Letters to the Editor
Aycharaych
Published Letters: 2103 Editor's Choice: 3
-
RMP
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When oil revenues surge, he writes, democracy declines.
I suspect that is true with any single product type of economy, a single source of income is more easily turned into a monopoly which is by definition anti-democratic. Does the term "banana republic" ring a bell?
It is much harder to monopolize a diversified economy which leads to an environment more conducive to democracy.
Thus I think that it is not oil per se that destroys democracy but an economy that lack diversification.
-
greed
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“If someone sets out to amass wealth with the sole purpose of making others feel bad then they are indeed greedy. If they set out to amass wealth simply because they want the wealth then the psychological harm is incidental and not deliberate.”
The amassing of wealth is not incidental. It is deliberate. X knows Y will be harmed, and does so deliberately. You seem to be confusing incidental and accidental. By this reasoning, X is never greedy as long as X amasses wealth ‘simply because they want’ it, no matter how much wealth or how much harm accrues to others, as long as X is motivated by the desire for riches rather than the desire to harm others.
It is the *manner* in which the wealth is accumulated that makes one greedy or not. It's not the amassing of wealth that counts, it is whether or not the harm caused is deliberate or incidental.
“Z does not set out to harm X, he sets out to make a profit, the harm is not caused deliberately.”
False. Z deliberately harms X in order to make a profit. Harming X is not Z’s purpose, but rather a necessary step. But no where in your definition ‘motivated by the desire to harm’ part of the criteria. Z deliberately harms X in order to enrich himself.
Not necessarily, Z may well have and indeed probably has no way of knowing whether X has other customers or whether X can meet or beat his price. Z sets out to make money, not knowingly and deliberately cause harm to X.
Here, again, you seem to be saying being motivated by the desire to harm others is part of the definition of greed, when your original definition had the motivation as acting “in order to enrichen oneself.”
The harm caused by driving the car is not an accident. X knows he will cause it, but drives anyway in order to enrich himself. This meets your original criteria.
OK then the driver is greedy by my definition.
Do you have a problem with that?
-
RMP
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would you deny that our oil corporation revenues have surged since 2000 and our democracy has declined? Was not the Iraq war more about oil than anything else? Is not our diverse economy in decline and aren’t almost a trillion dollars not available to help that decline because of that war?
I never claimed otherwise.
What you say really has no bearing on my point. Indeed, you reinforce my point by saying that our diverse economy is in decline. It is the decline in diversity that has lead to the lessening of democracy, not oil per se.
The corporate big crunch is continuing and the singularity is in sight. Vertical and horizontal integration continue apace, AT&T just bought BellSouth. The breakup of AT&T has almost undone itself.
This is in direct relation to the FISA thread we all were on the other day.. If telcos were more diverse it would be considerably harder for the government to convince all of them to do its illegal bidding. As it stands there are only a very few giant corporations that the government has to convince, a situation which makes for a more ready abuse of power.
It is monopolies that are bad for democracy and as I already pointed out, oil is a commodity that readily lends itself to monopolies.
-
I keep thinking it's going to be Romney. Especially if it has to be brokered.
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The religiously motivated right wing are going to have a hard time swallowing Romney. A great many of them think of Mormonism as a cult and you can rest assured that one way or another the weirder aspects of Mormonism (and there are a few) are going to be emphasized by someone.
Without the religious right there is no Republican coalition worthy of the name.
But then we are playing the pundit's own game and trying to predict what the voters will do..
-
tales of unrest
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Greed, like hypocrisy, is not an all or nothing thing, there are an infinite number of gradations.
Everyone is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser extent and everyone is greedy to a greater or lesser extent.
It's part of the human condition, hate, envy, jealousy, vanity, greed, hypocrisy.. None of us are completely free from any of those conditions.
-
talesofunrest
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If X knows harm will result from the manner in which he amasses wealth, and deliberately acts to amass wealth regardless, is the resulting harm ‘deliberate’ or ‘incidental?'
Deliberate of course, and the key is the *manner* in which the wealth is accumulated.
Just the mere fact that accumulating wealth will incidentally cause jealousy among others, even if you know that, is not sufficient to invoke my definition of greed.
However, if you knowingly and *deliberately* cause harm to others without their uncoerced consent to amass wealth then you are indeed greedy.
-
Anonymust
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree, but if they can't determine the nominee during the primary process, and it has to be brokered, they won't get to decide; the corporatists will. And they won't want either McCain or Huckabee.
The corporatarchy has Clinton and Obama in reserve so they'll probably let the Republican nominee be a weak one..
Look at it that way and Romney might be it.
-
talesofunrest
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am just not convinced that your definition is able to draw meaningful distinctions between people.
It's the degree of harm and the level of knowledge and deliberateness of the harm that draws the distinction.
Dick Ctheny: Wraps the greedometer needle around the post..
Jimmy Carter: Not so much.