| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
Re:Re:Re:Pure Opinion: Is America a democracy?
Self Interest Governs All Part 2 of 2
A similar problem occurs when it comes time to put time, money, or effort into taking care of the commons. For every, hour, say, that I put into taking care of the commons, I pay 100 percent of the time (it is all me, nobody splits that hour with me) and I enjoy only a tenth of the benefit from my efforts during that time, since I only get to use the commons a tenth of the time, or I only get to use a tenth of the commons, or whatever we have all agreed to. So the natural economics of the situation is that everybody benefits most by using the commons as much as they possibly can and contributing to its upkeep as little as they absolutely have to. It winds up being a lose-lose proposition for everyone unless you can find a group of people that are just naturally altruistic and civic minded, and wouldn’t dream of using the commons any more than they’re entitled or caring for them any less than their fair share. In real-world terms, that’s quite a difficult crowd to pull together.
In terms of our modern world and today’s politics, we have all kinds of “commons” resources that we have to share, and where these dynamics will pop up. Highly visible examples are the air, rivers and oceans, which we all depend on and all want others to help us keep clean. Natural resources, like forests, mineral deposits, and farmland. Anything that we have to share and which requires some sort of sense of responsibility in its use and management.
This may make it a whole lot easier to see why it is so difficult to work out international treaties to deal with the problems of pollution and global warming. It may also explain why public bathrooms can get so nasty.
Cheers!
Mark / Sacramento
|
Language pair: English; German
|
|
Mark S.
June 1, 2005
# Msgs: 6
Latest: June 4, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:Pure Opinion: Is America a democracy?
"Self interest governs all" The only thing that you can really count Self Interest Governs All Part 1 of 2
"Self interest governs all" means that the only thing that you can really count on is that people will do what is in their own best interests. This is the main principal behind western economics, and is also the great limiting factor that confronts us in dealing with problems that do not improve "the bottom line" for business. The classic example of this is known as "the problem of the commons."
Imagine you live in a small pastoral community where everyone raises livestock. Maybe grazing land is scarce, but we have a public "commons," a place where we can all graze our animals, so long as we are considerate and do our part in maintaining it.
Here's where the problem comes in. If we all have to share the commons--lets just say, for example, that there are ten local ranches—that means that we each enjoy about a tenth of the benefit of the commons, and are responsible for about a tenth of its upkeep. But look what happens when we start sharing it.
I may notice that I’m making fairly decent money from my livestock, but I might actually make a whole lot more if I double the size of my herd. If I do this, I double my benefit from the use of the commons without any increase at all to my cost in supporting it. Unfortunately, this is true equally for all who share the commons. You may imagine what is going to happen. Everyone is going to want to double the size of their herds, and pretty soon, we’ll all have so much livestock that we’ll all be overgrazing the commons. That’s going to ruin the grassland and make it unusable for all of us. Now, there’s going to be a big fight over who has to get rid of some of their animals, because all of us are enjoying such great benefit at such a low cost. This means that we’re all going to have to share some further expenses to provide security to ensure that everyone follows whatever we end up agreeing to as a group in order to reestablish some peaceful, sustainable way to use the commons.
See Self Interest Governs All Part 2 of 2
on is that people will do what is in their own best interests. This is the main principal behind western economics, and is also the great limiting factor that confronts us in dealing with problems that do not improve "the bottom line" The classic example of this is known as "the problem of the commons."
Imagine you live in a small pastoral community where everyone raises livestock. Maybe grazing land is scarce, but we have a public "commons," a place where we can all graze our animals, so long as we are considerate and do our part in maintaining it.
Here's where the problem comes in. If we all have to share the commons--lets just say, for example, that there are ten local ranches. That means that we each enjoy about a tenth of the benefit of the commons, are responsible for about a tenth of its upkeep,
|
Language pair: English; German
|
|
Mark S.
June 1, 2005
# Msgs: 6
Latest: June 4, 2005
|
Re:A new world begins today
I think he’ll be working along the same lines as John Paul II. This is logical taking into account that he was the most important advisor of the former Pope. He’s said he’ll carry on with the teachings in Vatican II, so I don’t think there’ll be much change within the church, pity, personally I’d have liked a few changes!
I guess he’s determined to do his best to go on with JPII’s foreign policy and mediation, and I don’t know if the world will be different with him as Pope, may be this will depend on his personality and strength to cope with the demands of a globalized society.
Now, what’s the view non-catholics get of the figure of the Pope?
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
american version
April 26, 2005
# Msgs: 2
Latest: April 26, 2005
|
seeking esl tutors for a website
hi everybody,
I'm looking for an esl teacher to help students online. This is a chatroom where students can go for help, but we need teachers who just have some free time and like helping students. We are two at the moment, but we need more. Are you interested?
Send me a message and I'll give you the address of the chatroom.
thanks
Andrew
|
Language pair: English; Italian
|
|
Andrew P.
