OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Rich and Poor

Entry 1064, on 2009-07-31 at 20:54:37 (Rating 4, Politics)

Today I have been involved in a "discussion" with a more right-oriented friend. Actually, it might have got a little bit beyond a discussion but it hasn't quite got to the point of being an argument yet. Maybe debate would be a better word.

Anyway the debate was over a story which has been circulating on the internet for several years. It tells of an economics professor who offers to average the marks of his class and pass or fail them all as a group. He had never failed anyone in the past but when that experiment was done the whole class failed. It was supposed to illustrate that the competitive, commercial model is best and we shouldn't be wasting resources on "freeloaders" as all the socialists want us to.

Its all garbage, of course - as all right-wing propaganda is. The first problem is that the story wasn't real - it is an urban myth. When I pointed this out the friend said it was an allegory. But he only said this after I showed him it wasn't true. Its too easy to present something as if it is true, then when it is discovered to be a lie just to say it was an allegory all along. That's quite dishonest!

The second problem is that the whole issue isn't presented in a realistic way. No one is saying that everyone should be treated the same no matter what their contribution to society is. What I am saying (and what most people with a political tendency to the left are saying) is that we should have some minimum standard for everyone and we should be more thoughtful about what type of behaviour we reward.

The right tend to indicate they want a totally free system where people are able to work towards greater rewards (to them that is always money) for themselves. They say this is fair and often even go as far as saying its best for everyone. Well if we had a "free for all" society we would have murderers and despots in the top level of our society. After all, isn't that the ultimate response to a competitive system?

So we do work in an essentially arbitrary system where some people are rewarded more than others. And despite what the right say, it has little to do with how hard people work. Sure, I agree that hard workers will probably do better on average but that's a minor factor really. For example a lazy banker will get paid a lot more than a hard working rubbish collector but I would debate which makes the greater contribution to society!

So we do have basically random rules which dictate who gets the most and who gets the least and all we are really arguing about is how those rules should be fine tuned. How much is enough for someone who makes a great contribution and how much is enough for someone who makes very little? And how do we decide what is a genuine contribution and what isn't?

One thing I can say for sure: the pure, free market capitalist system doesn't create an environment where the best people can thrive. Instead it creates one where the most ruthless, greedy and self-centered do well and almost completely ignores the role of the people making genuine long-term contributions.

To mention my old example again (I've never been given a good answer to this): why do executives selling sugar water (Coke for example) get paid a fortune when cancer researchers are often not funded adequately? Clearly capitalism doesn't work.

So the political right should think a little bit more carefully about their very superficial ideas. If we followed those disaster would inevitably follow.

Comment 32 (2397) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 11:00:34: (view earlier comments)

Actually I would say that one of the biggest causes of misunderstandings is NOT 'lack of agreement on definitions of the topic under discussion' but lack of understanding and appreciation of another's point of view. This does not mean one must agree with his opponent, but to understand where he is comeing from. Only then can good debate be brought about. Arguing semantics is pointless and boring.

Re 2nd para: Hahaha, you´re having me on right? Where do I start? The evil corporations?

Re 3rd para: Hmmm, if you say so....

Comment 33 (2400) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 11:17:44:

Well in my experience definition of words is a problem. And you still haven't told me what you think faith is yet because we seem to have different ideas on this.

Well start somewhere. Just saying "the evil corporations" isn't exactly quoting anything I've said which is as bad as Jim's sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated opinions,

Comment 34 (2402) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 11:41:47:

I know that you know already based on previous threads, yet I suspect you are looking for a digression...it's not the first time.

OJB - many of your original posts do include some reasonable views, but usually there is at least one comment out there, this one being no exception. Once we get into the comments though I find you can be less moderated than you original post suggests. I could trawl through the history of your blog and pull out the quotes, but do I expect you to agree with me, however obvious?

Comment 35 (2403) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 12:12:52:

To be fair, your comments can also suggest you to be more moderated. I guess it depends on which way the debate swings and how I see it.

Comment 36 (2405) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 12:23:32:

So often you avoid answering simple questions. Why is that? Surely just typing out what you think faith is would have been quicker than typing out that explanation of why you don't want to!

Well if there is just an occasional comment which is "a bit out there" then I don't indulge in hyperbole, rhetoric, and unjustified claims to anywhere near the same extent as a typical Jim tirade!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.