QE is definitely a contributor, we've had years of asset inflation already — Benkei

I think the Fed -- monetary policy -- is responsible for the bubbles in the major asset class: stocks, bonds, housing, and somewhat in commodities. The re-implementation of QE, lowing the federal funds rate to near zero and, uniquely in 2020, buying corporate debt, was due to COVID. I don't necessarily fault the Fed for this. But it continued for far longer than it needed to.

Also, these policies really do nothing but help the financial sector. All of the money goes through private banks, and the greater borrowing that took place was largely spent not on raising wages, research/development, etc., but on stock buybacks. Record levels. Between this and dividends, most of the money was basically channeled to shareholders. And, as we know, the people who own the stocks/assets are a minority, with the "top 1% of Americans having a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion (or 30.4% of all household wealth in the U.S.)".

With inflation, I think it's striking that the companies raising their prices (energy companies, food companies, meat producers, etc) are also posting huge profits. So while worker wages have increased, they've used "inflation" as a story to raise their prices to make up for labor costs/supply cost, passing the cost on to consumers rather than absorbing that cost themselves. So, for example, instead of taking the 5% extra labor costs and 4% in extra production costs out of net earnings, they raise prices 9% (or more) and maintain the same level of profits as before (and then some). I think this explanation accounts for most of the inflation we are currently seeing -- far more than simply the "money supply," as some argue.

Most of it is caused by state intervention. — NOS4A2

State intervention in the service of plutocrats.

Your solution: abolish or minimize state intervention; keep the plutocrats.

My solution: abolish or minimize plutocracy. Keep and strengthen democracy.

True — I should have added QE/expansionary monetary policy.

Has anyone read The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era?

I don’t know this Gary Gerstle dude. Thinking of picking it up.

So, arguably, the Ukraine conflict is a logical, and entirely predictable, consequence of US-NATO expansion and meddling in other nations’ affairs. — Apollodorus

views shouldn’t be uncritically dismissed on a philosophy forum. — Apollodorus

Not only don’t I “dismiss” them, I hold them.

One can’t read everything in such a large thread. But I suggest you go back and read anything I’ve written. To argue I’m in the “pro-NATO” camp is untrue, and lazy.

Notice I’m not dismissing you as “pro-Putin.” That would be equally childish. I take issue with your claim that Russia’s actions were legitimate.

Proves nothing more than you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’m not sure why I was tagged in this response, since nothing I said was addressed. So I’ll repeat what I said, in case you want another chance to do so: to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate is absurd.

To do so also undermines the fact of the very real and very immoral role the US (and, therefore, NATO) has played in this crime.

Fact is, Russia’s demands were absolutely clear and IMO legitimate: — Apollodorus

It strains credulity to argue Russia’s actions are legitimate.

They’re not legitimate nor moral, nor intelligent for that matter. This was and is a stupid, immoral, illegitimate move on Russia’s part. Regardless of pretext— which every person or state will give to justify their crimes.

I share your view that the West (the US) has greatly contributed to this war. But to go as far as to claim Russian legitimacy is overkill.

Politics Is For Power by Eitan Hersh

Interesting and more relevant than ever. Will eventually create a thread in this vein.

There is no bloody way our discussion about being human is narrow — Athena

I didn’t once say the discussion is narrow. I said the question is narrow— which it is, in the sense of asking about one species.

The problem as I see it is that no single trait humans have a potential for are manifested in all of us — Agent Smith

So what?

Not all eagles fly. Should we throw out the term “eagle”?

Then you’re not answering the question. “Mammal” is also broad. It’s also true. Is that a satisfying answer to the question “what makes a human being a human being?” I don’t think so.

Why is a DNA-based definition too broad? For reasons already mentioned by other posters.

Why is mathematical-ability-based definition too narrow? Clearly this is an interesting question as far as I'm concerned. — Agent Smith

Every living thing has DNA. So that’s too broad when asking about a bird or a tree. For these things we look for specific attributes.

Humans have many attributes— they have atoms, DNA, cells. They have nervous systems. They have opposable thumbs. They’re bipedal. And so forth.

Some of these traits they share with other animals, some they don’t. Some are unique to them. Language and mathematics (and music, arguably) and logic are such unique traits. I don’t think it’s controversial to make this claim.

