How Societies Are Destroyed

[rdean]

If Americans really want to make it "fair", they would make it "fair".

We have a minimum wage in this country. Let's put up tariffs on incoming goods that the people who make those goods have to be paid equal to the minimum wage. Then we could see some real competition. We can never compete against people making 100 bucks a month. Unless Republicans want Americans to work for a 100 bucks a month.

It would only raise foreign standards of living and make competition fair for this country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Borders, language, culture.

Erosion or lack of respect for any one of these will decimate the society. For the first 160 years or so, America welcomed and assimilated many peoples of many different cultures. Those were assimilated into and enriched a uniquely American culture based on human dignity, freedom, and free of class restrictions.

For the last 50 years or so, the emphasis has been on respecting and protecting diverse cultures and resistance to assimilating these into the whole.

And American society, as well as her prosperity, has suffered with this new thing called multiculturalism.

 

[Trajan]

If Americans really want to make it "fair", they would make it "fair".

We have a minimum wage in this country. Let's put up tariffs on incoming goods that the people who make those goods have to be paid equal to the minimum wage. Then we could see some real competition. We can never compete against people making 100 bucks a month. Unless Republicans want Americans to work for a 100 bucks a month.

It would only raise foreign standards of living and make competition fair for this country.

thx Mr. Smoot...or are you Hawley?

 

[boedicca]

Hanson is one of the most astute and historically literate commentators in our society today.

Thanks for posting this!

 

[antagon]

Borders, language, culture.

Erosion or lack of respect for any one of these will decimate the society. For the first 160 years or so, America welcomed and assimilated many peoples of many different cultures. Those were assimilated into and enriched a uniquely American culture based on human dignity, freedom, and free of class restrictions.

For the last 50 years or so, the emphasis has been on respecting and protecting diverse cultures and resistance to assimilating these into the whole.

And American society, as well as her prosperity, has suffered with this new thing called multiculturalism.

america was built on multiculturalism predating the declaration and ever since.

i think defense, nationalism and productivity hold societies together, if i had to put it to three words.

 

[antagon]

If Americans really want to make it "fair", they would make it "fair".

We have a minimum wage in this country. Let's put up tariffs on incoming goods that the people who make those goods have to be paid equal to the minimum wage. Then we could see some real competition. We can never compete against people making 100 bucks a month. Unless Republicans want Americans to work for a 100 bucks a month.

It would only raise foreign standards of living and make competition fair for this country.

that would only function to burn our economic candle from both ends. non-solution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Borders, language, culture.

Erosion or lack of respect for any one of these will decimate the society. For the first 160 years or so, America welcomed and assimilated many peoples of many different cultures. Those were assimilated into and enriched a uniquely American culture based on human dignity, freedom, and free of class restrictions.

For the last 50 years or so, the emphasis has been on respecting and protecting diverse cultures and resistance to assimilating these into the whole.

And American society, as well as her prosperity, has suffered with this new thing called multiculturalism.

america was built on multiculturalism predating the declaration and ever since.

i think defense, nationalism and productivity hold societies together, if i had to put it to three words.

Defense is how our borders (physical and philosophical) are secured.

Language is a component of nationalism and perhaps the most important component. Dilute the language and there is no chance to have a culture of shared values and ideals.]

Productivity, however, is a component of prosperity and wealth creation, but that arises out of the values and ideals inherent in the culture. American culture has been unique as our Constitution created a society in which the people were intended to be governed not by a dictator or monarch or Pope or other authoritarian entity, but they were intended to govern themselves. That concept resulted in the most independent minded, most free, most innovative, most forward looking, and among the most industrous societies in the world.

But as our language becomes diluted, we become more of a people divided into groups.

As our borders, both literally and culturally, have been compromised through multiculturalism, political correctness, and explitation of victimization, our common values and ideals have been seriously eroded.

And when that unique culture that once existed is increasingly demonized and excoriated by those who are incapable of understanding or appreciating it, our society has deteriorated and we are now in danger of losing all that made America the unique and great nation that it has been.

Whatever one thinks of Hanson, he has correctly identified the dynamics of the phenomenon. We can either heed the danger signs of what we are doing to outselves, or we will soon dissolve into the history books as a once great civilization that self destructed.

 

[antagon]

Borders, language, culture.

