philosophical matters and conservative political orientations. seems like it.

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, why do you need to rolleyes, on my views?

I'm not rolling my eyes at you, ace, I am rolling my eyes at the fact that the OP demands of us to expose reality to the world, as if that were possible. Settle down there, sparkie.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama is a walking, talking blob of contradictions. I have no idea of what he is really trying to do or accomplish, so we get billion dollar Wall St bailouts, while Main St. pays the price. We get credit reform that allows banks to raise rates and cut off credit when people need lower rates and new credit at the worst time, we get health care reform that primarily benefits health care insurance companies. We get high unemployment while big corporation posts profit blowing expectations out of the water. I don't get it.

To this the answer is clear, IMHO, and that is while the top 5% continue to cash in and own more the masses are pretty much forced to turn to government for help or perish. This will then erode freedoms like we have never seen (because even in the middle ages people could ride horses or walk and live off the land till they found a little nook to farm, that doesn't exist now, there is NO place to hide that at the VERY least doesn't cost money.)

The media is working to destroy the Catholic church, Obama is washing his hands of Israel, the Muslims already pretty much hate us... so religion is being destroyed methodically.

We have given generations money to have families, no fathers and not work. Meanwhile, we have pretty much financially forced 2 income families and cut education and yet, expected children to achieve and be responsible. In essence we have destroyed the truest strength the USA had and that was family.

We as a society have been trained to spend on luxury and not necessity. This goes from the President's budget down (this has been EVERY president since LBJ).

We have ALLOWED industry to transfer jobs overseas and lower wages for the past 30 years, thus increasing the middle income family's need for cheaper goods, that again sends wages lower and sends more people looking for cheaper goods, lowering wages and continuing the spiral. We are about at the bottom of the spiral and like a whirlpool that forms in your bathtub sucking the water down the drain, we ain't getting back out. Next stop is total freefall.

The people with money, that top 5%, have bought houses outside of this country and are prepared with security gates and little fortress houses. Ever see the floorplans they released for Gates' home where he has built into a mountain his sub floors and supposedly has it more secure than Fort Knox.

In other words the extreme wealthy KNOW there is a crisis coming that will rip this country into revolution and anarchy. That's the one part in all this that has failed (because I believed this financial freefall has been planned for a long time).... government's failure to get gun control. Otherwise, it's perfect. The press has played well into getting people to believe there os no hope or way out, the government has done everything they can to prevent spending on necessities (infrastructure, education, jobcorps, etc.) and maintain opportunities and corporations were able to merge or use hostile take over to destroy good secure companies that weren't playing the game (RubberMaid).

So in the end government will have control over the masses, the ultra rich will have their sanctuaries. And in their minds the world will be orderly. Meanwhile freedom and life as we know it ends.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by pan6467

snip....The media is working to destroy the Catholic church...

I have nothing to add to the thread about the topic just.....The priests who diddled little boys did a pretty good job of that, not the media, they just report the crimes, the priests did them.

[Cimarron29414]

Originally Posted by silent_jay

I have nothing to add to the thread about the topic just.....The priests who diddled little boys did a pretty good job of that, not the media, they just report the crimes, the priests did them.

Did you know that Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to commit pedophilia than the general population? The fact that most people DON'T know this implies there is at least some effort by the media (and frankly, posts like this) to exaggerate the problem.

What you did not mention, and where the media has it right is the collective effort by some of the bishops in the church to hide some of these crimes. I can think of no other organization that does such a thing. To that end, the Catholic church has only hurt itself and the media is correct in exposing the coverup. However, the priests are not any worse than the general population and really shouldn't be considered an anomaly.

[roachboy]

here again, the question from the op turns back up. for example: where does this statistical information come from? in this instance, i have no particular commitment concerning the accuracy of it beyond wondering how such a claim could be made if an effect of the church's sense of remove from temporal authority (say) was a pretty effective cover-up and if that cover-up was locally organized and of involves different, disconnected networks of priests and boys information about which surfaces at arbitrary intervals?

wouldn't you think that information environment would create problems for statistical arguments?

(i mean unless we're in the space of the poisson distribution as outlined at the start of gravity's rainbow. you know, the model in which information about the location of the last v-2 strike has no bearing on the probabilities concerning any subsequent v-2 strike. it turns out that the missles are falling in a pattern that outlines the profile of a baby's head.)

so what makes you inclined to see in this situation a "normal" distribution of child molestation and a "other than normal" media apparatus which is reacting, presumably disproportionately in your view, to a cover-up?

so the problem is the cover-up and not the molestations of young boys by religious authority figures. because that's "normal". statistically speaking of course.

