Fear of a Black President

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Really?
This painting sold for $135 million. Surely you realize that's a damn sight more than the Oil, silver, gold, wood and canvas that it was created from. How does this fit the "the total number of available resources on the planet divided by the population" theory you seem so confident in? The simple truth is; it doesn't. An idea can be even more valuable, despite being created from zero resources beyond the human mind. Don't believe me? Ask Larry Page and Sergey Brin. :wink:

(Read Smith before dismissing him, Cyclo. You're smarter than that.)

I've read Smith; I'm not dismissing him. I understand his argument and yours.

But what you talk about isn't really long-term wealth. It's assumed wealth. That painting sold for 135 million b/c somebody who had a very large slice of the resource pie decided to trade their resources for it; they desired it. That doesn't make it actually worth 135 million 'dollars' of resources such as food, or whatever.

Stubborn ignorance is unbecoming. That painting, when sold, was worth exactly 135 million dollars. The fella who sold it may very well have invested his money in more traditional assets. A farmer without money for seed may sell his paintings for seed money. The girl who cut's your hair creates $20 or so in value, simply by moving her scissors. You said money is wealth. If that is so; how can you then claim that services that generate money aren't creating wealth? Your anticipated answer that someone else traded their real money for the service (like the fella who bought the painting) isn't a rebuttal... it is the beginning of understanding your error. The more times money changes hands; the more people get to enjoy it. This is a fundamental truth and if you really read and/or understood Smith and/or my argument; you'd realize that by now.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I said; there has not been a society or currency which has not collapsed sooner or later. When the inevitable happens, assumed wealth vanishes; the second food runs short, or water becomes hard to get, you just try trading that painting for resources and see how much ya get

Assuming that the entire world's currency is going to collapse is a pretty ridiculous way to make a point. You may as well argue that humans are not long for this earth, because in earth-terms; we're not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wealth is relative; it will always be so; and the only thing we can do to change the total amount of wealth is advance scientific development, find more total resources or better ways to use them.

This is beyond idiotic. Science has nothing to do with art. Science has nothing to do with entertainment. Science is only one of many things that can create wealth. The only thing you said here that makes any sense at all is that wealth is relative... but what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Watch this pardox in your own reasoning: If the United States shares their existing science with the countries of Africa, for instance; Africans will be able to increase their own wealth simply by utilizing it. This would happen independent of the United States' resources, would it not? Stop arguing and start thinking.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

At the end of the day, your argument is grounded in social convention, whereas mine is grounded in physics; which do you think is longer lasting?

The two are not mutually exclusive... and this has been well known by every economist worth a nickel since at least 1776. :wink:

Well, no; but social convention changes, whereas physics, not so much.

And it can change very quickly as well. The entire world doesn't have to collapse for things to drastically lose their value; people are quite often trapped in troubled areas for various reasons, and the failure of their assumed wealth is a big problem.

I get your point, I just look at the situation from a different perspective, is all.

Cycloptichorn

Thank God you have not gone completely to the Dark Side!

(Poor Cyclo - He was beginning to think of you as a fellow traveller)

Thanks, dlowan.
There seems to be resistance here to the idea (a no-brainer, IMO) that yes, of course some folks are afraid of the idea of a black man serving as president - and not based on any highminded philosophical or ideological differences.

I think our track record shows as a country (the dearth of black CEOs, black professional head coaches in sport, even any officer position above 0-4 in the Army - an 'ahem' meritocracy) the proof of institutional discrimination against black men as a class of people. There is instance after instance of historical precedents of white people having mass doubt of the abilities of blacks to serve in certain capacities. To use a couple more military references, Blacks were kept from combat because the were labeleed too undisciplined and uncourageous; from piloting because they were considered incapable of mastering certain complicated concepts. The list is pretty exhaustive in many walks of life where blacks have been kept out of the 'driver's seat' for one bogus reason or another.

So I offer the proposal that there still exists a considerable bit of resistance to the idea that a black man can do or even comprehend the job of president - and there are naysayers to that? Smelly, I say...

'course not...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I love the 'total wealth is increasing' BS that Republicans spout. I really don't think it is. We get new products, and standard of living might rise across the board as science advances; but wealth is relative. It has no objective meaning other then as a measurement of the differences between people.

Cycloptichorn

Total wealth "is" increasing for the top 5 percent of the already wealthy. The middle class and the poor have been losing ground for the past seven years - thanks to Bush and his trickle down tax cuts for the wealthy. That McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent tells us that McCain doesn't understand the middle class or the poor's struggles to keep food on the table.

Thanks, dlowan.
There seems to be resistance here to the idea (a no-brainer, IMO) that yes, of course some folks are afraid of the idea of a black man serving as president - and not based on any highminded philosophical or ideological differences.

I think our track record shows as a country (the dearth of black CEOs, black professional head coaches in sport, even any officer position above 0-4 in the Army - an 'ahem' meritocracy) the proof of institutional discrimination against black men as a class of people. There is instance after instance of historical precedents of white people having mass doubt of the abilities of blacks to serve in certain capacities. To use a couple more military references, Blacks were kept from combat because the were labeleed too undisciplined and uncourageous; from piloting because they were considered incapable of mastering certain complicated concepts. The list is pretty exhaustive in many walks of life where blacks have been kept out of the 'driver's seat' for one bogus reason or another.

So I offer the proposal that there still exists a considerable bit of resistance to the idea that a black man can do or even comprehend the job of president - and there are naysayers to that? Smelly, I say...

According to Pentagon data, as of May:

• 5.6 percent of the 923 general officers or admirals were black.

• Eight blacks were three-star lieutenant generals or vice admirals.

• Seventeen were two-star major generals or rear admirals.

• Twenty-six were one-star brigadier generals or rear admirals.

• Three of the black one-stars were women.

My strong resistance to Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

snood wrote:

'course not...

Was I not clear enough for you?

H2O_MAN wrote:

My strong resistance to Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

snood wrote:

'course not...

Was I not clear enough for you?

Crystal. What seems to be your difficulty with my response?

What's your point? You've simply illustrated my point of the paucity of blacks in field officer ranks.

While the percentage of black recruits has grown during the past 60 years, it peaked at almost 26 percent in 1979. That year, they represented nearly four in 10 of all Army recruits and almost three in 10 for the Marines, both all-time highs for the services that see the most battlefield combat.

The Air Force and Navy, meanwhile, peaked in later years, with blacks accounting for roughly 20 percent of enlistees.

Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, the percentage of blacks coming into the Army has plunged from 22 percent to 13 percent. Also, the percentage of blacks in the military overall has dipped in the past 10 years, from more than 20 percent to 17 percent today.

I think it's an error in thinking Obama should be perched for a landslide--per Edgar and snood. This is (imo) more egocentric wishful thinking than an accurate deduction of the facts. If racism is the reason you cite for no landslide on the horizon, I think--once again--YOU are too focused on race.

There are plenty of reasons he's not perched on a landslide.

Geez.

I remind you that he is running a better campaign then McCain

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I remind you that he is running a better campaign then McCain

Really, how so?

H2O_MAN wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I remind you that he is running a better campaign then McCain

Really, how so?

In every respect.