I think this is an interesting discussion. And it's one I don't want to tip in any direction right now. I get the raised hairs on either side, but I want to encourage every schmoe with the patience to continue contributing. The past few pages with Lyrik, Erroneous and Creekin were good eats for me. I just want to give the props in case anybody is getting winded.
Neither one of you is 100% right. Creekin at least has an open mind. Jon, dude, you are not right. You are not wrong either. I don't know where you learned all you learned, but the first thing whoever taught you should have said that economics is by no means an exact science and NO theory is EVER 100% correct and NO theory has ever worked 100%. You might want to open your mind and see the merits of other ideas, because like most things in life the best way is somewhere in the middle. Most of your words read like they are right out of a text book with little to no real world thought.
I think Lyrik knows more about these theories than I do, so I won't go so far in agreeing against him, but I do want to agree with you generally and I haven't noticed any discrepancies to finger point. There is a preference for theorizing and history, but of course there is. If there must be a preference in discussion, there you have it. Maybe the higher level guys are discussing applied theory. There are interesting differences between theory and application, but application is a hard justification to lean on when the discussion is working within the abovementioned parameters. Like Lyrik said, it's none of your business what he does and it's none of our business what you do because it's almost beside the point because it's beside any foundation because we don't know each other, and these discussions can't usually rely on yelp stars to notch arguments. It's a workable system that can debate history, philosophy, ideology - Quentin's list - because there's a shared reality there that exists outside of the board and people need that agreed-upon foundation. I have experience in this and it worked for me
is difficult to incorporate. I probably have something approximating Quentin's mentioned 'third grade level self-formed' skill set, and that's why I can't really contribute to topics like this with that skill set alone. It's aside the foundation.Why wouldn't it be frustrating for the other crowd?
Sometimes it's irreconcilable.
In my opinion, Unions had their place a 100 years ago when the businesses had all the power and now they are part of the problem, not the solution. Government controls and regs have taken the place of what unions used to do. There are certain elements about unions that I like, but in general unions are bad for business and bad for the people as they only serve their own best interest and not the true interests of the business and by extension the employees. The most important thing to read about my opinion about Unions is that I am open and like some of the good elements they can and do offer. It is up to you to understand the bad elements and damage they do.
I don't get overzealous with my bleeding heart. I understand there are opportunities out there already going to waste because people aren't utilizing them. The only aspect of the economy I have solid knowledge and experience in is economic mobility, which is less of an aspect than an offshoot, so I always enter these conversations from that perspective and it doesn't always get me anywhere (canned laughter). It's where I have my own foundation. And it's not much. It's how I notice the opportunities around me, and from that vantage there are many, many choices available to people in this market and maybe it's frustrating when more are created when existent ones might suffice. And I'm not being magnanimous this time. This isn't a charity post. I find myself circling this attitude more and more the longer I live; more and more, the longer I find myself getting into, and then promptly out of, dire straits. The thing that threatens my wide-eyed open-minded bleeding heart is fumbling around all of these social potholes and realizing I can find my way out of them, often by utilizing unsophisticated resources. There is a lot of wisdom to this attitude you have, and it's not all cynical. But I try not to get overzealous. I have never had to deal with a criminal record, for example (and that impediment is nothing to sneeze at). I'm not mentally ill or socially inhibited in any severe way. But I have dealt with the straits that another person with my sympathies might list as the reason why we need program a or program b, and I suppose there are some sob stories I don't listen to as well as I used to, having been in those situations, questioning whether they are as insurmountable as my ethics and sympathies would have me assume - provided the person in question is within my young age bracket, in my health range, intelligence range and resourcefulness range (but I repeat myself, so minus 1 intelligence). And already I am making excuses for my particularities, so already I am no longer representative of any general population of people. And there goes my bootstraps speech.
Which brings us 'round to figuring out a way to promote the avenues available and show people how to use what's already right in front of them. And acknowledging that those people who don't utilize their opportunities shouldn't dismiss others who are unable to utilize their opportunities for reasons that need a looking-into. And beyond any of our personal outlooks, when you have citizens struggling, you facilitate. And I'm being the topic's milquetoast today, apparently.