Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
This debate between the powers of the state versus the individual is nothing new and demands a nuanced response. It is in fact as old as the ancient Greeks, see Antigone.
@Ted And they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to both Kissinger whom the left considers a war criminal and Obama whom the right believes is the devil. Your point? Your thinking Will is the most powerful journalist in America because he won a Pullitzer does not impress or intimidate me. And by the way, according to at least one source, Sean Hannity is the most influential "journalist" in America: https://mediaite.com/online/mediaites-most-influential-in-news-media-2018/8/ He doesn't impress me either.
I like uncle George--- sometimes. I giggled at the title of the thread, because today, it clearly looks to me that individualism is rampant. "Smart-phones" can do anything at all for you, RIGHT NOW, whenever any INDIVIDUAL deems it necessary to look at or to do ... ANYTHING. Consumerism is the order of the day. Have it your way. Have it your way, RIGHT THIS SECOND! The perhaps most common, and ridiculous, example is the guy or lady in the store, phoning home about straws or plastic plates or colored napkins: "honey, do you want pink or blue or red or checkered, or plain white or black or plaid?" (Um..... who gives a shit???!!!) ... Advertising and marketing is framed so that everything is all about how much you can afford, rather than what is prudent or wise or smart. Get as many INDIVIDUALS as possible to become convinced that they absolutely gotta have the tricked-out pickup truck with the gun rack and military grade fish finder for those times when you take the truck in the water, the way James Bond did it. ...You want a pizza at 4:00 p.m. delivered to the corner of State and Main in Peoria? Sure. What do you want on it? An individual can't stand feeling bored for 3 minutes, walking across campus, so they call someone to waste the time it takes to get from Point A to Point B. And on and on. I, I, I. Me, me, me.
@ Crash; Can you tell me honestly that you haven't called home to ask the other half a question as to what she wants you to purchase ? Other than that I would agree 100 % Have you had a chance to wet a line ? I may try my luck tomorrow .
Hey, @Derf.... No, never have called wifey from the store. I've drowned some worms. Caught two big white suckers earlier in May. Nice fight with each of them. They're back in the lake. I was out this week on a breezy, chilly day. Came up with nothing. The State of Connecticut has posted that they've stocked 200 catfish into the pond. The brown trout ought to still be in there... Caught none of those yet, either. Nothing's biting yet. Water's very high this Spring. The whole Spring has been wet and cool. Sometimes chilly at night. Looks like we'll jump right into summer from winter again.
"The most powerful journalist in America?" George Will???
If it wasn't so déclassé to say "LOL" I'd have to tell you that I'm laughing out loud. So who awarded him that distinction? Maybe the same guy who assigns "tiers" here on MFO?
That's using a narrow definition of journalist. Forget "influential", Will made the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute's (NYU) nominee list for the 100 outstanding journalists in the United States of the past century (as of 2012).
He did not, however, make it to the final 100, which included such people as Gary Trudeau and Herblock, Art Buchwald, Russell Baker, and William F. Buckley. Of course the list included people like Carl Bernstein and Tom Brokaw and Ernie Pyle and Weegee. But the field of journalism is (or can be viewed as) larger than their types of reporting.
It may be true that Will is paid for appealing to like minded readers. At his best, though, he challenges the notions of his readers who are not like minded.
Giving an opinion about the future is dangerous stuff. Forecasting the future can get us into a ton of trouble. However, we do it all the time when making an investment decision. Many of us have little talent in that arena, but exceptions do exist. A small group of forecasters have excellent but imperfect records. Here is a Link to an article that does a nice, honest job on this critical issue:
So thinking a little deeper in terms of probabilities contributes to better forecasting. That's not easy to do, but practice that enhances that attribute is possible. I just read a couple of books that explored the subject. They are: Superforecasting, The Art and Science of Prediction by Tetlock and Gardner, and, Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman.
Please give them a try. They are good and fast reads. They just might even help your prediction skills and improve your investment returns. Then again, they might not. Making predictions is indeed dangerous stuff.
Will's thinking seems to be another expression of the blue/red state, urban/rural split. Having lived a few decades in each setting, my left foot is firmly set on one side of the divide and my right foot on the other. What my mind is thinking usually juggles between the two. It's important for Will's viewpoint to get spotlighted sometimes to help keep my left foot from getting too much control....
Yeah - A lot of right wing doctrine in there that overlooks the elephant in the room - that being the wide and growing gulf between the haves and have nots in this country. Perhaps understandable if at the same time reprehensible. We all, I think, apply our own filter to the things we observe and come away with different conclusions.
What I find remarkable is that Will, who is certainly an articulate spokesman for the right, along with a couple others of similar persuasive ability and stripe, Peggy Noonan and Bill Crystal, are out there railing against the current incumbent Prez and titular head of their party.
