Yglesias: The Ethic of Greed and the Spirit of Capitalism
I think Yglesias gets this exactly right.
As I (probably too) frequently complain, the American right often seems to think that our only moral obligations have to do with sex and drugs. Extreme greed, however and for example, is fine. When it comes to extreme greed and the desire of outlandishly rich people to become even more outlandishly rich, they either believe or pretend to believe that their actions can only be assessed as legal or illegal--but that morality has nothing to do with it. Put your pee-pee in the wrong place in the privacy of your own home and the right, in its heart of hearts, thinks you should go to jail. Concentrate your whole will on multiplying your billions at the expense of working folk and that's just the peachy keen free market at work, and you are immune from moral criticism.
That's a truly perverse view of the world right there.
I think Yglesias gets this exactly right.
As I (probably too) frequently complain, the American right often seems to think that our only moral obligations have to do with sex and drugs. Extreme greed, however and for example, is fine. When it comes to extreme greed and the desire of outlandishly rich people to become even more outlandishly rich, they either believe or pretend to believe that their actions can only be assessed as legal or illegal--but that morality has nothing to do with it. Put your pee-pee in the wrong place in the privacy of your own home and the right, in its heart of hearts, thinks you should go to jail. Concentrate your whole will on multiplying your billions at the expense of working folk and that's just the peachy keen free market at work, and you are immune from moral criticism.
That's a truly perverse view of the world right there.
posted by Winston Smith at
2:09 PM
5 Comments:
Hi. Stopped by to see what you've been up to. Now that Bush is out, I see much to agree with. Just today I meself was comparing the Wall St. mess to what one guy called "crypto-Hobbesian hedonism." Even if nothing illegal went down, something went wrong. "Hedonism" need not be applied only to sex and drugs.
Hope this finds you well, and cheers on the UNC championship. As for your riff in another post about philosophy "coming down from the clouds" as it were---down from the abstract and the not-very-helpful, well, I'm no philosopher, but that's why I tried so hard for engagement with you.
The problem is that once we move to the morning paper, the passions take over and it's good night, Irene.
Good night Irene, and best regards,
TVD
I'm no philosopher, but that's why I tried so hard for engagement with you.Still the humorist, Zombie Legate Van Dyke.
WS did try to engage you numerous times, in this example, by explaining elementary terms:
Tom, you are committing a common error here, based on a common confusion about circular reasoning.
I asserted above that everybody hates Bush but the dead-enders. I didn't give any evidence for this, I simply asserted it.
Now, you might reasonably ask for support for that claim, but it isn't circular reasoning.
First, there's no reasoning involved, as there is no premiss and no conclusion--it's just an assertion.
Second, to assert that p without proof is not to assert that "p therefore p." The latter is circular reasoning, but I didn't do that.
Finally, you confuse circular reasoning with tautology. There are structural similarities, so that confusion isn't a big deal.
But, as I noted above, I didn't assert a tautology either. (see above for explanation).What do you intend to accomplish by commenting here again, when in your comment your martyrdom complex comes out again as if asserting what was not the case will make you more welcome here.
We'll see, as my Texas grandmother Avenger used to say :-)
A Dr. Who quote for Winston:
“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
Whoa, that didn't take long, DA...
Nice to see you're alive and kickin' Tom.
And thanks re: the Heels' championship.
Yes, my guess is that we agree on some important things. Here's hoping that the Obama administration is easier on your nerves than the W administration was on mine.
Did I misuse the term, DA? Fine, I misused the term. But my meaning was clear, and to be concerned solely with form and not with meaning is not philosophy in any pure sense.
WS, Obama---in action---has been centrist enough on foreign policy. I'll ignore the apologetic rhetoric and the bowing to the Saudi king and all that chickenspit the right has given him guff for.
Domestically, I think he's as, um, communitarian as I feared. My biggest concern isn't expanding gov't programs---you get to do that when you win elections---as much as forcing through structural changes without any real consensus. This government-Chrysler "partnership" and other gov't-big business miscegenations give me great pause.
And for the record, the Reid-Pelosi congress has become as autocratic as the GOP one it replaced. The names on the doors of the bigger offices changed, is all.
It looks like my POV is going to be the political minority for the foreseeable future, but my heart just isn't in polemics. So I think the Obama administration will be easier on my nerves, at least to the outside observer.
Oy.
;-}
Did I misuse the term, DA? Fine, I misused the term. But my meaning was clear, and to be concerned solely with form and not with meaning is not philosophy in any pure sense.Well, you've got things topsy-turvy, IMHO, in that you have the form okay, but you have the meaning make sense, and you go into irrelevant discourses when WS calls you on the meaning of what you post here, as any casual perusal of the posts you've written here would find other examples similar to what I posted above.
To say "you tried hard for engagement" is simply not supported by the record you've left on this blog. I realize that my intransigence may seem hard-headed, but I'm willing to accept the reality of the possibility of error over the impossibility of error, as those who don't make mistakes can't
grow and learn as those who are falliable.
A difference between angels and humans, to use a spiritual analogy.
Do you remember what Cromwell told the general assembly of the Scottish Church?:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.In this case, it's not a case of may be mistaken, you are mistaken and one of the reasons I think you really don't do anything constructive when you post here, other than get the chance to play the martyr against us 'collectivists'.
as much as forcing through structural changes without any real consensus.The problem is that he reached out to the other side for said consensus, and as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, the other side offered things like the following:
Stung by their stereotyping as the "party of no," House Republicans eagerly promoted the unveiling of their alternative to President Obama's budget today -- but when they finished speaking, reporters had one big question: Where's the actual budget? You know, the numbers that show deficit projections and discretionary spending?
There certainly was no hard budgetary data in the attractively designed 18-page packet that the House GOP handed out today, its blue cover emblazoned with an ambitious title: "The Republican Road to Recovery." When Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was asked what his goal for deficit reduction would be -- President Obama aims to halve the nation's spending imbalance within five years -- Boehner responded simply: "To do better [than Obama]."
When pressed further by reporters, Boehner promised that Republicans would release their actual budget within the next few days and pointed a finger back at the president.The rest, I'll leave to the peanut gallery to judge, YMMV.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home