« Back to Borrowing Basics | eds's Blog | Greed and the politics of debt - borrowing against future lottery revenues »
Greed
Simply the fact that the best people are people who aren't primarily driven by greed.
--David Kurtz at TPM [quoting Yglesias]
That suggests the error: Greed as an end in itself, not a means.
"the love of money is the root of all evil" points to the error of greed taken as an end. It's not that money is evil, but making it one's objective (love of X) above all other objectives is problematic.
A culture of competition is similar, wherein instead of competition serving a greater good, competitiveness takes over as the good itself, and we have things like "winning is the only thing" apparently from Sanders (and famously picked up by Lombardi) in sports. One counterpoint is that what is important is "how/that you played the game". Of course making THIS into an end in itself is a problem as well. Interestingly, within the context of a finite game, greed as an end is quite acceptable compared to the role being described by Y (and my reflections here). But when one treats life itself as a mere finite game, and treats people as means instead of holding them individually as ends, then one has a problem.
We might ask whether this, greed in modern society taken as primary, is a cultural failing or a moral failing. And I'd also ask:
Is greed (in a large sense) the dominant factor (primary drive) in evolution? And do we "believe in" evolution?
What this leads me towards is a kind of Social Darwinism wherein the greedy who also have skills rise to the top via survival of the fittest within the society. This of course ignores other possibly competing societies with slightly different cultural biases (Darwinistic Socialism?) which might outlast a society of greed. And it doesn't address politics directly, because rising to the top in game playing and money acquisition isn't necessarily about living in an oligarchy.
Advertisement
First we had James Dobson, a self-appointed prince of high morality, pontificating on the sickness of homosexuality.
Now we have Matt Yglesias, a self-appointed prince of high morality, ponfiticating on the sickness of greed.
At least Yglesias makes a distinction between the greed of the poor and greed of the rich.
And that makes him a progressive.
April 11, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"At least Yglesias makes a distinction between the greed of the poor and greed of the rich."
I seem to have missed that, got reference/quote? Or did you mean it merely in the sense of my point about skill+greed, that you think Y. believes that the poor are just as greedy but less skilled? If so, where do you find that in Y?
April 11, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yglesias makes a distinction this way:
"They’re not 24 year-olds looking for a hefty salary in order to pay off student loans. They’re multi-millionaires who want to earn millions more."
When I called him "progressive" I was being sarcastic, in the sense that he's only different from Dobson in the object of his moralizing.
He's making this distinction because he's using morality in order to make a policy argument, which is exactly what Dobson and his crew did about social values, marriage, homosexuality, etc.
But this distinction falls apart as soon as you imagine Vikram Pundit, back in the day, as a 24-year old looking for hefty salary to pay for the student loan.
Greed, love, hate, jealousy, pride don't change in proportion to someone's income over time. All people share these characteristics, they are part of what makes us human, whether we admit it or not.
April 11, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see that as a distinction between the greed of the poor and the rich. It's a distinction between the conditions of the two classes, not between their different greeds (what I thought you meant) as though they were different in kind not merely in marginal quantity or ineffable quality.
You're saying that Y. means it's okay to be poor and want more, but not okay to be rich and want more? If so, how is that so like Dobson?
April 11, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, this distinction doesn't make sense because there is no class difference when it comes to greed.
Yglesias wants policy that will address class inequality through income redistribution. And he's using a moral argument (greed) to agitate for that.
Dobson also used a moral argument - to push for policy (DOMA, etc).
Personally, I think it's a slippery slope to use morality as a tool to push policy-making, the end doesn't justify the means.
But I'm not "progressive" enough I suppose.
April 11, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may well be class differences when it comes to greed!!
"At least Yglesias makes a distinction between the greed of the poor and greed of the rich."
You said he made a distinction, but now you say that the distinction you saw doesn't make any sense. Well, it was really your distinction, not his, as I see things, since I didn't see it. Or were you being sarcastic on this, too?
"Yglesias wants policy that will address class inequality through income redistribution. "
Maybe.
"And he's using a moral argument (greed) to agitate for that."
In a postmodern way, maybe. I just see your cite from him as saying it's okay to be poor and want more, not okay to be rich and want lots more. I don't see anything about taking from the rich. If you meant "voluntary redistribution", that he's calling for more charity and social conscience from the rich, including not taking so much from the poor in the first place, I do get that view.
Have I caught up with you now?
April 11, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you caught up with me? Eds, I honestly have no idea! :-)
Let's start again.
I don't think there is a difference between greed of the rich and greed of the poor. The same desire is behind trading up to a bigger TV screen, a bigger house, a bigger car, etc. The only thing that changes is the scope, the motivation remains the same. That's why there is no difference between a 24 year-old looking for high income and a millionair wanting to make millions more.
But because Yglesias is using morality (the sin of greed) to justify income redistribution, he is forced to make the distinction between that 24 year-old and a millionaire. Otherwise, his argument doesn't make sense.
My point is about using morality to justify policy - and if I hijacked your post, I just couldn't resist!
Nothing has been more thoroughly discredited than the use of morality to make policy. Iraq? DOMA?
April 11, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Policy which doesn't reflect morality is bad. What you may mean to point out is the pretense of morality as a facade to justify bad policy, I think. Morality as a ground of policy is good, even if genuine value differences mean we cannot all always agree on which good is the better good (and thus the idea of democracy with protections for the minority).
I don't know what argument you think Y. is actually making with what you call the distinction. And I don't see him trying to justify income redistribution here, though he may favor it in other articles of his.
I do see the desire of the poor to escape poverty as being different from the desire of the wealthy to continue to amass even more wealth. I don't see the former as greed. Yes, poor people can be greedy and rich people can be not greedy, but we're discussing the general conditions here. Stealing a loaf of bread to survive another day (criminal greed?) is a far cry from demanding a $40M bonus for having failed to keep your company from running into the ground (immoral greed?). And "consumerism" has a greed component regardless of what percentile on the income or net wealth spectrum -- borrowing to live beyond your means could be called "sinful".
I already dealt with "redistribution" in my prior reply, so I won't redo that here.
Thanks for the discussion. Got more?
April 11, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Policy which doesn't reflect morality is bad"...
I disagree because everything depends on how you define morality - and few would agree on specifics.
You might find abortion categorically immoral and I might start a constitutional amendment process to ban gay marriage. The issue with morality-driven policy is that it affects people who do not share that particular moral view.
With regard to the distinction of greed.
Greed too is a moral concept. It includes not only money, but also power, posessions, food, etc.
It is understood as excess of something.
I have a large list of issue with using this for policy-making:
- why greed (and not jealousy for example)
- why cherry-pick what kinds of greed
- what greed is enough and what is excess
- etc
Are you going to apply the US standard for poverty? Or Indian? When does poverty stop and the next stage on the journey of greed begins?
But my biggest issue with using this for policy is that it's effectively confiscatory, punitive and negative.
It is not progressive, it is regressive. It's the opposite of American Dream. It's aiming to make the income gap smaller by dragging someone down, not lifting everyone up.
This may be because there hasn't been a better alternative that's acceptable to liberals, and I accept that.
Or maybe it's because many people say that the rich steal from the poor and yet sit still and not charge them with crimes. Or maybe it's just angry populism that only awakens during an economic crisis.
Over to you :-)
April 11, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I disagree because everything depends on how you define morality - and few would agree on specifics. "
No, not everything, and the contingencies are not necessarily haphazard confusions. I define morality objectively which leaves lots of room open for specifics. I would also remind you of this:
"Morality as a ground of policy is good, even if genuine value differences mean we cannot all always agree on which good is the better good (and thus the idea of democracy with protections for the minority)."
That allows for competing lesser moralities, for instance, and thus some kind of Darwinism-like survival of the fittest morality.
"The issue with morality-driven policy is that it affects people who do not share that particular moral view. "
But surely policy making which is immoral is bad! Is there zero common ground?? Surely you accept The Constitution, even if it's arguable, as common ground. Don't mistake particular narrow moralities for morality in general!!
Excess is part of greed, in the form of excessive desire or excessive feelings of desire. Not all excess is greed or greedy.
Not that we're at standards yet, but I'd generally apply local standards to conduct and global standards to thinking! :-)
Which policy again? Sorry but I can only recall at most some imaginary policy of yours which would be at issue here. This:
"It's aiming to make the income gap smaller by dragging someone down, not lifting everyone up"
You seem to have got stuck on "redistribution" (which I thought I'd dealt with). Do you favor pushing little people down over dragging big people down??
"angry populism that only awakens during an economic crisis"
That's probably part of it. I was "awakened" in Sept., after a "sleep" of about 3 years or so which when it comes to the economy was more like decades. But I'm not here to call for greed or for stealing from the wealthy (though a wealth tax beyond real property taxes would be interesting, it seems off topic). I'm here to discuss greed and its role in society, and specifically wrt culture and morality.