Today's edition of a daily email from TheBulwark provides a simple and amusing explanation:
George Will has a new book about conservatism… and Donald Trump’s name does not appear once. Yesterday, he explained why:
"You may notice that in my book the name Donald Trump doesn’t appear. … Neither does the name of Charlemagne or Doris Day or Humphrey Bogart. None of them have anything to do with conservatism."
Today's edition of a daily email from TheBulwark provides a simple and amusing explanation:
George Will has a new book about conservatism… and Donald Trump’s name does not appear once. Yesterday, he explained why:
"You may notice that in my book the name Donald Trump doesn’t appear. … Neither does the name of Charlemagne or Doris Day or Humphrey Bogart. None of them have anything to do with conservatism."
"You may notice that in my book the name Donald Trump doesn’t appear. … Neither does the name of Charlemagne or Doris Day or Humphrey Bogart. None of them have anything to do with conservatism."
But of course that is really a convenient fiction for a conservative intellectual. Trump's hyper-xenophobic racist sexist persona is just an exaggerated case of a necessary means to a conservative end--an end Will has long celebrated--in the GOP. The only way to get poor whites to vote against their own economic interests and erode the social welfare programs they desperately need but wealthy conservatives ultimately want to eliminate to keep taxes low is to stoke the very racial xenophobic animosity in them that Trump does to the extreme. It's just that in the past such racial tropes like Reagan's "welfare queen" were not as constant as they are now from this president. But Trump's behavior has a long history in the GOP. Will should own Trump's ideology as the expedient tool used to get what he wants. Those tax breaks for the 1% can't happen without the hate.
And there it is--the words "true Americans"--implying that some people who live here, perhaps those with different faces, ethnicities, genders or political ideologies from your own aren't. Oh, that is great code, among the oldest.
I like G. Will the most with regard to the fact that he's a sooper-dooper baseball fan like myself. And my hat is off to him for having raised a child with some sort of handicap. That takes big balls. I've read his defense of the Electoral College. It doesn't hold water in the 21st century--- nor in the 20th, when he wrote the essay. How about one person, one vote?. JEEZ.
Comments
Here also is an excerpt from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Madison:
let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl41.php This debate between the powers of the state versus the individual is nothing new and demands a nuanced response. It is in fact as old as the ancient Greeks, see Antigone.
Regards,
Ted
I suspect the world would be a vastly different and poorer place without this list of imaginative folks who contributed just a little:
https://www.biographyonline.net/people/inspirational/positive-contribution.html
We each in our own way make things happen, mostly for the good.
Best Wishes
Other than that I would agree 100 %
Have you had a chance to wet a line ? I may try my luck tomorrow .
Have a good weekend, Derf
Mine were much bigger than this guy:
http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/Species and Habitats/Species Guide Index/Images/whitesucker.jpg
If it wasn't so déclassé to say "LOL" I'd have to tell you that I'm laughing out loud. So who awarded him that distinction? Maybe the same guy who assigns "tiers" here on MFO?
He did not, however, make it to the final 100, which included such people as Gary Trudeau and Herblock, Art Buchwald, Russell Baker, and William F. Buckley. Of course the list included people like Carl Bernstein and Tom Brokaw and Ernie Pyle and Weegee. But the field of journalism is (or can be viewed as) larger than their types of reporting.
It may be true that Will is paid for appealing to like minded readers. At his best, though, he challenges the notions of his readers who are not like minded.
Giving an opinion about the future is dangerous stuff. Forecasting the future can get us into a ton of trouble. However, we do it all the time when making an investment decision. Many of us have little talent in that arena, but exceptions do exist. A small group of forecasters have excellent but imperfect records. Here is a Link to an article that does a nice, honest job on this critical issue:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/04/how-to-predict-the-future-better-than-everybody-else/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6b9bb2a399f5
So thinking a little deeper in terms of probabilities contributes to better forecasting. That's not easy to do, but practice that enhances that attribute is possible. I just read a couple of books that explored the subject. They are: Superforecasting, The Art and Science of Prediction by Tetlock and Gardner, and, Thinking Fast and Slow by Kahneman.
Please give them a try. They are good and fast reads. They just might even help your prediction skills and improve your investment returns. Then again, they might not. Making predictions is indeed dangerous stuff.
Best Regards
What I find remarkable is that Will, who is certainly an articulate spokesman for the right, along with a couple others of similar persuasive ability and stripe, Peggy Noonan and Bill Crystal, are out there railing against the current incumbent Prez and titular head of their party.
Most interesting and revealing I think.
Today's edition of a daily email from TheBulwark provides a simple and amusing explanation:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Sensibility-George-F-Will/dp/0316480932/ref=sr_1_1?keywords="The+Conservative+Sensibility"&qid=1559675901&s=gateway&sr=8-1