When and How Will the Pendulum Swing Back?

[ERD50]

Seriously, I'm not pulling any legs here.

This is getting tough to swallow. But what the heck, I've already got enough invested in this, I'm going to take the bus trip group one step further. After that, you just *gotta* explain to me where the inconsistency is, deal?

TRIP #3 - on the way home: The 10 people sitting in the seats on the far left of the bus start talking among themselves. They agree that the bus driver has done an outstanding job, and figuring he could use the money, agree that everyone should chip in $1 and they can then give the driver a $30 tip.

They mention this to the 10 people in the middle seats. Those ten people are not impressed with the driver at all, they don't think he put forth any extra effort. They say that the driver is getting paid by the bus company, that was reflected in the price they paid for their tickets, and that is good enough.

Word gets to the people on the far right seats of the bus. They agree with the people in the middle. Further, they say they saw the bus driver buy cigarettes and lottery tickets when they stopped for lunch. They figure the driver would just waste the money anyhow. The far right sitters are not interested in parting with anymore of their hard-earned money.

The far left of the bus wants to put it to vote. Predictably, they are overruled, 20 against a tip to 10 for a tip.

As they get off the bus, the 20 middle and right voters notice that the 10 far left voters don't leave any tip for the driver. The 20 say that the 10 are hypocrites.

The 10 could have chipped in the $1 that they all said was the "right thing to do". No one would stop them, they are free to do so. It is what they said everyone should do, it what they said they should do. Isn't a $10 tip for the driver better than no tip? They could even say "This tip is from this group of people". Or, they could have agreed to chip in $3 each to come up with the full $30, since they felt the driver was so deserving.

But, to chip in NOTHING, after claiming that EVERYONE should do it, is HYPOCRISY. No?

This is EXACTLY like the "every high income person should pay more taxes" argument. OK, go ahead - if you feel that way - pay. You are free to do so, you don't need my approval, you don't need the approval of Congress. Make an annual donation to the Federal Govt, I assure you they will accept it. You can even take credit for it, like charitable donors do when they donate a big check and the press is there and everything. Get that website together, collect a few million from like minded people, and put your names up there for all to see. I'll even thank you for your contribution.

It comes to that old saying: Put up or shut up.

Now, tell me where there is anything wrong with any of that thinking. I think it is EXACTLY correct, and EXACTLY an analogue to the tax situation.

Show me you are not just pulling our legs, and set me straight if I am off the mark.

-ERD50

 

[armor99]

Seriously, I'm not pulling any legs here. The examples are defective, in my view, which is a view that appears to be problemmatic to you. Forced contribution or coercion to support a program does not alter the equation; the hypocrisy is still there as long as there is an element of choice to take advantage of a program you find abhorrent! I'm just surprised that you and others just don't admit it and just say that sometimes it makes no practical sense to be logically consistent about things.

Well.... I guess I cannot argue with that.... Reminds me of when people say things like.... "Well my reality and your reality are different"... or "it does not have to make sense.... that is the way I like it." etc.

Fact and opinion are two completely separate items. Two people look at a thermometer that reads 100 degrees. One is from Alaska, and the other is from Arizona. The one from Arizona thinks the weather is nice... the one from Alaska thinks the weather is really hot. Which one is right? Well... neither of them are right or wrong... it is an opinion. The FACT is that the temp is 100 degrees. If you want to believe things that are not true.... be my guest..., but your thoughts do not alter reality in the slightest.

 

[ERD50]

For your convenience:

Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public

No more excuses.


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Forced contribution or coercion to support a program does not alter the equation;

Then tell me what you would do in my trip # 2 scenario:

Everyone, including you, pays an additional $10 for the included lunch. Now are you trying to tell me that it is hypocritical to eat lunch with everyone else? The lunch that you paid for? Just because you would have preferred that you could bring your own lunch on your own dime? What would you do, skip the lunch you paid for and go hungry? Bring your own lunch even though you paid for a lunch?

?

-ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

This thread is becoming circular and repetitive, and its wheels are spinning in the mud. Can we find some different ground to trod on, since it's obvious this particular item is going nowhere?

 

[ERD50]

This thread is becoming circular and repetitive, and its wheels are spinning in the mud. Can we find some different ground to trod on, since it's obvious this particular item is going nowhere?

Before I answer, can I assume that comment was from ziggy the poster, not ziggy the moderator?

My answer will not be inflammatory (actually meant to close out my part of the conversation), but I just don't want to take the chance that I'm going to be told I'm violating community rules by commenting on moderation. Since you guys/gals don't always make the distinction in your posts, I need to ask.

Thanks, -ERD50

 

[ziggy29]

Before I answer, can I assume that comment was from ziggy the poster, not ziggy

This is only my personal opinion. I've already chimed in on this topic as a participant so I'm not inclined to moderate anything in it unless there's a clear violation of the Community Rules. Having said that, it just seems obvious to me that this is a dead horse beating beaten to its second death and there's no new ground being covered.

"Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!" ...

 

[ERD50]

This thread is becoming circular and repetitive, and its wheels are spinning in the mud. Can we find some different ground to trod on, since it's obvious this particular item is going nowhere?

I'm just hoping to hear a *specific* answer from ChrisC to my *specific* questions posed in those scenarios.

I really don't see how I can take it any further. I don't think there is anything left. Every possible scenario regarding this topic has been covered with the tip jar analogy.

If he doesn't get it, he doesn't get it. As I said, if that is the case I'll make a note that future economic discussions (not ALL discussion: no "ignore list" for me) with him are futile. I'm sure we can find common ground, or at least intelligent debate somewhere, on some other subject.

It just seems there is sometimes a tendency to stifle a thread just as it is coming to a conclusion. I'd like to see this one played out. I'm amazingly optimistic about some things, maybe I will be surprised.


OK, I'll also spin this pendulum to a new angle and back to the original topic - The Constitutional term "for the common good" seems to get stretched in some people's opinion. AFAIAC, it should be stretched far enough to require a test in order to have the right to vote. I think voters have a basic responsibility to understand basic concepts, or their votes may unknowingly go towards supporting things that are not "for the common good".

As armor99 pointed out, reasonable people can disagree about whether they think 100 degrees F is comfortable or uncomfortable, but if you don't know how to read a thermometer, you shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that depend on knowing how to read a thermometer. And I say if a voter does not understand the very basics of economics, they should not be allowed to vote on candidates who propose one economic theory over another.

And I don't thing the pendulum will swing, until a higher % of voters is more educated on the basics.

-ERD50

 

[ChrisC]

It comes to that old saying: Put up or shut up.

Now, tell me where there is anything wrong with any of that thinking. I think it is EXACTLY correct, and EXACTLY an analogue to the tax situation.

Show me you are not just pulling our legs, and set me straight if I am off the mark.

-ERD50

I like your style ERD50, but unfortunately, you're conjuring up positions I haven't taken. I never said it wasn't facially hypocritical to say you want to contribute more in taxes to the Government and, at the same time, not make a voluntary contribution to reduce the public debt or make any other contribution that would increase revenues to the Government. What I said was that this is the same hypocrisy as someone finding the federal deposit insurance program or any other government program to be abhorrent or despicable and, at the same time, having has his hand out for the program. The distinction between the two appears to be contrived, or the differences between the two are without any distinction. In one case, someone says I like X and does not voluntarily do X -- you find that hypocritcal, right? In the other case, someone says I can't stand X and yet voluntarily takes advantage of X -- isn't that equally hypocritcal? But you and others plead that in the latter situation, it's not hypocritical because you have to pay for X. And I simply shrug my shoulders and say so what -- no one is forcing you to take advantage of X. And no one has really addressed this latter situation; you've just served up other examples of hypocrisy -- well, demonstrating hypocrisy in one case or example does not necessarily disprove it in another case.

Your examples might show the presence or absence of hypocrisy in those examples, but they fail to deal with the basic point I'm making: why isn't it hypocritcal for someone to abhor something and then voluntarily partake in the benefits of an abhorrent program? might be idiotic in many cases, but no less hypocritical.

Your examples are causing my brain to lock up; I never said it was hypocritical to use something you don't like paying, which I think is what your example 2 would have me say! It's hypocritical to say the lunch sucks and is not worth $10 and then have the termity to sit down with others, when given the choice and you're not starving, and eat the box lunch that you bad-mouthed earlier; yes, that's two-faced to me.

Yep this is a dead-horse from my standpoint.

 

[armor99]

And I say if a voter does not understand the very basics of economics, they should not be allowed to vote on candidates who propose one economic theory over another.

And I don't thing the pendulum will swing, until a higher % of voters is more educated on the basics.

-ERD50

As with most things. eduction cures almost everything. What you really need to do is set up the system in such a way that it becomes advantageous for you to be educated in our society. I believe with all of the social programs we currently have, it is far too easy for people (with little or no negative reprecussions) to allow others to think for them, and not bother developing their capacity for thinking for themselves.

If you encourage the rules of the game such that if you continue to make poor choices and the govt continues to "help" you, then it encourages more of the same behavior. It has always bothered me the reasoning... or rather lack of reasoning some people have used for voting for the president. I think it should bother most people if someone says they voted for the current president because they thought he was "handsome". Or they did not vote for the other candidate because he was "old". These are the thoughts and motivations of a child, not the complex mental calculations that an adult would ned to make to arrive at a good decision.

People are and should be free to vote for whoever they wish, I just hope we are not trning into a society where one day it will be .... "vote for candidate X and win a free DVD player....". Thinking about that one makes me sad....

