georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #61
Even when you're drinking you landed some clean shots.Mr. H.
GEorge is talking about the economic system.
Your inspiring stories about how heroically you might or might not have done are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
And your ad hominen attacks on George are likewise unwarranted and pointless.
Maybe you ought to limit your thoughts to addressing the issues, rather than taking it upon yourself to insult people.
Let me try try to sum the above up for you.
GROW THE FUCK UP.
Thank you in advance for sticking to the topic.
I know. My apologies. I got really drunk. Now I'm really hung over.
You're right about many of us, myself in particular, being unwilling to risk failure. In my case, I'm beginning to believe I never fully made the connection that failure often produces wisdom more often than success. Especially if that success is underwritten by society or government.
Some of this may be framing.
Dean Baker's Conservative Nanny State lays it out better than I can:
"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.
"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.
"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.
"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors.
"They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.
"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."
"This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy.
"If government policies ensure that specific types of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are plentiful.
"It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution involved in this story.
"If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors.
"Higher wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more for health care.
"As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies that push down wages for large segments of the countrys work force, lower wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages or other income protected."