J. Stiglitz: The American Dream has become a myth

Hawk66 · 10-03-12, 02:01 PM

Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.

So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?

So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?

So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?

Or is all dependent on voluntary services so that we force nobody? But is the access to voluntary services not random, also?

No, I do not want to have this society. Call me socialist or whatever....

Skybird · 10-03-12, 03:16 PM

the best, the very best part of the whole German constitution, is the very first sentence of the very first section if the very first article.

HUMAN DIGNITY SHALL BE INVIOLABLE.

An outstanding and absolutely remarkable sentence.

People now may want to discuss whether it leaves people their dignity to lead them into dependence from the state or leaving them the freedom to move themselves voluntarily into dependence form the state. Or whether helping a weak in despair or leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand, that human dignity shall be inviolable.

Forget politics and ideology for a moment, and ask your own conscience.

Everything that the ideal of so-called human rights is about, is included in and covered by those five words. Human rights, whether it be the right to breathe or the right to live or the right to eat, is about the basic and inalienable right for having your dignity. Because this dignity means that you are left the freedom to be what by your form and essence as a human being you indeed are, and to accept the biological conditions of your very existence.

Now, there are more complex implications then at first glance there seem to be. For example how to treat terrorism, and people denying others this recognition of dignity. Whether or not torture and execution is allowed or not. War. And how far the care of social wellfare systems shall reach, and this being seen in contrast with the idea of "survival of the fittest".

But any discussion of these issues is hopelessly in vain if not even this very basic fundament is agreed on in principle: human dignity shall be inviolable.

AVGWarhawk · 10-03-12, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Or whether helping a weak in despair

The weak in despair are helped with social programs. Some to good effect. Others not. Some programs abused.

Quote:

leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand

What perceived opportunity? Perhaps we can ask POTUS if his opportunity was perceived or a dream that came true?

Skybird · 10-03-12, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What perceived opportunity? Perhaps we can ask POTUS if his opportunity was perceived or a dream that came true?

Perceived opportunity in the meaning of that what an unaffected bystander may perceive as an opportunity, to the people deeply engaged in that situation may not appear as an opportunity at all, but being exposed as a victim to situational factors one has no control over, and leaves oneself no options where one's own dignity is recognized anymore.

POTUS I did not mention anywhere. I was giving the above posting in a general sense, reacting to the little dispute between Steve and Hawk, to get some heat out of it.

Takeda Shingen · 10-03-12, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Perceived opportunity in the meaning of that what an unaffected bystander may perceive as an opportunity, to the people deeply engaged in that situation may not appear as an opportunity at all, but being exposed as a victim to situational factors one has no control over, and leaves oneself no options where one's own dignity is recognized anymore.

Metaphysics and social mobility aren't a very good match. Upward mobility is measurable; AVG could either afford that trip to Disneyworld by scrimping and saving or he could not. Perception and existence do not play into the matter.

Skybird · 10-03-12, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Metaphysics and social mobility aren't a very good match. Upward mobility is measurable; AVG could either afford that trip to Disneyworld by scrimping and saving or he could not. Perception and existence do not play into the matter.

For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.

For others, exploiting the desperate situation of people who depend on even that pathetic and abusive loan, is a violation of human dignity.

Some people being offered such slavery jobs say they do not work for that pathetic one Euro, that it is abusive and is - against their dignity.

And some of those living on wellfare accept to get exploited, saying that nevertheless this way they have the feeling of contributing something to society, or that else their days would be boring.

One example situation. Four different perceptions of it.

BTW, one-Euro jobs are a reality in Germany. And they increase by numbers, frighteningly fast.

Takeda Shingen · 10-03-12, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.

Is that considered dignified? No.

Quote:

For others, exploiting the desperate situation of people who depend on even that pathetic and abusive loan, is a violation of human dignity.

Is that considered dignified? No.

Quote:

And some of those living on wellfare accept to get exploited, saying that nevertheless this way they have the feeling of contributing something to society, or that else their days would be boring.

Is that considered dignified? No.

Quote:

One example situation. Three different perceptions of it.

You are right about that it is one situation. You are wrong about three different perceptions. It is absolute.

August · 10-03-12, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

For some people - usually people not needing to do that - it is fully okay to have Germans working for one Euro per hour. They furiously demand these slaves that they should do it indeed.

Slaves, really? Sheesh, exaggerate much?

Sailor Steve · 10-03-12, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it.

So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes?

I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.

Quote:

So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system?

Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.

Quote:

So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him?

Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.

Hawk66 · 10-04-12, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I simply explained the difference between a 'Right' and a resposibility. I have no right to take from someone if he doesn't feel compelled to give. Doing so makes me a thief, no matter how I try to justify it. Would I steal to feed my family? Certainly. Does that make it my 'Right'? Certainly not.

Not all. Here in the U.S. we have a dichotomy. What the States can do, I would like to see them do. There can be Federal oversight, but the original plan for our National Government was that it would referee between the States and be in charge of foreign policy. I know that's a slightly different subject, and I'm not convinced I'm right (I never am). I only wanted to point out how I see the term 'Rights'.

Yes, he deserves a fair chance. Should you take him into your home? Yes, you should. Do I have the right to force you to raise him and pay his way? No, I don't. Is there a difference between forcing you to raise him and taking some money from everybody to pay for someone else to raise him? If you take money against someone's will, it's stealing. There are two different moral standards at war here, and both are right.

