Steve Jobs: Arab-American Hippie Liberal Master Of Capitalism
Tweet
A great post from Anil Dash here.
So, who is this man? He’s the anchor baby of an activist Arab muslim who came to the U.S. on a student visa and had a child out of wedlock. He’s a non-Christian, arugula-eating, drug-using follower of unabashedly old-fashioned liberal teachings from the hippies and folk music stars of the 60s. And he believes in science, in things that science can demonstrate like climate change and Pi having a value more specific than “3″, and in extending responsible benefits to his employees while encouraging his company to lead by being environmentally responsible.
Every single person who’d attack Steve Jobs on any of these grounds is, demonstrably, worse at business than Jobs. They’re unqualified to assert that liberal values are bad for business, when the demonstrable, factual, obvious evidence contradicts those assertions.
80 Responses to “Steve Jobs: Arab-American Hippie Liberal Master Of Capitalism”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
But but but….er….um….LOOK OVER THERE!
Silly rabbit: Companies that make profits and provide decent middle class wages and benefits only exist in Europe.
They’re unqualified to assert that liberal values are bad for business, when the demonstrable, factual, obvious evidence contradicts those assertions
I guess this would be interesting if a) Apple didn’t already have a huge market share; b) there were any indication that these “liberal values” worked elsewhere; and, oh yeah, c) Who said you have to be a heartless, soulless monster to run a business? Why, that would be liberals!.
Frank DiSalle: I guess this would be interesting if a) Apple didn’t already have a huge market share;
And that’s relevant why? Jobs has been all of the adjectives listed in the article since Apple was a startup. Apple has had a similar culture, ethic and approach since it was founded.
Jobs has been all of the adjectives listed in the article since Apple was a startup
So have lots of companies – Google, for one; Ben & Jerry, for another. When the going gets rough, some companies can’t afford skateboard tracks, free cafeterias and popcorn machines.
oh, shoot ! tags
You think evidence actually matter to dumbasses like fds?
I new it – arugula makes you smart!
All of the conservative bosses I have had HAVE been soulless monsters, who didn’t give a damn about how many laws they were breaking if it would gain them the slightest extra bit of profit.
Obama once said about Jobs:
“And something that’s always been the greatest strength of America is a thriving, booming middle class, where everybody has got a shot at the American dream. And that should be our goal. That should be what we’re focused on. How are we creating opportunity for everybody? So that we celebrate wealth. We celebrate somebody like a Steve Jobs, who has created two or three different revolutionary products. We expect that person to be rich, and that’s a good thing. We want that incentive. That’s part of the free market.”
But as all good conservatives know, Obama is being tricksy and false!!! He speaks with the forked tongue of postmodernism! Allow me translate what he really said, for any Real Americans:
Comrades, the American worker must destroy The Man! Use bombs, if need be, or shoot them dead while they sleep. Our goal is to free everybody who is not The Man. But not Steve Jobs, as he is the next George Soros revolutionary. Allow him to be rich. So that together, we can destroy the free market! Hail Satan! And Allah akbar!
Meanwhile, he’s responsible for shipping all his manufacturing jobs overseas. And the ones that are left aren’t unionized.
Before you go holding Jobs up as the prototype, realize that his isn’t the liberal utopia you think it is.
Steve Jobs isn’t an ideal community? Huh, who knew.
Yeah, Fiorina was sooo much better. Just like Scott Walker.
Costco vs Walmart
Costco – Gives employees good wages, benefits, & treats them fair. Employee turnover is extremely low, & employees are happy.
Walmart – Gives employees minimum wage, makes them work off the clock, no benefits so they tell employees how to get government assistance. Employee turnover is high – except in China.
Yeah, Merl, a story about one of the most successful businesses in the world – I repeat, one – is “evidence” to you.
Dumbass.
[...] tempered and charming as ever, Frank unloaded this little rant at Ollie’s place, talking about [...]
Not recently, Doofus:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=156263
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/19/139774844/grocery-shoppers-leave-wal-mart-for-dollar-stores
Thanks for giving me a new post, Frank.
A few holes in Anil’s argument:
1. Its unclear who is making the claim that “liberal values are somehow in contradiction with business success at a global scale”. There are no quotes from those who allegedly hold this position.
2. He’s using only one datapoint.
3. He’s conflating neo-liberalism with liberalism. A good chunk of the American left is not too happy with NAFTA, Globalization, deregulation, outsourcing, etc…ie, the type of liberalism that Apple, Google, etc represent.
4. Diversity. Silicon Valley and Venture Capital have about as many women as the local gay bar. Even less blacks and Latinos. Basically, white male dominated with an overrepresentation of Asian males.
5. I doubt the culture of Apple is transferable industries that don’t rely on intellectual capital (or creativity) as much.
I doubt the culture of Apple is transferable industries that don’t rely on intellectual capital (or creativity) as much.
