Trickle down economics

He was saying that a woman has other roles in the society. Confucius was not arguing that woman are inferior, only that they are different: in the context of his society, it was best, in his opinion, to have women in roles other than ruling. That there is something more important for that unique sex to be doing.

Not to say I agree with him, but I do not think we can accurately think of Confucius as misogynistic.

He was saying that a woman has other roles in the society. Confucius was not arguing that woman are inferior, only that they are different: in the context of his society, it was best, in his opinion, to have women in roles other than ruling. That there is something more important for that unique sex to be doing.

Not to say I agree with him, but I do not think we can accurately think of Confucius as misogynistic.

Women have been struggling under the shadow of Confucianism for a long, long time. Maybe he was not misogynistic as you say. But, they have had to live their lives as though he was.

Based on the majority of primate species, females are not necessarily inferior, rather are typically more powerful in the overall workings of the culture, but have different functions in that they are biologically more important, rather than socially important. Generally, the former is far more important, but humans have devised ways to diminish this importance. Thus, Confucius seems to align himself with more natural ways of the power structuring of a species.

Oh,



I think that's exactly what he was going for. What works best, and what works best would be that which is most natural to mankind.

He believed in a division of labor, but placed the farmer at the top of the list. The farmer cast being the most important to any society.

To call Confucius laissez-faire seems remarkably misleading as he was not completely opposed to regulation. His was not based on some abstract ideal, but instead based on practical concerns. What works.

You paint a positive picture of Confucianism. I would not want to diminish or tarnish that picture. But, I just can't get this quote out of my head. "a woman ruler is like a hen crowing".

I beg to submit this list is from the Western Zhou kingdom, not Confucius.

Certainly everyone with half a brain then knew how important agriculture was (and is) in China. But I would say that Confucius & friends were less focused on agriculture than some of their peers. He sure didn't want any of his scholar-gentry to be involved in plowing the fields ... among their goals in life was to have a cushy gubbermint job and get out of back-breaking manual labor. Relatively speaking, he placed less importance on agriculture than others, which is not to say he thought it was a worthless activity.

I said the same thing and even gave an example: he was opposed to monopolies.

As I recall, Confucius drew a great deal of teaching from the religion in the Zhou kingdom, including the placement of the farmer at the top of his social hierarchy.

And I'm sure there were people more interested in agriculture than Confucius, but that doesn't change Confucius' perspective. As for the goal of getting a cushy government job: I'd have to disagree. Confucius had such a job once and only for a few months. The rest of the time he taught.

Right: which means Confucian economics could not be rightly called laissez-faire.

I never said Confucius was unemployed: instead, I pointed out that his goal was not to have a cushy government job, but that instead his goal was to teach.

I would not call Adam Smith a laissez-faire economist, despite his adoption by laissez-faire proponents. Noam Chomsky has talked about this. Sure, Smith was a fan of open markets and limited government, but not in the style of laissez-faire; Smith's view was that free markets and limited government are typically pragmatic, and that when conditions are such that regulation becomes pragmatic government should regulate as needed.

Ah, I see, but in that previous post, I was referring to his students.

I always thought that Reagans theory of trickle down economics made sense. After all, we need the wealthy to provide jobs for the middle and under class. So why shouldn't the government provide advantages for the large corporations . But, in the light of todays economic nightmare, maybe that theory provided an open checkbook for those who would take advantage of all the advantages they have been given. Like spending over a million dollars to remodel an office. Like anything else, nothing is as cut and dry as it seems. As long as greed and opulence exists, even the best ideas will be corrupted. Now, these fellas want to be bailed out by the government. I guess I would have to say that if they want to be bailed out, they need to agree to work for minimum wage for awhile so they can truly understand what their extravigant lifestyles have cost.

Ugh, please do not tarnish the East with Raygun's name like that



That is all I have to say

The problem with trickle down economics, if you look at the Reagan years, is that all the growth went into the upper and middle sectors, whereas people living in poverty actually had their real wages decline. It's also somewhat ironic that you appealed to the Reagan era as a contrast to our current one with attitudes on greed, given that the 80s is largely considered a decade of opulence, where one of the mottos was 'greed is good.'

I always thought that Reagans theory of trickle down economics made sense.