Erosion or lack of respect for any one of these will decimate the society. For the first 160 years or so, America welcomed and assimilated many peoples of many different cultures. Those were assimilated into and enriched a uniquely American culture based on human dignity, freedom, and free of class restrictions.

For the last 50 years or so, the emphasis has been on respecting and protecting diverse cultures and resistance to assimilating these into the whole.

And American society, as well as her prosperity, has suffered with this new thing called multiculturalism.

america was built on multiculturalism predating the declaration and ever since.

i think defense, nationalism and productivity hold societies together, if i had to put it to three words.

Defense is how our borders (physical and philosophical) are secured.

Language is a component of nationalism and perhaps the most important component. Dilute the language and there is no chance to have a culture of shared values and ideals.]

Productivity, however, is a component of prosperity and wealth creation, but that arises out of the values and ideals inherent in the culture. American culture has been unique as our Constitution created a society in which the people were intended to be governed not by a dictator or monarch or Pope or other authoritarian entity, but they were intended to govern themselves. That concept resulted in the most independent minded, most free, most innovative, most forward looking, and among the most industrous societies in the world.

But as our language becomes diluted, we become more of a people divided into groups.

As our borders, both literally and culturally, have been compromised through multiculturalism, political correctness, and explitation of victimization, our common values and ideals have been seriously eroded.

And when that unique culture that once existed is increasingly demonized and excoriated by those who are incapable of understanding or appreciating it, our society has deteriorated and we are now in danger of losing all that made America the unique and great nation that it has been.

Whatever one thinks of Hanson, he has correctly identified the dynamics of the phenomenon. We can either heed the danger signs of what we are doing to outselves, or we will soon dissolve into the history books as a once great civilization that self destructed.

i dont know if it is hanson or the extraction which CG took, but i dont think his conclusions follow his causation. his causation is consistent across the subjects on either side of his analysis. he's painted a direct contradiction at the heart of the argument.

wealth creation and prosperity come from productivity, not remotely the other way around. not at all possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

america was built on multiculturalism predating the declaration and ever since.

i think defense, nationalism and productivity hold societies together, if i had to put it to three words.

Defense is how our borders (physical and philosophical) are secured.

Language is a component of nationalism and perhaps the most important component. Dilute the language and there is no chance to have a culture of shared values and ideals.]

Productivity, however, is a component of prosperity and wealth creation, but that arises out of the values and ideals inherent in the culture. American culture has been unique as our Constitution created a society in which the people were intended to be governed not by a dictator or monarch or Pope or other authoritarian entity, but they were intended to govern themselves. That concept resulted in the most independent minded, most free, most innovative, most forward looking, and among the most industrous societies in the world.

But as our language becomes diluted, we become more of a people divided into groups.

As our borders, both literally and culturally, have been compromised through multiculturalism, political correctness, and explitation of victimization, our common values and ideals have been seriously eroded.

And when that unique culture that once existed is increasingly demonized and excoriated by those who are incapable of understanding or appreciating it, our society has deteriorated and we are now in danger of losing all that made America the unique and great nation that it has been.

Whatever one thinks of Hanson, he has correctly identified the dynamics of the phenomenon. We can either heed the danger signs of what we are doing to outselves, or we will soon dissolve into the history books as a once great civilization that self destructed.

i dont know if it is hanson or the extraction which CG took, but i dont think his conclusions follow his causation. his causation is consistent across the subjects on either side of his analysis. he's painted a direct contradiction at the heart of the argument.

wealth creation and prosperity come from productivity, not remotely the other way around. not at all possible.

I think Hanson's conclusions quite logically follow the illustrations/causations he used. And he is far more eloquent than I, but I think he was pretty much expressing a point of view that I have outlined in simpler form.

Bottom line, wealth creation and prosperity come not from government, most especially authoritarian or 'benevolent' or 'well intended' government, but comes from a free people looking to their own interests. That was the cornerstone of all of Adam Smith's philosophy. When you have that along with common values related to border, language, and culture, you have an America that is/was unique among all nations that has ever been and one of the world's greatest societies.

The more the government attempts to manipulate or regulate or remake that process, the less freedom the people will have and the less prosperity there will be. And as that is becoming increasingly the case in America, our society is slowly but surely being unraveled and destroyed as the America we have known and loved.