The only conclusion I can draw from that sentence is that conservatives are short on those two important qualities. They seem to do all right in businesses that start with investing a few million dollars of their inheritance.
Seems American corporations used to take chances. R&D was big. Employees with long term proven loyalty to the company had as much a chance to succeed as those who sucked up to the boss. Seniority and tenure were deserved, respected, and more competent. Products were built to last and service was good.
Then the WalMart/Microsoft/Home Depot/USSR-KGB model set in.
Now, short term profit is king. Cheap labor beats happy labor. The consumer is conned with a flashy warehouse appearance but poor quality and questionable pricing. And one never invents anything if it can be stolen or bought.
Sure, big flat screen TV’s are half the price of the old giant boxes. But now they last half as long too. Seems like now everything’s one big con job just to keep the money flowing. And if you have to actually work in a corporation, it’s usually a miserable environment if you’re not “playing the game”.
Repack: Considering all those Apple products manufactured in China, perhaps conservatives are afraid to follow Jobs’ B-Plan out of fear of what their fate may be once the Regime of Repack Rider rides into town:
Excellent point Manju.
Got any idea whether he’s ahead or behind Romney in sending employment overseas?
Hard to say RR but my guess would be Jobs. Romney’s Bain seemed to focus mostly on retailers not manufacturers while Apple is a huge outsourcer.
I have no problem with this since the arrival of American style capitalism in China and India is simply the biggest poverty reduction program in the history of all of humanity. So I like Jobs but I would add that the options backdating thing doesn’t pass the smell test.
the biggest poverty reduction program in the history of all of humanity
Assuming a greater than 1 to 1 tradeoff of Indian/Chinese jobs gained to western jobs lost? MM blames all major US inner city turmoil on the Dems. But I think we both know what the real reason is.
Frank diSalle: So have lots of companies – Google, for one; Ben & Jerry, for another. When the going gets rough, some companies can’t afford skateboard tracks, free cafeterias and popcorn machines.
So when I point out your comment makes no point, you rebut by making another comment that says nothing.
You’re just having me on, aren’t you. You scamp.
Timmy:
Free trade/anti-protectionism enjoys as big a consensus among academic economists as you can possibly find (around 93%). Even the world’s most influential left-wing economist (Paul Krugman) views anti-globalization activists as enemies of the world’s poor. He has blamed European unemployment on labor market regulations and is firmly within the free-trade consensus.
That is because the data is overwhelming. But the zero-sum metric you articulate is easy for people to understand and for politicians to exploit. There is a reason why Pat Buchannan, the Dixiecrats, and the know-nothings before them were anti-free trade. Its economic populism and it goes hand-in hand with bigotry, jingoism, and nationalism. Add to them the anti-capitalist left and you have a dangerous coalition of losers.
But more importantly; protectionism, import quotas, tariffs are not reality-based policies. The benefits of free trade are enormous. The quick explanation for this is to look up “comparative advantage”.
I’ll try to sum up the concept. The most obvious beneficiaries of free-trade are the world’s poor. Here is Krugman on the subject:
T
That the Chinese and Indians benefit is obvious. As I said, we are witnessing the world’s greatest poverty eradication program. But what about us? Is this eradication coming at our expense?
It partially does in the short run but at the end of the day the benefits outweigh the costs, about 100-1 say economists. Free trade delivers lower prices and that means higher real wages. For America’s poor, the highest barriers are often imposed on necessities like food and clothing. Protectionism is therefore a regressive tax. Getting rid of agricultural subsidies also enjoys a huge academic consensus.
American companies enjoying higher profit margins due to lower labor costs helps everyone in the stock market: government pensions, mutual funds , etc and creates liquidly to finance more start-ups and growth. As the Chinese and Indians get richer they become consumers of our goods. So you can see the multiplier effect.
Of course the guy who lost his job doesn’t feel that way. But if you design policy around those feelings, a lot more people will suffer…as the history of socialism demonstrates.
Manju,
You had me until your last clause.
Protectionism/tariff was an issue that pitted the (conservative) Wall Street/Bankers/Eastern/Manufacturers against the(liberal) Farmers/Western/Consumers. It included the Gold Standard against Free Silver argument. It carried on until the Great Depression when high Tariffs contributed greatly to the crash of the world economy.
I will admit that my conservative/liberal terms are those of the time. In a world where Theodore Roosevelt is a dangerous Radical, I admit that my ability to label political philosophies is broken beyond repair.
The Socialist argument dealt with ownership of the “Means of Production” and dealt with another issue entirely.
isms says: “I new it – arugula makes you smart!”
It also makes the same sound as a submarine diving.
Alright Manju.
Interesting you quote Krugman. While he claimed that free trade is a good thing, I believe he placed limits on this concept, calling it “a reasonable rule of thumb”. And as a liberal, he is prone to adapting his thinking to changing circumstances and new information.
