Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Interesting post. We agree it isn't that simple. Of course I choked on ``I was a leftist radical'', but then again I was a college objectivist. Heh.

The reason I favor very low taxation and emphasize entrepreneurship is that we live in the a country where there is not a rigid class system, a land of opportunity (now a phrase you cannot say in schools in CA by the way). Elites are not elite because of money.

A very strong argument that this isn't true anymore. The data are out there. The first filter you need to pass through on your way to riches or influence in this country are the Ivy League schools. And most Americans can't afford them, or the handful of others, now including Michigan. You can take a look at start-up culture and you'll find that VCs now look to the Ivies just as much as the banks and the upper levels of government.

I think Hillary is right about vouchers. In general I don't think you can count on people to make good informed choices. Not necessarily because they are stupid, but because sorting through the noise would just take too much time. If everybody had to really read all the fine print and cut through the marketing bullshit with every important decision they make, we'd have no economy at all because that's all anyone would have the time to do. A functional economy requires an element of trust. You can get that by having only trustworthy citizens, by buying only from people you know, which stifles innovation, or, well, some sorta supervisory system that allows strangers to feel comfortable buying from strangers.

[entropy]

Miscellaneous/OT

Agree. Elitist is more about a mindset and how you perceive the capabilities and intelligence of others. Wealth, positions of influence, or social status do not define the term.

I also know Ivy League grads who are not elitist. But sadly, my experience is they are not the norm. I also feel Hillary is an elitist. I never felt that way about her husband.


Interesting that this came up. I was just tweeting with a friend yesterday that Cowherd's comments sounded more elitist than anything else.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Da Geezer]

Yes Entropy. if the US seat of government moved to KC, we would have better government.

And Hack. Objectivist. Like in Ayn Rand. Holy Shit.

One of my best friends ran Tom Hayden's campaign for senate in CA. Hayden was the husband of Hanoi Jane Fonda. His history, to get us within the general umbrella of UM is summarized:

Tom Hayden was born in Detroit, Michigan, to parents of Irish ancestry, Genevieve Isabelle (Garity) and John Francis Hayden.[1] He graduated from Dondero High School in Royal Oak, Michigan, class of 1956.[2] He later attended the University of Michigan, where he was editor of the Michigan Daily and, disenchanted by the anti-radicalism of existing groups like the National Student Association, was one of the initiators of the influential leftist student activist group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). During 1961, Hayden married Casey Cason, a Texas-born civil rights activist who worked for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Hayden became a "freedom rider" in the South and then served as president of SDS from 1962 to 1963.

That friend, after being in SNCC and also SDS, and on the inside of the anti war movement now runs a free market think tank, and is an ordained priest. Churchill said "If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are old, you have no brain". Maybe you have a quote that goes the other direction.

The simple fact is that the two best Presidents in my lifetime were Truman and Reagan. I just don't think it is chance that they had disdain for the Ivys. Now we are talking on a national level, but on a local level, government school teachers have the same elite viewpoint, and they instruct their students about the foolishness of the kids' parents. Watch for the phrase "highly educated educational professional". They all use that phrase. And just for giggles and grins, pick a class in the Education Dept. of a local college and sit in on it. Utterly content free, save for progressive indoctrination. Oh how I wish we were as concerned about competence in our teachers as in our plummers. A three year minimum internship would sort the wheat from the chaff.

I guess we will just disagree. I believe the vast majority of people are better able to make decisions for themselves. Ordinary folks are not clueless. They have sources of information. And, if they make the wrong decision, then they can correct it. The other option is to pay the government bureaucracy 40% of the cash available for a given program.

And I hate the utter lack of humility in the elites, or their followers. I shot off my face about Global Warming a week ago and Mike from CA said " It's a scam, like gravity". No sense in arguing, but about 100 years ago, our "settled science" about gravity completely changed. Newton said gravitational pull was directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects. Einstein said gravity was caused by the curvature of a space/time continuum. There is no such thing as settled science. That is an oxymoron. But listen to the profound arrogance of the progressives when talking about "deniers". A must read is Rules for Radicals by Saul Alansky. He lays out exactly the program that Obama and Hillary are now imposing. it is based on pride.

[hack]

I don't have a quote that goes in the other direction. I'm just not a bleeding heart.

Check what I said about people and the ability to make their own decisions. My point isn't about personal capacity to decide, but about the consequences to the economy of everyone taking so much time out from their normal activities to take the time necessary to do it.

I think you are an elite. This is a capitalist system, and you are amongst the very small minority who started out with capital. Which says nothing more about you save for the fact that that's that. Within that category there are, as entropy points out, elitists. But, to be clear, your politics are the politics of elitism. Most people want an environment in which if they are good enough they can claw their way to the top. People at the top want an environment in which they are not threatened by the climbers. Or, in the parlance of our times, if you are at the top you want and try to buy/encourage policies aimed at protecting yourself from disruption. The things you've advocated here are on the side of those elite rent-seekers, and not on the side of disrupters.

[Ghengis Jon]

I'm going off topic here, not 'moderating' this discussion (which I find fascinating). Here's an article about a tough sport - combo of soccer, rugby, and football - but played by very few. For blood. Enjoy!

http://theweek.com/articles/566846/worlds-most-brutal-sport

[Da Geezer]

Wow hack, kind of an upsetting post.

I guess you and I disagree profoundly on whether having money, particularly if obtained through the private sector, by your own work, makes you elite. I didn't start with any more capital than most people I know. That is just the fact. I did have some unique ideas over my lifetime for which was paid handsomely. BY THE FREE MARKET. My ideas made life better for lot of people. This is not Sylindra, which is real elite rent-seeking.
It is not ethanol, a terrible idea, but now untouchable because of the Iowa caucus system

Above we had an exchange that went:

"The reason I favor very low taxation and emphasize entrepreneurship is that we live in the a country where there is not a rigid class system, a land of opportunity (now a phrase you cannot say in schools in CA by the way). Elites are not elite because of money. (your reply): A very strong argument that this isn't true anymore." (as a total aside, I certainly wish I could figure out how to put quotes in those blue boxes like most here know how to do) post 3316

Anyway, I'd like you to to make the "very strong case". Now I understand how you could view Warren Buffett as an elite. He had inside information that the President was not going to authorize the Keystone pipeline, and the bought railroads.

Could you give me an example of my rent-seeking?

When I sue the government for a regulatory taking, your presumption is that the government is trying to do what is best for society at large. My presumption, as we have fully discussed, is that man is evil, power corrupts, and the regulation itself is the elite opinion taking my property rights. And strong property rights are the distinguishing factor in why the US economy is by far the most creative and resilient in the world.

When I open a Charter School I am attacking a totally destructive monopoly, because I can deliver a product better and cheaper. Disruptive, but not rent-seeking. I strongly recommend the movie "Waiting for Superman" by the same producer as "An Inconvenient Truth".

And thinking that ordinary citizens would take so much time to decide on what school they attend or what health insurance they can buy would slow down the entire economy is just silly. You have to assume not only ignorance, but you have to assume folks are so productive that thinking is going to take time they don't have. That is nonsense.

Do you believe fracking is a beneficial idea? I'll bet you don't. Remember, I own an oil leasing company. But I had a novel idea in oil leasing. BE HONEST. That is a remarkable market advantage in the oil business. And I was small and personal and found that folks wanted to know all about the subsequent resale of their development rights. They should know. But I was unique, and the market paid me. I found that folks could make their own decisions about their own minerals just fine. But in Eastern NY State they cannot develop their minerals because the elites have decided that fracking postpones their "big idea" GREEN ENERGY

And please don't confuse valuing the individual over the collective as elitist. But if you do, then I am an elitist.

[hack]

I certainly didn't intend it to be at all disparaging. I think we have different definitions of the word elite. But I'm not interested in a word-choice discussion displacing one about the underlying ideas. If I've read correctly what you've shared with me it looks like you are amongst the very small minority of people who began their careers with access to family capital. If you've read me correctly, you'll see I didn't say you sought rents, or suggested that you squandered daddy's fortune. If you thought that then it's poor communication on my part, so sorry about that if that's the case. Frankly it looks like you've done quite well and have genuine accomplishments to your name. You seem to be the kind of elite that I have respect and admiration for, and not a silver-spoon buffoon who was born on third base and remains there.

Your presumption about regulatory takings suggests to me that I should reiterate some things. I think I'm pretty clearly about the rule of law, and see the government's job as providing a level playing field. So to address your presumption, I don't see a court in which you try those cases as the appropriate place to determine the right balance between individual and collective. That's supposed to happen in Congress. In court I would expect the judge to determine whether an application to do something follows relevant laws and regulations, and whetehr there is anything about those laws and regulations that might be illegal or conflict with other laws and regulations.

From that to fracking: the failure to know what's in the fluids is a regulatory failure. But even though democracy is a process to be followed - a means that rarely should be trampled on to achieve any certain end - in this case, as an environmentalist, I think there is a good opportunity to look on the bright side and support fracking. That would be the chance to shut down coal-fired power plants ASAP and use gas to produce electricity. That's a massive reduction in emissions.

I suspect your info on Buffett is bad. Frankly any insider information about Obama's decision would have been way too late to use anyways. Crude's been increasingly shipped by rail for several years now because the pipeline system can't take it all. Smart investors bought railroads a few years ago. The fact that there have been some deadly crashes and spills is another invitation to discuss regulation, but that's a tangent. The point is that Keystone is irrelevant to the actual business of moving petroleum across the country, and has been for a few years. I'd be surprised if Buffett made any investment decision based on it. Keystone has been relevant only as a political football -- good for misinformation and symbolism. Here's a link back in 11/13 that says so: https://rbnenergy.com/need-for-keyst...t-refining-hub. I think that site is an excellent source for energy information, and there's much more on keystone to be read there if you want.

Overall, we're veering off in a number of directions here. I've answered your questions directly, and note your request for me to make a very strong case. I would like the same in return. If I could pick one I'd like to see addressed before moving on it would be my confusion over why you apply ``power corrupts'' only to government. When it's time to talk about the private sector you switch to discussing human creativity and entrepreneurs. My experience tells me that in every place you look you find all kinds of people. Government, commerce, philanthrophy, finance, etc. -- you find assholes and angels and geniuses and doofuses in all of these places.

[entropy]

To be fair there are people born on third who I wouldn't consider elite. They lack the arrogance. They look at their position as a gift or privilege and act accordingly....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ghengis Jon]

Wow hack, kind of an upsetting post.

...When I open a Charter School I am attacking a totally destructive monopoly, because I can deliver a product better and cheaper. ...

Be very careful with that example. My experience with charter scools is not that favorable. Charter schools shift the responsibity of the actual teaching to the parents, not the charter schools. Upon enrolling, there is a written expectation of this. 3x the homework is assigned of that of a public school. I found that my kids had to spend from 4:30 to 8 doing homework EVERY night with myself or my wife. When was there time for a kid to be a kid with peers? Especially taxing on the wife when both of us work and I travel extensively. My wife or I wound up doing nearing all the extra projects required for them because they just didn't have time. Some 80% of the parents reported doing this also. The others just let their kids sink. Complaining to the charer school or CMU did no good. With two kids, 3 1/2 hours of homework each is 7 hours a day or 35 hours a week of parent time being a teacher, something the school should be doing. Nothing wrong with parent involvement, but the charter school expectation of parents being full time unpaid teachers is fundamentally wrong.

The teachers are all fresh out of college and very idealistic. They last 2 to 3 years before moving on because salary does not exceed 18-19k a year. The kids have no experienced (imo better quality) teachers available. Only those with 'book' knowledge. I approve of the enthusiasum they bring and fresh ideas, but one can clearly see that the teachers from day one want to get out from under the slave galley environment they find themselves in. Get some experience and get out. Fast. This way why the schools are 'cheap'. They pay the teachers dirt and expect them to be better than the public schools' staff. Good teachers SHOULD be paid well, not expected to scrape by on a salary that airport floor sweepers make.

The administration tends to be cold and calculating without any emotion. Regulatory zombies at best. When my father passed away, it upset one of my sons terribly. He mentioned at school he wished he could talk to my dad in heaven. How did I find out? When I came home from work, (before school let out) I found a letter taped to my front door from Child Protective Services. It stated that the school had reported my child as suicidal and I had 24 hours to schedule a meeting or ALL MY CHILDREN would be seized. My son came home with a note mandating a similar meeting with the school or undefined action would be taken. Without going into details, things got settled and the administration trembled from that day forward whenever I walked into the building. I found myself admired by lower staff members as the only person to ever cow the dictatorial upper staff with a very public and very loud dressing down. My attorney showed up at the public meetings and went to CMU to voice my displeasure. It was a horroble, horrible experience.

And don't get me started on the $250 per student that parents are expected to 'donate' for such items as textbooks, dry erase markers for teachers, classroom shelving, coat racks and general maintanence of classroom furnature. This on top of all the usual outlays for paper, pencils ect.

Bottom line is charters schools are really home schooling with your kid going to class 9 hours a day anyway, only more expensive. And run by mindless nazis that use a university sponsorship for political cover.

[hack]

To be fair there are people born on third who I wouldn't consider elite. They lack the arrogance. They look at their position as a gift or privilege and act accordingly....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've known some too. Warren Buffett may be a good example, with his bungalow in Omaha, his talk of paying less taxes than his secretary, etc. The public persona is pretty humble. But, world's third-richest man. It would be a lot of mental gymnastics to define the word elite in a way that doesn't include him. So IMO elites are like anyone else -- not a monolith. Within the category there are good people and bad. I don't think the word itself is a bad word.

[hack]

things got settled and the administration trembled from that day forward whenever I walked into the building.

I would hope so! That's an awful, awful story. Utterly insane to heap that on a family that's just lost a loved one.

[iam416]

As I read this discussion, Geezer's "elite" is a narrow construction limited to those who pass through the gates of elite institutions as a qualifier. In short, the "LIBERAL elite." Hack's elite encompasses a broader swath including the ultra trendy "privileged."

Jon's anecdotal experience with charter schools is interesting. Personally, if I were given a choice between being assigned a random Ohio public school or random Ohio charter school, I'd take the former 100 times out of 100. As I said earlier, when criticism of "public schools" is levied its really city schools we're talking about.

[hack]

Caveat Emptor.

[entropy]

imo.. an elitist is a mindset where wealth is a necessary component of the individual. Wealth in itself doesn't make you an elitist.

[iam416]

Elitist is fairly well-defined -- favoring some sort of rule by the few. Could be the "smartest" few; could the most "noble" few (aristocracy). For example, antebellum South was a massive elitist society run by the planter class.

Elite or "elites" is a broader term that encompasses, well, the very top of any given category. Hence, it would encompass privilege.