'the ultra-rich got to where they are through luck and brutality'

cecilia said:
The Self-Attribution Fallacy
Click to expand...
Ha. It's like reading my own mind.

Seriously, this isn't really new. It's been studied quite well. I've seen it too.

--edit

and in another coincidence, the article mentions the book "Snakes in Suites" (which I own) co-written by Dr Robert Hare who I haven't met but I have been in his MRI machine up at UBC. :)
 
cecilia said:
The Self-Attribution Fallacy
Click to expand...

It's England afterall, it doesn't appear to have the upward mobility that is (or rather was) found in the USA. One of my favorite examples of American exceptionalism is Tom Monaghan. Orphaned child who was raised in a Catholic orphanage (parents divorced and his mother had to put him up for adoption because she couldn't afford to feed all the children), became a Marine, went to college and founded Domino's Pizza in 1960. About fifteen years ago he sold most of his 95% ownership of Domino's to Bain Capital for something like $750M.

It's sad to see America being crippled to the point of becoming the new Europe with a permanent underclass.
 
It's sad to see America being crippled to the point of becoming the new Europe with a permanent underclass.
Click to expand...

It is even more sad to see large amounts of the population demanding this permanent underclass status.
 
redrumloa said:
It is even more sad to see large amounts of the population demanding this permanent underclass status.
Click to expand...
The Tea Party? Well, they do seem to like voting for the Aristocracy but then so do the Republicans and Democrats. Look at the ruling classes and see how they are writing the laws to stay ruling class. Then there are the underclasses who would like to be middle class again and who are demanding prosecutions of the ruling class financialists and rentiers - all those who receive and income not from work but from merely owning the right to other peoples' work just as the landed gentry of old Europe used to make their income from the peasants that rented and worked their land. The underclass OWS crowd who, among other things, would like to see the Fed brought under control (and perhaps even ended) and see the right of the ruling classes to buy politicians and to claim that their vast sums of money (which you gave them) constitutes speech.
 
Dammy said:
It's England afterall, it doesn't appear to have the upward mobility that is (or rather was) found in the USA.
Click to expand...
Social mobility in the US is slightly worse than in the UK and has been for a while, and it isn't too surprising that they should be so similar since they both went through the same "Supply Side" voodoo economics under Thatcher and Reagan.

Americans like to believe that social mobility is high in the US but it really isn't (and they point to exceptions to prove the rule but those exceptions really are exceptions).

Social mobility is actually much higher in Nordic (and other "socialistic" countries).

This Intergenerational Mobility report (pdf) is from 2005.
 
cecilia said:
The Self-Attribution Fallacy
Click to expand...
I think all that makes sense. It's by luck and brutality that humans are at the top of the food chain. We are products of hundreds of millions of years of evolution in a world that is naturally unfair and unforgiving. One only needs to watch a nature show to see that it's the alpha males that lead the pack, that get first eats and their choice of mating partners. Nature rewards the strong in kind with strength and their genes are propagated to the benefit of the species. The weak die off and the genes are eliminated. No reason to think it's any different for us humans. Alpha males get the chicks, they climb the corporate ladder and they shit all over everyone else (and there are equivalents for alpha-females). Life has never been and never will be fair and it's only human arrogance that allows us to think we can somehow manage what nature has produced in such a way as to make it fair. We can try but really all we've managed to accomplish so far is to ensure that when one alpha is replaced by another, the former is no longer killed in the process - a result that benefits mostly just the alphas themselves.
 
Glaucus said:
One only needs to watch a nature show to see that it's the alpha males that lead the pack, that get first eats and their choice of mating partners. Nature rewards the strong in kind with strength and their genes are propagated to the benefit of the species. The weak die off and the genes are eliminated.
Click to expand...

A group of cooperators can generally out compete a similar number of selfish individuals. Cooperators can come to dominate. In a world of cooperators the cheaters win. This leads to an increase in the number of cheaters. When there are too many cheaters the cooperators lose, you end up with a bunch of self interested individuals and net success decreases. To prevent cheaters from leading to this outcome humans have a natural need to punish cheaters and to take people down a peg (or 5) when they get too big for their boots (or too powerful for the social good).

To counter this natural inclination the powerful have spun myths to protect themselves such as "my power and wealth is the will of God", or "Greed is Good", or "This is The American Dream - all else is communism (Satanism)".

However, for group selection to work there must be competing groups and groups with low levels of cheaters will out compete groups that are heavily parasitized by cheaters. But when all the groups join up into one big group then inter-group pressure disappears there is no outside influence to keep the cheaters in check and they can prosper unless the cooperators stop them.
 
What you're describing is not limited to humans actually. Beta males often support the alpha male through alliance or coalition. And the threat of punishment for violating social norms is also common amongst social animals, such as dogs. And cheating is also common where a beta male may run out for a quickie with one of the alpha females far out of sight from the pack - an offense punishable by death or banishment. All this ensures a strong species at the cost of a number of individuals.

But it must also be said that all humans cheat nature in many ways. Losers are rarely killed off these days. Even the very sick survive what other animals would die from. Survival of the fittest no longer applies to us and as a result our species is having a hard time staying strong. Despite that, the strong amongst us are still hardwired to use their strength in anyway they can.
 
If only we would convert to some socialist utopia, then those psychopaths would be kept under strict control by the benevolent leadership of a Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot :rolleyes:
 
metalman said:
If only we would convert to some socialist utopia, then those psychopaths would be kept under strict control by the benevolent leadership of a Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If it's a dictatorship then it isn't really socialist (unless the dictator is Jesus Christ in which case I'm sure there are plenty of fans of the idea).
 
Glaucus said:
Survival of the fittest no longer applies to us and as a result our species is having a hard time staying strong. Despite that, the strong amongst us are still hardwired to use their strength in anyway they can.
Click to expand...

societal evolution may actually be increasing the number of psychopaths
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If it's a dictatorship then it isn't really socialist (unless the dictator is Jesus Christ in which case I'm sure there are plenty of fans of the idea).
Click to expand...

for socialism to work it requires 'firm' guidance, so it always ends up in dictatorship
 
metalman said:
societal evolution may actually be increasing the number of psychopaths
Click to expand...
Because there are fewer groups between which there can be competition - and because the carrying capacity of modern society is so great. We can support a greater parasite load because we are more productive - until the fuel runs out.
 
metalman said:
for socialism to work it requires 'firm' guidance, so it always ends up in dictatorship
Click to expand...
Same thing for capitalism. Look at the firm hand that is being applied to people who disagree with the system for allocating resources. Eventually a few people own everything (this is the normal state for human societies) and firm guidance is used to keep things that way.
 
hey, guess what?
communism is more popular than congress

of course, what the wacko right doesn't understand is that most people have little interest in communism simply because it doesn't allow for a humans natural selfishness.

so, put congress Below a snake and you've got it where it belongs
 
It's probably just coincidence that 1% of the population are psychopaths - but psychopaths can do very well for themselves in the modern corporate culture, having no particular fear or feelings for those they rip off and being single mindedly self serving. The dumb ones will usually get found and sent to jail early on, but the smart ones can game the system for years and become rich and powerful enough to be pretty much invulnerable in today's wealth worshiping society. But they do great damage to the rest of us.

From the peer reviewed paper "The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis" (pdf) cited in the article:
Boddy concludes his recent paper with this grim prediction:
"Writing in 2005, this author... predicted that the rise of Corporate Psychopaths was a recipe for corporate and societal disaster. This disaster has now happened and is still happening. Across the western world, the symptoms of the financial crisis are now being treated. However, this treatment of the symptoms will have little effect because the root cause is not being addressed. The very same Corporate Psychopaths, who probably caused the crisis by their self-seeking greed and avarice, are now advising governments on how to get out of the crisis. That this involves paying themselves vast bonuses in the midst of financial hardship for many millions of others is symptomatic of the problem. Further, if (this theory is correct) then we are now far from the end of the crisis. Indeed, it is only the end of the beginning. Perhaps more than ever before, the world needs corporate leaders with a conscience.... Measures exist to identify Corporate Psychopaths. Perhaps it is time to use them."
Click to expand...

Which is what William K Black is always talking about: you can't heal the system without jailing the bad actors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top