[Cimarron29414]

From this article Roman Catholic sex abuse cases at AllExperts :

"Prof. Philip Jenkins, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University, published the book Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis in 1996. In it, he stated that between 0.2 and 1.7 percent of Catholic priests are pedophiles or child molesters. His 2002 article "The myth of the 'pedophile priest'"[10] expresses his views. In contrast to Louise Haggett's statement, Professor Jenkins states::'My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.'"

I could find 10 other articles about it. Keep in mind I am agreeing with both of you - the Catholic church is responsible for it's problems. However, the significant scandle is REALLY about the church's collusion to hide the crimes and enable the individual to perpetuate his crime spree. The molestations are awful and especially egregious to those in the faith because of the level of trust one puts in their priest. No one puts that sort of trust in, say, their...plumber.

My point is that the media's reaction to the event has created a false assumption (just think of how many catholic priest jokes you hear in general conversation) that this group of people are statistically more likely to be pedophiles than any other group of people or profession, which is a myth. For those who dislike religion in the first place, it's all too easy to embrace the overexposure as correlating to a statistically higher rate of perps.

The lines get blurred when one hears reports on the crime itself and the subsequent reports on the coverup of said crime - creating an illusion or misunderstanding as to the rate of occurrence of the crime by that group. Indeed, it goes to the difficulty of determining the reality of this issue.

[roachboy]

interesting. i have some stuff to do at the moment so will come back to this. but for the moment, i stumbled across a report commissioned by the us conference of bishops from the john jay college of criminology about abuse cases inside the church from 1950-2002. it's kinda long, but comes to more complicated conclusions than does the earlier study you cite:

A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States, National Review Board, February 27, 2004

interesting though. more when i have a few minutes...

[ARTelevision]

As for the question: "What is the actual reality of things going on in the world?"

Sensible responses to this question can not come from the world of political discourse.

Political issues are wholly matters of personal opinion.

Political discussion always reminds me of sports talk - a species of "my team is better than your team."

Of course, lovers of this sort of argumentation have too much ego invested to deeply consider the ontological implications of the the question raised by the OP.

[pan6467]

When Robin Williams makes a joke, "You can't touch me there, you're not a priest." It has gone beyond the Church covering things up and alludes as pointed out above that it is common.

But also look how the Church is portrayed in most movies. Perhaps they are and a light is being shined upon them or perhaps it is called for. But either way the results are it has a very negative impact on the Church.

[ARTelevision]

I must say I do approve of any sentences that bash the stupid Catholic Church into hopeful oblivion. Of course it's just a personal opinion. But based on my experience as a human being, that institution deserves to die a horrible death. Just sayin...

[roachboy]

it does not bode well if it's the case that meta-questions (why do you think as you do about the world? why do you construct an imaginary world in that way so as to be symmetrical with that thinking? etc) cannot be answered within the realm of political discourse.
it means that political discourse has been reduced to a commodity, something that's about some fatuous bourgeois notion of "identity" in the way trainers are in the way shampoo is. it also means that we operate in a context that has nothing at all to do with democracy or anything remotely like it.

we're in some consumerist soft authoritarian set-up, a kind of extended experiment in advanced neo-colonialism with an exacerbated version of the political problem that neo-colonialism puts into motion--diffusion of the Other, diffusion of power. from which follows a diffusion of any coherent oppositional political orientation. not to speak about outrageous things like movements.

it's a sad situation, one that seems more or less characteristic of fading empires, that there is a point at which political discourse turns to wood or to mud and leaks back down onto the people who articulate themselves and their sense of the world through it, that the dynamism of meanings slows that people retreat from the open-endedness of being-in-the-world and shut themselves up in a version of the Stable, the Identical With Itself, the picture-world...

personally, i think all discourse is political one way or another, even an imploded political discourse is political to the extent that it represents/performs the results of shifts in social/cultural arrangements around that discourse (which would be caused to implode, which would not simply implode)

but if we can't address meta-problems from inside a political discourse then it's pretty clear that the particular political discourse (that we live inside of) has become a form of domination, one in which we are commanded to talk about how free we are and how happy everything is within the warm glow of that freedom and how that glow draws Everybody from Everywhere to want to Come Here in the way any other steaming load of shit draws flies.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Did you know that Catholic priests are statistically no more likely to commit pedophilia than the general population? The fact that most people DON'T know this implies there is at least some effort by the media (and frankly, posts like this) to exaggerate the problem.

Really my posts exaggerates the problem? Comical, it's not like I said 'those god damn priests all they do is fuck boys, all day fuckin boys, they get blowjobs under the altar too, got an altar boy hiding there sucking his cock, the sick priest, did I mention they fuck boys a lot'? Now that would have been exaggerating the problem, but of course I didn't say that, I merely said some priests fucked boys and ruined their own church.

[ARTelevision]

roachboy, yes, IMO, it is as you hope is not the case. It is in fact the case that "political discourse has been reduced to a commodity."

But I would say discussing that point itself can yield much more insight than most of what is called "political discourse".

A meta-political discourse is sorely needed. I'm just not sure one can drain sufficient testosterone from the participants long enough to maintain such a discourse. Actually, I am pretty sure the testosterone level can not be reduced and so I am not hopeful...

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I must say I do approve of any sentences that bash the stupid Catholic Church into hopeful oblivion. Of course it's just a personal opinion. But based on my experience as a human being, that institution deserves to die a horrible death. Just sayin...

But when the Church is important to so many people and their lives the destruction of it can tear them a part.

In the past religion has been the sanctuary people sought out in hard economic times in this country. Not just the Catholic Church but religion itself.

If you destroy that bastion and the leaders methodically, starting with the biggest of the big boys the rest will implode on their own. How many televangelists have had sex, drugs, iffy financial dealings, been more political and discriminatory saying things like "new Orleans deserved Katrina".... It destroys faith in that bastion. It's not to say the priests and religious leaders aren't self destructing themselves... but where do people turn when they can't turn there?

To me, what I see is the progressive destruction of all that man has created and cherished for centuries. The question isn't whether these entities and people doing it to themselves, it's why is this destruction happening so methodically. Especially, when history would show that people need turn to and believe they need these entities more now than ever before in their lives.

We have allowed a very vocal minority through legislation and press to almost take God totally out of government and public places. Again why, when history shows times like these people flock seeking solace from their religion?

The answer to me is, get the people to depend on government and have government care for them the way their religion did and thus you can control them easier.

The reality could just be all this warfare and destruction of religion (particularly Judeo-Christian) is simply coincidental and a symptom of the greed and desire to live in the present that prevails in our society. But I don't believe in coincidences, I believe this is done for a reason.

By the way Art good to see you are back, you are well I hope.

[roachboy]

i think the idea that organized religion made people free is loopy. in general, they were a mechanism of private social control, accountable to no-one, answerable to no-one.

even if your scenario made sense and the united states were sliding into some form of state domination, so long as it was vaguely responsive democratically we, whomever the population would be of this imaginary place, would be more "Free" than we would be in a religiously dominated system---and this simply because every so often there'd be elections and in between you can in theory anyway organize people to bring pressure to bear on an apparatus that has **some** reason to respond.

but this whole scenario is imaginary---- it doesn't exist and this is not a matter of "just my opinion, man" but of the empirical world. we can talk about the empirical world you know. there's no reason to vaporize it behind the mist of paranoia. that one cannot **know** the object world does not mean that therefore its all "just my opinion man"---there are any number of systems for ordering and by extension knowing the object world---most are effective within their particular domains---there's just multiple systems because there's multiple domains---the cliche about the contemporary period is that the "master narratives" have collapsed: the stories about other stories that gave the impression that subsystems fit into some larger system and were not simply juxtaposed linked situationally (and in the being-linked addressing problems of scale or synch that are maybe created by reliance on notions of scale themselves)


here's a counter example: stalinism---the idea that the united states is sliding toward something like that is loopy----what you describe as a desired outcome for this strange "war on religion" (o-reilly anyone?) is a restatement of the ambition behind the collectivization of agriculture. do you seriously see anything remotely like that happening in the united states? where?

you don't see it because the entire claim is false empirically: nothing like that is happening and if you knew anything about stalinism, so knew anything about what actual bureaucratic-capitalist domination looked like you'd know that. the idea that the united states is sliding toward something like that is predicated on people not knowing what state domination would mean or look like. so it's an imaginary construct that appeals to some emotional dimension of your being. its not a description of the world; its a description of your attitude with respect to a construct that you label "the world"

personally, i don't really care what happens to the roman catholic church. i grew up catholic too. but i don't care what happens to it. the whole edifice could burn and it wouldn't matter to me. i'm sure the cool commodities would end up in museums and people could visit with them and go ooo and aaah and feel all connected to the 2000 year game of charades that is european history in the way they feel connected to that game of charades now.

but i digress.

[ARTelevision]

Pan, what you say here is true: "But when the Church is important to so many people and their lives the destruction of it can tear them a part. "

I'm still all for it. Speaking metaphorically here, being torn apart is necessary in order to take responsibility for putting oneself together. But you already knew that. Yeah, I've been back for some time. It's just that I don't have enough testosterone to spend a lot of time in Tilted Politics. Just being in here makes me feel like coming all over myself.

