Answer: no.Can you think of any leader of either country winding back the neoliberal project in any meaningful fashion since then? — apokrisis
Yes, but I don't think the neoliberal elites will allow that to happen that easily. Fascism and statism, among other things, means their destruction.Trump feels like society nervously making the first preparations to turn fascist and statist when the current economic illusion actually collapses. The winners and losers are being lined up in readiness, the social lines drawn, for when it all turns inward and nasty. — apokrisis
Neoliberal - I identify those people very clearly. They love the fall of the Berlin wall, the opening of the markets, pro-globalisation, hate Trump, are entirely for religious unitarianism (Allah = Christian God, etc.), some of them made quite a bit of money, have loose moral values, etc. etc.I think "neoliberalism" is a term almost devoid of meaning, as I've never seen anyone positively identify as a neoliberal, and it seems to be used most often as a pejorative term for capitalism or free markets by the left. — Thorongil
Yes, I thought about that, unfortunately, that way seems blocked with many risks and obstacles. Such a collective project always entails the risk of a man (or woman) - like Stalin - being shrewd enough to take control of it and derail the ideals behind it, after it has already been set in motion and gained traction. That's exactly why I think that the other route is to be favoured.Sure, or one join with other people and in combination gain and exercise power, collectively. — Bitter Crank
What do you mean by the "how"? How money is used? How it is gained? Both? If both I suppose I'd agree with that.It's the "how" of money or resources that is important. — Bitter Crank
But the UK problems are mostly a result of neocon policies, not actual national poverty. — Bitter Crank
Right, I agree (I've never really been on the Conservative side in terms of UK politics), but it's ultimately still a lack of money. And an individual can only change this by gaining power and influence themselves, and that mostly is also through money.But conservative policies have dried up public resources for the NHS. Publicly financed housing in the UK is another example of bad policy under conservative ideology. — Bitter Crank
Right, and I agree with that. That's why I posted that I've also seen public services work:This is a truism. The question is, what are the various ways resources can best be marshaled to accomplish social goals? Most of the US economy has been privately, entrepreneurially run. But, the Federal Government has executed many extremely large projects by marshaling public resources. — Bitter Crank
Although having said this, I should specify that NHS has been degrading over time, since initially I remember it used to be good. There were even many walk-in centres the first year I got to UK, where you just walked in and saw a doctor straight away without having to schedule yourself. But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... :’( — Agustino
Although having said this, I should specify that NHS has been degrading over time, since initially I remember it used to be good. There were even many walk-in centres the first year I got to UK, where you just walked in and saw a doctor straight away without having to schedule yourself. But many of those got closed due to lack of money - see, it's always lack of money that causes problems... :’(In the UK, it was pretty much the same, but private healthcare is waaaay too expensive there. I haven't personally tried it - couldn't afford to pay 100s of £s. But I've heard services are much better. NHS waiting times and procedures are horrible - if you have a serious condition it takes you ages to get to the doctor. You call your GP saying it's an emergency problem and they say, "Oh sorry, I can only schedule you in 3 weeks. If you don't like it, go to emergency room" :-} — Agustino
In Europe, it tends to be the exact opposite. Healthcare tends to be much better in the private sector, but it's more expensive. For example, my grandfather is in his 90s and he had a stroke a few months ago so I have quite a lot of recent experience with these things as of late. Private care homes look great, and the facilities are very nice. Public ones are despicable, and rely a lot on the family supporting the patient anyways.This has been true for decades. 30 years ago, Scientific America analyzed the difference between non-profit and for-profit hospitals, and found that costs, meeting community needs, and care outcomes were better in non-profit facilities--not universally, but there was a very strong relationship. — Bitter Crank
Right, but it seems to me you don't understand the mechanisms through which things work in this world. If I want to - say - start a successful communist organisation, start a new political party, build churches, make schools, hospitals, etc. etc. - the most important resource is money. Without money, I cannot do anything in society. And I'm not talking about doing something for myself in the sense of get an expensive car, yacht, etc. I'm not talking about doing personal stuff for myself with that money. I'm talking about being any sort of agent for change in my society. That requires power, and power in capitalism means money. Back 500 years ago, power mainly meant being the guy who ordered the army around.Look, I was not a red diaper baby. I obtained my moral system from Christianity, (which you also claim). — Bitter Crank
Yes, based on Biblical principles, and my own understanding of how the world materially works.You got that out of the Bible? — Bitter Crank
That's not true. The point there is simply that God comes first, before money. If I can make $1 million killing an elderly woman, for example, I won't. Why not? Cause God (and morality) comes first. If I can make $1 million being a pimp, I won't - why not? Cause morality comes first.if you want to claim Jesus as your first guide, then forget about money and brute force. — Bitter Crank
On your morality and faith in God, but morality includes the duty to do as much as possible for your society, and that takes power.What is the judgement of our earthly performance based on? — Bitter Crank
Right, but I'm not interested in clothing 1-2 people, I'd rather think of how I can clothe 1-2 million people.Nothing else, Agustino: for the good of your soul, remember that a highly successful entrepreneur can get into heaven more easily than a camel can climb gracefully into a BMW Mini. — Bitter Crank
No, because again, the money has no value for oneself. It's just the power to be an agent of change that it confers that is important and matters. If you could move things like 500 years ago by controlling the army, then that would be of interest. But, unless you live somewhere like North Korea, that's not the case today.Of course. But there is a big difference between having "enough" and having as much as you can get. — Bitter Crank
I don't understand why you think that society doesn't need intelligent management to work, including the intelligent management of money. If you don't have money, you cannot feed the poor, you cannot give alms, you cannot be of much use to your society in today's age. I'm not talking of Ancient Judea or Ancient Greece, etc. - I'm talking in today's world. In Ancient Judea if you had a lot of money you couldn't do much with it. You were pretty much identical to the common person, except you had access to better clothing and food. So money was pretty much useless apart from these basic necessities. It took political power to move things.Tell that to Jesus the next time you run into him. — Bitter Crank
I don't see myself as highly successful (I'm just at the start of my journey in terms of entrepreneurship that is), but having your efforts mocked isn't nice. The fact though is that I realise that success is to a certain degree in my control (not fully), and there's no point crying like many other people, what about this, what about that. You have to sort things out yourself. Nobody's gonna sort them out for you. If I sit here and stop working you think anyone is going to complete the projects that I have at the moment :s - no, of course not, they'll sit there uncompleted until I get down to work and get them done. And not only that, but I will also disappoint my clients, which ain't good. Reputation is most important in business.But I would think, just in psychological terms, that a highly successful entrepreneur, like yourself, would have thicker skin than to worry about being mocked. — Bitter Crank
What's wrong with that now? :s So long as the people are adequately taken care of, I see nothing wrong with it. I've thought for a long time about a business where you negotiate with old people who don't have any family anymore, you take care of them (and all their costs) until they die, in exchange for them leaving you their property after their death. That way, so long as you can withstand the costs until they die, you will be left with a lot of properties. You provide something of value, that would help many people in society. Nothing wrong with that - that's what everyone should be doing. Finding ways to solve the world's problems. And guess what? You need money to do that. Profit is good. Profit is what enables you to expand and deliver your services at greater quality and more availability.Adorable story, Agustino, but sorry, I can't endorse his glorious entrepreneurship, especially with building for-profit care homes. — Bitter Crank
I doubt you've studied business as much as me, I have more examples to give you. Probably at least another 10 if I really try to think about it for 10 minutes. Bill Bartmann comes immediately to mind from the US. Vance Miller also comes to mind.Besides which, 1 big success story doesn't invalidate the observation the those with criminal records generally are unable to reinvent themselves — Bitter Crank
:-} Pff, what a joke. That must make you feel "above" this world no? As if you didn't need what money can get right? That's no different than one claiming that he is "above" eating, and doesn't care about feeling hungry.And more besides which, you are probably flummoxed by the fact that becoming rich is not a universally recognized worthy ideal. — Bitter Crank
Yeah yeah yeah, time to paint him like such a bad guy :-} . How silly. Why is he a bad guy, because he worked super hard, took smart decisions, and never gave up? I don't think you understand the sheer pain and suffering one has endured to succeed in doing something like he did, especially starting from where he started, which was literarily nothing, not even a good education. That's something to be respected, not mocked.There is one element in the story that seems entirely consistent: a man who is ready to throw his commanding officer over board is probably ready to do anything. — Bitter Crank
We weren't designed by evolution to be smoking weed, — Agustino
How do you go from the fact that we have brain structures capable of handling cannabinoid molecules to "we were designed by evolution to be smoking weed"? Those structures haven't evolved because we were smoking weed - they have evolved for completely unrelated uses. Thus, when we smoke weed, we put something in the body that we haven't evolved to handle well. We obviously do have structures which handle it - we don't die, at least not immediately. But this isn't why those structures evolved.I pointed out that our brains have receptors for cannabinoid molecules. Therefore you should be surprised. Why ARE you not surprised? Am I being too literal in some way? — fishfry
Same deal (apart from wine probably - grape juice), which is why I avoid all of them.How about drinking wine, smoking cigars, pipes and cigarettes (not to mention chewin' tobacca) and knocking back caffeine-rich beverages? — Janus