It is not too late to reverse that process. But if we don't get on it pretty quick, it will be.

 

[antagon]

i dont know if it is hanson or the extraction which CG took, but i dont think his conclusions follow his causation. his causation is consistent across the subjects on either side of his analysis. he's painted a direct contradiction at the heart of the argument.

wealth creation and prosperity come from productivity, not remotely the other way around. not at all possible.

I think Hanson's conclusions quite logically follow the illustrations/causations he used. And he is far more eloquent than I, but I think he was pretty much expressing a point of view that I have outlined in simpler form.

Bottom line, wealth creation and prosperity come not from government, most especially authoritarian or 'benevolent' or 'well intended' government, but comes from a free people looking to their own interests. That was the cornerstone of all of Adam Smith's philosophy. When you have that along with common values related to border, language, and culture, you have an America that is/was unique among all nations that has ever been and one of the world's greatest societies.

The more the government attempts to manipulate or regulate or remake that process, the less freedom the people will have and the less prosperity there will be. And as that is becoming increasingly the case in America, our society is slowly but surely being unraveled and destroyed as the America we have known and loved.

It is not too late to reverse that process. But if we don't get on it pretty quick, it will be.

i just think that hanson points out that military defeat doesnt necessarily damn societies, then explains several examples where it had. he points out british socialism has cost them, while not accounting for japanese, german or american socialism in the contrast he drew. didn't you notice that? that sinks those arguments for me.

its important to remember that the US has never, ever managed the wealth creation and prosperity that it does now. it sinks your argument which attempts to allude to a negative trend in american economics. how does the improvement of wealth and prosperity support your argument that they are negatively affected by recent policy or popular ideology trends?

i think people associate modern capitalism with regulation by way of failing to see how 19th century capitalism was regulated.

 

[Foxfyre]

i dont know if it is hanson or the extraction which CG took, but i dont think his conclusions follow his causation. his causation is consistent across the subjects on either side of his analysis. he's painted a direct contradiction at the heart of the argument.

wealth creation and prosperity come from productivity, not remotely the other way around. not at all possible.

I think Hanson's conclusions quite logically follow the illustrations/causations he used. And he is far more eloquent than I, but I think he was pretty much expressing a point of view that I have outlined in simpler form.

Bottom line, wealth creation and prosperity come not from government, most especially authoritarian or 'benevolent' or 'well intended' government, but comes from a free people looking to their own interests. That was the cornerstone of all of Adam Smith's philosophy. When you have that along with common values related to border, language, and culture, you have an America that is/was unique among all nations that has ever been and one of the world's greatest societies.

The more the government attempts to manipulate or regulate or remake that process, the less freedom the people will have and the less prosperity there will be. And as that is becoming increasingly the case in America, our society is slowly but surely being unraveled and destroyed as the America we have known and loved.

It is not too late to reverse that process. But if we don't get on it pretty quick, it will be.

i just think that hanson points out that military defeat doesnt necessarily damn societies, then explains several examples where it had. he points out british socialism has cost them, while not accounting for japanese, german or american socialism in the contrast he drew. didn't you notice that? that sinks those arguments for me.

its important to remember that the US has never, ever managed the wealth creation and prosperity that it does now. it sinks your argument which attempts to allude to a negative trend in american economics. how does the improvement of wealth and prosperity support your argument that they are negatively affected by recent policy or popular ideology trends?

i think people associate modern capitalism with regulation by way of failing to see how 19th century capitalism was regulated.

Japan and Germany were both subject to authoritarian governments that dictated what sort of society they should have. After unconditional surrender in military defeat--unconditional is the operative word here--they were both blessed with conquerors who helped them rebuild and then withdrew to allow them to form whatever society they wished to have. And both formed societies that were different than what had previously existed and both prospered.

If you think current policy or ideology trends have not damaged American society and/or produced many unintended negative consequences, there is unlikely much I could say that would change your mind about that.

But nitpicking what is and is not profitable capitalism is not what Hanson was doing nor what I was doing. Both of us are focused on much larger principles of what constitutes a strong, healthy society and the factors that destroy that.

Agree with it or not. I think he is spot on accurate. And I gave my rationale for holding that opinion.

You have not given any rationale for why he (or I for that matter) are wrong.