As always, you take a generally accepted wisdom, such as “freedom is a good thing” and promote the simplistic assumption that even more is better. But if freedom is a good thing, then why isn’t anarchy a great thing?
My view is that free trade economists live in the theoretical bubble where workers are as mobile and flexible as the jobs are, where those governments always play by the economists economic rules, where retraining happens instantly and for free, where the new jobs which pay a fraction of the old jobs always make up for the purchasing power disparity with the cheaper products produced.
But let’s avoid getting lost in abstract theory and cherry picked name dropping. Indulge me with a concrete example:
The Sandusky brake pad factory worker loses his $20/hour job to a Chinese man making $2/hour, who eventually loses his job to the Vietnamese man making $0.2/hour. Step me through the economic benefits for us all. Keep it real.
Krugman is not as rabidly free trade as he used to be. Specifically I think he advocates government intervention to help American workers who are displaced and is not opposed to tariffs on environmentally unfriendly products.
You are seriously underestimating the evidence for free-trade and krugman’s commitment to it. Indeed, you linked me to some TPM progressive claiming “Krugman renounces free trade” based on this quote:
…when he did no such thing.
Look, you can reduce the trade deficit by advocating for more free trade…demand China stop imposing high tariffs on imports and providing large subsidies on exports (which I understand is Krugman’s view). The TPM guy’s desperately simplistic economic populism is what the left has in common with Pat Buchanan…and helps explain how the most inbred, jingoistic, and racist group of politicians America has ever known could be, almost exclusively, part of the left-wing party…once the modern left-right dichotomy came into being.
Krugman is not ideologically oriented toward free-trade like Milton Friedman may be. His sympathies lie with equality over freedom. That’s why I used him. His advocacy is based purely on evidence and despite his lefty outlook. But the idea that he may seize to be a free-trader at some point, while theoretically possible, is about as likely as Stephen Jay Gould dropping evolution.
In fact, in an essay explaining why folks reject the consensus view here, he also uses this analogy:
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm
I did not argue for more free trade nor do I believe there should be no limits on freedom.
As Krugman says: “…trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both…” Comparative advantage allows each country export that which they produce efficiently and import those things produced more efficiently abroad.
Developing nations produce labor intensive goods more efficiently.
So the first and most obvious beneficiaries are the world’s poor, by virtue of having higher paying jobs resulting in a higher standard of living. Then come American companies, by virtue of having lower costs. As Krugman states; ”While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.”
But cheap imports also raise the standard of living of Americans. Lower prices = higher real wages. Also lower costs = higher profits = more growth = bigger retirement portfolios. This leads to more liquidity and thus leads to more R & D and other projects.
Furthermore, now that the Chinese and Indians are richer, they demand stuff Americans produce more efficiently, like computer software, access to our stock markets, and other goods and services that demand more intellectual capital. Ergo, the richer they get the richer we get. It’s not a zero sum game.
Ergo, the richer they get the richer we get. It’s not a zero sum game.
So in other words, the Sandusky brake pad factory worker was retrained as an auto mechanic (costing US taxpayers), but could only find work at the WalMart tire shop for 1/2 the wages (displacing a lesser educated employee). His car brake budget is cut in half as well, the other employee loses his car.
The Chinese man making $2/hour was going to buy a car, but those plans have been shelved. His car brake budget is zero.
The Vietnamese man making $0.2/hour will never afford a car. But he has reduced the cost of auto brake pads by 1/2, a benefit which the Sandusky man now enjoys.
At the end of the day, we have the government on the hook for one full retraining, and a round of unemployment pay for two workers, and welfare benefits for one former worker (or… perhaps we have a new criminal in society?). The Chinese worker created additional economy for a short while, as is now the Vietnamese man, but not much considering the wage. We are also down 1 1/2 brake pad consumers worldwide. But perhaps the slack will be picked up when the brake pad company owner(s) buys two new cars?
And what percentage of a typical American’s living expenses is brake pad consumption anyways?
It’s been said that the median American middle class wage have been (inflation adjusted) stagnant for 30 years now. This must be bullshit? In theory, shouldn’t we all be paving our driveways with gold by now?
I’d think the “not a zero sum game” stuff only happens when the median consumers’ wages rise and innovation expands market options and production elsewhere.
BTW, kudos to our president for bringing Democracy to Libya.
Jaim says: “BTW, kudos to our president for bringing Democracy to Libya.”
Let’s hope that’s the way it ends. They are going to need support, lest a new despot takes over. Although, considering how hated America is in the area and their track record in the past, I’m not sure there’s much the Unites States could do directly to support democracy in the area.