You mean they have structures which happen to be affected by certain drugs? Why am I not surprised...Why do you think that is? — fishfry
It is addictive, I see no reason to suppose it would be beneficial, but many reasons to expect that it wouldn't be.But people quickly become tolerant, then the deception does not continue. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah just like some beetle in Australia is swarming beer bottles thinking they are the perfect females (and going extinct). We just found a product that deceives our senses, that our senses weren't prepared to handle. Much like porn for that matter.People are smoking weed right now, today. Something must have caused that desire within people to smoke it. How is this not a product of evolution? — Metaphysician Undercover
Impossible, we haven't done it in our history.Maybe the desire to smoke weed was caused by evolution. — Metaphysician Undercover
They could, but we have little reason to think they'd be beneficial. It wasn't an integral part of our environment that we were meant to adjust to over time.And, maybe smoking weed causes changes which could become evolutionary. — Metaphysician Undercover
From working class to bourgeoisie :-OYou can start over in life to the extent that other people don't prevent you from doing so. People who commit felonies and spend a few years in prison, for example, have a really terribly hard time starting over in life without the disability of their felony conviction preventing them from working and living a normal life.. People won't let them do that. Only if they find a slot where people accept their situation and hire them anyway, can they resume normal life -- and that isn't very common. — Bitter Crank
Yes.A) Bored with their own lives or want to escape from their mundane lives, — Posty McPostface
No, not all are hedonists. But yes, hedonism does prevail in the Western cultural milieu at the moment.B) On a more general level, people are hedonists, — Posty McPostface
Only for teenagers.C) It's in some sense a 'cool' thing to do, — Posty McPostface
Yes.D) A form of self-medication that eventually leads to drug dependency and addiction? — Posty McPostface
Yes.E) Is it just a matter of low self-esteem? — Posty McPostface
Maybe.F) We're experiencing a new era of a type of 'Brave New World', where everyone wants to (read 'feels a neurotic need to') function on a higher level and be on 'Soma'. — Posty McPostface
I don't understand why you'd expect substances which mess with your brain chemistry in unnatural ways to not be self-destructive. We weren't designed by evolution to be smoking weed, if you believe in evolution that is. Nor were we designed by God for that matter to be smoking weed, if you don't believe in evolution.Though, unless super harmful, I'm not puritanical, I think one definitely shouldn't kill themselves, or engage in self-destructive behavior, but the body likes stimulants, and drugs. Shiva was totes into weed. — Wosret
I don't bother about grammatical errors lol, why so paranoid? :P I just misunderstood.Do you genuinely misunderstand that, or trying to get me back on some grammatical error? — Wosret
Ok got you now. I would agree, mostly it's just Heidegger/Wittgenstein within the last century, though some people also give greater importance to folk like Russell.but few significant people have (come out in the last century or so). — Wosret
Strange, I always liked Plato, simply because he is fun to read generally. A very cool way to read philosophy, the dialogues that is.I used to think that Plato was a total ass too, but I've gotten more appreciation for him. — Wosret
Yeah, I quite like A and K myself, not sure about Nietzsche though. I used to really like him when I first read him, but ever since then, I don't find his ideas as revolutionary as I first found them. Birth of Tragedy is probably my favourite of his works, don't much like BGE, TSZ, or Genealogy that much (nor Human all too human, or Twilight of the Idols for that matter :P ). Birth of Tragedy is good for the "discovery" of the Dyonisian element and the role it plays.Aristotle is still like third, he's super awesome too, but I just hadn't come to appreciate and fully absorb the other two yet. — Wosret
Military-industrial something that doesn't care what we say? :DI don't think the war on Iraq was madness: it was stupidity and arrogance justified through subterfuge for goals which were at best half-baked. — Bitter Crank
Right, so then you agree that a substantial part of the population (i) doesn't want to own a (or more) businesses, and (ii) they wouldn't be capable to run them. So no wonder that they wouldn't form friendships around it.Yes, to some extent. — Posty McPostface
Few actually significant people have done what? Read philosophy you mean, or?few actually significant people have — Wosret
For some reason, I remember Aristotle used to be your favorite. I've never read a lot of Kant, he produced so many works. CPR, Prolegomena, and the Critique of Practical Reason are all I've read.Nietzsche and Kant, the best ones — Wosret
Right, but I don't think that the 90% really would want to make the sacrifices required to make money. Entrepreneurship isn't easy, you work all day pretty much. Most people will not sacrifice their social lives for example, in order to devote that time to business. So, a priori, I wouldn't expect a lot of people to gather together to make dough.Because 0.1% own what 90% make through their toil. But, that's taboo to talk about, right? — Posty McPostface
Isn't it non-profit?business — unenlightened
I personally would expect such a gender imbalance in philosophy, just as I'd expect one in war for example (although in war it would be even more imbalanced than here generally, just cause war is a lot more conflictual). Men and women are different in some regards, so it's only natural that there will be some activities which are liked, in general, more by men than by women, and the other way around too.gender imbalance of the forum — unenlightened
