In These Times

Latest Comments view all 8

• • 13 Oct 06
  • 12:07 am

  winterchestnut, 1) If there was some social or economic law that ensured the current distribution of wealth would be attained within five years of redistribution, how do you explain the variations in distributions over the last century or so? 2) If the distribution was static, would this really mean that such a distribution was just or meritocratic?

  Posted to Is Diversity Enough?

• • 13 Oct 06
  • 7:47 pm

  Whattheheck, even ability does not guarantee success. And I would hardly consider a system that distributed money based on ability to be just. The point I was trying to make is that people often come up with some statement along these lines. Redistributeding the wealth is a waste of time. The poor are poor because they are feckless or otherwise deficient. Those who are wealthy now would return to the top in no time because they have special qualities. I do not believe this to be true. If the very wealthy, and those who identify with them, really believed this to …

  Posted to Is Diversity Enough?

• • 14 Oct 06
  • 6:15 pm

  Whattheheck, I guess that I am being unclear. I wasn’t really wanting to get into any sort of discussion advocating a mass redistribution of wealth: in the sense of dividing the world up and apportioning it out. I don't even want to get into a detailed discussion of garden variety redistribution - you know taxes, government spending etc. I wasn't really wanting to get into a discussion of how the world is - I mean we both live here don't we. Its just that I have often heard people say that if there was a redistribution, the current distribution would return …

  Posted to Is Diversity Enough?

• • 28 Sep 06
  • 1:22 am

  I am no expert on I F Stone but I understand that the allegations are pretty thin on evidence a summary exists here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_F_Stone). I guess there are few things to think about when you read these sorts of allegation. The first is to ask if it makes sense. Given that he was known for breaking stories based on information on the public record, what good would he be as a spy. He didn't have access to secret information. Embassies all over the world employ researches to look at publicly available information, so it may have made sense for the USSR …

  Posted to I.F. Stone: Iconic Muckracker

• • 15 Aug 06
  • 5:26 am

  I know of two, interlinked, explanations for the terms "left" and "right". The first is that it comes from the Estates-General as it was composed before the revolution with the representatives of the aristocracy on the right and the representatives people on the left. The second points out that this was the usual arrangement in any such meeting because position to the right of the monarch had higher status. In either case the position is that of the vast majority of the population. The centre is the position of the monarch: which seems to be exactly where Lieberman stands. On the …

  Posted to It Came From the Beltway