That's where we're different. Until you understand this, you will never be able to make sense of most of what's said on this site.
As to "You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours." That is obviously an insult, and you intend it to be one. But you don't know me, and have absolutely no basis for that statement. If you did, you would know it couldn't be farther from the truth. I have had direct responsibility in creating new technologies that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and improved the quality of life for hundreds of thousands more.
In addition, a great deal of my income in absolute terms and % terms goes to help people in need.
I don't know you, but based on your comment, I think that is probably where we are different. I do things with my education and work ethic that help people a lot, and then do more to help people with the income that I earn.
The growth is really based on printing lots of money, and screwing over Chinese workers by getting items made at sweatshop prices
Matthew 7:5 "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
I was thinking about writing a diary about this multi-millionaire I was chatting with in the hospital a couple weeks ago -- his wife is sick and he's afraid of going broke from her illness. He was telling me some of the numbers and I found myself in complete accord -- he probably is going to go broke! Anyway, it would be a pretty good diary if you'd like to invest in it. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
CHARITABLE GIVING RISES 5 PERCENT TO NEARLY $250 BILLION IN 2004
Thanks for the offer of both investment and charitable giving opportunities, but I'm pretty well set on both.
The multi-millionaire is not uninsured. That's one of the problems. People are going bankrupt with insurance -- it's quite common. The millionaire and his wife have good insurance. If he and/or his wife had had the good sense to die 5 years ago instead of getting sick, things would've worked out well for them. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
noblesse oblige |n??bles ??bl? zh | the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged
On the insurance, I'm still puzzled with your comment. I unfortunately have had very direct experience with close family members who have had cancer--very lengthy and expensive bouts. Insurance covered basically everything. and as you probably know, you get to know other people (in life generally, but specifically if you're spending a lot of time in treatment centers) as you go through this painful process. and people are more open and sharing in such troubled times. the only situation that i ran into was with a gentlemen that did not have insurance, who was stage IV and his current treatments were not working, and was wanting to try a drug that was not approved for his particular cancer. he was working the system, and I don't know how that came out.
I just called a good friend of mine who is a hospital ceo. he is not aware of anyone with insurance that has gone bankrupt attempting to pay for cancer treatments. he said that there are lifetime maximums on some policies, but when you go past your max there are a number of other factors that come into play. (our conversation became a little detailed here, so I leave that out.)
I'm not challenging that you have run into this, just saying that I have not, in an experience that has been pretty broad.
I just called a good friend of mine who is a hospital ceo. he is not aware of anyone with insurance that has gone bankrupt attempting to pay for cancer treatments.
You could try asking some of the patients. Perhaps some of those who don't get to hospital in the first place.
Once again, you just don't know most of the people on this website, or their backgrounds. Nor do Izzy and Migeru who so happily give your comment a 4.
In my case, I know many, many patients and people with health issues--both from the patient side since I have had perhaps an unusual amount of illness in my immediate family (if you hang out in treatment centers for cancer, you meet a lot of patients and their family--I hope you are lucky enough not to find this out), and from the professional side since I've been involved in developing products for doctors to treat patients (and yes you meet them, watch them treated, etc.) and involved in home health care.
The three of you have these arrogant attitudes that preclude anyone who has a different view than yours as to how economies can best run, from being compassionate people, that also want the best for mankind. You don't allow that people that work in companies that develop and make products to help people in their lives, do this partially because they are compassionate people. (I'm no real exception--there are literally hundreds of thousands of people like me that do this for a living, and feel wonderful when a product that they participate in developing, or show a doctor how to use on a patient,,that feel personally rewarded. they devote their lives to this--and you are ignorant of that, or just outright reject it.) This I am better than you attitude is disgusting to me. The idea that I don't talk to patients, know people with problems, try to help them as best I can--you are a supercillious bunch, that is for sure!
I'm going to reply more substantively to your more heartfelt comment below, but will mention here that meeting people does not necessarily equate with understanding them. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
The idea that I don't talk to patients, know people with problems, try to help them as best I can
thanks for taking my rant with some good humour.
I'll refrain from commenting about what a ceo may or may not know about insurance. Suffice it to say almost no one has long-term care insurance -- practically no nursing home coverage -- and a chronic illness, or series of illnesses, can easily drain the coffers over a course of years.
As your ceo may even be aware, there are myriad types of insurance coverage with various co-pays, deductibles, exculsions, prescription pay scales, catastrophic caps, lifetime care caps, you name it -- there's a ton of ways to suck someone dry. In fact, what used to be some of the better insurance plans were the ones with 80/20 coverage -- they'd pay 80% and you were 20% out of pocket -- nowadays 20% of even one hospitalization can be disasterous (although probably not to a millionaire, admittedly), nevermind a decade or so of care. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Unfortunately I have the long term care issue as well, with a parent. also no long term care insurance. still hard for me to see a multi-millionaire going bankrupt, but I obviously don't know the care requirements, and I imagine in some cases that could be a lot.
I wonder how that situation is handled in the UK or France? I honestly don't know.
Admittedly the 44 million uninsured is a big problem in the US.
Sometimes I give to charity. Mostly by handing out money to homeless drunks in the park. Probably they will buy booze or drugs with the money. And that is fine with me. Not having much else, I think they should at least have their comfort substances... I don't see so many here in Geneva. In Boston they were everywhere.
So, my message is, yeah, give to charity. But don't feel virtuous about it. Don't congratulate yourself for being a good person. Have the insight to see how this giving represents a facet of the failure of society. The failure of capitalism. It's not a very positive message, this. One should feel dirty about it. The fact that one have what others don't and until some things are fixed, it is a necessary evil. And this is what I really detest about the Gates and Buffets. They are so god damn smug about it!! Gentlemen, wipe those fucking smiles off your faces! Suck on a lemon, or something.
Matthew 6:5-6 (New International Version) 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
But I don't see helping a fellow man in need as something I should feel dirty about. And I don't see all charitable donations as filling in for state failures.
Charity in America
Charity, Solidarity & the L Word Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Welfare state = "the inferred responsibility of privileged people to act with generosity and nobility toward those less privileged"
Without this feeling of generosity, nobility and solidarity, there would be no popular support for the welfare state and it would be eliminated.
But it's not. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Political stability
Making full of use of the available talent base in the population. (When poor smart kids stay poor because their opportunities are limited, no one wins.)
A practical expression of one of the cornerstones of Western humanism, which is the belief that all individuals are equally valuable.
Plus it's just plain moral. If you're that way inclined.
Private philanthropy, meanwhile, is all about the philanthropist. Sometimes it genuinely helps people. Sometimes it doesn't. But as a source of social progression, it's intermittent, often whimsical, and far too reliable and inconsistent to do more than offer a band aid here and there.
The Welfare State is really a political strategy, not just a way of giving people soup at Christmas.
I think I would better phrase my own views as welfare and charity being two parts of a political system that are not necessarily in conflict. Each countries citizens need to decide within the framework of their own values, culture and society, what level of welfare support should be provided by the state. and that level should be funded through taxes. Different people and different countries obviously have different views on this depending on lots of factors--wealth of the country, views on personal responsibility versus family responsibility versus society's responsibility. For example some of the Asian cultures have strong values around taking care of the elderly at home, and valuing their wisdom, love, and example of the circle of life and its impact on the younger in the family unit.
Once the majority agrees on that view (and surely it will change over time), individuals in the society may feel the bar is set too low, and be williing to contribute individually, or in groups such as churches, to raising the level of support for individuals. that might be individuals as a whole, or it might be specific groups such as children, or perhaps people with addiction issues, etc. It might also be that some very wealthy people feel a need to give back to society, and heavily fund programs. While others with wealth may feel they earned it and they will spend it.
It would seem the two are not incompatible.
In societies where your privilege is a function of who you were born to, the government serves the powerful. In such instances, the function of the "welfare state" would indeed be charity. The whole idea of democracy was to abolish this -- the government deriving it's power from people. Such a government's welfare provisions are no more charity than parents feeding their children. The beneficiaries of welfare in a democracy are entitled to the safety net because they are a part of the whole, not because a ruling class is feeling generous to outsiders.
(do I get any PN points for this?) Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Private charity assumes that those with more have the right to determine the causes worthy of their support. It assumes an absolute right to property, "my stuff is mine" and "I give only as I see fit, to those I deem worthy, the amounts I determine".
Yeah, I am far more comfortable with institutionalised charity.
There is a collective claim to 'your stuff'. You are not absolutely entitled to it...
The US expression: "My/your tax dollars": they are note mine/yours. They are 'ours', all of 'ours', owned collectively. That they may have at one point resided with you is incidental...
In particular the privilege of "private" ownership of "Commons" such as Land and Knowledge.
I have yet to come across any convincing refutation of the proposition that those who have exclusive rights of use of a "Commons" (rights which I agree may be necessary) should compensate those they exclude.
I find "Charity" as wounding a concept as "Welfare". Every citizen IMHO has a right to a part of the fruits of the "Commonwealth".
It's not so much about RE-Distribution - more about PRE Distribution. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What we do in the welfare state is we decide collectively that we do not want those less fortunate to live in squalor, and hence we help them.
And with less fortunate I do not mean those who are born in poor families, but those who become less fortunate, no matter in which social class they began (as we have decided that class mobility is a good thing and have state funded education, free of charge for students).
We Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I was advocating the equitable sharing of the fruits of "the Commons". And I have yet to see a convincing refutation of that as a principle.
Private "ownership" of land, knowledge and other Commons are privileges, and those in receipt of these privileges should not keep all the benefits.
Whether such pre-distribution will be enough for a generally acceptable standard of living for the un-privileged depends on how developed a country is, I guess. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
The issue is that "liberals" don't believe in the right to an outcome, they believe in the right to "fair rules". Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
I hate vowel length. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
I have had direct responsibility in creating new technologies that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and improved the quality of life for hundreds of thousands more. In addition, a great deal of my income in absolute terms and % terms goes to help people in need.
Okay, but pause here and look at how this framed. You're the successful investor and generous philanthropist.
And they are - what?
Do you know any of the people you spend your philanthropy on? How much time have you spent with them in person? Do you know what their lives are like on a daily basis?
With the Dow soaring, are they more or less happy and fulfilled now than they were six years ago? Are their lives easier or harder? Are they more or less in debt? How much of that debt is voluntary? Has their disposable income gone up or down?
That's the human angle here.
If you talk to them, what are they telling you?
second, I don't think of myself as a philanthropist. just a guy that has worked hard and been lucky enough to have some success. It just seems right to me to help other people when I can. i was helped with scholarships and loans getting through my education. when i've had difficult times in life with family health issues, people always seem to pop up with some kind of help--encouraging word, a new idea, a contact. it just seems part of life to me.
your questions seem to imply that I'm far away from people with lower incomes who are in need. I'm not. as I've said in other posts, I grew up in that kind of environment--amongst people who didn't really think about having low incomes, or needs, but rather were just working hard and living their lives. my broad family has many that are low and medium income, still far, far from wealthy. i've always chosen to live in areas that are very diverse, both racially and economically. there seems to be an expectation here that people that have had financial success are automatically out of touch. maybe that is true of Buffet and Gates, but many successful Americans are very involved in their communities, and very in touch.
but I don't know many, probably most, of the people who I give money to--for example, no one effected by the tsunami, no one who got my Katrina donations, and no one who benefits from the money I give to support collegue scholarships. but I know people like them--they're all around me in my community, in my family, and among my friends.
Here's the problem as I see it. People writing on political boards usually have in mind political change -- they either want change or don't want people changing things -- but either way they're addressing big picture stuff or systems. When you're talking big systems, there's going to be a lot of generalizing and a lot of instances that are exceptions.
If they want change, they're usually concerned with either making the system work well for more people or stopping it from hurting less people, so they say things critical of the system and give examples of people it hurts or where its not working.
If they don't want change, they'll say the system is fine and that the problem is really with the people trying to change it.
So do you see the problem here? Politics is by its very nature adversarial -- a power struggle in a constant balancing act. By saying the US economy is all good and fine, you are not being cheery and pleasant, but putting yourself in a position where you are blocking people who are trying to change things.
I don't have a clear idea if that's your goal here or not, but when you deny political problems, you also deny solutions, in this case the impoverished, unemployed, and uninsured. If you think there's no political solution to these things, just say so, but in so doing, know that you are implying the problem is with the people affected. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I'm not interested in 'investing' if it makes people suffer. You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours. That's where we're different. Until you understand this, you will never be able to make sense of most of what's said on this site.
This is the comment, with my response, that started this whole portion of the dialogue.
For instance, if I was on a board, say, arguing with people who wanted to outlaw birth-control and they accused me of having no interest in the hypothetical lives of the unborn, I would say they were right. I wouldn't contradict them. I might argue that this did not make me a bad person, but I wouldn't say they were misunderstanding me.