April 11, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think there is an established track record that the better the ones with the most do the better we all do. I disagree...as I disagree with any idea that wanting a roof over your head, food on your table and access to a doctor when you are sick is a sign of being greedy.
April 11, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is greedy and the Right will NOT tolerate THAT kind of greed without putting up one helluva fight.
April 12, 2009 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fear is the driving force. The fear of not having money.
The powerful have figured out how to channel that fear, how to create power and riches with that fear.
Scarborough and Newt really believe that if life is too easy for the population, they will lose some of their drive, some of their productivity because their fear levels will go down.
April 11, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are probably right to some extent.
But while fear can be a motivator, greed is separate. Greed is a hunger for more than is needed, not a fear of not having enough.
I think both play roles in the whole dynamic. Some people buy into the fear of not having enough so they work harder, others work hard out of greed without that fear.
We can ask whether decreased drives might be good.
April 11, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see greed as an end or a means. It's part of the human condition.
If our policies were designed to promote equal opportunity, then we might not have to worry about what everyone is calling "greed."
However, our policies are designed to reward various power cliques.
I usually like Matthew Yglesias, but I think he is in way over his head on morals vs. ethics.
April 11, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is its role in the human condition? As for ends & means, "greed for greed's sake" would be a conscious affirmation of greed as an end. Isn't part of the human condition to make judgments about how to deal with one's condition, what to do about being hungry for instance?
How so re "equal opportunity"? Is promoting that the same as rigidly dumbing down society to the least common denominator?
Yes, some policies have the effect of rewarding cliques, as do some programs. I'm not clear on "designed" in all cases. Joe McCarthy's McCarthyism was designed to attack, not reward, some sectors.
I won't discuss Y as a person.
April 11, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think vices are the flip side of virtues. So I would say greed is the flip side of generosity. What is the role of generosity? I admit I don't know the answer to the role of either vices or virtues in the human condition. Some would say "balance." Others would say God tempts and challenges us. Still others would say we evolved that way, and that other species demonstrate similar capacities.
Yes. I think it's our responsibility to moderate our impulses so that we're not destroying everything in sight. Refraining from destructive impulses requires judgment. (I'm deliberately leaving hunger out of it because it's a physical need. We need food to live, but we don't need greed to live. Yet we're stuck with it.)
In my view, equal opportunity doesn't require dumbing down, it requires smartening up. I think Americans are sufficiently dumbed down already. I say let's try the other direction and see what happens.
But equal opportunity also requires unrigging the game so that everyone can compete if they want to. Right now, the game is obscenely rigged in favor of protecting noncompetition. So we are saddled with bailing out the automakers because they kept making the same dysfunctional cars. We are saddled with bailing out the banks because they all followed the same self-destructive pattern, like lemmings off a cliff. That doesn't make any sense. That wasn't competition.
I see where you are going with McCarthyism, which I would call a hysteria. McCarthyism grew out of real fears, which were never moderated or checked. They were allowed to get out of control (and McCarthy wasn't the only one).
April 11, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, but have I explained how greed can be turned into an end, by choosing it ala "the love of money"?
Desire, or wanting, is natural. I'm not sure that greed is natural, except as a pathology.
I asked about dumbing down because "equal opportunity" seems to require it. I'd like smarter government in the good sense (not in the Cheney sense of him being smart enough to game the system). I don't know if I want smarter populace, that's a toughie. Okay, in principle I do, but if everyone else gets smarter then I have to compete harder!
What you say about noncompetition strikes me as confused. Toyota and others ARE competing with GM, and that competition is part of what is killing GM. There was equal opportunity for both, more or less, except that GM was old and had taken on huge legacy costs. So, no, I don't believe in that kind of equal opportunity as such. Are you saying the government should give Tesla a billions dollars so it can make very expensive electric sports cars??
April 11, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you have.
I don't know. After observing young children in action, I'd say greed comes naturally!
That's pretty funny. I think you'd like a smarter populace, actually. You've generated an interesting discussion thread.
GM effectively committed suicide. How?
Japanese cars became competitive in the U.S. in the 1970s during the oil crisis. American consumers began demanding high-quality fuel-efficient cars, which Japan was already making. Small American cars were junk.
When gas became cheap and plentiful again in the '80s, American automakers still lagged behind foreign companies in introducing good compact models. Europe and Japan saved the day.
I remember when you had to wait to get a Honda. You couldn't just drive one off the lot, there weren't enough of them to meet the demand.
Then American companies started cranking out SUVs in the '90s, and everything we learned about the oil crisis from the '70s went out the window (because of our greed). GM chose to pursue gas-guzzlers. Toyota chose to pursue hybrids. We now know how that story ended.
Despite the current propaganda about GM's age and "legacy costs," GM's demise has little to do those factors. It has more to do with its short-sighted, noncompetitive management decisions. The oil crisis was almost 40 years ago! How long do they need?
No, but I think the government can incentivize competition and innovation. We're 40 years behind schedule in development.
April 12, 2009 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know. After observing young children in action, I'd say greed comes naturally!"
Maybe. I have seen envy/jealousy (sibling rivalry in twins for instance). I suppose I've just seen more kids with envy than with anything like an adult kind of greed. They want food, but are not gluttons. They like pretty things but aren't pack rats. But I did say that greed could be a natural pathology. Maybe pathologies come naturally... surely a lot of religions seem to think so, curb your instincts etc.
"That's pretty funny. I think you'd like a smarter populace, actually. You've generated an interesting discussion thread."
Thanks. Seriously, my insecurities and slacker nature don't want more competitors while if the populace were smarter Bush never would have been elected as far as I see it, much less twice.
I agree that GM had other problems than merely competition, but look back at the context.
April 12, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever seen a kid with candy?
Have you ever given a kid a toy catalogue and said, "Pick out you want?"
When it comes to things kids like, there is no such thing as temperance. If you don't impose any parameters, they exhibit 100 percent selfish lust for excess.
I think we've stumbled onto something. I think greed is unmitigated desire that was never tamed from childhood.
April 12, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you're right in some ways. I think kids are excitable more than greedy, and are prone to excesses (which are usually short-lived, because kids are distractable). Greed might not be innate, it might be a reflection of lacks felt and not requited or satisfied but instead then held like one might hold a grudge by reinforcing the anger or hate (in the case of the grudge) rather than letting it go. That is, the excessiveness occurs in part by means of internal reinforcement due to reaction to negative stimulus, a sort of positive feedback around a negative attractor.
In this sense greed is neurosis rather than built-in vice. Neurosis, while common enough to be sorta called naturally occuring, would be more like a developed bad habit than like something more truly a vice which were natural or innate. Rather it would be acculturation (culture of greed) or mis/dys-acculturation.
How's that play for ya? :-)
April 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Stupidity is a toxic byproduct of greed, and it poisons without regard for class or station.
You see it in hip-hop culture. In throngs of teenage girls mobbing the Ford Modeling Agency. American Idol. Who Wants to be a Millionaire.
Stupidity is no less prevalent in the mindless money-grab of the uber-wealthy and their second- and third-tier wannabes. Wealth isn't a birthright. Somewhere along the line, by some father or uncle or grandfather, it was earned. Not just by one or a few, but by the millions further down whose wages bought the products or used the services.
Wealth should not an cannot be a members-only club. Those with means ought to invest in creating opportunities for those without. You can define it as a moral obligation, or recognize it as a practical reality. There are numerous avenues for this investment. Taxes, sensibly levied and deployed, are IMO the most equitable.
Real, sustainable wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up. It defies gravity. It requires work. It is ignorant for anyone to assume that riches are their due, or that real wealth can be acquired by any means other than patience, diligence, imagination and hard work.
April 12, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi.
"Real, sustainable wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up. It defies gravity. It requires work."
Energy trickles down the ladder of entropy. And capital without labor is pretty abstract (I suppose that is what the Financial Sector model would be, pure capital with manufactured goods etc., just debt chasing debt and equity).
Sustainable wealth is not spent in the economic sense of spending. It, like energy, is conserved. But the forms of wealth, as with energy, are not conserved, are not constant. Wealth can change forms, some of which are more or less good (useful, desirable, tasty, ...).
April 12, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
typo...
pure capital withOUT manufactured goods
April 12, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm struggling with "energy trickles down the ladder of entropy." Since entropy implies disorder, I'm not sure ladder is an appropriate metaphor.
Other than that, I think I agree with you. This may be a first.
April 12, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I made it up on the spot. :-)
It's not a finite ladder with discrete steps on the macro scale (continuum models work better for ultra large systems), but the stochastic evolution of a statistical system can be modeled as hierarchical energy states unfolding from one to the next in the general direction of increasing entropy (this sets the arrow of time). So it is up the down staircase? Anyway, each quantum event is in principle one step on/of/in the almost infinite dimensional "ladder", with many steps being taken more or less simultaneously. That's the passage of time!
My how time passes, quoth the rabbit.
Since you "asked" ... :-)
April 12, 2009 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll leave it at that. I still think I agree with you, unless you can convince me otherwise.
April 12, 2009 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you're still around, blue, I missed this opening line of yours in my first reply:
"Stupidity is a toxic byproduct of greed"
You think being greedy tends to produce increased stupidity, by itself? I'd think that greed is a toxic byproduct of stupidity, as much so if not instead. It could be stupid to be excessive (behave excessively) except if there is "method to the madness".
But yes, a little greed might not be stupid where letting greed go to one's head might stupefy.
Chicken & egg?
April 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think greed can produce stupidity, in that it can render one unable to think clearly. I also think a lack of intelligence can lead one to become greedy, though it is certainly not a prerequisite.
I opt for chicken-egg.
April 12, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a lack of intelligence can lead one to become greedy"
"can lead"
Well, maybe the lack doesn't get in the way of becoming greedy, otherwise I don't get the drawing power there.
One chooses one's behavior, despite being greedy or being not greedy, so a lack of larger awareness might lead to greedy behavior (ignore likely consequences of behavior) by an already greedy person, but does it make one prone to becoming greedy? I think some intelligent people are greedy, however it would be that they would have become greedy - is that how you meant the lack as not a prerequisite?
Are intelligent people less subject to development of neurosis (greed as a neurosis)?
April 12, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes on the second question. On the third, I might have to argue the opposite -- that based on empirical observation, there appears to be a greater propensity for neuroses in intelligent individuals. But I'm not sure I'd define greed as neurotic behavior.
April 12, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/eds/2009/04/greed.php#comment-3437021
Is where I proposed considering greed as neurosis. Sorry, I thought it was in our subtrhead but it was in re readytoblow... above.
April 13, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was disappointed, eds. I thought you left me with the last word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
I think I see where you are going with this. Clearly this is not a five minute argument. I'll check out the link tomorrow.
April 13, 2009 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm greedy for discussion and thus/therefore seizing on marginal points of interest as though they were important and topical! :-)
April 13, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
eds, I'm posting this as a reply to my original comment to give us more room to work.
April 14, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is a marginal point at all. While I agree kids are excitable, what we call "greed" in adults is in children an expression of the survival instinct. Moderating this instinct is part of the acculturation process, as you point out.
The semantic distinction between "neurosis" and "vice" isn't relevant. More pertinent for me is a society that decries permissiveness -- the unmitigated satisfaction of wants -- while at the same time promoting social Darwinism as a cultural norm.
April 14, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This brings us back to the issue you raised in your blog. I'd argue that social Darwinism is a regressive extension of evolutionary theory to human society. I find it deliciously ironic that its principles are espoused by those who claim to doubt its scientific validity.
April 14, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as a block, the right's appreciation for Social Darwinism does seem to contradict their rejection of biological evolution. But I have to wonder if the right isn't a monolithic block. It could be the anti-evolution crowd doesn't even understand much less embrace SD, while another faction believes in SD but at most pays only lip service to radical religious fundamentalism.
Thanks for keeping the thread alive so nicely!
April 14, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. The difference between excitation and greed is in the notion of "excess". Sometimes hoarding is a survival function, sometimes not. But if a kid see candy and you give the candy to the kid, eating the candy at some point sates the appetite in general. Where kids might seem greedy is in getting the candy but not sating the appetite, so they cry out for "More!"
What are the comparable appetites of the very rich which are the foundation of ongoing excessive accumulation of material stuff? It's not just a vice like smoking or gambling, something one indulges in from time to time. It's more like an addiction. Thus social neurosis as distinct from vice.
Maybe it's that these neurotic rich never take time to really "smell the flowers", they get lost in the competitive spirit, and so their appetites are never sated. It's like workers who slavishly save for retirement never taking time to enjoy life, and then they are retired and don't know what to do (or their spouse dies, etc). Greed becomes an end in itself, not just a kind of extension of a possibly natural drive to survive.
Fair enough?
April 14, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. Enjoyed this one. And learned a little bit, I think. Great blog.
April 14, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, I'm getting seriously jealous of your ability to distill something in just one sentence. Or perhaps greedy... :-)
April 11, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the only person who ever understands what I'm saying, Lalo. (LOL!)
I admire your ability for sustained debate. You obviously have thought long and hard about the views you hold; they work for you. Lots of people don't do that arduous work to come up with their own unique take. I certainly don't have you figured out, which is why it's fun to read you. I'm sure you're equally fun to talk to in the real world too.
April 11, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds - I understand morality as prescription for conduct. Morality is about how things should be, not how they are and it changes with the changes in culture. That's where I see the link between Dobson and Yglesias, they talk about how things should be.
Greed is a religious concept of vice. Christians believe that all greed is bad because it is centered on self as opposed to God. Power, for example, would be considered greed. Desire to become president, run for elections and rule others would be considered greed for power.
The next question is - why is greed bad, which is a whole other entanglement on its own, because it goes back to the morality issue, etc.
I think you defined greed as materialism and consumerism, desire for money, posessions, etc. So in your definition, when you say that greed is hunger for more than is needed, you have to take the next step and actually come up with a definition of what is enough.
If you take the US definition of poverty as a basis for what's needed for subsistence, then most people here have more than what they need.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I believe the angry populism itself is motivated by nothing other than greed, keeping up with the Joneses. How come this guy has a Porsche and I have a Toyota? How come this family has a 4 bedrom house and I have a 2 bedroom?
It's stated very often that greed and consumerism is bad. But on the other hand, the Constitution purposefully talks about "pursuit of happiness" without defining what it means and it provides for all citizen equal rights for that pursuit.
April 11, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Declaration
April 11, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that I am following you Lalo. All human ambition and our desire to improve ourselves are manifestations of 'greed'? I define greed, and take into consideration I am no student of philosophy, as wanting more than one needs by using power (either in terms of wealth or political) to get it. When I take the argument which the defenders of greed, vis-a-vis how it is an indispensable part of the 'American Way', to the Nth degree I see the logical outcome as being that it is totally acceptable outcome for one person to amass all the wealth.
You see greedy angry populists and I see people looking for equality and fairness. Would you label the people in the civil rights movement as greedy because of their quest for equality and fairness? Right now I see people trying to improve their lot, realizing why they can't and trying to remedy the problem. It is ok for the people with the most to want even more but if the rest of us try to get more it represents greed?
When less then one percent are allowed to accumulate 80% of the wealth our collective concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' is rendered moot. The Constitution of the US and the rights that were given to we the people are given to us collectively and should not be applied on a purely individual basis...for the common good.
April 11, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a defender or apologist of greed. I just disagree that greed should be a factor in determining policy one way or the other. I don't label one particular group of people as greedy or more greedy than others. Either everyone is greedy or nobody is, we are all human.
Like you, I see people looking for equality and fairness. Where we differ is how that equality and fairness is achieved.
I believe fairness is achieved by providing people with equal opportunity to accumulate wealth and improve their lot. To me that means education and healthcare - things that enable achievement.
But the liberals believe that fairness is achieved by taking from one part of the population in order to give to the other - and teaching them to rely on additional income CONFISCATED from the rich.
They believe that this 1% accumulated their wealth illegally. But they don't charge them with a crime and persecute them, they just tax everyone above $250.000 and trap those below 250,000 with AMT. Today, 10% of individual taxpayers provide 70% of government income. If they aquire their wealth illegally, why are they even filing for tax returns, why are they not in jail?
April 11, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should probably add that confiscating from one group to transfer to another has something to do with defining equality and fairness in terms of materialism.
Equal opportunity, on the other hand, is creating a level playing field for someone to do whatever they choose with their life.
And yes, the rights of "we the people" should apply to all equally. But when it comes to taxation, they aren't. As Joe Biden helpfully pointed out, taxes are not a right, they are a patriotic duty.
April 11, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am thinking how we get to fairness is basically where we differ. I am not saying your argument is a Libertarian one but the Libertarian argument is the rights of one need to be defended in order to protect the rights of all. I have a philosophical problem with that. If you protect the rights of one to the point which it infringes on the rights of the rest the efforts are counterproductive to achieve the desired result.
You see it as wealth confiscated from the rich. I see it as ill gained wealth that was gained by 'gaming the system' and removing the safeguards which protect us from inequality...i.e. antitrust laws and laws about monopolies. Just like there have to be safeguards in place which limit some of our rights, like the 1st and 2nd amendments for example (and you were involved in that discussion on the post I did about the 2nd amendment I believe), there need to be restrictions in place how businesses can operate. I think the 2 rulings from the SCOTUS that have led to the inequality we see now is the noxious, to me at least, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruling (which extends rights enjoyed by individuals to business endeavors...aka 'Corporate Personhood') and Buckley v. Valeo which says the giving of money by corporations is protected speech under the 1st amendment. Both of those rulings have allowed the rights enjoyed by we the people to be unequal based on the amount of wealth one possesses. More money now equals a higher level of rights. And I think that is germane to the discussion of the problems which led us to where we are now.