April 25, 2005
# Msgs: 1
|
Re:The results of the dialogue. Part 1 of 1 (can you beleive it?)
Arnaud My own thinking 042305
Hi Arnaud,
Once again, I think we agree far more than we disagree. It is important to note that the word "Media" derives from the Latin, and is therefore a plural form for the singular, "medium," meaning a method or substance used for a given purpose. Thus, when I refer to the "media," I’m referring to all of the different technologies by which information is distributed on a mass scale, whether that be books, magazines, newspapers, television, radio, cable, Internet—anything you can name.
I agree completely that print media are far more detailed and informative than television news broadcasts, but there are other programs, such as McNeil-Lehrer, or 60 Minutes that provide more detailed reports of important issues. As I look over your reading list, I have to say that it seems you must be very well informed.
If I have led you to believe that I advocate letting somebody else tell me what to think of the facts, I have sadly misrepresented my views. What I meant to imply is that it is not practical for me to do the work of five news crews, sifting through all of the worlds events every day and deciding for myself which ones require my immediate attention. I still have to earn my own keep, complete my school work and find time to relax with my girlfriend (not to mention posting a note or two now and again at MLE). I could do none of these other things if I were selecting my own news stories from all of the events taking place in the world every day. I have to trust the professional's opinions, to some extent, with regards to what requires my attention.
I do believe in listening to news commentator's opinions as to what the fact mean, again, because they are more experienced and skilled than I in providing news analysis. It is why they are paid to do the job. That does not mean that I don't listen to them critically and take responsibility for questioning their thinking. It is their job to do the work, and like a good supervisor, it is my job to evaluate the quality of the work they have done, treat their views as "recommended interpretation," and then make up my own mind as to a final analysis.
You'll see something of my process if you read the post I will be making shortly, on the EU Constitution discussion. I will discuss what is being said by various experts on the Constitution, and what I happen to think of their views.
:-)
Talk to you soon!
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
April 23, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Re:Re:Media Madness Part II of II
It sound like we're pretty much in agreement around most of this stuff. The big difference between us that I can see is that I am focused on the full half of the glass and you seem to be looking more at the empty half.
I think, though, that the idea of "introducing"' ethics to the media –your wording suggesting that the media have never heard of ethics before—might be rather untimely. I will grant, certainly that they do not always follow them perfectly, but I can't agree that they've never heard of them before.
As to your reading of the news as uninformative—I can't speak to whatever news stories you refer to, and it's very likely we haven't seen the same ones (I don't watch CNN much). I'm not sure in specific terms what kinds of questions you are expecting the media to answer, and what kinds of information you're getting instead. Yet I feel moved to suggest the following, just on the outside chance that it might be helpful: People often want the media to give us definitive information about things. We want them to make it easy for us to decide whom to vote for. But that's not really their job. They are responsible for providing us with a conduit of information. They can hire analysts to read the facts for us and offer their opinions as to what it means, but nobody really knows, ultimately, what it all means, and it's all guessing anyway. Finally, all we can really do is take it all in and then trust our own instincts when it comes to decision making.
I'm not saying that the media always do a good job of reporting all of the facts, but I find that they do more often then they don't
It is true that we cannot know what the media choose to omit from their reports, but only up to a point. You may recall my story of hearing a report of Wall Street meddling in the affairs of Mexico in Chiapas. I know that the mainstream media chose to ignore this story for a month before they finally ran it.
Something I really appreciate about being multi-lingual is that I can browse through international news reports and learn something about events that U.S. media may choose to ignore, but which other countries find important. That can often be very interesting. And of course, I think you and I both agree that it is important to read some news sources outside the mainstream, who will also be willing to run stories that are ignored by the biggies. Obviously, there is no way to get ALL the news—and I wouldn't want to; I do have a live to live when I'm done bringing myself up to currency. I find it important to strike a balance between maintaining a healthy skepticism about the news and trusting professional news reporters to know their job. If I want to try to do their jobs for them, I'm in the wrong career.
Á bientôt,
Mark
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
April 21, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
A new world begins today
So how are you all reacting to the news of Pope Benedict the XVI? What do you think? What do you thing it will mean? Do you think that the world will be different with him in the Vatican than it was with Pope John Paul II?
Mark Springer
Sacramento, CA USA
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
April 20, 2005
# Msgs: 2
Latest: April 26, 2005
|
Media Madness Part II of II
The fundamental problems with the media, I think, are that they don~{!/~}t take enough responsibility for raising the bar on national / social discourse. They pretty much give us whatever we want, and for our part, we take very little responsibility for what we want, demanding lots of sex and drugs and spectacle (In Rome, they called it bread and circuses~{!*~}nothing~{!/~}s changed, just the technology), and then we demonize the media for giving us so much trash and so little meaningful content. Meanwhile, we and the media continue pointing fingers at one another, and they keep giving us lots of trash, and we keep enjoying it as we continue to complain that it is all trash.
The continuing reduction of competition among the major media corporations, of course, is lowering the bar further, giving media companies more and more autonomy in constructing programming. And they continue providing what makes them money.
I agree that the media tend to be a lot kinder to the president than he deserves, and that puzzles me. On the other hand, I don~{!/~}t see them hiding important facts that we need to have in order to know what is going on. We know about Abu Ghraib. We know about the results of Afghanistan, we know that Iraq is still in some real chaos. I have no reason to believe that important facts that we need are being withheld by the media.
I agree that a free and productive media system is crucial to a free democracy. But we still have yet to design a good media system that is motivated primarily by the quest for the must informative, clear, accurate, and timely news, rather than by profit.
But your very last comment is the one that makes me certain that there is no media system better than ours. For all of its blunders and fumbles, the fact that our media program will stand up publicly and confess them convinces me that they are doing the right work and they are constructed effectively.
The other thing I find it important to remember when I~{!/~}m evaluating someone else~{!/~}s work, is that it is always very easy from the outside to point fingers and tell them they~{!/~}re doing this all wrong, but that~{!/~}s very different from being the one doing the work and having everyone else criticizing me. I think that, all things considered, the news media probably do more well than they foul up. I~{!/~}m not ready to fire them all yet :-).
Of course, the President is a different matter entirely. I have done my very best to put myself in his shoes, and the only thing I can come up with is that he is a willful, ignorant, fearful, dangerous man. If I had my way, we~{!/~}d have fired him a lot time ago. Of course, I~{!/~}d never have given him the job in the first place. Just his record in Texas on capital punishment alone was enough to convince me that whatever this guy uses for a conscience has nothing to do with justice.
Talk to you later.
Mark
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
April 19, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Media Madness Part I of II
Hi Arnaud,
I~{!/~}m certainly not saying that our media is perfect, and I don~{!/~}t deny that there have been some horrible goof-ups now and then. Certainly there are problems with our public media, and as the large networks continue to snake around and remove FCC anti-trust regulations, things are certainly not going in a positive direction.
The problem is, what would you do to fix the system? As long as the U.S. continues to be a capitalist republic, the primary motive of the media will continue to be profits and market share. This means that they will air what people want to watch, and the sad truth is that sex and violence always sells. I would love to see a whole lot more socially valuable content, but then, that~{!/~}s why we have public stations and why I use them.
There is a tremendous amount of pressure on reporters to ~{!0~}scoop~{!1~} the competition by getting their reports in quickly. But these people are professionals. They know that that is what the job consists of when they decide to take it, and their job is to excel at getting and confirming the facts quickly and keeping their own network out in front. This is the basis of free market competition, and it is true of any industry. This is the market system we have chosen to work in. So if Dan Rather (whom I~{!/~}ve always respected deeply) makes his allegations about the president without having all of his evidence in order beforehand, he lets us all down. He fails in his efforts to bring the truth to life, and he fails to behave professionally as a news reporter. It broke my heart, what happened, but I have to confess that Rather bungled his job worse than a first year rookie. I don~{!/~}t know how it happened, but there it is.
The Florida election announcement in 2000 was also a terrible blunder on the part of the media. I have no doubt that it may well have altered the outcome of the election. But that, I blame, not on the media, who are human beings with a job to do, and should be expected to make mistakes now and then, but on the Democratic party, for failing to do what it takes to get a solid message out to the voters and provide the party leadership we need in order to win the White House. It is wrong for one news station to skew the outcome of the election, but it is wrong that the Democratic party let the election get so close.
This doesn~{!/~}t justify the irresponsible behavior of the station in question. Whoever decided to make that announcement and whoever made it should both have been fired. Nonetheless, I hold the news media responsible for reporting news, and I hold the political parties responsible for getting their candidates elected. But I attribute this to incompetence of individuals, not to fundamental problems with the media.
(Continued: See Media Madness Part II of II)
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
April 19, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
Quentin Reply Part VII of VII
President Bush. Agh. You're going to get me started again. I think his people get to say whatever they want off the record. I think he would kick their behinds if they ever said anything "off message" publicly, but I think this is true of any President. The mission of the Whitehouse is to provide national leadership, and everyone, especially the key officers have to project a unified, perfectly disciplined image to the public. That goes with the job. I'm certain that, off the record, Bush will generally ignore anything he doesn't like or doesn't understand. And I don't think that Bush is running the country. I think Dick Cheney is. I think that, like the stereotype of a wise wife, Cheney is adept at listening carefully to what Bush wants to do, showing Bush how to get it, and in so doing, getting his own agenda on the table, having convinced the president that it was his idea in the first place.
But you're right, if you think that opposing viewpoints have no role in the Whitehouse. Bush has made that nice and clear up front. Facts don't seem to have much role in the White House.
Well, I've managed to go on forever. I'm going to go back and thin this out a little before I send it.
Thanks again for the message. I look forward to talking to you again soon.
Mark
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
April 17, 2005
# Msgs: 26
Latest: April 23, 2005
|