Jaim, Mr. Strowbridge,
It will be interesting to see how Fox spins the story.
timmy,
Forgive me for agreeing with Manju, but he’s right, the world economy is not a zero-sum game. When the Chinese & Viet-Namese workers get wages, however minimally, it improves the situation for all. The problem is that America has not educated its’ work force to the 21st Century realities. Instead time has been wasted in teaching “Intelligent Design”, like that actually helps train a Biologist, “the Hoax of Global Warming” like that helps train an Engineer, or the vital role Joe McCarthy played in American history, like that helps train an Historian. (Everyone knows that Charlie McCarthy was much more important.)
The Sandusky guy may not be making brake pads anymore, but they are cheaper for all. The Viet-Namese worker may get his first taste of American meat products & decides that he likes it.
The story’s about 100 years old, but a new digging machine was invented. The Inventor was accosted & was told that his machine put 10 men out of work as the machine did the job formerly done by 10 men with the former equipment. His response was that it did the work of 1000 men with shovels. We can go back at least to the Luddites to find the same argument you make.
As a country we have to find what we were good at & get good at it again. The world is constantly changing. There’s nothing to be done to stop it.
In modern times there was one country that managed to insulate itself from the world economy. Their currency wasn’t convertable to anything else, international trade was strictly barter. It looked good for a while, but trust me it turned out very badly.
There is, however, one flaw in this. Free trade does mean more goods and services at lower cost. It is not, however, a moral argument.
First, shipping jobs overseas does mean loss of jobs locally. Without a safety net, trade hurts the local people whose jobs are lost in the shuffle. Over the long term, “more stuff flowing for less money” typically means a bigger economy and a bigger pie so everyone ends up with a bigger slice. But it hasn’t been happening, has it? Note that this is going to be tagged as class warfare – “so the rich get richer, and the middle-class don’t; why does that mean we shouldn’t let the rich be richer?” The answer is summed up in a word a great many rightwingers hate so much that they’ve attempted to redefine it: justice.
Second, while different nations are certain to have competitive advantages for a certain product or service, the reason can be positive or negative. A nation that runs sweatshops and murders union organizers will have lower costs than one that has a fair labor market.
In short, free trade can mean benefiting from slave labor, believing that it’s okay because it’s not *your* slaves, it’s someone else’s. Once again, we have wealth created by injustice – but as long as it’s invisible, it’s considered acceptable.
db,
Manju is implying that Economists say that theoretically, free trade always works all the time. But the evidence is, that in America over the last 30 years this has not been true.
My point was, that free trade works better when Sandusky guy has a better place to go – perhaps as a brake pad maker for your new digging machine company. Today Sandusky guy must return to school for 2-4 years to even have a chance, and even then that new career could be easily outsourced away.
Free trade works worse if median wages go down (race to the bottom) while basic costs of living go up (food, shelter, energy), for everybody except the owners. Additionally, today’s owners are not stepping up with “more R & D and other projects” to pick up the slack.
With the advent of the internet and advances in automation, there is nothing that can be done in America which cannot be done elsewhere for much less cost, “like computer software, access to our stock markets, and other goods and services that demand more intellectual capital”.
Which, note, may or may not translate to US jobs.
I remember George Will, who has become quite an expert at not-thinking. He was pointing out that IBM was going to outsource and MAKE MORE MONEY WHICH WOULD MEAN MORE JOBS. He didn’t seem to realize that those jobs would most likely, by the very free market principles he was praising, be outsourced.
One of the biggest problems we’re running into now is the problem that db mentioned. It takes fewer and fewer people to do more and more work, so there are fewer jobs that need to be filled. There was a time when a rising tide would lift all boats, just because there was no other choice… more labor was necessary to keep boosting productivity. That might no longer be the case. Eventually, there will come a time when a small percentage of society can provide for the needs of all. What then?
timmy,
I would certainly never argue against education at any level, at any time. I might even go so far to say that education began to deteriorate in the US when women began to have other employment opportunities. Prior to that women could nurse, teach, or do secretarial work. Top notch women chose teaching. Now women have many other employment choices & top notch women are busy being Senators, Congresswomen, CEO’s & such. Our schoolos are the worse for it.
I’ve also mentioned that schools have become political footballs. Again not for the better.
I believe it was Charlie Munger who was appalled by the emphasis on finance as a career choice for college graduates. It was something to the effect that our Engineers are designing Financial Instruments, not Mechanical Instruments.
I agree that companies are not putting enough effort into research. But research doesn’t pay an immediate benefit and that’s where the focus seems to be.
Protectionism, on the other hand, has failed consistently; as each country raises its’ tariff walls against “outsiders”. The manufacturers get rich while the Govedrnment insures there is no price competition. When this happens on a world-wide basis, things can go to pot in a hurry. The Great Depression was only an example.
education
Has its limits. I know a Microsoft engineer who was quite happy to leave his job in India @ $20/month. And they happy to have him in Redmond for half the going rate.
Protectionism
As in China, Japan, and South Korea? When is protectionism going to impact China negatively? Any time soon?
Allow me to answer by continuing to piggyback of Krugman…since his opinion carries more weight than mine and, as a rule of thumb, cites within your opponent’s ideological fold make it harder for the opponent to dismiss the argument.
He would disagree:
You “are not entitled to” your “self-righteousness.” You “have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.”
Such a nation will also have a fairer labor market than what it would have without trade. Krugman illustrates:
“In 1993, child workers in Bangladesh were found to be producing clothing for Wal-Mart, and Senator Tom Harkin proposed legislation banning imports from countries employing underage workers. The direct result was that Bangladeshi textile factories stopped employing children. But did the children go back to school? Did they return to happy homes? Not according to Oxfam, which found that the displaced child workers ended up in even worse jobs, or on the streets — and that a significant number were forced into prostitution.”
Krugman disagrees. First on the invisible part:
“Why does the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour evoke so much more feeling than the image of another Indonesian earning the equivalent of 30 cents an hour trying to feed his family on a tiny plot of land–or of a Filipino scavenging on a garbage heap?”
“Unlike the starving subsistence farmer, the women and children in the sneaker factory are working at slave wages for our benefit–and this makes us feel unclean. And so there are self-righteous demands for international labor standards: We should not, the opponents of globalization insist, be willing to buy those sneakers and shirts unless the people who make them receive decent wages and work under decent conditions.”
But more importantly, by opposing trade, you are actually opposing the solution to the very injustices you oppose:
“…wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people. Partly this is because a growth industry must offer a somewhat higher wage than workers could get elsewhere in order to get them to move. More importantly, however, the growth of manufacturing–and of the penumbra of other jobs that the new export sector creates–has a ripple effect throughout the economy. The pressure on the land becomes less intense, so rural wages rise; the pool of unemployed urban dwellers always anxious for work shrinks, so factories start to compete with each other for workers, and urban wages also begin to rise. Where the process has gone on long enough–say, in South Korea or Taiwan–average wages start to approach what an American teen-ager can earn at McDonald’s. And eventually people are no longer eager to live on garbage dumps.”
You have things backwards. Free-trade doesn’t create slave labor. It assuages it.
“The point is that third-world countries aren’t poor because their export workers earn low wages; it’s the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives: millions of Mexicans are migrating to the north of the country to take the low-wage export jobs that outrage opponents of Nafta.”
At the end of the day, “…global poverty is not something recently invented for the benefit of multinational corporations.” But the “benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture.”
“These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help…It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.”
I prefer not to help others profit from the labor of children, even if that makes me a bad guy.
And Krugman also said:
“But once the economy has perked up a bit, there will be a lot of pressure on the new administration to pull back, to throw away the economy’s crutches. And if the administration gives in to that pressure too soon, the result could be a repeat of the mistake F.D.R. made in 1937 — the year he slashed spending, raised taxes and helped plunge the United States into a serious recession“.
The point is that it may take a lot longer than many people think before the U.S. economy is ready to live without bubbles. And until then, the economy is going to need a lot of government help“.
Manju, free trade economists were assuming the regenerative growth of the American economy would continue as it had for the last 200 years. But did they ever ponder what might happen if the “destroyed” obsolete jobs are not being replaced by new ones quickly enough?
I’d think the current trade imbalance, stagnant wages, growing wealth gap, and continuous pressure to drop taxes means that some variable the economists had hoped for, isn’t what it should be.
I do not engage in argumentum ad hominem; that you do makes your arguments weaker.
I listen to Krugman because he is intelligent, and because he has reasons for what he thinks. In some cases (when the models are economic in nature) I consider his reasoning to be sound, because I’ve never seen anyone catch him in an error in economics. I’ve seen people argue with his model, but that’s a very different issue. I know enough mathematics to call myself a mathematician; another mathematician might disagree with me on, e.g., the axiom of choice, or the ability to use transfinite induction, or the continuum hypothesis. We will come to different conclusions (or, at least, one of us will accept certain conclusions and the other will not), but neither will have proven the other “wrong”… merely that the other uses different models.
Perhaps another way of looking at this is that, if a company wishes to make money by making people suffer, it doesn’t matter if it is by making “our” people suffer, or make another nation’s people suffer. If it is wrong to exploit the suffering of others for profit, it does not matter where it is done.
There are those who will excuse this exploitation by showing eventual improvement in people’s lives. There are also those who excuse slavery by claiming that life in America today is better than life in Africa today. Neither argument has any moral basis.
I will grant that, if a factory worker has an intrinsically better life – more able to buy food, shelter, and have some basic luxuries, and has a good chance of living a long, healthy life, than the person would if the factory was not there, that is a reasonable trade, even if we in the US would hate to work in that factory. That does not make inhumane conditions or wages insufficient to live on excusable. I don’t get upset at all forms of trade. In fact, I was quite clear (to those who are reading for the purpose of communication) in my objection.
Always? If you had the intellectual rigor you should, you would recognize what a brazen, unsupported statement that is.
As for this:
I’m trying to figure out how this made Wal-Mart a “moral” actor, rather than an amoral one. Maybe you can explain?
You leave it to me to guess what you’re objecting to. As far as I can tell its my use of Krugman’s response to those (like yourself) who “say that the wretched of the earth should not be forced to serve as hewers of wood, drawers of water, and sewers of sneakers for the affluent.” To those outraged by “the image of an Indonesian sewing sneakers for 60 cents an hour.” (Krugman’s words). He says:
Those people “are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty.”
http://www.slate.com/id/1918/
Yeah, that is why I used him. Likewise, Krugman uses Greenspan’s admission that the market failed to undermine his opponents. It’s a powerful tactic.
It also respectful. If you look back, I rarely quote RWinergs, out of respect for your (OW & Co.) ideological leanings and also because the bar is very high for you to believe a RWing source. Even on my signature issue (jim crow and the southern shift), it’s all lefties or original sources.
But yet you disregard this respect and scold me for ad hominem. Well, What to do? Krugman’s a little mean.
Sure you have. I pointed out 2 errors caught by Rajan Raghuram in regards to Fannie and Freddie’s role in the financial crises.
Ah, you do not understand what argumentum ad hominem means. A common problem.
This:
… is argumentum ad hominem. “Krugman’s argument changes because of a quality of Krugman”.
Krugman’s arguments stand on their own, or fall on their own. Who he is, or what his ideology is, does not change anything about his arguments.
Make up your mind; if you tell me you quote someone because of what he is, I’ll tend to take you at your word and point out that this is argumentum ad hominem. Arguments stand on their own.
No, it’s not respectful. To quote sound arguments, regardless of source, is respectful. First, of course, one must understand what a sound argument is. There are fewer and fewer people on the right who use sound arguments any more.
So, to point out an obvious flaw in your argumentation is ‘scolding’? Too bad. Meanness has nothing to do with the ad hominem fallacy. “You are kindhearted; of course you oppose the death penalty” is the ad hominem fallacy.
I’m sorry – if I responded to that, I don’t recall doing so. I hope you don’t think I actually read everything you say. I rarely find you informative.
Another reason why quoting RWinergs is bad argumentation… virtually all of the most popular ones, politician, pundit or preacher… are blithering idiots.
If by “do not understand” you mean I’m unaware of LHW’s top-secret personal definition of argumentum ad hominem, then perhaps you have a point. But I tend to default on common usages. Argumentum ad Hominem refers primarily to personal attacks. It also includes the tu quoque fallacy and guilt by association one, though in common usage those are usually referenced as stand-alone fallacies instead of subsets.
Nor does there appear to be a technical definition of the phrase fitting your bespoke usage. See this Lander U source for example:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
Since citing Krugman does not constitute a personal attack on you, I did not engage in argumentum ad hominem.
Right. It doesn’t change the argument. If Sarah Palin made the argument, she’d be just as correct. But why bother using Sarah Palin when you could use someone your opponent respects and someone who is considered an expert in the field?
You just gave me your assessment of what Krugman is: He is someone who is “intelligent” and “has reasons for what he thinks”. So I cite Krugman and you complain about me using him “because of what he is”.
Now you tell me “there are fewer and fewer people on the right who use sound arguments” while simultaneously scolding me for using a person on the left. What exactly is the problem? I’m respecting you enough to consistently give you home field advantage. I use sources you approve of. This handicaps me, since I’m restricted to sources that pass muster with you.
I think that is extremely respectful to your point of view.
Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again. – Michele Bachmann, top tier R candidate
Maybe she should back that one up by quoting Krugman? How about Napoleon Dynamite?
If Paul Krugman is right that “wherever the new export industries have grown, there has been measurable improvement in the lives of ordinary people”, then characterizing this process as “making people suffer” is deeply problematic.
The slave trade took free people and made them worse off. The excuse makers you reference rely on the belief that non-slave descendants of slaves eventually enjoyed better lives than those not captured and bought to America.
But there is no parallel with free trade. Third world laborers in this scenario find their lives immediately improved. As Krugman notes, “Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives”.
Great. We agree.
Ok, you object to free-trade only in those unspecified, unnamed outlier scenarios where third world laborers are actually worse off. Hard to argue with that.
Lucky for me I didn’t say “always”.
It doesn’t. In fact, I specifically quoted Krugman writing; “These improvements” are the “indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor.”
You however doubted the existence of a “moral argument” not a “moral actor”. Krugman’s argument would constitute a moral one. And because, as Krugman states, “The anti-globalization movement already has a remarkable track record of hurting the very people and causes it claims to champion” they have failed to exercise their “moral duty”…by the world’s most influential left-wing economist’s own estimation.
Look it up; do some thinking; I’m not here to educate you. Argumentum Ad Homimem is to argue “at the man” but an argument has no bearing on the person who holds it. If, as legend states, Hitler was a vegetarian for some ethical reason, it neither applauds nor condemns people who choose not to eat animal flesh (or, if he went so far, products) – his reasons either stand, or fall, on their own.
It is true: the most common use is to attack the speaker. However, in many cases, an attack on the speaker is not argumentum ad hominem. For example, I call you an ineffective thinker. This is not argumentum ad hominem, because I point to the flaws in your argument – I do not suggest your arguments should be dismissed because you are an ineffective thinker. I point to the flaws in your thinking, and use them to brand you an ineffective thinker.
You see the difference? I call you stupid – but although that is a clear insult, it is not argumentum ad hominem. If I call you stupid in another context, but do not use it to dismiss your arguments, it is still not the ad hominem fallacy – it is an extraneous insult.
To say “I’m going present an argument of a prominent liberal; I’m sure you’ll find this better than presenting the argument of non-liberal” is to direct the argument “at the man” – ad hominem – not at the position.
As for the rest – you’re still playing your pathetic games of trying to spin what your opponent says in some direction that you can use to try to declare a victory. That’s intellectually dishonest. I’m not going to reward you by playing that game with you.
You’re telling me to look it up after I provided a link?
In contrast, you provided no source.
“Against” not “at” is the proper translation. See these 2 sources on top of the earlier one:
Consult some sources, LHW. You will see that all the examples provided are ones that attack the character, motive, or circumstances of the opponent. Argumentum ad Hominem must be an attack, it must be personal, and it must be irrelevant.
Citing the world’s most respected left-leaning economist is not an attack, his political leanings are not personal, and they are not irrelevant to a discussion about the political economy.
Citing the world’s most respected left-leaning economist is not an attack, his political leanings are not personal, and they are not irrelevant to a discussion about the political economy.
So you’re now a Keyensian?
Long ago, at several wingnut websites, I tried argumentum ad hominem myself. Didn’t work.
When I presented that the most vocal anti-war types were conservatives: Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand…. practically every commentor declared them lefties, at least when it came to foreign policy. Big military and nation building were now, for them, conservative values.
When I persisted using more conventional debating techniques, such as logic, threads in which I participated were either abandoned, or I was banned.
But I didn’t feel so bad. The resident atheist objectivists were usually hammered as lefties because they weren’t Christians.
It must be quite lonely for the few remaining educated thinkers on wingnut blogs these days.
LHW, allow me to do a reverse-strawman and help you along. Its sounds like you confused Argumentum ad Hominem with the Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority):
Since I was doing a cite, this would make for a better fit. Now of course Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist, so a cite to him is legit since you need a person with “no expertise in the given area” in order to trigger the fallacy.
However, if I may try to strengthen your argument, you are trying to say that citing Krugman because of his political leanings triggers the fallacy, since those leanings do not speak to his expertise or to anything relevant about the topic at hand. I cited an authority by using irrelevant characteristic of the person, in other words.
That’s a stronger argument, no? You were on to something but got a little confused. No worries.
The problem is Krugman’ iconic status on the left speaks to the fact that free-trade enjoys a huge academic consensus and is noteworthy because you have left-leaning thinkers embracing a notion more identified with the libertarian-right. As I said when I first mentioned Krugman’s name:
LHW confusion is apparently a common mistake.
The phrase “ad hominem argument” is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
This sounds like what I was doing. Using LHW’s or Lefties-in-general presumed respect for Krugman as a reason to cite Krugman, among other more obvious reasons. As long as the cite is legit under the grounds-rules of appeal to authority, it’s a very effective and disarming device. And respectful since it handicaps oneself.
I don’t have strong opinions here so I can’t label myself one. I’m open to the school of thought though and believe Obama’s stimulus helped.
But I often argue from the assumption that Keynesian principles are correct, if I believe my opponent is one. This way we have a common reference point and debunking someones ideas using their own premises is a powerful device to use.
It also draws out more substantial discussions since you don’t get bogged down on basic principles.
Quitter…
But I often argue from the assumption that Keynesian principles are correct, if I believe my opponent is one. This way we have a common reference point and debunking someones ideas using their own premises is a powerful device to use.
Jesus Christ. What a windbag.
Haha, it’s funny because Frank is making fun of a cancer patient.
Interesting. What about Buddha?
I think Buddha would agree that you’re a windgbag, Manju, although he’d be a little more circumspect than farafoo’s own formulation in diagnosing the problem.
Zython, Frank DiSalle is just showing that spirit of charity and sympathy for someone stricken with a horrible disease, just as he was taught to by the priests and nuns he knew in his youth.
Or, he’s just given me a new post with the tentative heading:
“Have you no decency, sir?”
Nope. Sorry. I *am* pleased that you’re researching – greater learning is a good thing – but I’m not going to engage your childish game of “got you last!” You placed value (positive or negative) on an argument by the person making it – argued “at the man” – and I pointed out that doing so made your argument “weaker”. You could have chosen to learn from your mistake; you chose to engage in a variety of intellectually dishonest attacks. That was your choice, and your problem. I will not reward that behavior by pretending your arguments are worthy of discussion.
Learn to think – don’t keep looking for links that prove you “win”. Understand *why* a fallacy is a fallacy. And then, try to remove those fallacies from your thinking process.
What about Buddha?
How about you just accept my premise that you’re a windbag. Then you can lure me into your devastating trap.
First you ask me to do research (1). I point out that I already did and you claim you are pleased (2). Then you dismiss the very research you had just urged me to do with a logical fallacy: argument by assertion (“Nope. Sorry.”).
But the cherry on this pile of BS is that you then urge me to stop conducting the very research you were just falsely accusing me of not doing: “don’t keep looking for links that prove you “win”.”
And 3 is yet another logical fallacy. Argument to motive. Although it’s unclear why looking for authoritative sources in order to win an argument is such a bad motive to have. I would think it would be more problematic to refuse to offer sources, out of fear that you might lose.
This is the crux of your argument and I not only debunked it by referencing sources, I even debunked it by accepted your false premise. In return, you provided no source.
But back to accepting your false premise. Even if one were to accept your unique personal definition of argumentum ad hominem, it would still not be applicable because Krugman’s political leanings are not personal and are not irrelevant to an argument about the political economy, for the reasons I stated in my very first comment about Krugman.
Indeed, one source identified the mistake you are making:
The phrase “ad hominem argument” is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Argument by assertion. You have not identified what is intellectually dishonest about my attacks.
I accept your premise that I am Jesus Christ, a windbag.
Jesus wants you to cut Capital Gains taxes.
But then Jesus wants you to give everything you have to the poor and follow him.
So John Galt can go all Ayn Rand on your ass. Or something.
Aaaah Timmy…but what I (Jesus) failed to disclose is that I am the Poor. So you give everything to me.
Rand and the Big J have been reconciled.
I accept your premise that I am Jesus Christ, a windbag.
And so the premise expands: a windbag with a martyr complex who doesn’t know what an interjection is.
Fafaroo, if this interjection is anything like trade protection, you too will be praying for my resurrection.
Manju, thanks for clearing up how little you resemble any religious leader outside of a voodoo priest.
God, even when he has a messianic complex, Manju is still boring as fuck.
Zython, I’m sorry to hear your fucks are so boring. Perhpas fafaroo can lend a hand.
Manju, just leave us in peace, nobody is impressed with your sophistry here.
Correct. Looking for links – rather than true knowledge – and trying to find a way to prove you “win” rather than seeking greater understanding are not the way to learn.
This is still the logical fallacy of Argument to Motive, and a particularly poor usage of it since it’s unclear why the motive is bad.
After all, there is no reason to assume that someone who provides links that prove his case (“win”) does it for the motives you ascribe to him…and without the motive of gaining true knowledge. The two motives aren’t necessarily in conflict in the first place. I recall why Richard Feynman was so impressed with Albert Einstein. He was simultaneously in love with Relativity while also being unusually open to criticism of it.
I doubt anyone wants to lose, so this argument produces the absurd result of undermining everyone. This is why Argument-to-motive is a logical fallacy. Under what circumstance could someone provide a source substantiating his case without being accused of wanting to win?
Let me see if I have this straight.
“looking for links, and trying to ‘win’ is not the way to learn; instead, look for true knowledge and seek understanding” is, you claim, “fallacious” because it is an “Argument to motive”.
No, you know what? I don’t care if I have this straight. Anyway you slice it, you’ve gotten completely ridiculous.
LHW: Without any evidence whatsoever, you ascribed to me a bad motive for doing the very research you had, only a few comments ago, urged me to do (“Look it up”). My motive according to you? I was merely “looking for links that prove” I “win”. I was not motivated by the desire for “true knowledge”.
You used your own unsubstantiated suspicion of what motivated me to justify not addressing the argument in the link (“I’m not going to engage your childish game of “got you last!””). Since the argument itself was never even addressed, this constitutes a pretty egregious logical fallacy.
In contrast, even if I were to accept for the sake of argument your bespoke definition of argumentum ad hominem, i.e. that referencing Krugman as I did is a logical fallacy, I did not use the “fallacy” to excuse myself from addressing your actual arguments. Which were, to jog your memory since you’ve long exited the more substantive conversation:
1. Free trade is not a “moral argument”
2. “Shipping jobs overseas does mean loss of jobs locally”
3. “We have wealth created by injustice – but as long as it’s invisible, it’s considered acceptable.”
All these arguments were addressed directly by extracting quotes from the world’s most prominent left-wing economist, who I used as source because, among other reasons, I suspected you would consider him an excellent one.
Your arguments were addressed. Your political leanings were respected. And what I get in return is a questioning of my motives.