“Ayn Rand and Jesus”

[traderwann]

Quote from RewriteQuran:
"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

Is this quote presented as pro-Christianity or anti-Christianity? If the latter as I suspect, it is more out of context rabbit droppings. I said that to start and I'm still saying it and people are still offering it up and I will keep batting them out of the park.

Twain was a Presbyterian. His views on theology developeded throughout his life, he attended church and engaged in religious discussions. I would bet this quote stems from one of those religious discussions, where he's commenting on how religion is used to manipulate people instead of enlighten them. In context probably the exact opposite as it is being presented here, although I haven't looked it up and don't plan to. He believed in God and constantly struggled with scripture, how things should be yet are not and had varying opinions on religion throughout his life.

Although he wrote some materials that seemed to ridicule Christianity he also raised or helped raise money to build a church. Apparently he was also a Freemason. All in all, it's impossible to portray him as anti- Christian over all without lying by omitting contrary evidence.

 

[nitro]

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

"Benjamin Franklin did it. Henry Ford did it. And American life is built on the faith that others can do it, too: rise from humble origins to economic heights. “Movin’ on up,” George Jefferson-style, is not only a sitcom song but a civil religion...

...One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind. Another may be the unusually large premiums that American employers pay for college degrees. Since children generally follow their parents’ educational trajectory, that premium increases the importance of family background and stymies people with less schooling....

...Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths....

...By emphasizing the influence of family background, the studies not only challenge American identity but speak to the debate about inequality. While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile...."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45885324

 

[jem]

this was a telling paragraph in the article.. thankfully the times had the integrity to print it.

"Even by measures of relative mobility, Middle America remains fluid. About 36 percent of Americans raised in the middle fifth move up as adults, while 23 percent stay on the same rung and 41 percent move down, according to Pew research. The “stickiness” appears at the top and bottom, as affluent families transmit their advantages and poor families stay trapped."

--
That finding challenges the core conclusions and headline of the new york times piece.

For instance I could take the same data and make this headline...
Big City welfare policies disenfranchise the underclass.

Welfare benefits and the requirement recipients must remain unemployed to receive benefits prevent those on the lowest economic rungs from participating in an otherwise very mobile society.




http://www.cnbc.com/id/45885324

 

[zdreg]

nitro


Registered: Sep 2001
Posts: 17144


New Post 01-05-12 02:23 PM

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

the subject is worthy of its own thread. go for it.

 

[nitro]

Quote from zdreg:

nitro


Registered: Sep 2001
Posts: 17144


New Post 01-05-12 02:23 PM

Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

the subject is worthy of its own thread. go for it.

I agree. But it does no good and I am tired. I have written and started threads on literally every topic point in that article. For example, threads appear repeatedly on what the above article hints at, what I (others ?) call generational eugenics.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=generational eugenics&pagenumber=1


Look at Optional777 response to my post, and my response:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=generational eugenics&pagenumber=2

 

[nitro]

BTW,

The problems we have today are almost identical to the turn of the century circa 1900 when industrialists were running away with the money with inventions that allowed immense productivity. A barrel of oil has the capacity to do the work of 500 horses when fed into the new machines. The less "educated" people (farmers) that were mobile and moved into cities and acquired new skills could move upwardly and became the foundation of the middle class. The union was born during this period, since corporations would have worked you seven days a week if they could.

I wish I could remember this author that was recently on WBEZ. He talked at length about how our problems are mirrored almost identically to then, but I don't remember what the book or the persons name was

 

[zdreg]

Quote from nitro:

BTW,

The problems we have today are almost identical to the turn of the century circa 1900 when industrialists were running away with the money with inventions that allowed immense productivity. A barrel of oil has the capacity to do the work of 500 horses when fed into the new machines. The less "educated" people (farmers) that were mobile and moved into cities and acquired new skills could move upwardly and became the foundation of the middle class. The union was born during this period, since corporations would have worked you seven days a week if they could.

I wish I could remember this author that was recently on WBEZ. He talked at length about how our problems are mirrored almost identically to then, but I don't remember what the book or the persons name was

was this possibly the interview you are referring to?
http://www.wbez.org/story/how-america-fell-behind-world-it-invented-and-how-we-can-come-back-93606

 

[MathAndLogic]

David Hume: "is" != "ought"

H2O and oil not soluble, Windows != open source => not everything can be mixed

Quote from nitro:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-05-Ayn-Rand-and-Jesus-dont-mix_n.htm

I am starting to believe that the reason there is a such dichotomy in peoples thinking is that we have become so specialized, that we don't see the synthesis that is necessary to weave all our beliefs into a holistic existence that allows for harmony in all.

When you are an economist or a trader, all you see are numbers and efficiency and productivity or lack thereof. When you are a deeply spiritual person, you cannot come to terms with the lack of compassion that is most economic thinking. But all we need is a hierarchy of thinking, where we consider all theories at once.

I wrote about this somewhere in a different but still interesting way, but I can't find my own stuff on ET anymore.

 

[RewriteQuran]

Ayn Rand & Jesus didn't for-see globalization.
Unlike capitalism, globalization is zero sum.

 

[mrman500]

Quote from RewriteQuran:

Ayn Rand & Jesus didn't for-see globalization.
Unlike capitalism, globalization is zero sum.

Globalization is only zero sum in the short term.