 

[ChrisC]

If he doesn't get it, he doesn't get it. As I said, if that is the case I'll make a note that future economic discussions (not ALL discussion: no "ignore list" for me) with him are futile. I'm sure we can find common ground, or at least intelligent debate somewhere, on some other subject.

AFAIAC, it should be stretched far enough to require a test in order to have the right to vote. I think voters have a basic responsibility to understand basic concepts, or their votes may unknowingly go towards supporting things that are not "for the common good".

And I say if a voter does not understand the very basics of economics, they should not be allowed to vote on candidates who propose one economic theory over another.

-ERD50

I was trying to keep this as civil as I could be, but I really find this too much to handle. You think I'm an idiot when it comes to basic economics -- you're entitled to that opinion, but you really have no basis for that opinion other than, what I consider to be a screwed-up assessment of my posts here in this thread, taking things entirely out of context and not carefully reading what I have said. So, now you advocate that I and others who don't meet your criteria for understanding basic economics should not have the right to vote!

 

[ERD50]

Yep this is a dead-horse from my standpoint.

Well, ziggy will be happy to see that I agree!

All I can leave you with is, if you *are* sincere, re-read the posts. It's all been said, in a few different ways, by a few different people. There really is nothing to add, my mountain of metaphors are beaten down to a mere mound, my analogies stretched like a piano string, the bus is out of gas, the people on the bus are all napping after all those lunches, and the driver went home and kicked the dog after getting stiffed out of his tip. It's done.

When you re-read, focus on these two lines you just gave:

A)

I never said it was hypocritical to use something you don't like paying,

B)

What I said was that this is the same hypocrisy as someone finding the federal deposit insurance program or any other government program to be abhorrent or despicable and, at the same time, having has his hand out for the program.

WE PAY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS!!! B=A. Maybe you are injecting "despicable", where we are just saying "we would prefer that it was not a govt program"

OVER AND OUT!!!!


- ERD50 What's for lunch?

 

[ERD50]

I was trying to keep this as civil as I could be, but I really find this too much to handle. You think I'm an idiot when it comes to basic economics -- you're entitled to that opinion, but you really have no basis for that opinion other than, what I consider to be a screwed-up assessment of my posts here in this thread, taking things entirely out of context and not carefully reading what I have said. So, now you advocate that I and others who don't meet your criteria for understanding basic economics should not have the right to vote!

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as un-civil, and I apologize if it was read that way.

I'll get you a fuller answer in a minute, I want to get that apology out there, OK?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

So, now you advocate that I and others who don't meet your criteria for understanding basic economics should not have the right to vote!

Yes, I know that is a somewhat controversial stance to take, but I do believe in it. Here is what I believe, and note that these are very carefully chosen words, that is why I wanted a bit of time:

I do not want to DENY anyone their vote. I also believe that it is a RESPONSIBILITY. There can be reasonable limits to our rights. Sometimes rights must be earned. Why do we have to be 21 to vote? There must be a reason. We can put reasonable restrictions on this right, and we already do.

I wouldn't DENY anyone a vote. Only they could do that, by not taking and passing the test. The kind of test I'd be talking about is one that most anyone could study for and pass with just a little effort. No trick questions.

It's similar to driving a car. There are some basic skills and knowledge you must demonstrate to get your license. Would you say that *I* denied someone of their drivers license if they couldn't pass the test, or would you say the regulations helped keep potentially dangerous drivers off the road? If you can pass a "Rules of the Road" test, you could pass my vote test. It's dangerous to have unskilled drivers on the road. I think it is dangerous to have people voting who don't understand some of the basic cause/effect relationships of their vote.

We can disagree on this point, it is my opinion. The economic stuff we talked about was fact, I can't agree to disagree on that.

Thanks for the challenges, I'm kind'a sorta enjoying the exchange, certainly no harm intended. I hope you feel the same.

-ERD50

 

[ChrisC]

We can disagree on this point, it is my opinion. The economic stuff we talked about was fact, I can't agree to disagree on that.

ERD50

That's the sad part of your entire discourse here; it's not fact. You confuse concepts of finance (funding and credit in which the lender does not pay for stuff -- he gets a return back on the advance of credit) with the economic cost of consumer goods; and you got so inflexible about your understanding that you couldn't see that you could be wrongheaded about things; same thing about the hypocrisy issue, where you got your logic twisted -- look at the examples of A and B in your last post about this issue -- they are not logically equivalent!

Oh well, in your opinion I'm fairly twisted and deficient in understanding some basic concepts, but ya ever think that it might be you that's wrongheaded about things!

 

[ziggy29]

It's becoming abundantly clear that this thread is going nowhere and has simply become contentious and potentially flammable, so we think it's time this thread is locked -- speaking to no individual in particular.