Moralizing vs Thinking

[Seattle]

I think the biggest divide in the public stage today is between those who think vs those who moralize. There can really be little discussion if one group is dealing in facts and the other isn't thinking at all but is just reverting back to subjective moralizing.

There is less thinking in the media (both sides) than ever. You might have a Progressive policy that someone is for, down the line it causes a problem and that same person wants a Progressive fix that will make that problem worse, never fixing the problem due to ideology.

Before widespread student loans, tuition was much cheaper. Before credit cards, obviously there was no credit card debt. People used to commonly save and pay cash for a small house, now they borrow and buy huge houses. People saved for basic cars, now they borrow for massive SUVs and trucks (and complain).

Before Social Security, people had to save so they had paid for houses and saving at retirement. Now they don't.

All this is largely made possible due to moralizing vs thinking.

This is a tough crowd, but what do you think?

 

[C C]

[...] Before Social Security, people had to save so they had paid for houses and saving at retirement. Now they don't.

All this is largely made possible due to moralizing vs thinking. [...]

• Max Stirner: Proudhon, like the communists, fights against egoism. That is why they are continuations and consequences of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something universal, something alien. [...] Since they’re enemies of egoism, they are therefore Christians, or more generally, religious people, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of whatever universal (God, society, etc.). --The Ego and His Own

Just before and after the French Revolution, many (if not most) of the emerging secular ideologies ironically seemed to just be continuing or emulating aspects of Christianity. Still inventing abstract principles that humans were supposed to follow, minus the outright personification of those concepts as supernatural entities. Replacing "heaven" with the quest for a socioeconomic utopia on Earth, and welfare policies for the supposed altruism of the missionaries and church communities. Plus the collectivist fellowship, etc. Even though some of the classical liberals were deists, their God didn't intervene, so their orientation was effectively secular (arguably acknowledging the hidden Christian legacy more than the rest or others).

So maybe stop mimicking the Christian scheme and borrow from paganism instead? Oh. The Nazis already tried that. Nevermind.

Eric Metaxes: Since Hitler had no religion other than himself, his opposition to Christianity and the church was less ideological than practical. That was not the case for many leaders of the Third Reich. Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and others were bitterly anti-Christian and were ideologically opposed to Christianity, and wanted to replace it with a religion of their own devising. Under their leadership, said Shirer [in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich], “the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.” --Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy
_

 

[Seattle]

• Max Stirner: Proudhon, like the communists, fights against egoism. That is why they are continuations and consequences of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something universal, something alien. [...] Since they’re enemies of egoism, they are therefore Christians, or more generally, religious people, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of whatever universal (God, society, etc.). --The Ego and His Own

Just before and after the French Revolution, many (if not most) of the emerging secular ideologies ironically seemed to just be continuing or emulating aspects of Christianity. Still inventing abstract principles that humans were supposed to follow, minus the outright personification of those concepts as supernatural entities. Replacing "heaven" with the quest for a socioeconomic utopia on Earth, and welfare policies for the supposed altruism of the missionaries and church communities. Plus the collectivist fellowship, etc. Even though some of the classical liberals were deists, their God didn't intervene, so their orientation was effectively secular (arguably acknowledging the hidden Christian legacy more than the rest or others).

So maybe stop mimicking the Christian scheme and borrow from paganism instead? Oh. The Nazis already tried that. Nevermind.

Eric Metaxes: Since Hitler had no religion other than himself, his opposition to Christianity and the church was less ideological than practical. That was not the case for many leaders of the Third Reich. Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and others were bitterly anti-Christian and were ideologically opposed to Christianity, and wanted to replace it with a religion of their own devising. Under their leadership, said Shirer [in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich], “the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.” --Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy
_

Maybe just try some critical thinking and deal with reality?

