Comments on Don't Feed the Animals: Understanding Capitalism

Greenspan came out and said he blew it and that he...

2010-07-26T09:59:34.941-04:00

Greenspan came out and said he blew it and that he needed to enact more reg's... 40 years late there!

I have to agree with what the last guy said, altho...

2009-12-04T14:45:36.679-05:00

I have to agree with what the last guy said, although I found it ironic that the case he was making about your article is probably the same case I would make about his comment.

I do like what you've said, but how do you spread that to an American public that's supposedly educated and resourceful, and yet, blind to the realities of capitalism? I've always grown up thinking that the word capitalism did, indeed, represent democracy, the same way I thought chocolate and milk made a good mix, or (because I'm Asian) a meal without rice is not a meal. I came to Spain and realized that it seems the world is not in accordance.

A little lengthy to read and seems to my mind to m...

2009-10-29T20:56:22.492-04:00

A little lengthy to read and seems to my mind to miss the salient point alas. Which is, that the application of so much clear reason to the assessment of Capitalism and what it has come to mean, especially in the American psyche, has an audience which on the whole, is probably sufficiently erudite already, to have learned rather little by the reading. "Preaching to the converted" comes to mind.

On the other hand, the masses to whom such insights would be useful (for example the huge number of non-voters in the U.S.A.) will in my estimation either:

a) never read such a lengthy piece begin with, regardless of the fact that is in fact gently and well introduced as a rational unbiased exploration ... or,

b) detect at some stage that irrespective of this smooth introduction it is in fact a rabid left wing commie piece of propaganda and hence not hear its message with all psychological defense shields against propaganda in place.

That doesn't devalue the article any, it is a sensibly and well written piece, to my mind, but it does make all the more valuable to my mind, an exploration (first for readers of either category above) of both:

a) The merits of actually exploring our assumptions about what is good and right and why it's worth investing the time to read an essay of 3,200 words with an open mind ... that is making a convincing and enticing case that reading is worthwhile ...

b) The merits of doing so with an open mind, suspending judgment and with defense shields down, weighing up apparent merit of arguments and assessing one's own position not digging in to it. In short an exploration of this common human behavior of defending existing beliefs in preference to exploring their merits and the merits of other ideas.

This brings to mind a more general paradox of human behaviour I encounter regularly. Namely to confuse strength of conviction with immobility of conviction. As one staunch debater with an understanding of Occam and other basic scientific thinking said - I may hold my opinion firmly, but only until new information arrives.

Truth in the end has no face to save, and anyone seeking truth had best be prepared openly to lose face, and revise their position fluidly on the basis of incoming information.

I digress a little. My point is simply that these themes all belie ultimate utility of the article here. Namely that the most receptive audience is likely to learn nothing, and the audience most likely to benefit and learn something are unlikely to.

But it may well be, I confess a lack of exploration to date, that these themes are already explored in the blog. I just stumbled here and found this piece interesting. A nice article. In particular the references to the cheating experiments are useful (Predictably Irrational). Thanks.

Capitalism needs to be regulated, otherwise its dy...

2009-10-21T08:58:11.514-04:00

Capitalism needs to be regulated, otherwise its dynamics tends towards big all-powerful blobs that don't "eat" the small innovative new-comers. However I think many of your critics can be applied to large settlements of people. Dehumanization is a characteristic most commonly found on large cities, be them capitalist, socialist, feudal (as many cities in the past) or whatever.

I think the problem is that people grow complacient, while its true that large companies can influence or manipulate government, the only reason they can is because the rest of the people let them, after all, its the people who vote and who decides who gets to govern, but most people simply don't care enough to get involved and I don't think that has to do with capitalism at all but with humans as a whole.

By chance and what I would call luck I happened to...

2009-10-13T02:35:04.424-04:00

By chance and what I would call luck I happened to stumble by. The reading was fine indeed. Although I personally want to destroy the current order of society, ban currency and introduce intense Gazelle breeding in all villages, towns and cities with a mandate of mandatory return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle for all,... your ideas of "broad-sweeping measures" is also good.

Regards

JT