 

[rdean]

If Americans really want to make it "fair", they would make it "fair".

We have a minimum wage in this country. Let's put up tariffs on incoming goods that the people who make those goods have to be paid equal to the minimum wage. Then we could see some real competition. We can never compete against people making 100 bucks a month. Unless Republicans want Americans to work for a 100 bucks a month.

It would only raise foreign standards of living and make competition fair for this country.

that would only function to burn our economic candle from both ends. non-solution.

If the answer is so obvious, at least explain how? It should be easy.

 

[antagon]

If Americans really want to make it "fair", they would make it "fair".

We have a minimum wage in this country. Let's put up tariffs on incoming goods that the people who make those goods have to be paid equal to the minimum wage. Then we could see some real competition. We can never compete against people making 100 bucks a month. Unless Republicans want Americans to work for a 100 bucks a month.

It would only raise foreign standards of living and make competition fair for this country.

that would only function to burn our economic candle from both ends. non-solution.

If the answer is so obvious, at least explain how? It should be easy.

our economy is based in loosely fettered consumption. 100 years ago, when policies like what you propose were common place the basis of our economy was loosely fettered production. these are the ends of the candlestick which i propose in my dismissal of the effectiveness of your tariff idea. if we maintain the status quo on the regulation of production at the same time as we reintroduce regulations on consumption such as the tariffs you propose, policy would be simply shrinking the economy, leaving no where for wealth to be created.

i dont think the answer is that obvious, but it is obvious that tariffs will imperil the way our country works. tariffs are among the least effective protections available, moreover.

my solution is to divert at least part of the largess behind entitlements to the labor market with subsidy of hourly, unskilled and semi-skilled workers -- all, or in specific sectors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Germany was not a single nation after WWII. The West retained entrepreneurial Capitalism and Democracy became an economic powerhouse, the East went Progressive and was destroyed.

Same people, different system, vastly different results.

 

[rdean]

that would only function to burn our economic candle from both ends. non-solution.

If the answer is so obvious, at least explain how? It should be easy.

our economy is based in loosely fettered consumption. 100 years ago, when policies like what you propose were common place the basis of our economy was loosely fettered production. these are the ends of the candlestick which i propose in my dismissal of the effectiveness of your tariff idea. if we maintain the status quo on the regulation of production at the same time as we reintroduce regulations on consumption such as the tariffs you propose, policy would be simply shrinking the economy, leaving no where for wealth to be created.

i dont think the answer is that obvious, but it is obvious that tariffs will imperil the way our country works. tariffs are among the least effective protections available, moreover.

my solution is to divert at least part of the largess behind entitlements to the labor market with subsidy of hourly, unskilled and semi-skilled workers -- all, or in specific sectors.

In other words, you don't know.

For one thing, a hundred years ago, we didn't have the minimum wage with corporations shipping American jobs overseas to exploit millions of foreign worker while working with a foreign communist government whose entire population is basically slave labor.

Sure, we have always had scandals about people using children in sweatshops to make Nike's or clothes from the Gap. But there was a price to pay. People were made ashamed of this exploitation.

But this, is exploiting two countries. The American Middle Class being flooded with cheap goods and poisonous food and the Chinese working for 100 bucks a month with no benefits.

Inside China factory hit by suicides - CNN

The Chinese went on strike and some of their workers had their salaries doubled to $293 a month.

Hon Hai Falls to Nine-Month Low on Analyst Downgrades (Update2) - BusinessWeek

So, what's next? Corporations will move to Vietnam or Cambodia or some other poor place to exploit those people leaving behind a devastated economy. Like they did here, like they will do in China?

Time for some long term planning and make corporations pay for the "quick profit".

 

[antagon]

I think Hanson's conclusions quite logically follow the illustrations/causations he used. And he is far more eloquent than I, but I think he was pretty much expressing a point of view that I have outlined in simpler form.

Bottom line, wealth creation and prosperity come not from government, most especially authoritarian or 'benevolent' or 'well intended' government, but comes from a free people looking to their own interests. That was the cornerstone of all of Adam Smith's philosophy. When you have that along with common values related to border, language, and culture, you have an America that is/was unique among all nations that has ever been and one of the world's greatest societies.