April 11, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies...I just went back and checked and you weren't involved in the 2nd amendment debate which I did a post about. Sorry for claiming you were...
April 12, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo - if anyone gives you a reasonable response to this issue, please let me know.
Libertine (and others) like to blame it as people "gaming the system".
This may be true for CEOs of Countrywide, Lehman, Merrill, et al.
But I know a lot of people that became very wealthy and put themselves into that top 10% the old fashioned way.
These people were born into middle-class families and went to public schools. Through hard work and scholarships got themselves into top colleges and professional schools. They bacame very successful in various careers: banking, law, medicine, business, small-business owners, etc. None of them "gamed the system". But through hard work they've managed to accumulate a decent nest egg.
April 12, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dare say there are far more that belong on that list. But even if it were just those examples they are allowed to siphon off wealth, using the influence they've gained by the higher level of rights their wealth, from the rest of us. I am glad to see you're acknowledging it Bill...
You want to point out the success of a middle class under assault as examples of how our system works? C'mon Bill get real. So people who have gone to public schools and got jobs working for the corporations who have caused all the problems represent success? You set the bar very low in terms of what represents 'successful'. Granted for some that is all they want and/or need in life but it doesn't on its own represent that there is anything close to economic equality in our country. And by economic equality I don't mean forceably redistributing the wealth from the rich to the other classes. What I mean is for the rest of us to have an equal chance at true success. Entrepreneurship has been strangled off in this country. Business has been allowed to become increasingly monopolistic, and therefore anti-competitive, over time severely limiting the opportunities for people looking to become successful to become so. Free Trade has resulted in wealth being shared a bit more equally on a global scale, with workers in other countries benefiting with comparatively higher wages to what they've been paid in the past. But the amount of additional corporate wealth being generated for the shareholders and CEO's is staggering and is not being reinvested in the market where the jobs were taken from, the one in the US. In fact it has made it almost impossible for a business, solely based in the US, looking to manufacture goods and employ workers to be a viable one. Rather then trying to lift the rest of the world to US standards our corporations are allowed to try to drag the economic standing of the US worker down to the level of that of many people have in 3rd World nations. And all the while the US consumer, who isn't being paid what they used to be, are being asked to keep this whole system going by consuming even more. This feat was attempted to be accomplished for a while by inflating housing bubbles and extending credit, at high rates bordering on usury, driving an already beleaguered American worker into deeper debt as the vision of the wealth we were told we had turned out to be the mirage it always was. Meanwhile the people who profited from this charade, driven by their over the top greed to have everything, had their gimmicks go bad...and told the American people they were the ones we needed to pay for that.
So it isn't a zero sum game Bill? It is possible for us all to be winners when the top 1% do well? I have yet to see the proof of that being true...all I have seen is increasing economic inequality as, for example, in 2007 where more wealth was taken by the wealthy in any year sans 1928. And of course 2008 followed 2007 just like 1929 followed 1928...and what will always happen when greed becomes a virtue.
April 12, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"et al" means that there are others, but I didn't bother to list them.
Many of those hard workers that I mentioned have nothing to do with the corporations that caused all the problems. But you may have a broader universe of this "bad corporation" list than I do.
These people are examples that you don't have to be born with a silver spoon to become succesful in this country.
Your income inequality argument hinges on the assumption that income mobility is declining. I haven't seen any evidence that income mobility is declining.
April 12, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're closing your eyes to the evidence, but I think it's a red herring notion anyway. And that you know of a handful of people or even 100s who succeed despite the odds, this is not sufficient to make your point.
What Libertine might be missing about income or wealth inequality is that while the top end is very rarefied, that alone doesn't mean that the low end doesn't benefit from the extreme differences even if they don't benefit as much. Obey's blog on greed touches on Adam Smith talking about this trickle-down notion, and I commented there.
April 12, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen any evidence that income mobility has slowed?
April 12, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean besides the widely discussed notion that real wages have been flat or declining for a long time?
It's not something I follow closely. One can define "income mobility" to make it sorta fit a lot of different data sets or theories. What are yours for making the positive claim?
April 12, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine asserts that we are experiencing increasing economic inequality because "more wealth is being taken by the wealthy".
My point is that this would only be true if we were looking at the same group of people each year.
But it is possible that the same group of people that fall into the median-income range in one year are not the same households that are in the median-income range the next year.
Households move up and down the income distribution from year to year. In order to understand whether income inequality is actually getting worse it is important to exame whether the rate of income mobility is declining.
The view that the "rich are getting richer" is only true if the same people occupy the "rich" category from year to year. If instead, some of the rich are falling into a lower bracket and some people in the lower bucket are moving up into the higher bucket, then I don't agree that income inequality is getting worse.
Simply looking at the trend in real wages by itself doesn't tell you the full picture about income inequality.
April 12, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly understand the difference between individuals as such versus classes of individuals. Yet you make statements which belie this.
"But it is possible that the same group of people that fall into the median-income range in one year are not the same households that are in the median-income range the next year."
If wages are flat, it doesn't matter than some people get small raises, or a tiny fraction bootstraps up a level, as others fall through the net downwards. You're confusing individuals with classes here.
"Households move up and down the income distribution from year to year. In order to understand whether income inequality is actually getting worse it is important to exame whether the rate of income mobility is declining."
No, that doesn't follow. Mobility and disparity are different kinds. Income mobility could go up or down without dramatically affecting disparity, and vice versa (except in extreme cases).
April 12, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I frankly didn't understand what you said.
If I wrote something that you didn't understand, you'd of course that that what was written didn't make any sense.
However, I have more tact than that. I'm not sure why you fall into a defense mechanism where you start to sound like Shakespeare and throw around words like "belie".
But I'll take a swing at it - wages on average might be flat (although of course you are not factoring in benefits like healthcare), but that doesn't mean that people aren't moving up or down the economic food chain. And if people are moving up the food chain, then Libertine's assertion that only the wealthy are getting wealther isn't necessarily true.
April 12, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I frankly didn't understand what you said."
I made three points. You are free to cite my text and ask a particular question or take a reasonable guess at what I must have meant in context. Typos happen, but not all typos must stop the reader in his tracks. Nor is there any reason for you to get defensive.
As for your guess: You're putting words in Libertine's mouth, right? I don't believe anyone argues that NOBODY can get rich despite the deck being stacked against the middle or poorer classes.
April 12, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your language and tone are so completely condescending.
I don't think I was putting any words in anyone's mouth - here's what Libertine said "all I have seen is increasing economic inequality as, for example, in 2007 where more wealth was taken by the wealthy in any year sans 1928"
And my point is that you can't assume increasing economic inequality when there is the reasonable possibility of economic mobility.
I hate to be a broken record but it doesn't seem like you're listening to what I'm saying.
I don't see why we care about individuals versus classes. My point is that even if wages are flat, there can be people climbing the economic ladder and others dropping down. And if some people are moving up the ladder than Libertine is incorrect in saying that all there is increasing economic inequality.
April 12, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"if some people are moving up the ladder"
I believe I already addressed this, mobility and disparity are not the same. And you already showed you understand this, so I don't get why you're pretending.
I my pointer was too brief, engage it.
April 13, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not even sure what a "pointer" is, other than a dog. Can't you discuss things without using SAT words?
I don't understand why you're drawing the distinction between mobility and disparity in the first place.
If there is strong economic mobility (and I said IF), then it is not true that the "rich are only getting richer" as Libertine points out.
The "rich only get richer" would only be true if the two groups of people always stayed the same. But if some people are moving up and others moving down, then the rich aren't just getting richer. Some middle-class and lower-class become rich while some rich people don't stay rich.
April 13, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't understand why you're drawing the distinction between mobility and disparity in the first place."
I don't believe you. Do you even understand mobility and disparity at all??
"If there is strong economic mobility (and I said IF), then it is not true that the "rich are only getting richer" as Libertine points out."
Wrong again. I'm not here to pick up after your trash Bill. Make an honest valid argument, please.
"The "rich only get richer" would only be true if the two groups of people always stayed the same.
Wrong again. Again you're mixing up classes with individuals, and worse.
" But if some people are moving up and others moving down, then the rich aren't just getting richer."
Non-sequitur - that's illogical in context.
" Some middle-class and lower-class become rich while some rich people don't stay rich."
So what?
April 13, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will stop trying to make my points since you are just shooting them down with out an explanation.
