# We really need a new progressive movement in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2012, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444 "2012-04-11T07:35:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/302 "2012-04-19T14:00:38Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > I disagree completely. They were built and abandoned a decade and more ago, so yes they could have replaced fossil fuel cars by now. Apple could have made an ipod 3 decades ago, if research had achieved that point by then. But that’s apples and oranges, so to speak. ipads were products created to _create_ a market, not fill a need. They did not exist before. It is obvious that the car companies did not want to change to electric because of the need for a healthy climate or even to head off an oil shortage. Corporations usually do not consider anything but profit, and they are averse to change. The people and the government through movements need to help create these changes. The market would not have done so. Unlike the ipad, this is not some new thing that didn’t exist; just a new engine for the same product as before. The analogy does not fit. > > Excuses for our corporate system, and justifications for it as “free enterprise,” have captured too many minds, and obviously most minds here. This is anything but a “liberal” board as someone said, but _very_ conservative. It is a lot of people _here_ who are the freshmen writing screeds, screaming that they are well-informed about economics and that I am not. Not so by a long shot. When the resulting cry is “everyone here is wrong but me”, you might want to rethink your logic. In the entire 6 pages of this thread, I have yet to see any factual evidence to back any, any, of your claims. Try it. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/303 "2012-04-19T14:01:08Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure, it’s possible but it’s still an appeal to authority. Oh absolutely, but one that an honest authoritarian would not see as an error in debate. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/304 "2012-04-19T14:07:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why wasn’t this dream car of yours produced in any of the numerous “progressive” countries out there in past decades? Where’s the Swedish Volt from 1970 or the French of German version? Well there is evidence that government fiat can make things happen. If we step away from electric cars or a moment,[Brazil has become energy independent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil) thanks to government mandated use of biofuels. Kinda makes you wonder how things would be in the US if the government had made a similar push for electric cars. But I know, being rid of fossil fuels and our dependence on oil. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/305 "2012-04-19T14:29:34Z")
[QUOTE=Eric the Green] Baloney. People failed to require them to develop and make them. [/QUOTE] I…don’t even know what to say to this, its so silly and full of misconception. I’ll leave it at companies did develop and attempt to produce the things, and the market (a.k.a. people) weren’t interested in buying them. Certainly, if you could have convinces a lot of Americans (or Europeans, or Japanese, or Indians, etc etc etc) to pay a lot more money for a vehicle that performed a lot worse than ICE technology vehicles then companies would have been happy to build the things. But people, mainly not being idiots, didn’t want costly vehicles that performed worse than the cars they were already driving. Odd, I know. > [@](#): > > Electric cars work great. Test drive a Tesla and see. We’ve always had electric cars. It was just more convenient to use oil. I’ve heard all this nonsense before; don’t think I haven’t. They didn’t want to spend the money on it. They could have done so. If they can do it now, they could have done it then; and did. They needed to put out more of them so the price could come down; decades ago. I have driven a Tesla…have you? And yeah, it works great. For $100,000 you can get a car with the performance characteristics of a mid-range sports car. And that’s the BEST AEV on the market today. The top of the line, that gets something like 200 miles on a charge and can do that going 80-100mph (this is all from memory)…something a car costing anywhere from $60,000-80,000 LESS can do. Probably why you don’t see a lot of high end Tesla (or even their lower end) cruising about, ehe? It’s not a matter of just building more and the price will magically come down to make them competitive. See, companies can do this thing called ‘cost projection’, where they can make predictions about ‘if we sell X million of these things then the costs to manufacture due to scale will be Y’ and can create a plan to take advantage of that. But the costs for AEV don’t scale downward at the high end because, well, the technology Tesla is using relies and exotic materials like those rare earth metals I tried to discuss with you earlier and that you claimed (still no cite) that the US also produces in quantity. AFAIK, China and, IIRC Brazil. > [@](#): > > You didn’t see the Heat documentary I linked here earlier, did you? I did…and I said it was full of shit (actually, I said ‘horseshit’ to be accurate). And