I agree, just like the total absence of conservative or religious staff. I voiced this concern already, and I was told we're free to have a religious staff member, but it seems we haven't got one yet.total absence of female staff — unenlightened
Why are we going to get buddies based on producing food in the ground together (the toil of the land), and not also by producing money in a money-tree where the dough naturally grows? :-$ Why does the object that we work around ultimately matter with regards to human connections?By our labor in the economy we make money, I hate to break it to you, honey, but engaging in economic activity with you isn't going to bring us together. Transactions are alienated interactions, for the most part. You may make--I may save--money in a transaction, but we aren't going to be buddies as a result. — Bitter Crank
I said in some regards, philosophy, just like war, is conflictual by nature. Not in all regards, but in some it is. If you cannot stand to take part in the battle of ideas - and it doesn't matter why - then perhaps philosophy is not for you, just like a career in the military is probably not for you if you don't like conflict - your gender for that matter is irrelevant.To regard philosophy as an analogue of war really says it all. — unenlightened
Not everyone believes that war is madness. What would you say, for example, to a general with a career in the military? Would you tell him that he's wasted his life fighting for the wrong things, and being engaged in the wrong profession? I think the military and war can have their value.War is madness, and this philosophy is also madness. — unenlightened
What does that have to do with anything? I think might and right are two different things. But yes, might is required to make right in this world at least. Might is required to restrain criminals, keep evil at bay, etc.Is this what you want, that might makes right? — unenlightened
War remains the most male-dominated form of conflict, both in its population and its combative methods. The solution to make war more "gender friendly" is to employ greater decorum (Y) .Philosophy remains the most male-dominated discipline in the humanities, both in its population and its combative methods.
This forum is sexist — unenlightened
I kind of agree... :-OI have been quite open, for quite a long time now, about my lowered estimation of the value of philosophy. — Sapientia
Please put the booze down, it's not doing you any good ;)Best case scenario - Trump resigns as President and the Government agrees not to pursue him further provided he walks away from politics and goes back to his real job.
Won’t happen, but we can always wish. — Wayfarer
High-frequency trading isn't the same as instability in financial markets. It would depend on how heavy momentum is, and instability is typically marked by rapidly falling prices.Rapid growth, like rapid decline, is indicative of increased high-frequency trading, which is instability in the market place. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, the most important source of meaning is God, and God is both inside and outside.You seem to derive meaning from many things outside of yourself — Frank Barroso
Depends on what you consider inactivity. Is a monk sitting his whole life in a cave in meditation and prayer inactive?Could you explain how someone could do that? — Frank Barroso
The market growing at a fast rate is instability? Are you kidding me?Do you understand the market? That's called instability. — Metaphysician Undercover
Everyone knows I am critical of current-day educational institutions, however, despite that, I pretty much agree with this advice. I am grateful for having been fortunate enough to attend University, I too learned a lot there that you can't really learn on a job, or at least not that fast. It takes quite a long time until you're ever given real responsibility working on a job.It would almost certainly be good for you to return to college and complete a degree. I realize there are practical problems that might make this difficult. One of those practical problems is you. You have to willingly engage in college, as well as willingly incur the cost, and all the inconvenience that might arise from being a student. I believe you when you say the desire is still there. I'm not sure you are willing to engage (just based on what you have said).
If you don't go to college, you will probably become a learnéd autodidact, at which you probably will do a good job.
From the Greek autos (self) + didaskein (teach) = autodidact, self-taught. — Bitter Crank
Yes, they do stop entrepreneurship. I don't want us to become a world where we all work for a few big huge corporations, and all of us have jobs - so long as we work for them. That's like communism, except that not the state, but a few large companies are doing it.No, but so what? Regulations don't stop business. People had work and consumers had goods to buy under Obama. — Michael
The workers ain't gonna make work for themselves will they? The consumers ain't going to produce for themselves no?More people will suffer if the environment isn't protected, if workers aren't protected, and if consumers aren't protected. — Michael
The entrepreneurial part of the economy is the absolute most important part (that doesn't include big business). If you cripple the entrepreneurial part of the economy, everyone else will suffer soon.Perhaps. There are always going to be people who lose out, whether it's the big business owners, the small business owners, the consumers, the workers, or the environment. — Michael
Of course, if you have more money than you know what to do with, you don't have to be looking, the 10 Hanovers will do that by themselves for you.Any would would you be looking to find loopholes in the law anyway? — Michael
