So, we are not to take him at his word when he says:
My fellow liberal elitists are more dependent on other people.
Or is he a “good” elitist, and I a “bad” one? Or he is an “elitist” but does not use “elitist” terms?
Frankly, I’m a little weary of this demonization of “elitism.” I think someone on the Daily show said the Navy Seals are considered the military elite. Is that a bad thing? Who do we want directing social policy - the least academically talented?
In no way did I intend to say that less academically talented people are worth less as human beings. Or that they do not contribute meaningfully to society. If you think I said such things, please point them out.
But IMO, in just about any possible arena of competition short of armed conflict, the wealthy intellectuals will generally structure the game such that they enjoy the less gifted for lunch. What do you think would happen to the standard of living of low- and unskilled workers in a completely open and unregulated capitalist economy?
So the interest in perhaps ensuring that the “system” permits the “less gifted” a decent quality of life somehow makes one a bad person? I don’t get it.
*By “academically talented” I am referring to skills in logic, rational thinking, math, and communication. I intend no disrespect towards those who are gifted in other areas - or none.
One more thing. There are people who aren’t interested in learning something that might earn them more money. Some people are perfectly content doing the lower-end jobs. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid. They might welcome the low stress. They might feel intimidated by a higher expectation or the pressure that goes with competing on a higher social rung. Maybe they’re simply not ambitious enough to move up, but can still hold an intelligent conversation and read the daily papers and walk upright and everything! I have a friend who works at Blockbuster for the simple reason that they don’t drug test and she doesn’t want to quit smoking pot. She could do better financially, but it’s not a trade-off she’s willing to make. Make of it what you will, but it’s her decision.
The more I think about the title of this thread, the more unfair and intolerant it sounds.
The funny thing about the old “widget” thing is that it doesn’t seem to take into account how things work in the real world of competition. In the real world, a color TV set cost $299 in 1965, which was $2730.93 in 2008 dollars. You can get a 2008 color TV that will out-perform that one in every way for much less than the original, non-constant price. In the real world, few American are so poor that they don’t have this particular “luxury widget”, provided via the constant downward price pressure of competition and automation. In the real world, Bob contacts a Chinese manufacturer that he met at a trade show who can deliver several containers full of his widgets for far less than he would spend to ramp up production in the US (while, at the same time, making their own label version of the widget, ensuring constant downward price pressure). Bob sells many hundreds of times as many widgets, at lower prices, and all the poor people have widgets.
Few economic theories survive close real world comparisons. The experimental data of reality seems to contradict the widget theory.
If all the people have all the widgets they need, then why do they need a check? Why are so many people putting widgets on credit cards, or taking out mortgages they can’t afford to buy widgets?
Back when I took econ it was called the? marginal propensity to consume". Playing with the price to find at what level you would maximize profits . Raise them you make more per item but total profit intake would go down. You have to be smart enough to figure out where the proper point is.
Thanks! “Marginal propensity to consume.” Now I have the proper vocabulary for it, so I won’t have to go through wasting all our time with all that again!
Never took Econ; probably won’t in Nursing school, either!
I didn’t say that, and you’re welcome to show me where I did. I said “poor people have widgets”. I didn’t say they have every widget they desire.
Automated manufacturing and off-shoring has significantly raised the standard of living for the destitute and “working poor”. I never said anything about credit cards, and I’m opposed to buying things you can’t afford in general (I have no credit cards, and no debt), but it’s not as if a massive credit debt load is something unique to the poor. It seems to be part of being an American.
Housing has been, for the most part, something that is outside of the world of automation and off-shoring. Houses are either existing stock, or bespoke. For some reason Americans are very resistant to allowing housing to achieve the same economies of scale as every other item in the consumer world. But economic pressure will eventually tip the scale and high quality factory produced housing (i.e. NOT trailer homes) will eventually become common.
But this is a hijack. Perhaps this should be continued in a different thread?