Given this is the case— yes, it’s narrow. But rightfully so— because you’re asking a narrow question: what is a human being? If we were asking “what is an animal?” then we could give human beings as an example. Or living thing. Or mammal. Or primate. But we’re not doing that— we’re asking specifically about one class of beings.

In some ways, I still largely agree with Aristotle. We’re the zoon echon logon. The animal with logos. “Rational” and “reason” are often how this is translated— but speech is fine too. That’s what I go with anyway.

1. There are humans who do not use language. Hence the definition leaves out some who should be included. — Banno

Humans that do not use language are very rare. Their existence doesn’t change that language is a human property, any more than those born blind don’t change the fact that vision is a human property. Again, I’d say that the existence of exceptions doesn’t necessitate throwing out all rules/categories.

I mentioned language specifically because it’s a property unique to human beings. Does this property “define” human being in some absolute way? No. But it’s as close a contender as I can find.

2. There are language behaviours in non-humans. Hence the definition includes animals that are not human. — Banno

There’s communication in animals. But no other animal has language. No animals can speak or sign, for example. So I’m not sure what you mean by language “behaviors.”

Incidentally, species properties aren’t uncommon. So I’m not arguing we’re very special in that regard. But I think it’s just sheer confusion to ascribe language to any other animal. It’s just clearly not the case.

So I'm not doubting that "what is a human being" is an important question, but the suggestion that it be answered by stipulation, by setting out an essence. — Banno

I don’t like “essence” either. But attempting to classify or define something doesn’t have to be mystical or religious. In fact it happens all the time in biology. We don’t kick up too much fuss about ants and frogs, yet it seems when it comes to humans we have to throw all that out. I don’t see why.

Regardless, I think we more or less agree. The question is an important one — with real world implications — and so it should be discussed. That’s good enough for me.

Perhaps we might agree that any categorisation of what it is to be human will fail? — Banno

Perhaps categorization of anything whatsoever will fail. Of rocks and trees and stars and donuts.

Is this an argument?

language
— Xtrix
awareness
— Xtrix
all pretend to be discoveries, as if being human had to be this way, and no other, but when you look closer each is an imposition. — Banno

It’s not a discovery, it’s just a fact. Humans have language. Pretty obvious. This is also a unique species property, and so is in the running for how to identify what makes an entity a human. Notice I don’t use the word “essence” myself.

If this is considered an “imposition,” then any talk about differentiating one thing from another is as well. In which case, so what?

Each will rule someone in as human and someone else out - the physically disabled, the genetically divergent (non Aryan...), the non-verbal, the unconscious; and in ruling out some folk who we would otherwise call human, each fails. — Banno

The exceptions in the aspect I mentioned (language) are rare indeed, but are themselves identified as such based on the norm. A human is still a human even if they’re non-verbal, deaf, or language-impaired. In the same way if someone can’t walk. These disabilities tell us little about human beings.

Rules aren’t thrown out simply because exceptions exist. This again assumes we’re after some ultimate, unchanging essence — I don’t see this as being the case.

the process of defining what it is to be human is ethical and political. — Banno

Yes. Which is why “What is a human being?” is an important question. Whether “right” or “wrong,” answers have been given — and these answers have important consequences indeed.

On the contrary, I think this is one of the most important questions we face. How we answer it, even tacitly, has significant social/political repercussions.

We can throw our hands up and say it’s futile to discuss. That’s fine — but answers are held anyway. I’d rather be participating than sitting out simply because a permanent solution doesn’t exist. I don’t find it futile talking about God either, despite how amorphous a term it is— especially when such a term is used as justification for immoral behavior.

I think creativity, especially in the use of language, is an essential aspect of human being/human nature. I believe this factually, and I like to emphasize it morally. I don’t see anything futile about that.

We can hold tentative beliefs and operate on the basis of them. They do not have to be static, ultimate truths on which there is no disagreement.

The reason I care is because he’s original, challenging, and interesting.

No, it’s a good question. At this point I wouldn’t speak for anyone but myself, so I won’t pretend to give any authoritative answer.

But for me, I see awareness as synonymous with consciousness — and what is consciousness? Just “being” here. It’s this. The most basic thing in the world. I can’t give a much better description, unfortunately.

I think Heidegger is referring to being in a particular situation. — Jackson

Hmm. I think there’s something to that, in the sense that we’re always “up to” something. Seeing a human being as a kind of situation is interesting.



Appreciate the quotations. Interesting stuff.

I don’t want to digress into Heidegger here, so I’ll just leave it at that.

What is openness or a clearing? Potential? — Tom Storm

Personally I think both are words for awareness. Dasein gets translated as the "there," "being-there." I think the "there" is existence, being -- "there-being," in other words. The "there" -- existence -- is this awareness, this opening.

I take the view that the defining characteristic is language. At least that appears the most obvious, in that non-human primates and other animals don't have it.

I think Heidegger et al. would disagree with this. In his view, human being is an openness, or a "clearing." I'm sympathetic to this view as well.

But let's not pretend you don't already know that. You're just looking for a way to wriggle out of having to deal with any moral judgement of NATO because that leaves you without the social support of the zeitgeist. — Isaac

:up:

I was reading an unrelated news piece today and underneath it was a comment claiming you could be imprisoned in Britain for denying that a woman can have testicles (!). More of the scary totalitarian narrative. The government may try to kill you, so you need a gun, and they will imprison you for speaking 'common sense', so you need to fight political correctness. — Baden

Exactly.

As for the hypothetical of asking someone on the street— I’m very surprised to find anyone taking that seriously. I see a lot of “if you ask a person anything you’ll get hesitation,” and things of that nature. I think that’s the wrong approach. The right approach is that the question itself, and the hypothetical scenario, is stupid — as is every outgrowth of media-driven right-wing hysteria. The transgender stuff is just one more distraction— an easy topic that petty minds can agree on and act superior about.

'what is a woman?' — M777

'politically correct' answer, — M777

So yet another thread motivated by gender hysterics. Got it. :yawn:

NY Times piece about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. Referenced above.

"Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before—this is not new," said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory - a research organization for international climate scientists providing data for policymakers attempting to address the causes and impacts of climate change. "We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?"

https://apple.news/AkyZDh_aSSBWPbTZv37pusQ

With the war in Ukraine as cover, the fossil fuel industry and the Biden administration are pumping more than ever. It’s almost certain that this month, June, there will be a major Supreme Court decision limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 in West Virginia v. EPA. Lastly, nothing has or will happen in congress, thanks largely to one guy with the most funding from big oil.

All this despite the latest IPCC report, global awareness and desire for action (according to polls, including the US), and evidence all around us — from increased wildfires and draughts to floods, melting icecaps, and rising sea levels.

So, since a minority rules the US, and since they use the idea of “states rights” as cover to legally dismantle any action on a national level (including abortion) through the Supreme Court and have all but incapacitated congress, perhaps this is even more the time to realize that politics is indeed local. That not only is there little we can do about national politics, but that focusing on your state and local level is the way to go and always has been anyway.

I wonder if we see more grassroots participation in this decade?

I've never seen censorship and repression like today. Even just the blocking of Russian voices -- it's insane. Why shouldn't we know what the Russians are saying? Why do I have to go to Al-Jazeera to find out what the Russian Prime Minister is saying? That's the kind of thing we ought to know. If they have a proposal for ending a blockade that's killing millions of people, why shouldn't I know about it?

Well, the censorship is so extreme that you can't. Almost nobody knows, unless they go to something like a marginal Libertarian website that happens to be telling the truth. It's crazy. Not only that, if you bring it up -- just talk about it -- you're immediately vilified: "Putin supporter," "commie rat," you want appeasement, you want to sell out, and so on. It's pretty astonishing.

--Chomsky

If ceding territory ends the war (even has only a good chance of doing so) then that's a huge positive. To counter that there'd need to be a massive negative. All you've given thus far to weigh against it is the "punish Putin" argument and the "Ukraine is better than Russia" argument. — Isaac

Indeed. Put another way: if one were to really hate Ukrainians, what would be the best course of action? Do the opposite of that. I'd like to think that continual bombing and killing is worse than negotiated settlement(s).

So if you're someone who hates Ukrainians (and thus "Ukraine" in the abstract), the best route is to avoid negotiations. This will all but guarantee the conflict continues.

So it's not that those who advocate for "standing up to a bully," punishing the bad guy, protecting freedom around the world, etc. etc. (all of which are pretty easy to say when your own life isn't on the line) don't care about Ukrainians -- maybe they do. It's just interesting that the results are the same, regardless of intention: dead people, continuous warfare, escalation of nuclear fallout, etc.

Yeah, it's a clowncar of absurd self-serving slogans. That's why I only drop in for the occasional disparagement. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Neither logic nor disparagement work; he hasn't the logical intelligence or the emotional intelligence for either. Yet I feel it's necessary to continue doing both, lest anyone new to the forum mistakes his pathological worldview as representative.

In the stomach and the soul. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As if NOS's laughable rantings on causality has something to do with capitalism.

My (and others) interpretation of him must be fake news. It's because I'm a communist. Or because I'm anti-American. Etc. Whatever it takes not to examine oneself.

What a shocker that he brings it back to pedophilia again. Extreme right wingers do seem obsessed with it. It's strange. :chin:

Censors throughout history — NOS4A2

…followed by the usual bullshit. :lol:

Please expound more on your sticks and stones theory. It’s riveting.

Whether it's a gun or an ear, the physics of causation is the same. — Michael

If the cells are a part of me, and if sound affects the cells, and if speech is sound, then speech affects me. — Michael

Obvious to anyone not trying desperately to defend an indefensible political position.

It’s based entirely on emotion, ultimately. In this simplistic Ayn Randian world, everything we know about physics and causality have to suspend.

All to defend the “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” philosophy. It always seems to boil down to Nickelodeon principles with plutocracy-loving, anti-social narcissists.

Was the point that Trump isn't responsible for Jan 6? — Tate

Exactly. That’s what all this bullshit is about.

It’s nothing like saying that. Do you think mechanical soundwaves convert themselves to nerve impulses? — NOS4A2

:lol:

We just learned that what words mean and do is solely up to your discretion my dear readers. — Tobias

No no — what you choose to DO with those words is up to your discretion. Because we have free will and we’re conscious entities blah blah.

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.
— Xtrix
Yes. — ssu

Okay. And you acknowledge its current influence on world affairs.

Putting these things together, there’s every reason to assume the US has a hand in this conflict — even if we know next to nothing about the particular event. So we’re in agreement.

You go on to ask why this is discussed over other issues — which is what I meant by “matter of emphasis.” I think it gets discussed at length because when it’s pointed out it gets misrepresented as a defense of Putin— or simply denied, when it should be taken for granted. (Just as condemning this invasion should be taken for granted — I see no one excusing Putin’s crimes either.)

Personally, as a US citizen I often bring matters back to my government’s involvement for the simple reason that I feel I can do the most to change it (and admittedly little at that). They supposedly represent me, after all. But that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring Russian responsibility.

We all agree we want this to end, yes? So discussing every part of the issue is important. One part is the United States. Happens to be a major part. Still missing where the gulf lies.

waving the "US is bad" flag. — ssu

The US government has a terrible history. Terrible. You acknowledge this.

You also acknowledge that the US, just by being the worlds largest economy (and most powerful militarily), has real influence over nearly all major events around the globe.

It’s also true that Putin’s invasion was and is immoral and stupid, and that the deaths of civilians is beyond words.

So why the characterization as “US bad”? The US isn’t bad— the choices powerful people have made (and continue to make) within the government of the United States is “bad.”

I’m still not seeing where the major disagreement lies. A matter of emphasis?

This thread is eclectic. 30% information, 70% sarcasm and insults.

Kudos for those continuing to try after 265 pages.

I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely.

I guess feedback from others is irrelevant in this worldview. Anything critical is fake news.

As to who we should understand the botched and weak to be... If it's some set of human beings - no matter how numerically insignificant a set - then this is an evil teaching. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Why?

Pedophiles, rapists, murderers. They’re a set of human beings. They seem the botched and weak to me. Doesn’t seem evil to help them perish.

But Nietzsche can be interpreted any way you like. He’s been blamed for the Nazis and for everything else under the sun. Not without some reason, of course. But given he’s intentionally being contrarian and provocative, this shouldn’t be a surprise.

I think his emphasis on values is still relevant.

:up:

Agreed.