General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJoseph Stiglitz: 'Romney-‘Why is he getting so much money, and he brought us to the brink of ruin?’
Joseph Stiglitz: 'This Deficit Fetishism Is Killing Our Economy'
...................................
The financial crisis really made this easy to understand. Inequality has always been justified on the grounds that those at the top contributed more to the economy the job creators.
Then came 2008 and 2009, and you saw these guys who brought the economy to the brink of ruin walking off with hundreds of millions of dollars. And you couldn't justify that in terms of contribution to society.
The myth had been sold to people, and all of a sudden it was apparent to everybody that it was a lie.
Mitt Romney has called concerns about inequality the politics of envy. Well, that's wrong. Envy would be saying, He's doing so much better than me. I'm jealous. This is: Why is he getting so much money, and he brought us to the brink of ruin? And those who worked hard are the ones ruined. It's a question of fairness
http://geniusofinsanityworld.blogspot.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-bitter-politics-of-envy.html
SalviaBlue
(2,917 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)They're getting so much money because they brought us to ruin. There was a recent article by Kozy, not one of his better fleshed-out ones, that basically said capitalism doesn't care about destruction vs creation, that money is made in either case. This is absolutely the opposite of one explicit lesson taught in school, that when we destroy, we get punished. Capitalism destroys or creates and the money flows.
Igel
(35,317 posts)Not always. You don't destroy what belongs to others. Nor do you destroy what's necessary, or just for the fun of destruction.
In fact, one of the big issues in teaching is to destroy wrong ideas. My kids come to my class with misconceptions that I have to ID and eradicate. I need to do a better job this year.
We also destroy stuff in class. Sometimes in testing what we build. Sometimes in order to understand it, rip it to pieces and see how it was put together. (Then we just pitch the remaining bits.) Sometimes just to make a point or liven up class.
I destroyed my garden, at least most of it. The tomatoes weren't going to set any more fruit. Beetles hit the bok choy and the tatsai and mibuna. Out with them in time for the beetles to starve and move on. The plants would have continued to grow, but they'd be of no use. In a week or so I'll have to plant stuff for the fall. The spring garden had to be destroyed for the fall garden.
This was one of Eastern Europe and Russia's problems in the early '90s. They had old equipment and technology. They could produce, but only for their own markets and 3rd world markets--and in so doing they'd face competition from Europe, America, and China, with newer technology. It was a bloodbath: In some cases countries were convinced that their old was wonderful stuff, and to watch the companies produce and warehouse stock that nobody wanted to buy was painful. They talked protectionism but it was the populace, the consumers, who made the choices to not buy old and rotten but new and fashionable. Finally they either liquidated or upgraded the companies; it's taken a while for new growth. Very painful.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)Kozy wrote: "The murder of a person creates domestic product." Do you wish to argue that U.S. schools teach children how to murder people? Or that's it's good to murder people? Or that it's appropriate to steal money from others? Or that money made by ... oh, here's a quote of Kozy's:
You wrote, "Not always. You don't destroy what belongs to others. Nor do you destroy what's necessary, or just for the fun of destruction. " Yes, that is what they teach in school, and is what my sentence, that you excerpted, refers to. Kozy asserts that when these destructions do occur regardless of what is taught in school, it is still good for the economy.