If you think being uninterested in the people behind numbers in our current discussion makes a person "not nice," then you either have a problem with reconciling your beliefs to your actions, or with the way you're communicating them. It's on you to explain, not on TBG to divine your meaning. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours.
If you think being uninterested in the people behind numbers in our current discussion makes a person "not nice," then you either have a problem with reconciling your beliefs to your actions,
As to "You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours." That is obviously an insult, and you intend it to be one. But you don't know me, and have absolutely no basis for that statement. If you did, you would know it couldn't be farther from the truth.
or with the way you're communicating them
I can't take responsibility for the misinterpretation of what I say, or the resulting lack of logic in imputing my motives. However I do understand it,, most on the site are very far left idealogues,,,not all but most. Anyone who is left in American terms, but right from the ET norm, is open to gross misinterpretation, and slandering of character and motives. If it bothers one too much, they should just drop off the site. Obviously it hasn't bothered me too much, but it has caused me to take long breaks at times. It's worth it for me because I get a view of the European far left, reference to great articles I wouldn't otherwise see, and, just as an example, a European view of the French presidential election. But one has to be willing to take some insults, and I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that this one was an insult, and was meant that way:
You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours. That's where we're different. Until you understand this, you will never be able to make sense of most of what's said on this site.
I never said TBG's comment was not insulting. I said you're the one who interpreted the insult into you not being a "nice" person.
And claiming the argument is based on you being enthusiastic about the DOW is ridiculous. You either lack reading comprehension or you're being disingenuous (gee -- was that arrogant or was it supercilious? neither, I think -- maybe you can come up with another name to call me).
It looks to me as though the argument is based on this:
TBG: "The US economy is only 'growing' if you're in the mythical top 1%. For everyone else in the US, the economy is a deeply sucky thing" WC: "we both live in free countries. if you want to believe this stuff, be my guest."
For everyone else in the US, the economy is a deeply sucky thing"
WC: "we both live in free countries. if you want to believe this stuff, be my guest."
So, you think that basically saying it's a free country and your facts are a "belief" is... ? not confrontational or dismissive? merely showing enthusiasm for the DOW? I think describing it as "disinterest" was being generous.
Y'know, there's a saying -- if one person's an asshole, it's probably them. if everyone's an asshole, it's probably you. With that in mind, why do YOU think you are so consistently "misunderstood" on this site?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing that you may not realize how insulting you're being -- you're doing your best to prove me wrong. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I regard the "Right/Left" distinctions as obsolete, and that most of us on ET - including wc probably - share the same Values.
Where we differ is how we express those Values - and boy can that lead to trouble. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Y'know, there's a saying -- if one person's an asshole, it's probably them. if everyone's an asshole, it's probably you
And nice way to avoid the main point of a comment once again.
Does it really matter where the saying comes from? I assure you it's quite common in the US in the "regular" people circles you claim to be so familiar with. The meaning has nothing to do with you or calling people assholes -- it simply means that if you have a problem with lots of people (as opposed to one person) that the problem may lie with you rather than the other people. But you really didn't need that explained, did you? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
You - and millions like you - apparently have no interest in the human story behind those precious numbers of yours. The fact that people have interest in the Dow, the CAC, or any other index simply does not equate to people who "have no interest in the human story". There is no logic there.
The fact that people have interest in the Dow, the CAC, or any other index simply does not equate to people who "have no interest in the human story". There is no logic there.
The context comes from the fact that Jerome and others have posted fact after graph after study pointing out that the wealth in the Dow is not currently being shared with those who aren't in the share owning class - a subset of the US population which happens to include the vast majority of it.
Similarly, there is endless evidence that real incomes among most of the US population are either static or shrinking in real terms.
If I was insulting, it was to try to hammer that point home against a smokescreen of standard issue exceptionalist rhetoric about how investment supposedly makes everyone richer.
You are of course entitled to believe that having the Dow at record levels makes everyone richer. But the point of this debate is that there is absolutely no evidence to support that point of view, and plenty of hard evidence to contradict it.
And yes - I can be abrasive when someone dismisses a year's worth of posts on ET which have underlned, examined, discussed and dissected that evidence with a curt 'Hey - you can believe what you want. We both live in free countries.'