It's too bad you "don't believe me". I obviously don't look at mobility the same way that you do.
But again, your condescending tone and language is enough for me to stop engaging in a dialog with you.
I've made this mistake once. But I won't make it again. For now on I really won't ever respond to one of your comments. Have a nice life.
April 13, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy your ignorance and bad attitude, Bill!
If you change your mind again, and you show a real effort (like, if you would make a clear simple argument for how disparity cannot trump mobility), post it in context where I can find it easily.
April 14, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"wanting more than one needs by using power (either in terms of wealth or political) to get it"
That's confused. It mixes up greed with conduct in service to that greed. And of course any conduct involves power, at least will power!
"wanting more than one needs" seems to be a decent definition of the term. What one does with that feeling is a separate matter.
The "greed is good" school says "excess is good" which looks patently false to me. What they mean is of course, "don't shy away from your desires for more". And that's okay in moderation.
"When less then one percent are allowed to accumulate 80% of the wealth our collective concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' is rendered moot."
I don't agree. You're mixing up "having" with "working for", and that can obscure the fact that even the poor can pursue happiness, whether they become rich, improve their lots in life, or stay poor. The systemic problem is with a system in which those who have wealth game the system to frustrate the pursuit of happiness of the rest. That is, they make an unlevel playing field, a moat, to protect their riches from the mob, AND they have the power to enforce selective handicaps (as distinct from offering selective generous charity).
April 11, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I understand morality as prescription for conduct."
Conduct yes, prescription no. Prescriptive morality is a lesser qualified morality, like Received Authority telling you what is right and wrong to do (or think). One can prescribe for oneself, but objectively speaking whim isn't particularly moral, so any prescription ought obtain from durable rational understandings of options for conduct. Maybe that's too abstract... I'm not sure what else to say right away.
"Morality is about how things should be"
No, if anything morality is about what one should/ought to do, if you want to talk about "shoulds".
"[morality] changes with the changes in culture"
Those would be lesser or narrow moralities, but as such, yes moral views might change from time to time, and cultural views might also change based on [other] changes in morals. Chicken and egg?
"Greed is a religious concept of vice."
Uh, I wouldn't put it that way. Greed could be a vice, religiously or otherwise. But what is certainly is objectively speaking, is an excess of desire. Why greed is bad, when it is bad: It's excessive! I think you're mixing up power with lust.
"you have to take the next step"
That's why I mentioned "standards" in an earlier reply. "How much is too much?" Cannot be answered rationally without something like a standard of "How much is enough?" But I think in this discussion it's out of order to get into moral standards, except maybe to illustrate a point. That said, I think "subsistence" is aiming too low in terms of standard of living or quality of life standards. Poverty is not the ideal, but maybe 1.5x or 2x could be "just enough".
"the angry populism"
I don't agree. I don't see materialistic Envy, I see anger at government sloth and corruption.
"Consumerism" has good and bad sides. Make consumption an end in itself is bad. Consumption itself is a practical necessity of life, we must consume food etc. in order to live. But taking consumption to an excess, by whatever standard applies, this would be too much!
April 11, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff eds. Kant's ethics, for all its many shortfalls, was dead on with the Kingdom of Ends--people, or Life, as an end/ends in themselves/itself.
I think you really hit it out of the park with the notion of greed as an end in itself. Obvioulsy, this sentiment is sold in a much more subtle package. Like you say, we uplift competition and the dollar. In doing so, we make them sacred. I don't know if it's a cultural flaw primarily or a moral flaw primarily. My instinct is to say its a cultural flaw caused by a moral flaw. But it may be more complicated than that. I think it's less a moral flaw and more an amoral form of life--which is a cultural issue. Eds, can I have my cake and eat it too?
A very wise friend once told me, "Michael, compete within yourself." I'll never forget it--it's a gem of great wisdom. It accepts the force of competition as a reality, yet it channels it into a constructive form.
As for Darwinism, I think you're basically on the right track. Darwin lived close to the time of Schopenhauer. I'm not sure if Darwin read Schopenhauer or not, but clearly the idea of evolution was in the air of the 18th century. Schopenhauer, whether he recognized it or not, proved the distinction between subject and object to be meaningless. In the World as Will and Representation, he shows in incoherence of claiming that subject caused object or that object caused subject. He was, as far as I can tell, the first to show that the distinction between the two is arbitrary.
Evolution essentially settles the thousands year old debate about what the ultimate substance of life is: air, water, fire, or earth. Evolution kind of says, the question is incorrect. Life is the ultimate substance of Life. As such it's all growing into more and more complex forms and organizations.
With that as background, I think Darwin understood his threory to mean that groups--forms of life--were logically prior to individuals. Therefore, groups were composed of units--individuals. Not the other way around.
Free marketeers like to claim that a group is nothing but a collection of individuals. The assumption being that individuals are logically prior to groups. Well, if you think about it in terms of evolution, that argument is kinda silly. At best, it's a half-truth.
So, in terms of Natural Selection, it's misleading to say that the strongest individuals survive. It's probably more accurate to say that the individual members of the best organized and wisdom filled groups survive.
April 12, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few responses, and thank you too.
"I think it's less a moral flaw and more an amoral form of life--which is a cultural issue. Eds, can I have my cake and eat it too?"
I tend to see it as varying degrees of Both And. The particular circumstances will shift the balance, because morality and culture overlap strongly (both objectively and subjectively). And since you mentioned S/O, I consider them a complementary pair for the most part. I might say
Subject/intention as Object/purpose
If you don't have some of each working together, you're left with nihilism or absurdity, aka, no significant meaning.
"Life is the ultimate substance of Life."
Sorta maybe, or not. Life is synthetic, too.
"Free marketeers" as such think of moral agents as being isolated islands, and ignore that "no man is an island" as well as the fact that islands generally are all connected beneath the surface (sub- or un- consciously). But for most intents and purposes (heh) I think that model is pretty workable.
I don't know who confuses strength with fitness! The cupcake version of Darwin is "survival of the fittest". And it's not necessarily true, that is, sometimes the misfits survive. Diversity in the gene pool can be a good, as perhaps diversity of values can be good in an economy or in politics. If not the highest good, at least a practical good.
April 12, 2009 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eds! Subject/Intention--Object/Purpose. I love that!
"Life is the ultimate substance of Life." That's kind of my spin on David Bohm's idea of movement as prior to substance. I don't know if you're familiar with it but he argues, pretty successfully to my mind, that if Kant is correct that metaphysics is not scientific and 'meta' means after, then in a certain real sense, nothing comes after physics--all is movement. So substance is really just a certain organization of movement or a form of energy (as Einstein might say). So, by "Life is the ultimate substance of Life," I mean that, when we reference substance, the actual act of referencing is part of the substance.
April 12, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purpose can give focus to intention, thus producing objective intent.
Bohm et al is bad poetry, to me. Movement is not primary. Movement = energy, is false generally. It is a mistake to try to force a single basis, reality is intrinsically synthetic, whether dually or as a multiplicity.
But how does this relate to greed? Maybe you're being greedy to seek a final solution in movement.
:-)
April 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha!!! I suppose I just wanted your take on these issues. I understand your objection to movement as primary or--as I understand it--anything as primary. I think Bohm would agree that his work was poetry, although he would probably think it was better than bad. But, I think that's a fair critique.
I am curious about how you mean "reality is synthetic." I understand that as, for instance, the distinction between inner world and outer world is an arbitrary distinction. Does that bark up the correct tree? Do you mean that in the same sense which Kant referred to synthetic a priori judgments?
I'm fascinated by 'objective intent' also. I'm hoping you will say a bit more about that...
April 12, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might depart from Kant's way. I once was a bit familiar with his Prolegomena but I'm not talking about propositions in what I understand to be the Kantian sense. And my critique is unfair to Bohm in the sense that I've never really grappled with Bohm in depth, so my critique is shallow even if it is right on the money as far as it goes. However, my critique of your presentation was fair enough in that your presentation was about as shallow as my critique! :-)
This is getting a bit off topic (greed) but I'll take a shot at your issues:
-- I am curious about how you mean "reality is synthetic." I understand that as, for instance, the distinction between inner world and outer world is an arbitrary distinction. Does that bark up the correct tree?
Sorta but not "really". :-) If the universe is Inner+Outer, then the universe is manifestly synthetic. But I don't use that as primary. The particular core of "reality is synthetic" is that reality consists of actuality and factuality together. Something actual but not factual is not real, and so on. Anything real must have some degree of both. The real is the product of acts and facts, or simply Doing and Being. We can also understand this via What and How, whether applied to reality or to something else (ideality, imagination,...). What = How To Be, How = What To Do.
So... What = What To Do To Be = How To Be To Do To Be... or simply if flippantly -- Do Be Do Be Do ...! This is not necessarily a temporal sequence of alternating states, it can be a "parallel" structure similar to ... a double helix.
But this is not the end of the story of reality being synthetic. Reality also has momentary and eternal components. And so on...
As for 'arbitrary': Distinctions have arbitrary and non-arbitrary aspects/components. The particular frame chosen may be arbitrary but without SOME relevant frame there is no distinction, so some frame is necessary. The frame you choose is like the part of the elephant chosen by blind wise man X. It could be a leg or a tail or an ear or... but until the wise man engages the elephant, establishes a frame of reference, the wise man is simply out of touch with the subject and object allegedly of interest.
-- I'm fascinated by 'objective intent' also.
That's just unpacking the language. Intent is focused intention. Purpose is the objective in mind, thus purpose may objectify intention. I don't consider this mere equivocation on 'objective'.
But there can be non-objective focusing of intention also, thus "objective intent" isn't entirely redundant, whether the alternatives are "subjective intent" (whatever that might amount to) or some other qualifier of interest which is not well framed by subject/object as a distinction or frame.
Too abstract here?
April 13, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
No no no. I love it! I especially love the notion of double helix as illustrative of synthesis. I love: actuality + factuality = reality. So if the world is a spiral staircase, then one rail is actuality and the other is factuality. All "substance" in the world is that which connects to actuality, on the one side, and factuality on the other. So what's real would be the steps which, so to speak, hook onto each rail.
The downside of a one dimensional Being/Non-Being argument is that it assumes a flat picture of reality, one whose structure is entirely stagnant. The downside of a Doing/Not-Doing argument is that it disallows for a structure inherint in reality at all. If I hear you correctly, you're proposing that the double helix works because it allows for reason in nature and for purposeful action which changes over time. That's cool.
I think I understand objective intent fairly well. I don't see it as redundant at all. Even if 'subjective intent' is senseless, the mere fact that some people believe subject intent to exist means that 'objective intent' is sensible as a contrast to a commonly held--albeit senseless--belief.
Eds... I really appreciate your ideas. I hope I'm on the right track in understanding them.
April 13, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the right track, or on the right spiral "staircase"? :-)
"So what's real would be the steps which, so to speak, hook onto each rail."
Sorta, partly. Don't reify your image of reality, that would be greedy! Remember that synthetic reality has both eternal and merely momentary components, so the staircase and steps metaphor which implies a rigid eternal structure upon which we in the moment might tread, contains significant illusion or error even as it hints correctly. The image is not the idea nor the reality. But yes, your other related discussion is pretty much right on.
"If I hear you correctly, you're proposing that the double helix works because it allows for reason in nature and for purposeful action which changes over time. That's cool."
Again, sorta. That might be one useful consequence of the model, that it can help account for reason and nature, but "reason in nature" is a bit biased if you mean that nature reasons even without reasoners such as people to do the reasoning. BTW, if you know of other people who've used a double helix model, I'd like to hear about their works. I conceived it on my own as far as I know, but I was probably influenced subconsciously by exposure to bits and pieces of other narratives.
Another clue about reality is in a look at the forms of reality. Factuality and actuality are not properly forms of reality, they are necessary components of reality.
April 13, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha!!! My greed has made our conversation oddly relevant to the blog.
By "reason in nature" I mean simply that which must be in place for human beings to reason is in place throughout all "substance." So I'm not claiming that nature reasons, but that its structure is 100% analogous to the "space" in which humans reason.
I sort of mean it in the Fregean sense. Mathematical truths exist in the world--or exactly like you say: mathematical truths/factuality exist as necessary components of reality. And so does actuality as a component of reality which necessarily deviates through time.
It seems to me that what you have done is equivalent to Wittgenstein's Tractatus, except you're not elucidating the limits of thought, but the origins of thought. I think Wittgenstein would argue though that factuality/actuality should be replaced with grammar/language. Nonetheless, I think what you're saying is quite substantive and new--at least, as far as I can tell.
I've never seen or heard philosophers use the double helix analogy. A friend of mine once proposed it to me, but only in the pure abstract. He had no reason for why it was analogous. It simply seemed like an aesthetically pleasing frame. I suppose Kant would say that's exactly more proof that it's correct--its aesthetic appeal demonstrates synthesis!
I have though seen something very similar in art. The band called Tool uses the imagery of two intertwined helices continuously unfolding. (I'm partial to the notion of enfolding/unfolding via Bohm.) That image set to music is pretty powerful. But as far as reasoning behind it, your explanation is the first I've heard. And I think, at least, it's right.
You do great work eds. I hope I'm on the same page with you.
April 14, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should amend something. I'm wrong to say that mathematics being in the world is the same as factuality being a component of reality. It would be more correct to say that mathematics supplies rules for the world in the same way that factuality is a component of reality.
Sorry 'bout the sloppiness.
April 14, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I posted a comment in a slightly old blog of yours..
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/satyagraha/2009/04/my-local-paper-has-lost-its-mi.php#comment-3438725
April 14, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it seems we're very close on this. Thanks for clarifying re math's proper place.
I don't quite agree about reason. You're talking metaphysics, what makes reasoning possible in the first place. I'm not sure we can "find" that everywhere in nature (throughout all substance?), but it's probably true that the building blocks of reason (reasoning as a capability) are grounded in physics, biology, etc. if not also elsewhere. The psyche is resolved to first order as mind and body, in one frame. If Platonic Forms exist, then there is a world outside of nature, or inside our understandings of nature, which is not purely natural.
It's an ideal goal to understand and experience both mind (nurture) and body (nature) in a unified system of thinking/feeling. Dialectical synthesis, to say it briefly. The point is to recognize the components without reifying them. Since you're read Bohm, you probably have an understanding of wave-particle duality. Reality is neither wave nor particle, but reality isn't everything.
I did try Tractatus many years ago. It devolved quickly for me so I gave it up after what seemed like a promising first few pages. My current thinking ala double helix (and other metaphors) originated about 15 years ago when I started trying to do philosophy instead of just trying to read it. I would suggest that the limits of thought and the origins of thought are more closely related than your comment might suggest.
"grammar/language" -- It would depend on what those meant and how you'd mean them! :-) For me, language does not encompass thought, we think outside of language generally. Language is a handy tool for thought, and sometimes a developmental guide. Metaphorically used, 'language' could be rather too broad a notion. Some try to stretch it to cover everything. While a language-based model might be the, or an, "ideal goal" (see above reference) premature collapse leaves one with the likelihood of limited delusions.
Yes, "folding" at least metaphorically is part of my metaphysical narrative too. But again, see the immediate prior paragraph about the problem of metaphor. A quasi-stochastic model of the passage of time invokes the unfolding of actions as a basis for time passing in physics.
April 14, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great catch--that I was using metaphysics. I didn't notice until you said that. "What makes reasoning possible..." is totally a metaphysical subject. I thought I was still in epistemology, but ultimately, like you say, I had to reify at some point. I don't want to say that Platonic Forms exist here or there, but I do want to say that the rules by which something is actual in the world coincides with the rules by which we consider something factual in our mind. Since it's arbitrary to separate world from mind, I think I'm speaking through pure epistemology.
Dialectical synthesis is a perfect phrase to describe it. Bohm used to say something like, "'thinking', if done right, ought to be thought of as we usually think of 'sensory perception'." I think that makes great sense out of how you mean "recognition without reification." Reification is founded in a belief (almost certainly unconscious) that reality IS everything. I think Bohm is pushing--correctly--a sort of artistic way of being in the world. One which recognizes one's own limitations, but through that recognition one is opened to a sensory perception of limitlessness.
Wittgenstein did try to use 'language' as a notion which covered everything. In some sense, I think he's right. But in that same sense, I think he's sort of making a trivial claim--although he was careful to say he was not claiming anything--just describing things.
He understood grammar in a way different from what is taught in school. He understood it as analogous to the forms of interaction amongst people. For instance, when someone points at a tree and says 'this is an oak tree', the learner understands 'that tree he is pointing towards is classified in the category: 'oak' '. And the rules by which the learner understands the whole process of learning is--what Wittgenstein called--grammar. So, if 'grammar' means the rules by which we interact with each other or we interact with nature or nature interacts with itself, then 'language' is that which the rules govern. He never says this, but I'm assuming he's committed to calling a tree's movement: the language of the tree.
Of course this way of describing the world is extraordinarily flawless, and yet--at the same time--unfalsifiable. So, some call his work the most logically perfect philosophy ever, and some say it's just poetry. I tend to appreciate the middle ground. It's extraordinarily flawless poetry! As such, I don't think it produces a premature collapse of critical thought. Bohm would say that all philosophizing, theorizing, and scientific investigation amounts to a mode of art. Wittgenstein might say that scientific investigation is like trying to interpret the language of nature. I think that actually encourages an openness toward new input. I mean, when would anyone say, "I understand the English language and all its components perfectly; I am done." Or when would anyone say, "I have composed the greatest sonata; Music is complete."