Ok, I can follow your point a little now, although I have not the same opinion or the same understanding of 'Rights' and 'Responsibility' as I described above.

For me all people have simply the right to have same starting conditions as practical matters allows. Else individual life is a lottery, like it is in both countries (U.S. and Germany) to a considerable degree.

Same starting conditions does not mean that the outcome is equal (or in theory like in communism). If somebody is constantly lazy and fortifies his given chances, then it is perfectly fine that his living standards are at a minimum.
If somebody has brilliant ideas, works hard etc. it is perfectly fine that he get rich like J.Stiglitz outlines.

You and August have misunderstood, what I wanted to express with Powell's life. The chances that he got even a medium-ranked officer in the army was a couple of factors more worse compared to his 'competitors'. Just read his book.

Armistead · 10-04-12, 03:09 PM

Most considered the dream being part of the middle class, owning a home, benefits, a pension. That dream came true as we built a strong middle class for a large percent of Americans.

Sadly, we're waking a up to a future that will be absent a middle class. I don't think we've seen the worse, it's coming in the next few decades.

AVGWarhawk · 10-04-12, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Most considered the dream.... owning a home.....

This is part of the problem. The dream was offered up at the bequest of big government to have lenders like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac provide home loans to anyone with a pulse. Getting the American dream. We see where the forced dream came from. It was forced so hard it was regurgitated into what is called foreclosures, abandonment and short sales. Thus ended the American dream for many.

Hawk66 · 03-30-13, 03:59 AM

In the meantime I've read his book 'The price of inequality'...it is a really good book.

Apart from the inequality debate he shows and proofs that the whole economic could be far more efficient for the benefit of most citizens.

He also very clearly proofs how the the 'top 1%' tries and accomplishes to influence decision making in politics to guarantee their privileges regarding taxes, hidden subsidies and so on.

Catfish · 03-30-13, 04:30 AM

As George Carlin put it, it is called American Dream "because you have to be asleep, to believe it".

Certainly you have more 'opportunities' in the US, than in North Korea. But already compared to the new Russia, or other western countries ?

Like everywhere you have to know the right people, or have sheer luck. There's not much about knowledge or capability about it.

10-03-12, 03:16 PM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,643 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	the best, the very best part of the whole German constitution, is the very first sentence of the very first section if the very first article. HUMAN DIGNITY SHALL BE INVIOLABLE. An outstanding and absolutely remarkable sentence. People now may want to discuss whether it leaves people their dignity to lead them into dependence from the state or leaving them the freedom to move themselves voluntarily into dependence form the state. Or whether helping a weak in despair or leaving him the perceived opportunity to try to seek himself is the option more in conformity with that demand, that human dignity shall be inviolable. Forget politics and ideology for a moment, and ask your own conscience. Everything that the ideal of so-called human rights is about, is included in and covered by those five words. Human rights, whether it be the right to breathe or the right to live or the right to eat, is about the basic and inalienable right for having your dignity. Because this dignity means that you are left the freedom to be what by your form and essence as a human being you indeed are, and to accept the biological conditions of your very existence. Now, there are more complex implications then at first glance there seem to be. For example how to treat terrorism, and people denying others this recognition of dignity. Whether or not torture and execution is allowed or not. War. And how far the care of social wellfare systems shall reach, and this being seen in contrast with the idea of "survival of the fittest". But any discussion of these issues is hopelessly in vain if not even this very basic fundament is agreed on in principle: human dignity shall be inviolable. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

10-03-12, 02:01 PM	#1
Hawk66 Commodore Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 609 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	Frankly, your definition of human-rights seem a little strange to me or I just do not get it. So, for you human-rights are only valid if they do not 'force' others to contribute eg. via public taxes? So, does that mean if you would have the power, you would stop all government-paid 'forced' welfare systems, even the basic emergency ones ? Or what's the difference ? I have a job and why do I have to pay my taxes for welfare but I can refuse paying for a 'socialist' health care system? So, a 12 year old boy, who has only a mother, which drinks and is no help for her son: So, this boy should not get a fair chance because we do not want to force the society to help...so just bad luck for him? Or is all dependent on voluntary services so that we force nobody? But is the access to voluntary services not random, also? No, I do not want to have this society. Call me socialist or whatever....

10-04-12, 03:09 PM	#11
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	Most considered the dream being part of the middle class, owning a home, benefits, a pension. That dream came true as we built a strong middle class for a large percent of Americans. Sadly, we're waking a up to a future that will be absent a middle class. I don't think we've seen the worse, it's coming in the next few decades.

03-30-13, 03:59 AM	#13
Hawk66 Commodore Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 609 Downloads: 36 Uploads: 0	In the meantime I've read his book 'The price of inequality'...it is a really good book. Apart from the inequality debate he shows and proofs that the whole economic could be far more efficient for the benefit of most citizens. He also very clearly proofs how the the 'top 1%' tries and accomplishes to influence decision making in politics to guarantee their privileges regarding taxes, hidden subsidies and so on.

03-30-13, 04:30 AM	#14
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,767 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	As George Carlin put it, it is called American Dream "because you have to be asleep, to believe it". Certainly you have more 'opportunities' in the US, than in North Korea. But already compared to the new Russia, or other western countries ? Like everywhere you have to know the right people, or have sheer luck. There's not much about knowledge or capability about it.