The more the government attempts to manipulate or regulate or remake that process, the less freedom the people will have and the less prosperity there will be. And as that is becoming increasingly the case in America, our society is slowly but surely being unraveled and destroyed as the America we have known and loved.

It is not too late to reverse that process. But if we don't get on it pretty quick, it will be.

i just think that hanson points out that military defeat doesnt necessarily damn societies, then explains several examples where it had. he points out british socialism has cost them, while not accounting for japanese, german or american socialism in the contrast he drew. didn't you notice that? that sinks those arguments for me.

its important to remember that the US has never, ever managed the wealth creation and prosperity that it does now. it sinks your argument which attempts to allude to a negative trend in american economics. how does the improvement of wealth and prosperity support your argument that they are negatively affected by recent policy or popular ideology trends?

i think people associate modern capitalism with regulation by way of failing to see how 19th century capitalism was regulated.

Japan and Germany were both subject to authoritarian governments that dictated what sort of society they should have. After unconditional surrender in military defeat--unconditional is the operative word here--they were both blessed with conquerors who helped them rebuild and then withdrew to allow them to form whatever society they wished to have. And both formed societies that were different than what had previously existed and both prospered.

If you think current policy or ideology trends have not damaged American society and/or produced many unintended negative consequences, there is unlikely much I could say that would change your mind about that.

But nitpicking what is and is not profitable capitalism is not what Hanson was doing nor what I was doing. Both of us are focused on much larger principles of what constitutes a strong, healthy society and the factors that destroy that.

Agree with it or not. I think he is spot on accurate. And I gave my rationale for holding that opinion.

You have not given any rationale for why he (or I for that matter) are wrong.

i've explained how hanson's arguments are drawn on non-sequiturs, but fallacy alone doesnt mean he's wrong. venturing to make an economic policy outcome, makes him a more square target:

"America could within a decade become a creditor nation again"

this is far, far fetched.

your arguments for american society, 'borders, language and culture' dont account for any macroeconomic factors. too narrow on the surface for that reason. after you've expounded, i think there's a number of things wrong with your perspective which also are based in fallacious cause-effect relationships. this is rooted in the same concerns which we've discussed before: understanding economics as the aggregate of its externalities, and cherry picking american socioeconomic history to support an argument that past policy is superior.

 

[antagon]

If the answer is so obvious, at least explain how? It should be easy.

our economy is based in loosely fettered consumption. 100 years ago, when policies like what you propose were common place the basis of our economy was loosely fettered production. these are the ends of the candlestick which i propose in my dismissal of the effectiveness of your tariff idea. if we maintain the status quo on the regulation of production at the same time as we reintroduce regulations on consumption such as the tariffs you propose, policy would be simply shrinking the economy, leaving no where for wealth to be created.

i dont think the answer is that obvious, but it is obvious that tariffs will imperil the way our country works. tariffs are among the least effective protections available, moreover.

my solution is to divert at least part of the largess behind entitlements to the labor market with subsidy of hourly, unskilled and semi-skilled workers -- all, or in specific sectors.

In other words, you don't know.

For one thing, a hundred years ago, we didn't have the minimum wage with corporations shipping American jobs overseas to exploit millions of foreign worker while working with a foreign communist government whose entire population is basically slave labor.

Sure, we have always had scandals about people using children in sweatshops to make Nike's or clothes from the Gap. But there was a price to pay. People were made ashamed of this exploitation.

But this, is exploiting two countries. The American Middle Class being flooded with cheap goods and poisonous food and the Chinese working for 100 bucks a month with no benefits.

Inside China factory hit by suicides - CNN

The Chinese went on strike and some of their workers had their salaries doubled to $293 a month.

Hon Hai Falls to Nine-Month Low on Analyst Downgrades (Update2) - BusinessWeek

So, what's next? Corporations will move to Vietnam or Cambodia or some other poor place to exploit those people leaving behind a devastated economy. Like they did here, like they will do in China?

Time for some long term planning and make corporations pay for the "quick profit".

you are short on comprehension, dean. i am certain that tariffs are garbage, and made that clear. i proposed an alternative which fits with what we've learned from the last couple hundred years' policy.

what i said is that it isnt obvious as you claimed. this should be an indicator to theorists who want to slap on crude, old policy as you think might resolve the issues you're concerned about.