that’s when I posed that link to Motor Trend to see if you’d bother reading through it to fight your ignorance. Your link was the equivalent of a 9/11 Truther posting a link to Loose Change while mine would have been to Popular Mechanics, debunking the ridiculous. If you don’t believe Motor Trend then simply Google ‘Debunking GM killed electric car’ and check out some of the links for yourself. > [@](#): > > Electric cars are not a fantasy. Tell that to Ford who advertised on this very page for their green car. Fantasy? These cars exist now for sure, and the car companies need to be forced to make nothing else BUT. Progress on that forcing, is being made in spite of your reactionary extreme-right-wing politicians, and those you would like to elect (Romney) or re-elect (the dopey tea party congress) this November. The only obstacles are, and ever were, political obstacles put up by free-market believers and corporatist shrills. Try reading what I actually write. I didn’t say electric cars are or were a fantasy. Again, if you are going to debate in bad faith then there is no point in continuing this farce. You had several days to respond and then you respond with this tripe? > [@](#): > > They for sure sat on it. “Leaps” are made because time and money is put into the research. It wasn’t. Just like the oil companies don’t invest in alternatives either. If you think they do, you have been hoodwinked by ads. And you look to Eastern Europe and Asia for advanced tech 3 decades ago? Look again. Computer thingees have little or nothing to do with electric car batteries, which can be built in a mechanic’s garage. And in any case they would not exist without the government space program. If you had been in charge in the 60s, with your ideology, we wouldn’t even have computer thingees like we have today. Not to mention no highways for your precious gas guzzlers to drive on. I’m sorry, but there is so much wrong and inaccurate here that it’s making my head hurt…and really, what’s the point? I’m not fighting your ignorance here, since you don’t WANT to have your ignorance fought. And my guess is most everyone else reading along can look at the above and pick it apart in their sleep. > [@](#): > > Right, there was no conspiracy; market forces were allowed to rule, meaning the convenience of the CEOs instead of what is in the interest of the people, and this allowed GM to kill the electric car; and the result is the polluted and endangered planet and overpriced transportation methods that we’ve got. Thanks to you guys, and ONLY you guys. If ‘market forces’ jumped up on your leg and started humping it you wouldn’t know what they were. Again, this gets back to a basic misunderstanding on your part of how any of this, even the simplest aspect, works. You don’t even know enough to understand that you ARE positing a conspiracy theory. That’s both funny and a bit sad, to be honest. When you want to learn some stuff and then come back and debate I’m sure there will be plenty of 'dopers willing to do so. Honestly, I don’t see any benefit in continuing this except to make fun of you…and I generally stop feeling good about then when it’s clear that the person I’m discussing this stuff really, truly doesn’t get it, and probably never will. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/306 "2012-04-19T14:37:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well there is evidence that government fiat can make things happen. If we step away from electric cars or a moment,[Brazil has become energy independent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil) thanks to government mandated use of biofuels. Kinda makes you wonder how things would be in the US if the government had made a similar push for electric cars. But I know, being rid of fossil fuels and our dependence on oil. Not really. Biofuels are a much easier transitional technology than batteries. The main reason Brazil produces more biofuels than the US isn’t about the oil industry, it’s about the sugar industry. And like I said, Sweden (arguably one of the if not the most “progressive” countries in the world) has been making cars for decades, but not electric cars. With so many progressive countries in the world and no electric cars until recently, it’s absurd to claim that the US didn’t produce one earlier because the government wasn’t “progressive” enough. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/307 "2012-04-19T15:40:03Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No, an appeal to authority is exactly what it sounds like, “You must accept what this man or woman says because they are learned and wise” without any regard for what is being said. It does not matter if he or she is speaking in their field or not. It is simply an appeal to the authority of the source of the assertions, without reference to the assertions themselves. Which is definitely what your claims were. In an honest debate, you examine the claims themselves. Hmm. How to proceed? Let’s start with this: if I now provide a site from a respected university’s English or Philosophy department that supports my assertion, would I be guilty of the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority? Feel free to offer any reasoning you like, but make the first word either “Yes” or “No”. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/308 "2012-04-19T18:01:13Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That’s fair. I totally understand about RL impacting posting. I’ve been lucky this week and have had more time than usual to post and read through threads, which has been a real treat. > > Well, whether that’s true or not true seems, to me at least, to be irrelevant, since we don’t have an unregulated free market. We have a highly regulated free market, but the regulation is spotty in places (several iterations of regulation, deregulation, new regulation, modified regulation, etc etc) and inconsistent…and not always rationally applied OR enforced. We may not be in much disagreement here. I’ll bet we agree that regulations that require transparency in the markets are a good thing generally as they engender trust in the markets. And that we need to get Glass-Steagall or something like it reinstated so bankers can’t gamble with depositor’s money. Where we might disagree is that I think CDOs are a bad idea and should be legislated out of existence. I realize that they were intended as a way of protecting against losses in conventional deals (such as selling or buying a mortgage-backed security) but they’ve been proven to have waaaaaay too much potential for disaster because they can increase the risk on deals so greatly. Another potential area of disagreement would be that I think the government has a legitimate interest in keeping the finance industry structurally sounds and set up in a way that it contributes to other parts of the economy. Right now, for example, the derivatives market (CDOs are a kind of derivative, financial instruments that are so named because their value is derived from other financial instruments (see: mortgage backed securities) is 20 FRICKING TIMES the size of the ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY. [Cite.](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/) What that tells me is that the financial industry is playing with Monopoly money, but when things go south as they inevitably will, those poor butthurt too big to fail financial firms will come to us expecting us to trade our real money that we earned by the sweat of our brows for their monopoly money so they can stay in yachts and polo ponies. It’s insanely stupid, but so long as Wall Street owns the government (which is ANOTHER problem with our outsize financial industry) things are not gonna change. Government policies that direct Wall Street firms to reinvest their “hard-earned” capital in companies that actually make things and provide non-financial services to people, rather than higher-yielding but based on nothing much financial instruments, would be an EXCELLENT way to jump start the economy. > [@](#): > > Actually, I agree, but the devil would be in the details. Just saying we need regulation doesn’t really mean anything, since we HAVE regulation already. We don’t HAVE an unregulated free market system, and in truth we’ve never had one…in fact, I’m unsure if, historically, such a beast ever existed anywhere in the world. There have ALWAYS been some regulation or impact by the government on any economic system or market. Same with the social safety net…pointing out that we should have one is ignoring the fact that we DO have one. Now, specifically, you might put forth that we need a better one, with more straps on the net, and I might or might not agree with you. It all comes down to details. In THEORY what you are asking for here is something that most people would agree on, while pointing out that we already have it. The devil would be in the details. > > -XT I’d like to see the bottom rung of poverty for any individual be a room, enough food to eat, enough electricity to stay warm, and basic cable Internet so they can access the internet and learn things. And view porn, of course, as that may keep the number of sexual assaults down. Our present social safety net is a collection of tatters and rags. No health insurance, you go to the emergency room if you get really sick. No guarantees of having shelter or enough to eat. I’m REALLY surprised that robberies and violent crimes are so low in America. We are getting much better treatment from the poor than we deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/309 "2012-04-19T18:04:10Z")
Missed the edit window, but would like to add that I figure you know what CDOs and derivatives are, but everyone reading this thread might not know. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/310 "2012-04-19T18:07:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Hmm. How to proceed? > > Let’s start with this: if I now provide a site from a respected university’s English or Philosophy department that supports my assertion, would I be guilty of the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Authority? > > Feel free to offer any reasoning you like, but make the first word either “Yes” or “No”. Not necessarily. If your cite contains supporting information, arguments, etc., then no, because they can be examined on their merits, just like any other argument. if your cite is just that “Ben Bernanke is a wise economist and agrees with me about the economy” without any further details, then yes, argument to authority. If your cite is, “Ben Bernanke argues that we have to shore up the big banks because their colllapse would ruin the financial system because banks are on the hook for mortgage-backed securities that are the basis for many CDOs,” then no, not an appeal to authority, because we can examine that assertion. Thusly, “people over 20 have examined these issues and are far above these freshmen screeds in wisdom” with no further backup is an appeal to authority. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/311 "2012-04-19T21:41:00Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Not necessarily. If your cite contains supporting information, arguments, etc., then no, because they can be examined on their merits, just like any other argument. if your cite is just that “Ben Bernanke is a wise economist and agrees with me about the economy” without any further details, then yes, argument to authority. If your cite is, “Ben Bernanke argues that we have to shore up the big banks because their colllapse would ruin the financial system because banks are on the hook for mortgage-backed securities that are the basis for many CDOs,” then no, not an appeal to authority, because we can examine that assertion. > > Thusly, “people over 20 have examined these issues and are far above these freshmen screeds in wisdom” with no further backup is an appeal to authority. What he said. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/312 "2012-04-19T21:49:36Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Thusly, “people over 20 have examined these issues and are far above these freshmen screeds in wisdom” with no further backup is an appeal to authority. Of course nobody ever said that. What was said was that people over 20 **who have examined** these issues are far above these freshmen screeds. But hey, if the only way you can argue is through blatant strawmen, then go ahead. Whatever floats your boat. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/313 "2012-04-19T22:04:05Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > We may not be in much disagreement here. I’ll bet we agree that regulations that require transparency in the markets are a good thing generally as they engender trust in the markets. And that we need to get Glass-Steagall or something like it reinstated so bankers can’t gamble with depositor’s money. > > Where we might disagree is that I think CDOs are a bad idea and should be legislated out of existence. I realize that they were intended as a way of protecting against losses in conventional deals (such as selling or buying a mortgage-backed security) but they’ve been proven to have waaaaaay too much potential for disaster because they can increase the risk on deals so greatly. > > Another potential area of disagreement would be that I think the government has a legitimate interest in keeping the finance industry structurally sounds and set up in a way that it contributes to other parts of the economy. Right now, for example, the derivatives market (CDOs are a kind of derivative, financial instruments that are so named because their value is derived from other financial instruments (see: mortgage backed securities) is 20 FRICKING TIMES the size of the ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY. [Cite.](http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/) > > What that tells me is that the financial industry is playing with Monopoly money, but when things go south as they inevitably will, those poor butthurt too big to fail financial firms will come to us expecting us to trade our real money that we earned by the sweat of our brows for their monopoly money so they can stay in yachts and polo ponies. > > It’s insanely stupid, but so long as Wall Street owns the government (which is ANOTHER problem with our outsize financial industry) things are not gonna change. > > Government policies that direct Wall Street firms to reinvest their “hard-earned” capital in companies that actually make things and provide non-financial services to people, rather than higher-yielding but based on nothing much financial instruments, would be an EXCELLENT way to jump start the economy. I agree with pretty much all of this. And if “progressives” limited their ire to bankers and financiers who make money by manipulating a system created almost entirely by government interference in the first place, I’d be okay with that. But they don’t. Progressives rail against “the rich” as a single, monolithic block, as if success and wealth are contemptible in and of themselves. And I detest that attitude. I don’t know any bankers. But by virtue of my career, I know a lot of people who became very wealthy building real companies that sell real products to real people. Mostly scientists and engineers. These are all quiet people who stay out of the spotlight, but some of them are very wealthy - e.g. low hundreds of millions of dollars. They are generous, and good to their employees, and have undeniably made the world a better place. When I hear people complaining about “the rich”, I think about these people I know. In my world, the bankers are the exception. “The rich” are made up of people who worked hard and got what they deserved, and provided careers and lesser riches for tens of thousands of other people in the process. I know a few