Even monkeys know that inequality is wrong, so why doesn't Versailles?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 16:30


With folks like Christine O'Donnell and Glenn Beck on the scene, I've just gotta ask, "Who's the one who's stopped evolving here, anyway?"

From The Situationist blog, a brief but powerful clip from world-famous primatologist Frans de Waal talking about monkeys & equality:

A more general take-away from de Wall is just how important it is for those who wish to perpetuate inequality that they figure out some scam or system of scams that makes things seem like they're equal, even though they're not.

Appropos of that, here's a chart from this week's edition of Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies.  It turns out that over 90% of Americans would prefer to live in Sweden, rather than the US, so far as wealth distribution is concerned:

Paul Rosenberg :: Even monkeys know that inequality is wrong, so why doesn't Versailles?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Even monkeys know that inequality is wrong, so why doesn't Versailles? | 21 comments
But... but... but... (4.00 / 1)
We live in a center-right nation, where the majority identify themselves as conservative, and the Tea Party Libertarians are ascendant, right?/s
E-Yup! (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, "some scam or system of scams that makes things seem like they're equal, even though they're not."


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
That's what I could never, and can never (4.00 / 1)
figure out.  Why do so many voters continue to vote against their own self interests?  How have "they" managed to convince these voters that the cucumber slices (and rotten ones, at that) they're being fed are actually grapes, or that if they vote for the bozos, their cucumber slices will magically turn into grapes?  And the cucumbers never do turn into grapes, but the voters keep voting for the scammers, anyway.

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]
Easy (4.00 / 3)
They haven't
managed to convince these voters that the cucumber slices (and rotten ones, at that) they're being fed are actually grapes,

What they've done is convince these voters that the reason why they have to eat rotten cucumber slices is because of all the negroes and illegal aliens bankrupting our society. So their main incentive for voting becomes stopping the "free ride" the "leeches" of society are getting, a.k.a. "taking their country back".  

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, (0.00 / 0)
you're probably right, at that.  Oy!

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin
[ Parent ]
both parties are bozos (4.00 / 1)
and the farthest left party is center right.  Neither party is in my interest.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
And this is exactly why (4.00 / 3)
you hear Right wing talking heads wall-to-wall on the TV machine use the phrase "European-style socialism" with such derision. And it's also why when it's said, it never receives a "full-throated" challenge from whatever Versailles Democrat or pundit is up there representing the "liberal" voice:
1) "Oooh! Big bad scary rethuglican said, "socialism!", must run and hide from that!
2)Well, me and mine are doing well under the current system, so there's not really a problem. Yeah, I agree, "European-style socialism" = bad!
It's Amazing, Isn't It? (4.00 / 3)
How we spent 50 years during the Cold War defending "European-style socialism" to the death?

And anyone who questioned why we might be doing that was a "Godless Communist"?

Life's really hard & really confusing living inside a comic book.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
And inside "1984" where 2+2=5 n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It's the Blondes (4.00 / 1)
Sadly I can't find that chart and writeup at the Too Much site (wanted to link to it on Facebook), only another version of their newsletter. But I did find this after a long dissertation about the Forbes 400:

How much of an impact on our troubled nation could these staggeringly massive accumulations of wealth have if modestly shared - or taxed?

One quick answer: A 15 percent "wealth tax" on all personal assets over $1 billion would this year raise $145.5 billion, more than enough to cover the entire $140 billion budget shortfall America's 50 states are facing in the current fiscal year.

The 400 billionaires on the new Forbes list, after paying that tax, would still average $2.4 billion in personal net worth, over 37,000 times the $65,400 net worth that NYU economist Edward Wolff earlier this year calculated for the typical American family.

Now that sounds like a policy that would get votes, if only after Americans scream and yell to make it happen: tax personal assets OVER $1 billion.

Seriously, though, my hunch is the people who voted for Sweden secretly knew it was Sweden and have an innate attraction to blonde people, men or women (or both!). It's the only thing that makes sense for Americans to pick an economically balanced society. Otherwise, we'd all be Socialists and Communists and that ain't true.

Dang! (0.00 / 0)
Looks like that's last week's newsletter online.  Well, I'll have some more on the subject tomorrow, hopefully.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Seriously my hunch is - (4.00 / 1)
the people who voted secretly for the better system didn't know it was Sweden - because a minute ago two Americans walked in and said: "Who would want to live in Sweden?" - And that might be the problem - Americans prefer the better system but it better be 'America'!
Haha?!  
[ Parent ]
and where did I read - (0.00 / 0)
that over 30 percent of Americans believe that they belong to the 'Richest' in their country -
(Did these 5000 perhaps believe that society A was America?)  
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
In looking for Paul's chart, I happened upon one of the apparent author's blogs and this post, Wealth Inequality. Americans do wildly underestimate how unequal our society is and they, at the same time, imagine a more equitable society.

The current Two Many newsletter Paul links to has an amazing data set around billionaires, using the Forbes 400 list as a start point. If only every American in the country knew those facts. We'd be a very different country. There would be alot more agitation.

[ Parent ]
This post rests on the assumption (0.00 / 0)
That if System A is preferable to System B, then the mechanism for doing so should also be preferable.  Now, it happens to be the case that doing something like raising taxes on the rich is a fair mechanism that ought to be preferred by people, but that isn't necessarily true of all possible mechanisms.  As fun as it may be, fire-bombing the headquarters of financial services corporations may or may not change anything, but I'm about 90% sure it would be unfair to do so if it would make a difference.  I may stop and take pictures of it with my cell phone camera, but I probably wouldn't support it.

Of course, I'd be interested in seeing wealth redistribution from the top 20% in the world to the poorest of the poor in Third World countries.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

how would fire bombing those places be "unfair"? (0.00 / 0)
show your work
[ Parent ]
I'm just guessing (0.00 / 0)
I'm open to being persuaded that firebombing is fair.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Huh??? (4.00 / 2)
The only assumptions this post rests on are (1) that Frans de Waal is telling the truth about his monkeys, and (2) that the Harvard/Duke researchers are telling the truth about their data. If either are lying, their careers are done.  Science ain't like finance.  You don't get rewarded for catastrophic deceit.

I've noticed that you have this somewhat annoying habit of projecting your assumptions into other people's arguments.  It would be a good deal less annoying--and still get your point across--if you would rephrase somewhat.

For example, something like this, possibly:

The implications of this post seem to rest on the assumption that if System A is preferable to System B, then the mechanism for doing so should also be preferable.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Robert Gallow (0.00 / 0)
is one scientist that managed to get rewarded for his deceit. Much as I recognize the strengths of my chosen field, we are human.

While I agree with your conclusion that these researchers are not practicing deceit, I have to question your basic argument which appears to be some form of "scientists don't lie". That is a shaky premise.

The true strength of the process of science is that deceptions are discovered - in time. It is a self-correcting discipline, unlike most religions or political idealogies.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Not That Scientists Don't Lie (0.00 / 0)
Rather, "scientists rarely lie about data."  It's both a shared internal value and a very severely sanctioned one.

Scientists probably lie to themselves about the soundness of their reasoning at levels fairly similar to those of most other professionals.  But that's pure supposition on my part.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Gallow lied about data (0.00 / 0)
In fact, that's the reason for peer-review and the systemic obsession with reproducing the results of others, preferably by independent methods. That method tends to "weed out" the intentional and unintentional misrepresentations and misinterpretations of indiviual researchers.

There is alot of incentive to lie and misrepresent results, especially if one can garner short-term benefit - like keeping your job, or not having to close down laboratories that have been running for years.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Even monkeys know that inequality is wrong, so why doesn't Versailles? | 21 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox