LWA, I agree with you on Syria but would make the same argument against journalists who advocated taking a more militant stance against Nazi Germany from the invasion of Poland to Pearl Harbor. Yes, I realize that I'm invoking Godwin but armchair pacifism is just as annoying as armchair militarism at times.
ND, the article was interesting. I wonder if conditions were similar with the new money during the Gilded Age. There were some differences since the fortunes of the Gilded Age generally took much longer to build. Cornelius Vanderbilt started working at seventeen and a lot of his kids were adults by the time he made it rich. John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie took several years to build their fortunes. Morgan was born wealthy even if he increased it over time.
At the same time, I think that the tech rich aren't supporting the arts mainly because they weren't socialized into philanthropy and like many people of our generation, don't have the education background.
I think it might be best to refer to the Bible when talking about slouching towards Sodom and Gomorrah. According to Ezekiel 16:49, "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom and her daughters:arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and needy."
Basically, the Bible isn't saying that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't cultural decadence, it was that they lived by "FYIGM" and that they refused to live as a community that cooperates and supports each other. That sounds more like a displeasure with conservative economic theories.
"The VMAs the other night is certainly a sign of cultural decline. The same thing with those Juggalo losers. But what should we expect after 40+ years of conservative economic policies? This country will just keep slouching towards Gomorrah, heck it seems like we are now jogging."
Greginak, but did they actually enjoy the opera? 19th century accounts are mixed on that subject. A lot of the support of arts from the newly rich was done because they were doing what they thought rich people should do. By signaling I didn't mean anything bad, I just meant that people pursued these things because they saw them as part of their class.
Does it really matter whether somebody is a sincere believe or a cynical manipulator? The result is evil either way and its not like anybody is going to change.
I freely refer to race riots against African-Americans and others in United States history as pogroms. We refer to segregated and poor ethnic neighborhoods as ghettos. The lexicon of racism and hate has its origins in Jew-hatred.
Has this always been in the case? It actually seems like something that happened because of the 1960s. During the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, there was a great pressure to conform to societal standards in America. This was especially true if you were middle-classed. Rufus wrote about this in his post on Babbit. I'd argue that it was actually worse during the mid-20th century than any part of American history. One aspect of the Hayes Code was that correct standards of living had to be depicted on film and Hollywood was very good at creating conformity.
In the movie version of Lolita, and probably the book which I admit not to have read, there is a seen where Lolita's mother is trying to impress/seduce Humbert Humbert with her knowledge of high culture. Naturally, as a sophisticated European intellectual, Humbert Humbert is underwhelmed.
However, the seen got me thinking. There was a brief time in the 20th century where knowledge of high culture was something required in middle class society in the Western world. Otherwise you were a rube. It might have been phony, it might have mainly been a status symbol, and most people might have been over their heads but you were expected to know something about art, literature, and other aspects of high culture. This usually got derided as middle-brow. Maybe middle-brow was a good thing though since it required that people have at least a superficial knowledge of high-brow culture.
There should be aboslutely no military intervention in Syria of any form. Its only going to make a bad situation worse. Randomly dropping bombs isn't going to do much to hurt Assad or help his opponents. The only military action that we can do that will harm Assad is a full-scale invasion. The reasons why this is a bad idea should be legion. It will cost immensely in lives and materials, we will be responsible for the clean up after Assad falls and there is no way anybody could do a competent job.
ND, I can kind of see why people might feel guilty over pleasure reading when they are engaged in serious studies. Law requires really in depth reading and that could be rather time consuming. Taking sometime to pleasure read might feel like some people are cheating on their law books. Watching TV is an entirely different action, so it feels less like cheating on their law books.
A lot of diseases that we eliminated or got under control are coming back because of the anti-vaccination crowd. If we are lucky maybe state paternalism can come back because a lot of people need protection from their own stupidity or their parent's stupidity.
Note to Damon, this is a collective problem and requires a collective solution. When people refuse to vaccinate the kids, it hurts everybody and will lead us back to the world of epidemics and pandemics. I'd rather not go there even if the state nees to use force to comply people to do the right thing.
I have an alternative theory to Morat's above. Its not so much alternative as complimentary. Transitioning between child star and adult star is problematic. Most child celebrities have a difficult time keeping their careers going as adults becasue they are assoiciated with what they did as children. Flaunting sexuality is quick and easy way for an adult star to renounce their childhood. The factors mentioned by Morat20 help here. The other method, get starring roles in quality movies like Jodie Foster is much toughter.
Did the rich overall in the past have a stronger sense of moral duty than they do now? The Gilded Age had some great philanthropists among the rich like Andrew Carnegie, who was basically the Bill Gates of his day. Rockefeller to was a philanthropist. However, many of the rich of the Gilded Age had no sense oh philanthrophy. Cornelius Vanderbilt was opposed to all charity and argued if the poor didn't want to be poor, they should be as rich as he was. Gould, Frisk, and many others were known for their mean-spiritedness.
I think that this presents a rosy view of the past.
Will, I don't think thats how it really plays out in reality based on historical experience. When the nation was mainly aggrarian during the 19th century, a lot of farmers were as hardhit by the various panics as people in the cities.
greginak, I imagine that the rest comes from a shit in government policy from one that favors income equality to an extent to one that allows the rich to retain as much money as possible.
Isn't this a bit of a false choice? Just because you aren't concerned with upward mobility, doesn't mean that your happy with poverty either. A lot of people just want a decent income for doing work rather than having to hustle to survive, change jobs every few years, and maybe have a couple of different careers in their life. While a lot of people would love to be rich, I think you would find that most people are going to be happy with a stable job that provides a salary in the mid-five didgets.
From what I've read, it seems to do with gains in productivity; being able to do more work with less people. Traditioanlly, I think that 2/3rds of nation's wealth were supposed to go to wages and 1/3 to the owners of capital. It seems to be reversing because of productivity gains.
Rod, even assuming that you are right, and I think that you are engaging in a fair bit of over simplification on how the pre-industrial economy worked, people gave up that sort of agrarian life for reason. It was boring, it was tedious, and most people lived horrible lives during it.
Vikram, I guess overall I'm more concerned about quality of life issues than inequality per se. I see vast discrepancies of wealth as one of the causes of the problem but not the only cause. We can certainly have very well-off people and a high quality of life for the rest of us.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Jonathan Chait Shakes His Head at “Younger Liberal Friends””
LWA, I agree with you on Syria but would make the same argument against journalists who advocated taking a more militant stance against Nazi Germany from the invasion of Poland to Pearl Harbor. Yes, I realize that I'm invoking Godwin but armchair pacifism is just as annoying as armchair militarism at times.
On “Defining Cultural Decline”
Jaybird, I'd categorize the original Carmen as mass entertainment and probably more towards the low-brow, albeit a very beautiful one.
"
ND, the article was interesting. I wonder if conditions were similar with the new money during the Gilded Age. There were some differences since the fortunes of the Gilded Age generally took much longer to build. Cornelius Vanderbilt started working at seventeen and a lot of his kids were adults by the time he made it rich. John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie took several years to build their fortunes. Morgan was born wealthy even if he increased it over time.
At the same time, I think that the tech rich aren't supporting the arts mainly because they weren't socialized into philanthropy and like many people of our generation, don't have the education background.
On “Driving Blind: The Road to “Intervention””
That New Yorker cartoon was a classic.
On “Defining Cultural Decline”
I think it might be best to refer to the Bible when talking about slouching towards Sodom and Gomorrah. According to Ezekiel 16:49, "Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom and her daughters:arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and needy."
Basically, the Bible isn't saying that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't cultural decadence, it was that they lived by "FYIGM" and that they refused to live as a community that cooperates and supports each other. That sounds more like a displeasure with conservative economic theories.
"
"The VMAs the other night is certainly a sign of cultural decline. The same thing with those Juggalo losers. But what should we expect after 40+ years of conservative economic policies? This country will just keep slouching towards Gomorrah, heck it seems like we are now jogging."
"
Greginak, but did they actually enjoy the opera? 19th century accounts are mixed on that subject. A lot of the support of arts from the newly rich was done because they were doing what they thought rich people should do. By signaling I didn't mean anything bad, I just meant that people pursued these things because they saw them as part of their class.
On “Pat Robertson is a liar and hypocrite”
Does it really matter whether somebody is a sincere believe or a cynical manipulator? The result is evil either way and its not like anybody is going to change.
"
I freely refer to race riots against African-Americans and others in United States history as pogroms. We refer to segregated and poor ethnic neighborhoods as ghettos. The lexicon of racism and hate has its origins in Jew-hatred.
On “Defining Cultural Decline”
Has this always been in the case? It actually seems like something that happened because of the 1960s. During the 19th and most of the 20th centuries, there was a great pressure to conform to societal standards in America. This was especially true if you were middle-classed. Rufus wrote about this in his post on Babbit. I'd argue that it was actually worse during the mid-20th century than any part of American history. One aspect of the Hayes Code was that correct standards of living had to be depicted on film and Hollywood was very good at creating conformity.
"
In the movie version of Lolita, and probably the book which I admit not to have read, there is a seen where Lolita's mother is trying to impress/seduce Humbert Humbert with her knowledge of high culture. Naturally, as a sophisticated European intellectual, Humbert Humbert is underwhelmed.
However, the seen got me thinking. There was a brief time in the 20th century where knowledge of high culture was something required in middle class society in the Western world. Otherwise you were a rube. It might have been phony, it might have mainly been a status symbol, and most people might have been over their heads but you were expected to know something about art, literature, and other aspects of high culture. This usually got derided as middle-brow. Maybe middle-brow was a good thing though since it required that people have at least a superficial knowledge of high-brow culture.
On “Pat Robertson is a liar and hypocrite”
Its pretty much a blood libel accusation.
On “Driving Blind: The Road to “Intervention””
There should be aboslutely no military intervention in Syria of any form. Its only going to make a bad situation worse. Randomly dropping bombs isn't going to do much to hurt Assad or help his opponents. The only military action that we can do that will harm Assad is a full-scale invasion. The reasons why this is a bad idea should be legion. It will cost immensely in lives and materials, we will be responsible for the clean up after Assad falls and there is no way anybody could do a competent job.
On “Tuesday questions, Pet Shop Boys edition”
There are several people in general lines in my mind but one spectacular woman in general haunts my sleep.
On “Put it away, Miley”
ND, I can kind of see why people might feel guilty over pleasure reading when they are engaged in serious studies. Law requires really in depth reading and that could be rather time consuming. Taking sometime to pleasure read might feel like some people are cheating on their law books. Watching TV is an entirely different action, so it feels less like cheating on their law books.
"
Shouldn't cultural literacy include knowing about current culture even if the quality is lacking?
On “Who could have seen this coming? Oh, yes… EVERYONE.”
A lot of diseases that we eliminated or got under control are coming back because of the anti-vaccination crowd. If we are lucky maybe state paternalism can come back because a lot of people need protection from their own stupidity or their parent's stupidity.
Note to Damon, this is a collective problem and requires a collective solution. When people refuse to vaccinate the kids, it hurts everybody and will lead us back to the world of epidemics and pandemics. I'd rather not go there even if the state nees to use force to comply people to do the right thing.
On “Put it away, Miley”
I have an alternative theory to Morat's above. Its not so much alternative as complimentary. Transitioning between child star and adult star is problematic. Most child celebrities have a difficult time keeping their careers going as adults becasue they are assoiciated with what they did as children. Flaunting sexuality is quick and easy way for an adult star to renounce their childhood. The factors mentioned by Morat20 help here. The other method, get starring roles in quality movies like Jodie Foster is much toughter.
On “Just how committed are you to fixing inequality?”
Did the rich overall in the past have a stronger sense of moral duty than they do now? The Gilded Age had some great philanthropists among the rich like Andrew Carnegie, who was basically the Bill Gates of his day. Rockefeller to was a philanthropist. However, many of the rich of the Gilded Age had no sense oh philanthrophy. Cornelius Vanderbilt was opposed to all charity and argued if the poor didn't want to be poor, they should be as rich as he was. Gould, Frisk, and many others were known for their mean-spiritedness.
I think that this presents a rosy view of the past.
"
Will, I don't think thats how it really plays out in reality based on historical experience. When the nation was mainly aggrarian during the 19th century, a lot of farmers were as hardhit by the various panics as people in the cities.
On “Comment Promotion: Talking about Inequality”
greginak, I imagine that the rest comes from a shit in government policy from one that favors income equality to an extent to one that allows the rich to retain as much money as possible.
"
Isn't this a bit of a false choice? Just because you aren't concerned with upward mobility, doesn't mean that your happy with poverty either. A lot of people just want a decent income for doing work rather than having to hustle to survive, change jobs every few years, and maybe have a couple of different careers in their life. While a lot of people would love to be rich, I think you would find that most people are going to be happy with a stable job that provides a salary in the mid-five didgets.
"
From what I've read, it seems to do with gains in productivity; being able to do more work with less people. Traditioanlly, I think that 2/3rds of nation's wealth were supposed to go to wages and 1/3 to the owners of capital. It seems to be reversing because of productivity gains.
On “Just how committed are you to fixing inequality?”
Rod, even assuming that you are right, and I think that you are engaging in a fair bit of over simplification on how the pre-industrial economy worked, people gave up that sort of agrarian life for reason. It was boring, it was tedious, and most people lived horrible lives during it.
"
Vikram, I guess overall I'm more concerned about quality of life issues than inequality per se. I see vast discrepancies of wealth as one of the causes of the problem but not the only cause. We can certainly have very well-off people and a high quality of life for the rest of us.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.