rich lawyers, and a bunch of idle rich who inherited money, but they’re inconsequential. An unavoidable side effect of a system that, in general, works well, and has produced the greatest advances in science, technology, and quality of life that humanity has ever experienced. I also know a number of people, some of which call themselves “progressive”, who are actually rather mediocre. They are lazy, and bad at their jobs, and yet they think that they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor merely by virtue of existing. And I can hardly resist my contempt when I meet these people in person and have to listen to them rail against “the rich”. > [@](#): > > I’d like to see the bottom rung of poverty for any individual be a room, enough food to eat, enough electricity to stay warm, and basic cable Internet so they can access the internet and learn things. And view porn, of course, as that may keep the number of sexual assaults down. Our present social safety net is a collection of tatters and rags. No health insurance, you go to the emergency room if you get really sick. No guarantees of having shelter or enough to eat. I’m REALLY surprised that robberies and violent crimes are so low in America. We are getting much better treatment from the poor than we deserve. Okay, now you’ve lost me. Subsidized cable internet and pornography for the destitute? Are you serious? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/314 "2012-04-19T22:40:06Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Okay, now you’ve lost me. Subsidized cable internet and pornography for the destitute? Are you serious? Sure. Well, not SPECIFICALLY pornography. Just don’t BLOCK porn, as I’m SURE the bluenoses would, if given half a chance. [Here’s why.](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html) Basically, Internet access goes up, rape goes down, across the board. Seems like it’s an excellent crime preventer. Add to that the greater access to job listings, ability to communicate with employers, etc., Internet access is a GREAT investment. And I strongly suspect it would promote social cohesion s well. Probably would not cost a hell of a lot. Hell, make those cable monopolies that are keeping us [just 26th in the world in terms of Internet access speeds](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm) pay for it. They have the money. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/315 "2012-04-19T22:56:16Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Sure. Well, not SPECIFICALLY pornography. Just don’t BLOCK porn, as I’m SURE the bluenoses would, if given half a chance. [Here’s why.](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html) Basically, Internet access goes up, rape goes down, across the board. Seems like it’s an excellent crime preventer. Add to that the greater access to job listings, ability to communicate with employers, etc., Internet access is a GREAT investment. And I strongly suspect it would promote social cohesion s well. Probably would not cost a hell of a lot. Hell, make those cable monopolies that are keeping us [just 26th in the world in terms of Internet access speeds](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm) pay for it. They have the money. Do we have to pay for a computer for them, too? Personally, if someone is such a loser that they A) Can’t find work to pay for their own porn, and B) Can’t resist raping someone without access to pornography, I don’t mind footing the tax bill to stick their ass in prison. I’m not going to hold out hope that buying them a computer and a cable modem is going to turn them into a productive member of society. I’m all for not letting people freeze and starve on the streets, but I don’t see any reason to subsidize their entertainment. Let them go the library if they need internet. On a separate note - I’ve seen that little statistic about the US’s average internet access speed a lot. It’s meaningless bullshit. The only real advantage of super-high-speed internet is fast download of high-definition video. All other internet traffic is orders of magnitude smaller in comparison. We’re not going to fall behind economically because people living in Bumfuck, Kansas can’t watch Netflix. A slow connection works just fine for actual productive uses of the internet - high speed just makes for better (or quicker) entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_the\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@Eric\_the\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eric_the_Green)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/316 "2012-04-20T00:17:31Z")
> [@XT](#): > > When you want to learn some stuff and then come back and debate I’m sure there will be plenty of 'dopers willing to do so. Honestly, I don’t see any benefit in continuing this except to make fun of you…and I generally stop feeling good about then when it’s clear that the person I’m discussing this stuff really, truly doesn’t get it, and probably never will. > > -XT Sorry, I already know all I would ever learn from you. Maybe others seem to have more luck with you; so be it. There was certainly nothing in this post to respond to. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/317 "2012-04-20T16:42:05Z")
> [@Eric\_the\_Green](#): > > Sorry, I already know all I would ever learn from you. Maybe others seem to have more luck with you; so be it. There was certainly nothing in this post to respond to. To bastardize John Keats: _Money is truth, truth money - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know._ Once you come to terms with that, you would be surprised how many things start to make sense. You don’t even need to abandon your moral or ethical conscience; you just rest it on the foundation of the marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/318 "2012-04-21T00:11:04Z")
[QUOTE=Eric the Green] Sorry, I already know all I would ever learn from you. Maybe others seem to have more luck with you; so be it. There was certainly nothing in this post to respond to. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry (for you) as well. You can lead a horse to water, but it’s more problematic to try and beat it to death midstream while trying to check it’s teeth to see if it’s a good gift. If the stream is really fast, you might not be able to change to a new horse either, and then where will you be?? Up the creek without a saddle… Ado. Hopefully you will find more fertile grounds in your next debate, since it seems no one really wants to play with you anymore here. -XT ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/319 "2012-04-21T10:00:39Z")
I agree strongly with OP that a stronger progressive movement is needed in America. I also agree with his detractors that OP showed much ignorance in the thread and, worse, unwillingness to learn. I’ve not followed the _Occupy Wall Street_ movement but Googling just now I find only [an unfocused call for revolution](http://occupywallst.org/article/September_Revolution/). Inchoate confusion may have been healthy early on, but OWS seems a failure if this is all they have by now. It’s easy to find a group of Americans who all agree major changes are needed. Less easy is to find any within such a group who agree on _which_ changes are needed! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/320 "2012-04-21T12:06:45Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Do we have to pay for a computer for them, too? > > Personally, if someone is such a loser that they A) Can’t find work to pay for their own porn, and B) Can’t resist raping someone without access to pornography, I don’t mind footing the tax bill to stick their ass in prison. I’m not going to hold out hope that buying them a computer and a cable modem is going to turn them into a productive member of society. I’m all for not letting people freeze and starve on the streets, but I don’t see any reason to subsidize their entertainment. Let them go the library if they need internet. So you’ve got all these young, healthy, unemployable people sitting in rooms with nothing to do, and you’re willing to subsidize their housing, their food, their clothing, but you think they should spend their time at the LIBRARY? You REALLY think that will HAPPEN? Here’s what I think will happen: they will hang out on the street and drink and take drugs a lot. Probably a lot would even if they had video games, a computer and Internet access. Hell, the Internet access and the computer are the SMARTEST elements of this plan! You wanna just have these kids hang about? Go watch “A Clockwork Orange.” There’s your kids if you don’t give them something to do. > [@](#): > > On a separate note - I’ve seen that little statistic about the US’s average internet access speed a lot. It’s meaningless bullshit. The only real advantage of super-high-speed internet is fast download of high-definition video. All other internet traffic is orders of magnitude smaller in comparison. We’re not going to fall behind economically because people living in Bumfuck, Kansas can’t watch Netflix. A slow connection works just fine for actual productive uses of the internet - high speed just makes for better (or quicker) entertainment. Not an essential part of my argument. But gotta be up to gaming speeds, at the very least. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444/321 "2012-04-21T20:35:39Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > So you’ve got all these young, healthy, unemployable people sitting in rooms with nothing to do, and you’re willing to subsidize their housing, their food, their clothing, but you think they should spend their time at the LIBRARY? You REALLY think that will HAPPEN? Here’s what I think will happen: they will hang out on the street and drink and take drugs a lot. Probably a lot would even if they had video games, a computer and Internet access. Hell, the Internet access and the computer are the SMARTEST elements of this plan! You wanna just have these kids hang about? Go watch “A Clockwork Orange.” There’s your kids if you don’t give them something to do. I’m not quite sure where they’d get the money for drugs and alcohol if they can’t afford the Internet - but in any case, yeah, you’re absolutely right. There’s no reason to provide a safety net, it will just sap them of their motivation and turn them into useless deadbeats. I had a moment of liberal weakness there. Fuck them if they can’t find a job, let them starve. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/we-really-need-a-new-progressive-movement-in-america/618444.md?page=17)