I don't think anyone would, and for the same reason, I don't think grammar/language is any less descriptive than factuality/actuality. However, I don't think grammar/language is any more descriptive than factuality/actuality. I think it's just a different focus.
April 14, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He understood it as analogous to the forms of interaction amongst people. For instance, when someone points at a tree and says 'this is an oak tree', the learner understands 'that tree he is pointing towards is classified in the category: 'oak' '."
But that's back to language. And there can be ambiguity of reference. So W. is talking about vocabulary instruction, perhaps to illustrate something else. So, which is subject and which is object, here? And which is predicate...?
Grammar is first a matter of language. Structure exists and occurs outside of language. It is poor metaphor to talk about the language of nature, if we are trying to be precise. It can be good poetry, but only if done artfully. Nature as we can observe it clearly demonstrates laws in some cases, it's not purely chaotic or random, nor is it evidently whimsical at a macro level. Calling that "the grammar of nature" doesn't help me. Grammatical rules are conventions which aid communication. Something like a Universal Grammar might be worth understanding, but it's no longer grammar.
I think you're still stuck in language as everything, and if so, then you are "mistaking your wife for a hat" might apply if Magritte's "ceci n'est pas un pipe" doesn't do it. I say "you" because you seem to buy it and use W. that way. Maybe I'm off base here.
"scientific investigation is like trying to interpret the language of nature"
"is like" might be illustrative, but what is being illustrated, and does the illustration obscure more than it reveals/evokes correctly? Is it preaching to the choir, or is it a profound philosophical breakthrough? For me it's just mediocre metaphor, but then it's out of context! I of course have my own core metaphors (spin and symmetry breaking).
If reality is a product of factuality and actuality, what do we call the effective cross product of particularity and generality, "reason"?
April 14, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you're still stuck in language as everything." I don't know if that's the case. I would say that I use "language as everything" as a framework in certain circumstances. For instance, I'm studying for the LSAT right now. "Language as everything" is a very useful mode for a test like this.
If I were stuck--in a real sense--I think I would be making metaphysical propositions like, "Linguistic idealism is true" or "All is language." But I'm very careful not to make those claims because they're kinda silly. It's hard to even say what those propositions would mean.
I agree with you. Does the "language as everything" framework obscure? Yeah! In a lot of situations it's confusing at worst and superfluous at best.
However, there are some instances--the LSAT is one--where "language as everything" is the best mode in which to be. Not because language is so important but because grammar--the rules of the road--is so important. When in such a mode, the reader see's form and function with structure alongside content.
Like you suggest, no one would want to be in an intimate moment with their spouse and simultaneously deconstruct the grammatical structure of their interaction. Then yes, one would mistake their wife for a hat.
So, "language as everything" is, for me, a mode of perception--one appropriate in some, especially academic, situations. I do though believe that it is a mode which can bridge to other modes of perception--modes which don't hold language to be everything.
"Language as everything" can be looked at as a mode from which old patterns of behavior can be transformed. If, for instance, we took neural pathways in the brain to represent tendencies in behavior, the "language as everything" mode would make an individual more aware of the tendencies as pathways--not the way it has to be--which can be loosened and rewired into different directions.
To finally make my comments relevant to greed, "language as everything" would be a useful mode of perception to transform a greedy person. Talking through their actions and consequences, giving language to the rippling effect of the behavior on others and themselves. Communicating through language the self-defeating nature of greedy behavior. If the greedy person only understood "language as opinion" then they would feel little weight from arguments to change. But if the greedy person were perceiving in a "language is everything" mode, then sensible language holds great weight.
So "language as everything" is mode which can be useful sometimes.
I am curious about spin and symmetry breaking--how you see those and what they mean to you. I'm also curious about cross production.
April 14, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with the LSAT.
" "language as everything" is [a] mode which can be useful sometimes. "
Modes of being or modes of perception, but the label doesn't seem to mean anything (it tries to mean too much?). You could have said "language as nothing" or "not-language as everything" and it would apply as well to your instances. So it seems that phrase has some special significance or transformational (transformative?) associations for you which relates to or reminds you of something valuable to you. Idiomatic language?
"I am curious about spin and symmetry breaking--how you see those and what they mean to you. I'm also curious about cross production."
cross product as from math, reality = actuality x factuality, so reality is an independent dimension (thus act and fact are not forms of the real but bases for it). Similarly, spin has a cross product formulation. Symmetry breaking is what a stimulus (sense data input) does to a homeostasis (brain/mind) which is otherwise in equilibrium (symmetry). In a manner of speaking it's also about the roots of objective logic and reason.
April 15, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If reality is a product of factuality and actuality, what do we call the effective cross product of particularity and generality, "reason"?"
I did not answer this in my last comment, but I have been thinking about it. I actually thought the question was, "What do we call the effective cross product of actuality and factuality?" But I think the answer may be the same. With our 21st century language, "Information" may be the best word. And so, it might also be best to speak of "information in nature" instead of "reason in nature."
April 15, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting pretty arcane here, but for me 'information' refers to an act, it's not something stored away. That is, my bias is towards Actual information as distinct from Potential or Latent information. Real information must have an actual component of course! Then consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of awareness with sensation, that is, in information theory a synthesis of being informed with becoming informed, a moment of information. I formulated this view about 12 years ago.
April 15, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES! 'Information' is first and foremost a verb. I love how you call the synthesis "a moment of information." And in a way, that moment is timeless--or, to put it another way, that moment is everywhere (to intentionally mix space and time).
We could say that greed--as a worldview/attitude--is, at least in part, based in a belief that 'information' is a noun--that information is something to be owned. We could say that such a belief is the basis for viewing the world as a zero-sum game.
I understand how you mean this is arcane. Convention says that information is or ought to be stored away--like you say. A world in which enough people understand information as act or 'information' as a verb, is a world of which many religions like to paint pictures: the Third Temple, the Messianic Age, the Promised Land/collective enlightenment, Jannah, etc. A more down to earth description would just be: a further step in the evolution of our species, or from a broader perspective, the world as further unfolded.
Unfortunately, just knowing this is not nearly enough. We have to feel it in our bones. And it has to be communicated from as many angles as possible. I love how you describe consciousness as the synthesis of awareness with sensation. I would describe collective consciousness along the same lines: the synthesis of awareness with the world itself.
April 15, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a noun which describes action. Events are not verbs but they do involve acts or "becoming".
Gotta leave this subthread with a test of TPM formatting on narrow comments:
1111111111222222222233333333334444444444555555555
Thanks for taking an interest.
April 16, 2009 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the text (numerals) are still there, just not visible:
1111111111222222222233333333334444444444555555555
Is 10 each of 1, 2, 3, 4, with 9 5s.
April 16, 2009 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hats off to eds and Lalo (and yours is a tall one) for a great thread. Recommended.
April 12, 2009 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClassBill: no I don't think anyone will give a reasonable argument. There is no reasonable argument against "gaming the system" when you have a vested interest in preserving and milking the system.
Income redistribution has a direct relationship to greed because it defines equal opportunity as materialism, consumerism and possessions. So it cannot survive without a supply of income that can be arbitrarily confiscated and redistributed.
Yes, income redistribution is the liberal interpretation of how social justice is achieved.
In my opinion, it is one of the worst possible ways to go about social justice, because it creates more problems than it solves and it fundamentally takes us away from creation of equal opportunity.
First, income redistribution is dependent on measuring the gap of income between social classes. It doesn't focus on growing income of the lowest income earners, per se - it is focused on comparing social classes. The immediate consequence of this is the tax policy of reducing the income gap. So, as long as the gap is small, liberals would accept the poor being even poorer - because the rich will be less rich and this amazing equlibrium is maintained.
Second, income redistribution is punitive, negative and materialistic in nature, as mentioned upthread. It doesn't create optimism, desire to advance, desire to achieve - it teaches us to take for granted institutionalized confiscation from one group for the benefit of the other.
Third, it kills both the spirit and any action towards equal opportunity for all.
If you look at the debate surrounding the DC voucher program, you will see that the most influential lobbyist against the program is the national teachers' labor union. They are denying vouchers for the poorest children in DC to go the best private schools - because it will screw up their ability to mandate the boundaries of school districts and their ability to maintained guaranteed teacher jobs. They maintain the system for themselves and deny the poorest a chance to escape (in fact "escape" is exactly the word Duncan used himself to describe DC voucher program).
And since liberals depend on unions for votes, they get stuck with taking money from one pocket to put into another - they won't be able to win elections otherwise.
What a great way of achieving social justice and create equal opportunity.