 

[parmalee]

• Max Stirner: Proudhon, like the communists, fights against egoism. That is why they are continuations and consequences of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something universal, something alien. [...] Since they’re enemies of egoism, they are therefore Christians, or more generally, religious people, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of whatever universal (God, society, etc.). --The Ego and His Own

Just before and after the French Revolution, many (if not most) of the emerging secular ideologies ironically seemed to just be continuing or emulating aspects of Christianity. Still inventing abstract principles that humans were supposed to follow, minus the outright personification of those concepts as supernatural entities. Replacing "heaven" with the quest for a socioeconomic utopia on Earth, and welfare policies for the supposed altruism of the missionaries and church communities. Plus the collectivist fellowship, etc. Even though some of the classical liberals were deists, their God didn't intervene, so their orientation was effectively secular (arguably acknowledging the hidden Christian legacy more than the rest or others).

So maybe stop mimicking the Christian scheme and borrow from paganism instead? Oh. The Nazis already tried that. Nevermind.

Or turn the Christian scheme upside down, a la Nietzsche, only to be interpreted/misinterpreted in more ways and by more people (including the Nazis, of course) than anyone could foreseeably imagine. (Incidentally, the Nietzsche as plagiarist of Stirner theories always struck me as odd--there's something there, but not a whole lot really.)

Even better, "commingle" the two as Jonas Ceika does in How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the Twenty-First Century. Of particular interest here is the manner with which he addresses the shortcomings of Marx's labor theory of value with respect to ecological and environmental considerations.

 

[Seattle]

I also think "we" are just becoming addicted to emotions. Don't appeal to logic, just fire up those emotions.

Today the most upsetting thing seems to be "the growing wealth inequality gap". When I was a kid we didn't even know how much the wealthy had nor did anyone care"

 

[TheVat]

Today the most upsetting thing seems to be "the growing wealth inequality gap". When I was a kid we didn't even know how much the wealthy had nor did anyone care"

Few cared then. People could graduate from HS, earn a living wage, and buy a house for their new family on one income. With wages that met basic needs, the gap didn't loom as large. Sometimes emotions are responsive to facts on the ground.

 

[C C]

Maybe just try some critical thinking and deal with reality?

That's the physical sciences. Rationality as applied to humans or human sphere is always going to be motivated reasoning. The situation more or less as it currently is. "Thinking" that is contaminated with the already existing social/business contracts and the self-interests of groups and individuals and the culture-based preconceptions they were raised under. (Along with the ones they've personally acquired on their own unique trip through life and processing information sources.)

Politicians need funding to be elected and that requires promises to those providing it, along with party loyalty and also either accommodating or just playing with the expectations of constituents.

One party relies on the votes of marginalized population groups (which entails catering to oppression-centered moral theories) and the votes of an upper echelon of professionals who need to balance the "unjust horror" of their success, income, and privilege by posturing for noble causes and performing a lot of Jesus or saint mimicking empathy antics for the downtrodden (so as to be excused for their status).

The other party has inherited a disillusioned working class due to whatever chain and jumbled mix of accidents, deliberate intent, dumb luck, and comedy of errors. A different beast of tangled concerns infecting the reasoning there. Unclear what it will be in the long run since Trump will be gone one way or another eventually. Difficult to imagine a traditional Republican attracting and holding together such a motley band of interests (adding RFK Jr's groupies during the last campaign was one to rival QAnon).
_

 

[C C]

[...] Even better, "commingle" the two as Jonas Ceika does in How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the Twenty-First Century. Of particular interest here is the manner with which he addresses the shortcomings of Marx's labor theory of value with respect to ecological and environmental considerations.

Yah, they just haven't done it right yet. Like fusion energy, it's going to happen someday.
_

 

[Seattle]

Few cared then. People could graduate from HS, earn a living wage, and buy a house for their new family on one income. With wages that met basic needs, the gap didn't loom as large. Sometimes emotions are responsive to facts on the ground.

I think the emotions are because the "wealth gap" is being thrown in their faces several times a day now. What do you think?

You can still get a house of the size and location that they did in the past. Most didn't do it on one high school wage. Most did it on two average wages.