[pan6467]

RB, if everything I believe is imaginary and paranoid... then how do you explain the government allowing the destruction of this country from within. Poor economic policies, repeated, allowing lower tariffs to destroy our own industry, the methodical destruction of religion in this country, the destruction of families, spending that makes no sense while schools go bankrupt and families are torn apart, spending that puts generations so far in debt we can NEVER get out of.... all that is coincidence? There is no master plan? If I were wanting to destroy a country and knew I couldn't do so militarily I'd work on destroying it from within and this is a good blueprint on how to do it.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Pan, what you say here is true: "But when the Church is important to so many people and their lives the destruction of it can tear them a part. "

I'm still all for it. Speaking metaphorically here, being torn apart is necessary in order to take responsibility for putting oneself together. But you already knew that. Yeah, I've been back for some time. It's just that I don't have enough testosterone to spend a lot of time in Tilted Politics. Just being in here makes me feel like coming all over myself.

The church in the past in times like these have given people hope.

I am a big believer in finding your own responsibility and building or rebuilding your life (in recovery that is important). However, history shows people will flock to religion because it offers hope, forgiveness and a feel of belonging.

But when you destroy that and people cannot have faith in government and they are too beaten down to believe in themselves because negativity flows rampantly... then what is the solution?

That is where we are headed. I'm sure to some who believe that they are far smarter and saner can call things coincidence and come up with logical reasons as to what we should do... but in the end those logical reasons are lost when people begin to panic and are living in such negativity they can't take it anymore.

Reality is how we interpret and believe things to be. My reality sees a very grim future based on what is happening and the fact it isn't getting better in anyway.

[roachboy]

i'm not saying that everything is paranoia...i'm really not. i tried to be specific. the idea that somehow an Authentic Social Fabric is being wrecked to increase state power seems to me the problem.

to my mind alot of the same processes that you point to result from the absence of controls over the ways in which capitalism has mutated. so from the lack of regulation, the lack of policy. from conservative power, really. from neoliberalism. from the rejection of the political. from the delusional idea that capitalist markets are rational.

this sits on a deep ignorance of the history of actually existing capitalism almost from its inception. it's stunning to me that folk can point to symptom after symptom of the way in which capitalism destroys the social foundations it relies upon to function and blame that destruction on the modern state---which btw i am not a fan of in principle---but which is as it is largely as a mechanism to control for/shape the effects of capitalism and in the doing make of it a system in which people can live and that can reproduce itself.

so the problem is that alot of folk seem to operate with a notion of "the state" that seems to me totally upside down. and its in the way this upside-down idea of the state gets used that the paranoia comes, i think. because the state is set up as some Malevolent Outside Force That Wants to Eat Little People.

class stratification: not paranoid. that's it's been getting worse is obvious. but this is a function of the neoliberal abandonment of the state, not of the state. on and on.

that more clear?

[Derwood]

a few things:

1 - Priests as pedophiles IS more egregious than Joe Pervert down the street because a) they are supposed to be the living example of God's goodness (or whatever) and b) they are in a position where their congregation trusts them implicitly, meaning the pedophilia (or any other crimes) not only break the law, but break the bond within a church

2 - Look at any "super power" type of country/civilization and you will see that historically, they don't last forever. Pan seems puzzled that this country is starting to fall apart, but seems oblivious to the historical precedent of other super powers (Rome, the USSR, etc.)

3 - The OP seems more relevant to the Philosophy forum than Politics.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

That's a great example, but not of what you think it's an example of.

Let's consider terms like "punitive", "social engineering", and "wealth redistribution". That you used those terms is very enlightening about YOUR position on tax policy. You then project that onto what people say, and for YOU it seems like what they "really mean" when they're maybe talking about something completely other than that.

And it's not "how ace doesn't listen". This is fundamental to our makeup as human beings. We really actually know NOTHING about "reality". The point at which I interface with reality is the exact same point where I interpret my perceptions into meanings. Which means I'm NEVER seeing things as they are, I'm ALWAYS seeing things through a layer of interpretation. And then I interact with those meanings and interpretations as if they are the real and objective truth.

Look at the object nearest you. Notice that RIGHT THERE IN THE LOOKING AT IT, you know what it is, its name, what it's used for. That's one aspect the layer of interpretation I'm talking about. It's not just what it is--a lump of something with the properties that make it real (it exists in space and time, and has a shape). No, to you it's (in my case) a "wallet". Well, it's not, really. That's the name we give that thing.

If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain

I know why you're here.. I know what you've been doing... why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer. You're looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, there's a side of what you're saying that seems to me obviously the case, pan: class distinctions are getting wider. the reason for that is the absence of state action, however.

gotta disagree here, roach. it's precisely because of state action that we are seeing class distinctions grow ever wider. The more regulations in law that we assume government is making for us 'worker bees', is also counteracted by corporate protectionism laws.

what i mean by that is, when any law put in to effect to benefit a worker, the employer is getting an assurance of protection, whether it be in the form of a tax break for hiring a certain quota of people or garnering a government contract somewhere. When the government goes to pay for these guarantees, the tax base is hit for the tab, not the corporation.