So we have poor black kids stuck in the worst government schools, generation after generation, unable to game THIS system. They get trained to live on food stamps, then they grow up and vote for more food stamps. Unless of course they are the black kids of the Obama family, who go to a tony private school that's not even in DC.
And now we just have to wait until the end of the year, when the government takes this model and applies it to healthcare.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leaders - every single one of them millionaires - have a reliable supply of voters, so they can get elected and enrich themselves from making deals with Boone, while the country is sold on the green revolution.
So - no, I'm not expecting a reasonable argument on gaming the system - we will probably never agree on which system is being gamed.
April 12, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, you are equivocating on 'liberal'.
Liberals are generous, and your use of 'liberal' is over-generous, making you a liberal yourself.
You should also know that 'income redistribution' is silly. It is not "take income from the rich by force and give it to the poor as income". There is a distribution of incomes in society, like a spectrum. That distribution can become dysfunctional, thus redistribution.
Social just isn't mere economic or financial justice, btw.
Fun with idioms or idiots?
April 12, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like how i use liberal - pick your own term. It still doesn't refute anything I wrote.
As for income redistribution - it is what it is. Tax credits to people (1) who owe no income taxes (2) are only two expressions of income redistribution.
And yes - social justice is not merely economic "redress" - that was my whole point.
As for "idioms or idiots" - I'm not buying this, you did the same with Rutabaga.
April 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was partly teasing you about the difference between income and wealth.
But social justice isn't what you make it out to be, as I pointed out (sorry about the typo).
Changing terms does not reduce the equivocation.
April 12, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I'm only pointing out how social justice is practised by the Democrats - it has been effecitvely imprisoned by income redistribution. Today's outcome of institutionalized dispensing of social justice has become the opposite of its original intent.
April 12, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it has been effec[ti]vely imprisoned by income redistribution"
No it hasn't. Wealth redistribution in the active sense of taxation is only a fraction of social justice. Some people might buy into the "income redistribution" meme you offer, but I don't know who they are, how important they are, nor what else they are buying. I do know that I'm not buying.
April 13, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you can't find a solid rebuttal to someone's view, you start to nitpick on their choice of words?
April 12, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to lose the bad attitude, Bill.
April 13, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
my bad attitude is driven by your condescending tone.
April 13, 2009 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must have virtual tinnitus and confuse that persistent ringing in your ears for my objective tones here.
Please consult a doctor for your delusions, they are not suitable for general discussion.
April 13, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen - I am printing out your post and putting it on the refridgerator so I don't forget it
April 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd, for the very interesting and well argued debate that ensued between Lalo and Eds.
April 12, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I neglected to include the comments of others who joined the debate. Good discussion points by all, I think.
April 12, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greed? Welcome to genetics.
April 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How so? Would you argue the roles of genetics and culture/morality here?
April 12, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi eds. Nice discussion you've got going! My two cents: I don't think a society of greed can survive very long. It suppresses the empathy and concern for the common good that are the foundation for any social cohesion. At least, I don't have enough faith in the powers of decentralized cooperation (otherwise known as the invisible hand) to see it as coordinating incentives in any stable manner to keep society going. So unless something seriously changes in the American psyche, things won't seriously turn around.
April 12, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Society or culture of greed?
I don't see how greed necessarily "suppresses the empathy and concern for the common good..." especially if greed is considered a common good. I think survival depends on other factors. You might be right that some societies which embrace a culture of greed would turn out to be dysfunctional, but I think the problem is more subtle than your quick take on it suggests.
I don't know the invisible hand that way, "the powers of decentralized cooperation".
What kind of serious changes might be feasible, which are either not already happening or happening but needing to be nurtured, in your view? In detail please. :-)
April 13, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moi? unsubtle? Well, I never...
Greed = having personal monetary gain beyond the necessaries for happiness as an important motivating factor
Culture of greed = a culture encouraging personality traits such as greed, because inter alia of the assumption it promotes the common good.
Useful reforms: remove the various factors that provide the foundation for the culture of greed, i.e.
1. Increase tax-rates significantly (including capital gain, inheritance) for incomes and wealth above 100x the median income/wealth
2. Ensure that a median wage provides for the necessaries for happiness (eg. affordable health care, affordable education - incl. college - for one's children)
3. Make public service a career path that does not involve significant personal sacrifice (relative to comparable private sector jobs).
April 13, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Moi? unsubtle? Well, I never..."
Not you, silly! Your superficial essay. That means I believe you were not showing your subtlety there, that you have more to offer!
Why not increase tax rates above 1x the median, or 2x? Don't conflate wealth with income. "all the necessaries" is excessive, you're being greedy. Interesting idea about transforming the civil service. You might want to post a blog fleshing that out.
re your culture of greed notion, that looks like what you talked about in your own blog on the topic, Smith's idea of promoting irrational greed so as to use it to serve society at large.
I try to keep it simple. greed == excessive desire; culture == acquired appreciation of excellence. All the rest amounts to idiosyncratic (or idiomatic) connotations and other indirect/contingent associations.
April 13, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Yes, I knew what you were referring to. I guess I didn't plunge into detailed defence of any position in that piece, but the point was more to frame the debate about public policy, market regulation, and tax structure, in a certain way, or clarify the different levels on which you can argue about it. People keep arguing on multiple levels at one time, which tends to be confusing (at least to me). And they have a lot of background assumptions involved in expressions such as 'punitive taxes' which I wanted to avoid. regarding your points
1. yes, tax rates should probably go up across the board, but it should also be much more progressive if you see inequality as a problem, which I do (cf. Ken Laneworthy).
2. I'm not conflating wealth and income, I specify taxes on both should go up in order to take into account the Yglesias-type ideas about inheritance tax.
3. I like your definition of 'culture', though 'greed' is commonly conceived as something more specific than merely excessive desire. There are desires for sex, attention and admiration, food, where the excess takes a certain particular name in each case, and a desire for material wealth which takes the name of greed. And that is the one kind of excess I think we're discussing.
4. I don't think my requirements on the level of median income are extravagant. I don't think the material necessities for happiness are that hard to acquire - decent health care, ability to send your kids to good schools and good colleges, a decent house, car, ability to pay for (and take) holidays and care for your kids. I think AdAbsurdam had some interesting ideas on the fact that the culture of greed is founded in good part on the fact that an average salary won't leave you with enough basic security and dignity like it will in other social democracies in Europe. That was the idea behind those suggests. And something similar holds for what I said about the civil service. That means a lot of reform in how our society functions.
April 13, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People keep arguing on multiple levels at one time, which tends to be confusing (at least to me). "
to me, too! I can seldom handle more than two at once, and my two are likely not "your" two in most cases!
No really, write a blog on reforming civil service (at all levels, heh). Maybe we should all work for local civic agencies one day a week, for instance.
"I like your definition of 'culture', though 'greed' is commonly conceived as something more specific than merely excessive desire. There are desires for sex, attention and admiration, food, where the excess takes a certain particular name in each case, and a desire for material wealth which takes the name of greed. And that is the one kind of excess I think we're discussing."
It's my blog, dude. You may discuss a limited subset of greed here, just don't mistake if for more than limited! :-)
Greed for sex (nympho?), greed for attention (attention hog?), ..., greed for material things, greed for money (which is not truly a material thing!!), ...
I don't get your quibble at all. Maybe you're thinking of "hoarding" (did you see my mention in your blog?) which can be a kind or relative of greed (not just wanting too much now, but then holding on to too much, which would be a projection into the future which might amount to fear of future loss).
April 13, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't intending to quibble, I was just taking my cue from the writer of this blog, someone called Eds:
"...greed taken as an end. It's not that money is evil, but making it one's objective (love of X) above all other objectives is problematic."
;0)
Yes, there is the distinction between consumptive greed and hoarding. I think the greed debate is about the framing of the taxing issue - whether or not we should be looking at a tax on the obscenely rich as a 'punitive tax' on the best and brightest. They're not the best, in that such taxes wouldn't be punishing the expression of what is 'best' about them. Its merely mitigating the monetary incentive for certain behavior. Another perspective on the issue is on the concentration of political power that comes from hoarding wealth - which can be dealt with by inheritance tax. I think the overall perspective of simply weighing in terms of the social good helps out a bit on both counts. At some point you need govt revenue, and then you ask where to find the money. We're quite happy using the criterion of taxing in order to alter incentives - eg. sin tax. And if high taxes on the highest incomes incentivizes those to look for something else to do with their time, that's a good thing. If high taxes on the biggest fortunes reduces concentrations of power, that is a good thing. There are of course countervailing factors, but that is the case for the lefty defence of such policies.
i don't think the broader conception of greed is relevant to this debate. I don't really care if someone loooves sex or green lettuce or plants or philosophy research. I don't think these are penchants that have much negative social impact.
thanks for notifying me again on my dashboard, btw... need to think more about this.
April 14, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink