I watched it. It upsets me. It referred to people as employable assets, basically, which makes me want to vomit. If what she is saying is true, we could end homelessness for everyone willing or unable to work, snappity snap—cut tape on income based housing and employ folks who will live in it. We won’t, because it would cripple whole industries, amiright? Same reason we don’t end elective abortion & redirect funds to adoption, etc. Political will is right… we need it, and it is lacking.
I agree! And it very-well may be true. Suggest you read the last couple of [rather brief and concise] chapters of her book on this subject. The evidence to back up what she says is found there. Scroll down this page at this link:
amazon.com/Deficit-Myth-Mon … =4&depth=1
Economics, as a discipline, needs to be more human and remember why we work our assets off.
Please allow me to rephrase/add to the above:
If what Stephanie Kelton of “Modern Monetary Theory” says is true, we could stop taxing people and end all debt right now, government and household, because if we can digitally mint money whenever we need it and never pay it back, the question is more about what we make happen with non-monetary resources:
ted.com/talks/stephanie_kel … t_deficits Please kindly disregard her referring to human beings as employable resources at 12:05. Also please disregard that her whole plan would crumble if the banks weren’t “too big to fail”. So much for canceling everyone’s debt and ending taxation and slavery.
Yes. That’s a good point you make. Pareto, an economist, argued that we spend our time, energy and attention on what we value highest; so see what we do, or with what we get involved, and you will know - he claimed - what we really care about.
Some folks misunderstand, and jump to conclusions. Dr. Kelton did speak about the dangers that could result if the government officials were not careful, not fully aware. She is only talking about monetary policy, not about ethics. She is likely in favor of the govt. being the ‘employer of last resort’ - which was a policy of FDR when he created the CCC to do conservation work and get paid for it.
When there is high employment her “spending” ideas are less relevant. Today, more than several large corporations announced major layoffs.
George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney, spent trillions on the Iraq War; kept it entirely off the books; it was not counted as adding to the deficit. But when an opposing Party comes in, listen to the hollering about how awful the deficit is!!
Kelton is saying: if you’re going to spend, then spend it on something useful …not something destructive. War is organized mass-murder in the name of a noble cause. It is chaos.
Let’s avoid it. Let’s find some other way to settle problems.
Banks are the ones who “print money” when they put on their books a loan they just made as an asset, not a liability. They do this all the time. Someone has just gone into debt, and they consider it a positive!
We ought to really understand Modern Monetary Theory before we criticize it. Let’s study up on what it is actually proposing. Okay?
Isn’t that what I said?
You just said that “X is a good ball” means “X is a ball”. My objection is that the two statements mean two different things. “X is a good ball” does not mean “X matches the definition of the word ball”. That’s what “X is a ball” means. “X is a good ball” means “X matches the definition of the word ball AND it also happens to be good i.e. it possess certain characteristics that are of value, i.e. that are useful, to someone”.
Yes, Magnus, very good! For a ball, to speak of it as “useful” is appropriate; yet for aan individual, having consciousness, and a personality, how useful he or she is may be a characteristic, but it is not a defining characteristic.
If one hasread and absorbed The Structure of Ethics one may have achieved moral clarity and knows that the appropriate valuation in this case is the Intrinsic dimension (on the values spectrum.)
The number of attributes from this viewpoint is aleph-one, [which many mathematicians believe] is the power of the continuum. There are good reasons for this value-measurement spelled out in Dr. Hartman’s book, his magnum opus, titled The Structure of Value, (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1967.) I make an attempt to present in simple language his profound argument in the booklet
wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ … Course.pdf
[size=58]See especially pp. 7-17…[/size]
Please let us know, after a perusal, what are your impressions or reflections. Was it helpful? Was something learned?
I think you have ignored my objection.
“X is a good ball” does not mean “X meets the definition of the word ball”. That’s what “X is a ball” means. “X is a good ball” means something more than that.
I have not ignored what you wrote.
A concept is comprised of a name (label, designator); a meaning; and an application (example, case, specific instance.) The meaning consists of not only a definition but also a description, a connotation, atmospherics. For purposes of logical analysis the meaning is a set of attributes [which are names of properties.]
If this specific ball (or anything, any item or entity) has properties that are in a one-to-one correspondence with the attributes, then it is valuable, it has some value. If it completely matches its description, we say it is “good.” If it has a few extra properties we did not even expect, we may declare it as “excellent” or “outstanding.” If it has so many features or qualities that we can’t even enumerate them - an uncountable number - we call it “unique” or “priceless” or “a treasure of value” …then we are Intrinsically-valuing it.
If it has a countable number of properties, we in practice break off the counting at some point and treat it as a finite amount: if it has less than all, we speak of it as fair, okay, pretty good, not bad, etc. If only half correspond, we call it mediocre, average, so-so, passable, etc. If less than half are considered to be present, then we might refer to the thing as: bad. If one of the definitional properties is missing, we say of it: it’s lousy, terrible, no good, awful, rotten, and by many other derogatory designations.
…Hope this helps. Read the literature recommended…
Since this is a forum on Society, Government and Economics, I refer all to this video of a Seattle Town Hall talk where Dr. Kelton speaks very clearly and plainly on the topic of Economics, as she explains and debunks some of the myths about deficit “spending.”
Check this out! - youtube.com/watch?v=a9pAPIUYXxQ
Well-worth viewing, wasn’t it… 
You said that “This is a good ball” means “x is a ball”, right? I take it that you’re using “this” and “x” interchangeably. That said, what you’re saying is “X is a good ball” means “X is a ball”. In other words, you’re saying that the word “good” adds nothing new to the concept “ball”. At best, it is emphasizing certain aspects of it; at worst, it is adding redundancy.
My position is that the word “good” specifies something that is NOT contained within the word “ball”. If something is a ball, it is not necessarily a good one. If it’s a torn one, for example, it’s a bad ball. It’s still a ball, it still matches the definition of the word “ball” and does so fully, it’s merely not a useful one; you can’t play football with it.
Something is X if and only if it meets the definition of X. If it does not meet it, it’s not X. For example, humans don’t meet the definition of the word “dragon”, and so, they aren’t dragons. That does not mean they are bad dragons. It means they are not dragons at all. In order for something to be a bad ( or a good ) dragon, it must first be a dragon. And humans aren’t dragons, so they are neither good nor bad dragons.
When we say “X is Y” we mean “X fully matches the definition of Y”. We don’t mean something like “X matches between 50% and 100% of the definition of Y”. We do sometimes use the term that way but it’s not the main way we use it. And even if we do use it that way, the word “good” is never used to indicate exactness or 100% match. As an example, when we say that something is a good ball, we’re not using the word “good” to indicate that it fully matches the definition of the word “ball”. We are actually going beyond the concept of ball and adding something that isn’t contained within it; namely, that the ball is a useful one. It means you can play with it and have fun. Those aren’t contained within the concept of ball.
The word “good” has to do with value and value has to do with utility. And that applies to sentience as much as it applies to non-sentience.
No. And not exactly.
With regard to your first sentence quoted, it would help greatly to re-read, and follow thru on, the earlier posts on the topic. Mea culpa, though. In the first sentence of the first post in this thread I should have used the word “description” instead of the word “definition.”
Let us be careful not to confuse the “is” of identity with the “is” of class-membership; it is the latter I am talking bout when I attempt (poorly, I guess) to explain Dr. Hartman’s definition of “x epsilon C” where C is the class concept of which x is a specific instance. For example, a ball, or a government, has a lot more attributes than its mere, bare-bones definition.
Every concept only has a definition but also it has an exposition: both of which make up, comprise, its description.
[This is covered in some detail in ‘ETHICS: A College Course’ document - but I take it you don’t want to do any outside reading. I have weak eyes; and I respect that may be the case for others.] I did not in the o.p. even give a dictionary-sort of definition of government; the careful reader would note that I said that when my Ethics Theory intersects with Political Theory this is what one could get …or at least, I get.
In re the second point quoted above: Yes, utility is a value, but so is finding a bargain while shopping, or witnessing a young child successfully land after coming down a slide at a playground. Utility is only one kind of value. There are a myriad of other kinds.
Furthermore “x is a C” is only one-third of the requirement for x to be good as a C. x’s descriptive features have to be in correspondence (match, one to one) with the properties of this specific x. If they completely do, we are liable to, are prone to, speak of x as "good
It is good under that name; not good under another designation. A good ‘nag’ is a bad ‘horse.’ A no-good ‘chair’ (because it has a big hole in its seat - it has no seat - would perhaps be a good piece of juggling apparatus …a good ‘prop for a juggler.’ A good ‘funeral’ is a bad ‘business meeting.’ Etc. Spinoza, in the 1600s, noticed this and remarked about it.
Enough said - until one does some background reading - which no one here is obligated to do - but which good philosophers likely do – (or they will arrange to have read to them by one who has better vision or eyesight.)
Let’s get back to talking about government – and how some of them are better than others.
To help us differentiate good government from bad government, and to see plenty of reasons to justify the analyses presented, see these reports or editorials …on this first page. Especially scroll down to be sure to read the last two reports listed, the one on the concept “fascism” and the one on the notion “trickle-down” philosophy: “The horse and sparrow.” Check out lthis site:
hartmannreport.com/s/daily-rant
For those who prefer to listen to these clear, concise, and amply-justified analyses, there are these free podcasts, providing audio: hartmannreport.com/s/podcasts
I don’t agree with the bolded. I would say that “utility” and “value” are pretty much synonymous with each other i.e. they are two different words for one and the same thing. What is valuable is what is useful I i.e. it helps us attain our highest goal ) and what is useful is what is valuable.
This is certainly not clarifying things. I am not even sure what is it that you’re responding to. I asked a question – so maybe that’s what you’re trying to address – but you didn’t quote it. You left it out for some reason.
“X is a ball” is saying that “X” belongs to the class “ball”. The “is” in that statement, in other words, is the “is” of class membership. It’s saying that “X” is a member of class “ball”.
When we say “X is a good ball”, however, we are not merely saying that “X” is a member of class “ball”, we’re also saying that it has certain properties – not covered by the definition of the word “ball” – that make it of value to us.
You can say that “X is a good ball” means that “X” belongs to the class “good ball”. That would be true but it would be pretty banal.
This discussion belongs at the forum labeled Philosophy more than it does here at a forum concerned with Government and Economics.
Therefore I will write a post there on the breakthrough that R. S. Hartman achieved, and which he wrote about in some detail in his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE.(1967, Southern Illinois University Press.) He finally defined “value” and “good.” What he actually defined was the meaning of “good” in “x is a good C” where x is a case, example, member or instance of the class C. There are three requirements for this to be so.
I won’t go into this any further here as I don’t want to distract from the theme of this thread. {Maybe some here would want to do so…)
I disagree with the bolded and underlined and all other statements that expand or rely on that assumption.
That proposes a very specific means of attempting to improve quality of life, one that I suspect is ill considered.
For example, If you are mentally handicapped there is no “secret sauce” that I am aware of, that would allow you to “climb the ladder of opportunity” by virtue of merit… which leaves only fiat.
That same principle is true of all natural inequalities between people, whether physical, mental or simply idiosyncratic…
But it goes deeper, what if someone simply was not motivated to seek success?
Is that to be judged as one of these secrets they are lacking and that therefore it’s the responsibility of “a good government” to help alter their interests and provide them motivation?
I think there’s a fine line between engendering solidarity and compassion and becoming a busybody intruding on everyone’s privacy and telling them how to live… a line that needs a great deal more emphasis.
There are two reasons, so far as I can tell, that one ought support a form of democracy:
A) Placing the power in the hands of the people as a means to safeguard against rulers who would serve only a few over the many.
B) To allow change over time as dictated by the conventional wisdom and needs of the day, rather than adherence to tradition or rules established that may no longer (if they were ever) be of help.
B) Is what I’d like to focus on… no ideology should rule in place of people, no theocracy, whether religious or political, should assume power and impose it’s dogma on the people, if we should hope to preserve that ability to improve and evolve.
It is tempting to think we have it all worked out, you’ve this very prestigious looking set of academic papers and thinkers to give you that confidence… but that was ever the case and yet look at how we now pity and even recoil from the “ignorance” of our ancestors. That is not to say this will one day happen to us… only that reason suggests, it might.
A safeguard against such arrogance is to be permissive of dissent and disagreement, not only in speech, but also behavior; Allow different ideas not only to exist but be practiced to conduct a trial and error investigation.
Yes that means some people will make big errors that can be ruinous to themselves, but it also means innovations can occur that may improve the quality of life of millions more.
In conclusion:
It’s PEOPLE I would appeal to, to be decent and compassionate… and through THAT appeal see a government which serves the people’s will by being more supporting of the less fortunate.
NOT the other way around… never the other way around.
I suggested that if someone is having a hard time, then offer to teach them a skill you have, or to inform them of a possible money-making opportunity of which you are aware, but only if they are ready and willing to learn it.
If someone is mentally handicapped perhaps they are not ready to learn of it, nor to perform the skill. Then look for someone else to help; or get them the help that they specificallly need …if you yourself are aware of it.
I described a good government as one ready to encourage its citizens in their efforts to help one another. If someone is ethical, and knows why they are ethical, they more-than-likely would want to give a helping hand to the less-fortunate. They would devise creative ways to do so, if they possibly could. A good government would, somehow, be inclined to reinforce such efforts.
We all ought to thoroughly agree with the critic’s support for democracy! His reasoning is good when he endorses the value of democracy.
Alright, I’ll drop it. I’ll just say that I am not sure how we can talk about what constitutes a good government if we don’t agree on the meaning of the word “good”.
Since a specific actual govt. is good as a govt. iff it is indeed a govt; and you suppose a govt. has certain features; and this govt. has all those properties, then you are justified in referring to it as “a good govt.” Its properties are to match the attributes you, the judge of its value, has in mind. If this particular example does, you will likely look at it and say “Good!” or “This govt. is a good one!”
In the original post in this thread I described the attributes of what I suppose a ‘good govt.’ would be, and how it would promote democracy, and aim to upgrade and improve the quality of life of its citizens.
I leave it up to you, the Reader, to decide which of the major U.S. political parties currently complies more with the description offered; and which one is against things while it offers no positive proposals to make life berrer for its citizens. It does not seem to advocate policies that will uplift the quality of the life of the majority of the population it purports to serve.
I’m gonna rip a page from Ecman’s book and say the best form of government is one that doesn’t violate anyone’s consent…at least best in theory, we have no idea if it’d work in practice because it’s never really been tried on a large scale, so either no government, anarchism, or contractualism, a government where only those who consent to it are governed by it, altho you would have to make up some protocols for what to do with all the people who don’t consent to it, which can get tricky.