Go to a medium sized town in a low to medium cost of living area and buy a 2 bed 1 bath house and save up for and pay cash for one car. It's not hard. Mortgage to income ratios aren't much different now.

Here's now it worked. Get married, start saving for a house and a car before you have a baby. Pay cash for the car and in many locations they paid cash for a house as well.

There were no credit cards, house loans, where available, required large down payments and 10 year loans. For vacation, you drove somewhere nearby. When you retired, you house and car were paid for so it cost very little after that.

You saved since you knew you were going to retire one day.

It's pretty easy and you can do it now.

Also when they got married, they decided "where can we afford to live on our income". That's where they moved.

As an example my parents saved for 10 years before I was born. They bought a house for $10k and paid cash. They bought a car as well. This was in 1955. It was a 2 bed 1 bath house in at city of 30,000 in eastern NC. My mom was an elementary school teacher and my dad, who had health issues (heart) did office work.

Today that same house is $100k. Anyone could save up enough for that house and a car in 10 years while living in that city. No need to relive the French Revolution.

This was also in the South where union factory jobs were few and far between.

 

[TheVat]

Today that same house is $100k. Anyone could save up enough for that house and a car in 10 years while living in that city.

Please.

 

[TheVat]

You can still get a house of the size and location that they did in the past. Most didn't do it on one high school wage. Most did it on two average wages.

Evidence, please. In 1960, our family bought a house of average size, on one middling income. This was common.

Some figures, from about two years ago....

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/housing-trends-visualized/

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, housing was becoming less affordable. One common measure of housing affordability is the “price-to-income ratio,” or, in other words, the relationship between the median cost of a home and the median income. According to Rice University, a ratio of three to one is a desirable upper limit. For example, a median home costing $150,000 and a median income of $50,000 would represent a relatively affordable situation.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, we were able to calculate the price-to-income ratio for Americans in 1960 as well as 2019.

• In 1960, the median home cost $11,900, while the median income was $5,600, indicating a price-to-income ratio of 2.1.
• By contrast, in 2019 the median home cost $240,500 with an estimated median income of $68,703, a price-to-income ratio of 3.5.

The cost of housing has risen much more quickly than wages in the past 60 years. Adjusting for inflation, we were able to compare the growth in wages and housing costs.

• The median house of 1960 would cost just $104,619 in 2020 dollars, far below the actual cost of $240,500, meaning housing costs have increased by 129%.
• Median household income has only grown by 39% in that same time period, from $49,232 (2020 dollars) in 1960 to $68,703 today.

 

[James R]

Still stirring the pot, I see, Seattle.

I think the biggest divide in the public stage today is between those who think vs those who moralize.

You might like to consider that maybe it's possible to do both.

There can really be little discussion if one group is dealing in facts and the other isn't thinking at all but is just reverting back to subjective moralizing.

Do you have any specific "groups" in mind, especially? I get the impression you do. Out with it, then.

There is less thinking in the media (both sides) than ever.

You're talking about the US media, and political "sides", I assume (?)

In that case, it might depend on which particular media organisation(s) and/or personage(s) you want to examine.

You might have a Progressive policy that someone is for, down the line it causes a problem and that same person wants a Progressive fix that will make that problem worse, never fixing the problem due to ideology.

Or a "Conservative" policy...

Before widespread student loans, tuition was much cheaper.

Do you think that student loans caused the cost of tuition to increase? Is that what you're saying? Do you think there could be any other factors in play?

People used to commonly save and pay cash for a small house, now they borrow and buy huge houses. People saved for basic cars, now they borrow for massive SUVs and trucks (and complain).

Credit is generally more readily available these days. There's an industry that has been built up around it.

Before Social Security, people had to save so they had paid for houses and saving at retirement. Now they don't.

All this is largely made possible due to moralizing vs thinking.

Interesting thesis. Needs to be fleshed out some more, though, I think.

