Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.
"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and their demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.
+1@traderjoy
I never get why people just assume that its the rich peoples fault. I agree that the difference in income is too wide, that they do too little to help their fellow man, and that minimum wage needs to be increased more consistently, but ive just never understood the poor.
Until last year my FAMILY'S adjusted gross income was between 11,000 - 14,000 a year (only for 3 years, im young). So dont tell me that i dont know about being poor. I have a family of 4 (including me). I have NEVER had food stamps, NEVER received unemployment, and have received no other form of help from the government other than tax returns and FAFSA. Some people do need those things but i bet its more around 50% of the people that do receive them.
traderjoy is right. when i was working at 7-11 i cant tell you how many people came in and bought food (mostly junk food really) with food stamps and then got into a car or truck that was nicer than one my parents drive...and they make $200,000(and no they didnt help me when i was poor).
The problem, at least on a personal level, is most definately credit card debt and just plain fiscal foolishness. People have no self control and are so damn impatient that they spend themselves into holes. I guess you could say that im poor still (30,000 last year) but all the nice things that i have i saved for over months and months just like in old times. I have ZERO credit cards and drive a 12 year old car with 200,000 miles.
there are plenty of things we could change in washington to help, but truthfully i dont think either party will solve our problems. Im a conservative, and i think that the Bush tax cuts are great. You cant deny that the tax cuts have brought unprecedented revenue to the govenment. But.. yes i said but... I will agree that bush has squandered all that and more on the war. But on the flip side If the democrats get into office they MIGHT stop the war, but they will increase taxes effectively reducing revenue and then spend probably 75% of what we are now which will put us in the same boat.
I could go on for a long time about all of this but it really doesnt make a difference. The problem with conservatism is that no one wants to be responsible for themselves and their actions anymore, and the problem with liberalism is that they want to be the overprotective parent and shelter you from all the harms they possibly can and then leave you a scarred sheltered person who depends on mommy for everything.
anyways my post was way longer than i thought need to wake early so if you desperately need to rebuke me or tell me off (or agree with me secretly where no one can see) email me at
salon00@yahoo.com its my first time here and i dont know if ill check the site again.
Thanks for asking for a clarification (and a few other things) instead of just knocking out a knee-jerk response. That was refreshing. I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability and hopefully you'll find it when you get up. Also, I apologize for seeming to condescend. That wasn't my intention.
What I meant by my "Fire!"-in-a-crowded-theater comments was precisely that Leonard had not presented his observations that way, but it did strike me that the first bunch of respondents seemed to be reacting as though someone had done just that. The guy (Leonard,I mean) wrote a thoughtful, intelligent piece on his cogitations regarding what has become ever more possible over the past 25 years and the immediate responses, up til mine posted, seemed to be an almost universal wailing, moaning and gnashing of teeth, as though someone had already struck The Gong. I was trying to point out that while Mr. Leonard had been pretty clear that his article was speculation, it is only that, and that there is certainly opportunity to avoid the Upright Spike of 2009 (just as we did "The Upright Spike of 1979", a book written by a pre-Reagan economic panic-monger, which will no longer even bring up a single Google result). I agree that Leonard's article is well-thought out and his conclusions are pretty sound. It was the almost universal death rattle it seemed to elicit which set me off.
Now then. As for my fiscal conservatism, please bear in mind I am not a neoconservative -- in fact, while I consider myself a conservative socially also, I recognize that it won't fit a contemporary reading of that definition. I identify more with social conservatives such as Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs. I am very much my father's son, so fiscally I take "conservation" very literally. I believe in paying as one goes as much as is practical, of saving -- money as well as natural resources -- and basically my attitude toward government spending would be analogous to the difference between the discovery of a termite infestation in one's house vs. waking up to discover the house is on fire. In the former situation one would curse quietly, then place calls to two or more reputable exterminators, get their estimates (as well as repair estimates), weigh all the pros and cons (the house won't collapse over night), then make a considered choice of contractors and give the green light. Hopefully one would have set aside something for a disaster fund that would help cover the cost.
If the place is on fire, one hopes the fire department, once called, will respond promptly and will have trained well and often and will be able to minimize the damage, save any lives and as much property as possible. Needless to say, even with an all-volunteer force, such a response would also depend upon having set aside some funds to keep the force in good shape, but when imminent loss is likely, one is less likely to weigh all the costs before dialing 9-1-1.
I have no sympathy for the print-more-money faction which would bail out the poker players who got us into the current crisis, no more than I have for those who took us into this trillion dollar war of attrition in which we're mired. Both contribute to the financial crisis. I'm quite prepared for an intelligent and fact-based new government to revalue the dollar, print new currency, re-establish a precious metal standard so that money is actually worth something, and to encourage people to save, not spend; I don't feel it is our responsibility to save the big corporations from themselves. Charity begins at home. We need to learn to live within our means, pay for what we can afford, get past our "He who dies with the most toys wins" outlook, and in general apply the wisdom of those who lived through the Great Depression. That's what makes me fiscally conservative. I've learned over time to require less, rely on the best quality goods I can afford, and to remember always that I can never "save" any money by spending money. When it's spent it's not saved, so it ought to be invested in durable, quality goods.
I believe in cooperative, self-sufficient communities of work. Fromm called it "Communitarian socialism." You can't use terms with the "S-word" in them around most Republicans, so I've tried coming up with alternative names for it. I believe the "Pineys" of the south New Jersey pine barrens are probably better at this than most urbanites across the swamp (and no, I don't live in south Jersey, but just outside Washington, DC).
I don't live in a plywood shack like the greybeard loon I'm making myself sound like, either. But by keeping things simple I manage to make ends meet even though at present I am (hopefully temporarily) unable to work due to a mysterious neurological problem. I am virtually debt free yet live comfortably on a little more than $30,000 per year. If the bottom falls out from under that I'll be in good company, but it won't be because I felt I really needed a McMansion to validate my self worth. OK, that may have sounded condescending. Sorry.
I'm that kind of fiscal conservative. I really do believe a lot of the old bromides our parents (or grandparents -- my god, I grow old!) have repeated to us, and they have served me remarkably well. As I said in my initial post, my parents had nothing to lose when the Depression rolled around. They'd already learned to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. They did fine. We can all learn to simplify and, at the same time, break the back of the corporate robber barons. They need us. We don't need them.
I hope that clarifies my earlier, rambling screed. Thanks for asking!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
