“Everybody wants something for nothing…I’m old! Gimme gimme gimme!”
Although we often focus on what divides us, it’s important to remember that the “we demand Swedish level of social services with Mississippi levels of taxation and we could get it if it wasn’t for all of the waste, fraud and abuse at the state capital!” ethos that dominates American’s suburbs can also be found in the heartland:
Judy Graves of Ypsilanti, N.D., voted against the measure to raise taxes for roads. But she says she and others nonetheless wrote to Gov. John Hoeven and asked him to stop Old 10 from being ground up because it still carries traffic to a Cargill Inc. malting plant. She says the county has mismanaged its finances and badly neglected roads.
Just because I wouldn’t pay for road maintenance doesn’t mean I don’t want magic pixies to provide us with perfectly maintained roads. Damn those bureaucrats in Bismarck!
[via]
We offer 100% success for 70-565 exams with help of latest pass4sure mcdba and 70-291 practice questions and the exams of 70-595 & 70-659.
Atrios said it years ago: these people believe that tax money goes into a bottomless pit, and roads and schools magically appear out of nowhere.
Calvin: Wanna see something weird? Watch. You put bread in this slot and push down this lever… then in a few minutes, toast pops up!
Hobbes: Wow. Where does the bread go?
Calvin: Beats me. Isn’t that weird?
Conversation with my co-worker, who has a kid in high school:
CW: I don’t see why I need to pay extra for all these extra-curricular activities. My parents did not need to when I was a kid.
Me: Well, haven’t you voted against every property tax hike that has ever been proposed, even though that pays for education?
CW: Yes, because teachers’ unions are evil, and the schools get too much money already.
I’ve long maintained that one of Americans’ greatest flaws is a complete and total lack of self awareness. I keep hoping someday I’ll be proved wrong…
You know, there is waste in the budget of “the government”. Unfortunately, a lot of this waste is at the federal level – mostly in the security sector. And a lot of the state “waste” tends to come in the form of tax carve-outs for favored businesses.
But, in the spirit of Free Market Capitalism, what say we build a stretch of toll road right outside the Cargill, Inc parking lot?
Then we’ve got no reason to raise taxes, no need to tear up the road, and lots of new private-sector jobs for a toll authority. The free market will triumph!
No shit, Sherlock. Tell that to your neighbors who don’t mind if the paint on their brand-new Dodge Rams and Ford F-150s gets chipped to hell riding on that shit.
Billions for vehicle repair – not one cent for road maintenance!!!
Not to worry, someone will build a toll road – much better to pay a $5.00 toll than a $0.05 tax…
Every large enterprise created by human beings will involve waste.
Word. I would argue that large corporations probably generate more waste and inefficiency that the federal or state governments as they have less accountability.
Take it the next step. Anything with more than three moving parts or organs will generate wast and be less than optimally efficient. It is almost a law of nature.
Actually it is a law of nature (and markets) that everything trends away from waste.
And DrDick, the idea that corporations generate more waste and inefficiency than government because they are less accountable is laughable.
You obviously have not been paying much attention for the past 30 years.
I would posit the same to you.
Oh and that law does not exist except in the fervid imaginations of demented libertarians. In reality waste, and inefficiency increase with scale, at least in part as a consequence of increasing inefficiency of communication.
That law exists in the mind of anyone capable of rational thought. If two companies compete, there will be constant pressure to push prices as close to cost plus required return. Therefore the market, where competition exists, is hostile to waste.
The government, where competition does not exist, possesses little motivation to eliminate waste.
I don’t quite get this idea that corporations are masters at screwing over their customers, yet totally inept at running a business model that combats waste.
Brad,
Do I really have to post the per capita cost comparisons between single payer, mixed public/private and American health care systems?
If you have them handy that would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance! (I live next door to a Brad P. and it would be helpful to have those around….)
If you had a Brad P. next door, you would be a libertarian.
No, just annoyed and nauseous.
Post it if you want, but please tell me what it proves.
If this saves you the time of doing all that:
Is it any surprise to me that the American system, in which the government attempts to provide universal healthcare by subsidizing health insurance companies, in which government actually pays for over 50% of all health care costs (the US government spends more on health care than Canada, per capita), and in which overuse is incentivised for both consumers and doctors, is extremely wasteful?
Not at all.
Now when you have an example of where an industry whose predominant investor and spender is not the government is fundamentally wasteful, then we can have a useful discussion.
Would you care to lay out that law for us? Biologically, I’m wholly unaware of its existence: the only law that you’ll find is that wasteful organisms are selected against when their food supply runs short. Otherwise, no such law or trend exists.
What other trend is necessary?
Entities that engage in competition for limited resources will always have a fitness advantage when they are lean and less wasteful than their peers.
It exists within nature and within markets. It is a basic fundamental logical rule.
I mean you could make the argument that there is never a shortage of food in the era of Keynes/Laffer, demand-side/supply-side, spending/tax-cutting macroeconomic management that we are currently in, but that isn’t something I support either.
Biological evolution is a satisficing mechanism, not an optimizing mechanism. There’s every reason to think this is true of markets as well. Your “basic fundamental logical rule” is nothing of the sort.
How is this at all relevant jdk?
Evolution, by its nature, is satisficing. I personally don’t feel you can say that market decision making is satisficing, because every economic definition of satisficing tends to be rolled up in optimizing when we consider conscious decision making.
However, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point. When competing for limited resources, satisficing and optimizing both trend toward an optimal use of resources.
Brad P’s understanding of evolution is every bit as insightful and nuanced as his understanding of economics.
Give yourself a pat on the back for that worthwhile contribution.
Elephant and whales don’t exist. Gotcha.
Large and inefficient organisms are actually well-adapted to some niches. You see, “efficiency” does not equal “survivability”. Waste is a problem ony when there is a shortage of space in which to deposit it; inefficiency is only a problem in times of scarcity (and I don’t mean “scarcity in the economic sense in which all things are scarce). Further, even a cursory glance at reality show you to be woefully incorrect: Goldman Sachs is hardly “lean and less wasteful than their peers” but they’ve come out ahead due to their connections.
This is what free-market types consistently fail to recognize: there has never been a free market unencumbered by cronyism, exploitation, and the threat of physical violence. To pretend otherwise is asinine. The idea of an efficient and frictionless market is like the idea of perpetual motion: one can theorize all the day long, but the reality falls very short.
You might want to avoid using biological metaphors, as your knowledge of biology is less than that of economics, and that’s saying something.
Yep. In biology and business, size matters. If you are large enough, you can survive all kinds of inefficiencies in the right conditions. In economics, the bailouts for the “too big to fail” banks and auto companies (on the verge of collapse owing to inefficiency and waste) provides a good example as well. BP is another example.
So is your MO to toss out anecdotes, attacks on strawmen, and irrelevant truisms and then belittle once you have ceased trying to make whatever point you are going for?
I posit this:
“Selection in any situation where entities compete for limited resources will necessarily favor efficient use of resources.”
Is that not true?
Over time, will allele frequencies in a general population of elephants or whales tend toward efficient or inefficient strategies for energy capture?
This really is incredible. I mean this is a fundamental assumption of textbook biology and economics.
You stated what you don’t understand about free-market types, now here is what I don’t understand about interventionist types:
You point out that Goldman-Sachs can avoid efficiency issues by relying on connections, then you say that the market will never be free of cronyism, etc…
Yet you also do not even acknowledge that the contacts you refer to are exogenous to the market. You also do not acknowledge that cronyism, exploitation, and physical violence is the de facto (and often explicit) manner in which government conducts itself.
And finally, where did I say anything about a frictionless market? I have been very, very consistent in explicitly referring to trends. This does not imply that every individual instance will have the most efficient outcome, rather that individual inefficient outcomes will become less frequent.
I’m not saying anything even remotely controversial.
DrDick,
I say that under free market conditions, that selection favors efficiency.
You say that the bailouts were necessary to prevent inefficient companies from collapsing.
Are you supporting my position or refuting it, because it looks to me like you are making my point for me.
I posit this:
“Selection in any situation where entities compete for limited resources will necessarily favor efficient use of resources.”
Is that not true?
No. It isn’t true. Like most simplistic statements, it is true some of the time. You neglect to take into account all of the other factors at work. These factors are not strawmen; they are variables that you choose to ignore, just as you choose to define cronyism as exogenous to the market (hint: it isn’t).
Words have meanings. I know that’s inconvenient, but you might want to keep it from tripping you up in future.
DrDick, I would like for you to point out a scenario where it is reasonable to assume that one company or creature would gain any advantage from inefficiency.
Going a step further, I would like to see a scenario where, all else equal, an inefficient business would top an efficient business.
My statement was that selection factors would necessarily favor inefficiency where competition for limited resources exists.
Brad -
What I am saying is that the “free markets” you imagine do not and never have existed (indeed, cannot exist). You can imagine anything you like, but that bears no resemblance to reality. Doc Amazing’s and my points about size has to do with competitive advantage. If you are big enough, at least under the right circumstances, you will inevitably crowd out the competition (this is one reason species get larger). This also reduces the need for efficiency. Elephants and dinosaurs are or were by many measures, very inefficient (waste is a byproduct of inefficieny) This is why capitalism ultimately trends toward monopoly or oligopoly.
I would also add that your understanding of evolutionary fitness and selection are deeply flawed. Ultimately these are all and only about reproductive success, who has the most offspring who survive to have offspring of their own. Efficiency is only important if it contributes to that, which it admittedly generally does. It is not the only, or even the most important factor contributing to reproductive success, however. Increased fertility, resistance to disease, size, attractiveness to mates, and many other factors other than efficiency can also contribute to reproductive success.
Peacocks (though not peahens) are remarkably inefficient organisms. That bright plumage and the huge, elaborate tail are extremely expensive to create and maintain and actually diminish the individual’s chances of survival by making them more visible to predators and making it harder for them to escape. These features do, however, make them more attractive to prospective mates (as proxies for overall biological health and fitness), thus increasing their chances of mating and having offspring to pass on their genes.
And I presume you can point out where I said efficiency is the only or even most important factor to either business success or evolutionary fitness?
“Selection in any situation where entities compete for limited resources will necessarily favor efficient use of resources.”
Is that not true?
How about that.
That does not say that efficiency is the only or most important factor. It only states that efficiency is selected for whenever resources are limited.
DrDick, there are multiple problems in this post. I have no desire to continue this discussion as it seems my argument and opinion is presupposed and therefore will be wrong to you no matter how I phrase it. I will simply address what is plainly wrong about your post and introduce no new points, as they will likely be ignored and interpreted according to what you think I believe.
1. I have never stated what free market I am imagining. I am not making a hypothetical assertion. I am stating that anytime where competition exists over limited resources, selection factors will favor efficiency. This applies generally and is a basic logical truism.
2. I have acknowledged on multiple occasions that the free market where such rules would lead to efficient outcomes does not exist. I have been quite plain that my opinions do not apply to the current status quo in banking and health care and that that is the principle problem. When I say that markets are inefficient because of government interventions that lead to waste, what good is it to point out the free market doesn’t exist as I wish it would? That was an assumed given that is the basis for this discussion.
3. Size can provide a competitive advantage. Some factors, like economies of scale, are instances where increased size leads to increased efficiency. Some factors also prevent entry providing an advantage that is uncompetitive. That is a well documented and acknowledged exception to the rule, not a refutation of the rule.
4. Evolution has lead to larger creatures because everything started out small, and in times where there is not significant structural changes, niches will be consistently found for animals of larger size, as the smaller niches are already saturated. I would be interested in learning where size resulted in evolutionary crowding out without a corresponding increase in efficiency.
5. One vaguely explained economic factor is hardly enough to state that “capitalism ultimately trends toward monopoly or oligopoly.”
And just as a last point, I have been ridiculed at least three times on here. I do not believe there has been near enough discussion on this or any topic on this forum that one could use to determine my intelligence or erudition. So my question is: if simple opposition leads to a complete discounting of the other as being incompetent, how can you possibly know you are correct?
You are ridiculed for making counterfactual statements and positing nonexistant and impossible conditions (markets without external regulation). You demonstrate a profoundly flawed understanding of evolutionary theory (centrally you embrace the progressive fallacy). You ignore and/or dismiss contrary evidence out of hand and provide no examples to back up your assertions, simply asserting them to be true. All of these are substantial grounds for assessing your knowledge and understanding of the topics (nobody has even addressed your intelligence). This is, after all, what I do for a living as an anthropology professor.
I have not made any counterfactual statements. Please point out any counterfactual statements. The only “facts” I have even brought up are only facts because they are truisms, and I have acknowledged that.
Where have I referenced impossible conditions? Bring up one instance where I have referenced any necessary condition. Competition isn’t black and white, it exists in degrees. I never referenced any system with complete competition or complete deregulation.
Where have I embraced the “progressive fallacy”? You must be completely ignorant of libertarian philosophy and economics if you think I would analogize the free market with evolution if I thought evolution progressed or was directed. The market and evolution are so analogous precisely because they both render spontaneous and undirected results.
The only counterexamples provided are the financial and health care industries. I dismissed them because they are both thoroughly dominated by government. Is that not a good reason to dismiss those examples?
Please point out any counterfactual statements.
“Actually it is a law of nature (and markets) that everything trends away from waste.”
“Selection in any situation where entities compete for limited resources will necessarily favor efficient use of resources.”
“Entities that engage in competition for limited resources will always have a fitness advantage when they are lean and less wasteful than their peers.”
The only “facts” I have even brought up are only facts because they are truisms, and I have acknowledged that.
Your truisms are in fact theories about the world or hypotheses for testing.
Where have I referenced impossible conditions? Bring up one instance where I have referenced any necessary condition.
Markets without external interventions or cronyism. External regulation is a necessary precondition for the existence of markets, which only appear when societies develop governmental structures capable of enforcing regulations. It is what provides the trust necessary to engage in routine transactions with strangers. Cronyism, cheating, and corruption are central elements in all markets since the beginnings for written records. At least some individuals will engage in these because they confer competitive advantages (which obviate the need for efficiency).
Where have I embraced the “progressive fallacy”?
“Actually it is a law of nature (and markets) that everything trends away from waste.”
Evolution is not directional nor progressive (which this statement implies), but rather situational and contingent.
You must be completely ignorant of libertarian philosophy and economics if you think I would analogize the free market with evolution if I thought evolution progressed or was directed.
Libertarianism is in fact grounded in a notion of progressive evolution (that the trend is always to better and more efficient). The reality is that there is no freaking trend in evolution.
The only counterexamples provided are the financial and health care industries. I dismissed them because they are both thoroughly dominated by government.
Elephants and peacocks?
Ok, you bring up peacocks. Yes, sexual selection occurs based on traits that are inefficient.
However, are those traits not based on past signals of health and virility, both directly related to efficiency in energy capture?
Also, wouldn’t the sexual selection be constantly balancing itself towards signaling efficient energy capture? If some signal recognition causes peahens to mate with the more inefficient peacocks, we should assume those inefficient phenotypes would lead to less successful reproduction of the underlying genes in the future. This would cause sexual selection itself to trend towards those that are more fit.
——————————
I also never said markets are or could be free of exogenous stimulus or cronyism. I simply said that efficiency caused by exogenous factors should not be blamed on the market itself, and that government is marked by cronyism, so saying that the market fails because of cronyism is dishonest and unfair.
——————————
I understand that evolution is situational and contingent, but we live in a finite world where limited resources is a universal situation. No creature or business will ever be free from mineral, space, or time constraints.
There will never be a situation where something has a hyperabundance and does not face opportunity costs. Therefore pressure will always exist to shift to frugality with resources and away from wastefulness, as efficiency will consistently lower risk and other opportunity costs.
——————————
And finally, libertarianism, as it relates to this conversation, is grounded in the notion that a free society, especially a market, will spontaneously organize itself according to the inputs of the actors and will do it more efficiently and precisely than any other method.
Libertarianism denies the necessity of central planning and teleological direction in creating a organized and functioning society.
Efficiency is output over input. There are all sorts of efficiencies that could be referenced to, but I am talking basically about getting the most life-promoting resources for the activity engaged in.
“Crowding out” in this manner would be a situation where one population of organisms would basically starve out another population of organisms by dominating their shared food supply, habitat, what have you.
As such, I was looking for an example where a population grew larger in physical size and crowded out another population without some structural change that didn’t result in improved efficiency.
At this point, I don’t think you are going to find an example, and I don’t think it is entirely relevant anyways, as the analogy (not the terms)is getting stretched.
My point still stands that, since there is no such thing as a hyperabundance of resources, there will always be evolutionary and economic pressure in the direction of frugality. Those that are frugal will always be better suited to deal with shortages and just as apt when there are no shortages. Therefore, while an individual may be able to survive without shortage, in any given system, shortages will occur and within that system frugality will be selected for over waste.
Brainz is right, though. The natural proclivity of the universe is to break down into chaos. Some systems operate to slow down that process as much as possible and only exist to their ability to do so, however.
Moas, which became extinct in New Zealand following the arrival of the proto-Maori people, who were not more efficient, but rather hunters of a species that had no natural predator prior to human arrival. You could also cound the fairly-arge dodo in that group. Heck, mastodons were probably hunted to extinction by inefficient humans.
You’re welcome.
Sorry, that was in response to
I would be interested in learning where size resulted in evolutionary crowding out without a corresponding increase in efficiency.
I appreciate the effort, but I’m not sure what any of that has to do with what you were responding to.
How are those examples of an increase in size resulted in an evolutionary crowding out.
Also, why do you call humans inefficient?
OK, enough dodging.
Define “efficient” in a manner that does not mean “came out ahead in a competition of some kind”. Then tell me about how efficient humans are biologically, what with a long gestation, several years of helplessness and inability to run, a digestive tract that cannot handle cellulose and retrieves less than half of the energy of the food that’s put through it, and a bipedal gait that limits our top speed to a fraction of that of both our predators and our prey.
The moa was rendered extinct by the next-larges animal in the ecosystem. Is that not “crowding out”? If not, would you like to torture you definition a little more?
Sorry, this was meant for DocAmazing:
Efficiency is output over input. There are all sorts of efficiencies that could be referenced to, but I am talking basically about getting the most life-promoting resources for the activity engaged in.
“Crowding out” in this manner would be a situation where one population of organisms would basically starve out another population of organisms by dominating their shared food supply, habitat, what have you.
As such, I was looking for an example where a population grew larger in physical size and crowded out another population without some structural change that didn’t result in improved efficiency.
At this point, I don’t think you are going to find an example, and I don’t think it is entirely relevant anyways, as the analogy (not the terms)is getting stretched.
My point still stands that, since there is no such thing as a hyperabundance of resources, there will always be evolutionary and economic pressure in the direction of frugality. Those that are frugal will always be better suited to deal with shortages and just as apt when there are no shortages. Therefore, while an individual may be able to survive without shortage, in any given system, shortages will occur and within that system frugality will be selected for over waste.
Brainz is right, though. The natural proclivity of the universe is to break down into chaos. Some systems operate to slow down that process as much as possible and only exist to their ability to do so, however.
I’m going to skip talking about the problems with libertarianism to point out that it is most definitely a law of nature that everything tends toward waste and chaos.
Corporations do not generate waste!
Say, has that leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico been stopped up yet?
There will be many looking for all the fraud, waste and abuse in the system when they reap the whirlwind of allowing Social Security to be stolen by the banksters and war-mongers to pay for their follies.
Let the games begin!
fraud and abuse at the state capital!
I certainly don’t disagree with pointing out the unworkability of Americans’ opinions on taxes and spending, and I don’t know what the roads in this story look like, but fwiw, where I grew up (farm country in SW Ohio), it always struck me that we had an awful low of paved farm roads that would have been just as well as gravel roads (roads that mostly functioned as access points for cornfields, with maybe one or two houses on them). The county across the Indiana line did this, and not only did they save money, their gravel roads were generally better maintained than our county’s paved roads, because it was much easier/cost effective to keep them in good shape.
Not really disagreeing with anything, just kind of randomly tossing that out there.
I was born in ND, left when I was 18, still have family there and we go back from time to time for family events. The state is in very good shape financially-it produces two things, energy and food. At one time the state was very progressive, they have a state owned bank, The Bank of ND and a state owned mill and elevator, Dakota Maid. Over the years since I left, the changes I’ve noticed, a growing reluctence to invest in education on the local level, a trend towards urbanization, more people live in town now than on the farms and ranches. When we go back, I’ve noticed a well developed “mean streak” about life in general, shitty attitudes prevail.
Maybe because I left when I was young, I didn’t notice it before, but there has been a sea change in attitude at “home” over the years. BTW, my farm wife Grandmother was the happiest woman in the world when old 33 was paved in the 50′s when people cared about things like that.
I have a similar experience with Oklahoma and I left in my 30s.
a friend of mine grew up in Tulsa, he notes whe he goes home now, one of the first things out of people’s mouths is “what church do you belong to”
Yeah. I grew up just north of there and my son still lives in the area. While Oklahoma has always been pretty religious and mostly fundamentalist/evangelical, it has gotten much more prominent in the 20+ years since I left. They have also gotten way more conservative. I like to say I got out just before the lunatics took over the asylum.
When I was young and in school in the northeast there was a big fight over the school budget one year- a very vocal and organized group got out the vote one year and voted it down- the result was “austerity” and a successful petition drive to put the budget back up for a vote- which passed.
As I vaguely recall at the time it was seen as a battle between “seniors” and parents- in the end the parents faction prevailed. As far as I know there has never been a battle in my particular hometown over this since.
Recently I’ve noticed some parents who are opposed to school taxes as well- parents who send there kids to public schools- they appear absolute;y convinced that the quality of their children’s education would not be affected by cuts- they are convinced that a significant % of the money is wasted or stolen… [trust me there are districts/ areas where waste and corruption are serious issues- these parents don’t live in those places)
It is impossible to have a rational conversation with these people on certain topics- its a common frame of reference problem-
Scott really buries the lede here. There’s another Ypsilanti? What’s that all about?
Ypsilantis are a dime a dozen.
There’s even one in Germany.
How do you prove there is no waste in government? Answer: You can’t.
If you’re writing your own headlines, I’d suggest you might want to rethink this one. Most of the people I know who are old are not the ones saying gimme and even if you know some greedy old freeloaders, there’s no need to insult the rest of us to make your point.
Come here to western Montana and look at Ravalli County, where all the retirees who moved here from the West Coast keep screaming about every local tax increase to improve education and public services.
Also pay a visit to Arizona, Tea Party Ground Zero, where the oldsters, secure in their Social Security and socialized medicine, are voting for every savage tax cut that comes down the pike, even as they take advantage of closeness to the border to buy cheap drugs and cheap labor provided by brown people to take care of their lawns and their golf courses. This is trending across the Southwest as retirees migrate southward. I’m sorry if you regard this as stereotyping but it is happening.
See also places like Josephine County, Oregon, which is essentially a retirement community for wingnut Californians who vote down every tax increase for any purpose. The young people get the crappy service jobs serving the elderly immigrants.
The post title is from the Simpsons.
Fair enough! I told you I’m old so I don’t watch the Simpsons much although I love it when I have happened across it.
I’m across the country from the places mentioned and not in a retirement community. I didn’t realize you had specific old people in mind. I sing a different chorus of that song because I abhor the folks who have everything they need but don’t want to pay a dime for social programs even to help hungry children in the neediest states in the entire country. It is incomprehensible to me that Americans are willing to let children die to save a few mills on their taxes.
wev, you were certainly right to caution against ageism. God knows it exists.
As someone who has spent his whole life in “the Heartland,” I would say that this attitude is absolutely endemic there. Everybody here wants to cut government programs, just not the ones that they benefit from.
Everybody here wants to cut government programs, just not the ones that they benefit from.
This is the reason I find complaints from people about “pork barrel spending” so irritating. Yes, there are some silly programs out there, but the whole nature of the “I hate the system (except when it works in my district)!” argument is so frustrating in its childishness.
An important step in the “argument” is the notion–sometimes implied, but often directly argued–that people like “us” are deserving and virtuous, while some other group of people (usually racially or regionally different) are a bunch of lazy freeloaders who don’t deserve the government funds that we have earned through our Real American®-ness.
I do think that’s a good portion of it, but not all of it, due to how it often breaks down by district. When I lived in rural Ohio, I remember a friend’s dad who owned a soybean farm railing against federal subsidies for corn farmers in Kansas. When I asked if the soybean industry in Ohio didn’t also get subsidies, I was coolly informed that “that’s different.” He was just vehemently opposed that tax money be going to white farmers in Kansas, but seemed to have no truck with tax money going to white farmers in Ohio.
While definitely not the only instance of complaining about where taxes go (the whole “welfare mothers” rhetoric is clearly race-tinged), I also think it’s not uncommon to see antagonisms with people who are strikingly similar culturally, socio-economically, etc. Racism/classism definitely are often a part of it, but I think you can also chalk it up to simple and extreme myopia.
I would have to agree, as you see the same kind of thing here. The base of it is gimme mine and fuck you, which is then compounded by any social/religious/ethnic/racial differences.
I keep seeing articles like this, and I used to wonder what’s going on in America. I’m coming around to the position that a large portion of our population has third world attitudes, and so wishes to live in a third world country. Surveys consistently show that in areas like belief in superstition or awareness of international affairs, America might as well be Bolivia. I would think that this wouldn’t stop those Americans from wanting to live in a first world country, but increasingly it seems I would be wrong.
I have that same thought sometimes; that the U.S. is growing to resemble a third world nation.
I used to laugh at the soap opera stars and billionaires elected in the third world. After the elections of the last few years I’m just not laughing anymore.
No less than Georgy-Porgie Will wrote about this very thing decades ago, when he was still capable of a smart observation every once in a while.
One wonders if the US polity will ever get an injection of common sense.
PT Barnum and HL Mencken made their observations for a reason, didn’t they?
I have an 78-old Uncle, father of eight children and ARCH Republican who is convinced that all taxes are basically theft and that all the money taken from him is given to drug-addled welfare mothers. This guy’s a a retired attorney. An educated man whose career involved international labor negotiation. But the stuff that comes out of his mouth…
He proudly tells me that he sent all eight children to public high school and college and none of them graduated with student load debt. I mildly suggested that for many years, he received many times the services he was financing with his personal taxes. (Figure eight kids in public school, $3,000-5,000 per student, the guy did not pay $40,000 a year in local taxes.) This…information…was not well-received…Did I mention he also is a vocal NRA supporter? So I can’t go back to Dayton, OH anytime soon.
proudly told me that he put all eight
My “bad” ND brother in law has never been anywhere outside the US. He imagines the french live in straw roofed houses, the Dutch wear wooden shoes, the German cities haven’t been rebuilt and all Russians are peasants. His attitude and world view is everybody lives like shit outside of the US of A. My other bro in law is an International Commodities marketer and deal maker…he has been everywhere, his passport looks like a catalog. You ought to hear the discussions between those two. Good bro will say the biggest producer of wheat in the world is Kazakistan, bad bro wil say no fucking way and on it goes…bad bro won’t listen to anything that refutes his world view and he typical of folks in my old homestate.
I’m going to go way out on a limb and guess the younger brother thinks people from Europe flood the US to take advantage of our superior health care system.
I’m thinking “high-budget quirky world travel documentary series” here, Jager. Kind of “The Defiant Ones” meets “Borat”. I’ve got Louis Theroux on the other line and he loves it. Have your brothers-in-law call my brothers-in-law.
The funny thing is bad bro in law isn’t a bad guy at all he just sticks his brainless opinions out there and lets people swing away. His kids, my three nieces, are great high acheivers, a Dr, a Dentist and one has a MS in Kinesiology. He was supportive of the girls all through school and is proud as hell of them. They, on the other hand, just roll their eyes at their Dad.
Christ it’s like a bunch of kids. “Now little Tommy, pick one toy.” “But I want two toys!” “OK sweetie, but you won’t get any more allowance money until next week.” “Nooo! I don’t wanna use my money, I want two toys!!”
Smack!
[...] The Seattle Times editorial board has some fans in North Dakota. Permalink | Leave a Comment | RSS addthis_pub = 'nietsdlog'; addthis_brand = 'HA Seattle'; [...]
Decline and fall, folks. Decline and fall.
Cool sites…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……