I also think "we" are just becoming addicted to emotions. Don't appeal to logic, just fire up those emotions.

That's a very broad generalisation about "us".

Today the most upsetting thing seems to be "the growing wealth inequality gap". When I was a kid we didn't even know how much the wealthy had nor did anyone care"

The wealth disparity was far less back in the olden days. These days, there are trillionaires. We have individuals whose personal wealth is equivalent to the wealth of literally thousands of "average" people. That level of wealth disparity is not good for any society.

I think the emotions are because the "wealth gap" is being thrown in their faces several times a day now. What do you think?

I think you have a problem that you ought to start trying to solve. But it looks like, currently, you're heading in the opposite direction. By "you", I mean the United States, specifically. Not that the same problem does not exist elsewhere as well, but the most public examples are situated in the US.

Mortgage to income ratios aren't much different now.

Where?

It's pretty easy and you can do it now.

Spoken like somebody who has never had to struggle for money. Does that describe you, Seattle?

As an example my parents saved for 10 years before I was born. They bought a house for $10k and paid cash. They bought a car as well. This was in 1955.

In the middle of the post-war baby boom. After millions had died in a world war. Yes.

Today that same house is $100k.

Maybe I should move to the United States. In the city where I live, the median house price is more than US$700,000.

Which part(s) of the States are full of good quality $100k houses up for sale?

This was also in the South where union factory jobs were few and far between.

Does one have to live in red-state Trumpland to get one of those $100k houses, or are some also available in the more sane Blue islands in the South?

 

[billvon]

I think the biggest divide in the public stage today is between those who think vs those who moralize.

I do both. I would not support killing all the Muslims (or Jews, or blacks etc) even if someone could prove that it would make the world a less divisive place. That's because of my "moralizing."

Before widespread student loans, tuition was much cheaper.

Yep. A good case of unintended consequences.

Before credit cards, obviously there was no credit card debt.

Also true. So is the benefit work the risk? I use credit cards to great advantage, but then I rarely carry any balance month to month. It allows me to bridge the gap between ordering parts and travel spending and getting paid for my work, for example. That gap is rarely longer than a month.

People saved for basic cars, now they borrow for massive SUVs and trucks (and complain).

Since even the cheapest, most basic cars have gotten more expensive, that's not true. To your point, you have to think and not just go with emotion here. It's not that the "lazy entitled millenials want something without paying for it" - it's that even the cheapest car they can get has become much more expensive (even with inflation-corrected dollars.) I'll spare you the real world examples.

Sure, those cars are now better - more crashworthy, more efficient, more power - so you could argue that no value has disappeared. But the really cheap/unsafe/inefficient options simply aren't there any more.

Before Social Security, people had to save so they had paid for houses and saving at retirement. Now they don't.

Given that the SS program is almost 100 years old, and given that the home affordability problem (specifically the structural divergence between home prices and median incomes) started around 2000, don't think you can claim a causal link there.

 

[James R]

I would not support killing all the Muslims (or Jews, or blacks etc) even if someone could prove that it would make the world a less divisive place.

Also, making the world a less divisive place is only a desirable outcome based on "moralizing". Without the moralizing, the world just is. There's no reason to want something better. In fact, there is nothing that can be used to measure "better" or "worse".

 

[Tiassa]

Before Social Security, people had to save so they had paid for houses and saving at retirement. Now they don't.

Okay, so, vis à vis Social Security:

• What do you want?

• When do you want it?

• How do you want to achieve it?

• What happens once you do?​

Just for instance.

†​

Fourth-wall note: This ought to be an easy filter, but emotion often gets in the way. I used to try the same question with a certain manner of rightist-libertarian conspiracism, and no, the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists never could explain what happens next, or how life gets better after we banish The Fed. That last, what happens next, is the hook. I mean, plenty turn to articles of faith about how to achieve something, but even if a benevolent unitary executive could wave a magic wand in order to make it happen now, what happens next?

Similarly, what does anyone want for Social Security? If the proposition suggests, but does not explicitly propose to end Social Security, we might wonder how that makes anything better, i.e., When you wake up the day after abolition, how has your life changed for the better?

Oh, right. Thinking vs. moralizing; there is no better, only satiation. It's one thing if the implications read poorly, but we don't actually know what he's on about. And that's kind of the point: Some arguments never actually have to be supported because they are insupportable, but they remain attractive to the emotions of people who want something, so here we are.

 

[billvon]

Also, making the world a less divisive place is only a desirable outcome based on "moralizing". Without the moralizing, the world just is. There's no reason to want something better. In fact, there is nothing that can be used to measure "better" or "worse".

Well, you could probably put a number to it and say "the global GDP will go up X dollars if there's less division" - but I get your point. No reason for any goals if no goal is morally desirable.

 

[Seattle]

Please.

Not much of a response, is it?

 

[Seattle]

Evidence, please. In 1960, our family bought a house of average size, on one middling income. This was common.

Some figures, from about two years ago....

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/housing-trends-visualized/

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, housing was becoming less affordable. One common measure of housing affordability is the “price-to-income ratio,” or, in other words, the relationship between the median cost of a home and the median income. According to Rice University, a ratio of three to one is a desirable upper limit. For example, a median home costing $150,000 and a median income of $50,000 would represent a relatively affordable situation.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, we were able to calculate the price-to-income ratio for Americans in 1960 as well as 2019.

• In 1960, the median home cost $11,900, while the median income was $5,600, indicating a price-to-income ratio of 2.1.
• By contrast, in 2019 the median home cost $240,500 with an estimated median income of $68,703, a price-to-income ratio of 3.5.

The cost of housing has risen much more quickly than wages in the past 60 years. Adjusting for inflation, we were able to compare the growth in wages and housing costs.

• The median house of 1960 would cost just $104,619 in 2020 dollars, far below the actual cost of $240,500, meaning housing costs have increased by 129%.
• Median household income has only grown by 39% in that same time period, from $49,232 (2020 dollars) in 1960 to $68,703 today.

What you are missing is interest rates. Compare mortgage payment and it becomes similar.

 

[Sarkus]

What you are missing is interest rates. Compare mortgage payment and it becomes similar.

??? You do know that interest rates are higher today than in 1960, right? And with a higher house-value to income ratio, it's only to be expected that the mortgage costs represent a higher % of income today than it did in 1960.

So, what exactly is it about interest rates that TheVat is missing in what he said? Just curious.

 

[Seattle]

I do both. I would not support killing all the Muslims (or Jews, or blacks etc) even if someone could prove that it would make the world a less divisive place. That's because of my "moralizing."



Yep. A good case of unintended consequences.



Also true. So is the benefit work the risk? I use credit cards to great advantage, but then I rarely carry any balance month to month. It allows me to bridge the gap between ordering parts and travel spending and getting paid for my work, for example. That gap is rarely longer than a month.



Since even the cheapest, most basic cars have gotten more expensive, that's not true. To your point, you have to think and not just go with emotion here. It's not that the "lazy entitled millenials want something without paying for it" - it's that even the cheapest car they can get has become much more expensive (even with inflation-corrected dollars.) I'll spare you the real world examples.

Sure, those cars are now better - more crashworthy, more efficient, more power - so you could argue that no value has disappeared. But the really cheap/unsafe/inefficient options simply aren't there any more.



Given that the SS program is almost 100 years old, and given that the home affordability problem (specifically the structural divergence between home prices and median incomes) started around 2000, don't think you can claim a causal link there.

??? You do know that interest rates are higher today than in 1960, right? And with a higher house-value to income ratio, it's only to be expected that the mortgage costs represent a higher % of income today than it did in 1960.

So, what exactly is it about interest rates that TheVat is missing in what he said? Just curious.

Average interest rates. They were high in the 80s and at the average now. We aren't fixated on 1960 are we?