Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jan 07, 2016, 2:52 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #236

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're wrong at least 3 times in a single post. No. > Roundup doesn't contaminate plant products, because it's applied when the plant is still tiny. Monsanto successfully lobbies EPA to raise levels of glyphosate allowed in food: https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-epa-483/ Can you explain why they would bother to do that if it doesn't end up in food? > It does, however, contaminate rivers. It does a…

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad I have more arguments against Monstanto now. Reading the Monsanto vs Schmeiser case, however, it seems pretty clear that Schmeiser infringed the patent (he intentionally used it without having the legal right to do so); we can argue (and probably agree) whether patenting of genes should be allowed or not, but assuming the patent is valid, Monstanto had morally won the case.

> assuming the patent is valid, Monstanto had morally won the case.

That was my point. The process is designed so that any case where that is not the predictable outcome will be settled and put under NDA so nobody can know about it. The process that results in that consequence is the despicable act, and is what causes the intimidation, because it allows them to claim having won every case etc.

Post by igravious » Sun, Jan 10, 2016, 3:05 PM UTC

MrTonyD wrote: post #14

rayiner wrote: post #10

Mr. Garret quotes Sanders: > The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. I am rather puzzled that this idea gets so much traction. Does anyone really believe that if only the rules weren't "rigged" local shops and businesses would be able to compete against Wal-Mart a…

It took me years to realize that economics isn't physics - and it isn't ruled by physics-like laws. Instead, economics is governed by laws created by our society. And what we think of as "free market" is really just norms of trade which are created by our society. There is no reason why the bulk of the billions taken-in by WalMart should go to the Walton family while their employees live on food-stamps - that is just…

I know this was a week ago you wrote this but I only today came across this essay by Georg Henrik von Wright called "Humanism and the Humanities" that I think is apt.

In §13 he says (and I'm going to quote the thing in full),

I shall now advance a thesis which I am sure many will find controversial but which I think is true and, moreover, crucial for understanding the methodological status of the humanities and the relation of the humanities to the sciences of nature. The thesis goes as follows: Just as natural, i.e. non-intentional phenomena are 'governed' by natural laws, i.e. principles which tell us either what will invariably or in statistical average be the case under in principle recurrent and repeatable circumstances, in an analogous manner intentional phenomena are 'governed' by normative rules which tell us what people under given circumstances are (or were) expected or allowed or practically necessitated to do. I am, in other words, pleading for what might be called a 'methodological parallelism' between natural laws on the one hand and laws and other societal rules on the other hand. I am inviting you to see the difference between the humanities and the natural sciences in the light of the difference between the factual and the normative, between rules which state how things in fact go and rules which ordain how they should go according to the conceptions of those who instituted the rules.

Make of that what you will :)

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom

Re: Income inequality is not the problem, it's a symptom