[dohboi]

" hierarchical structure is part of our Western culture"

Perhaps, but so is overturning hierarchical structures when they get too oppressive. French Revolution, anyone???

[Ibon]

They (and society tends to agree) are more entitled to build, and remain, anywhere they want. Money talks. These 'new' coastal communities are perceived to generate GDP even as the costs are socialised.

I was thinking about something that may end up being quite an irony. There is no doubt that the leverage in wealthy communities will result that they will be receiving far more resources to keep their unsustainable coastal properties viable. But we all know that this is a battle that cannot be won.

The irony is that the poor, the first to be displaced, have the potential to end up being ahead of the curve, for they will be displaced early on and have more time to adapt elsewhere. Especially if they practice real frugal sustainable living arrangements. The wealthy, feeling entitled to keeping their lifestyle intact, will be dumping resources in a no win situation. In the end they may end up behind.

Remember that defining resources is not just physical. The poor will develop community based resources and learn to barter and trade outside the mainstream economy. The wealthy will be impoverished long term as they will rely more on physical walls and barbwire then they will on collaboration.

This is the potential irony.

[Newfie]

" hierarchical structure is part of our Western culture"

Perhaps, but so is overturning hierarchical structures when they get too oppressive. French Revolution, anyone???

What century was that? Didn't that end up with some guy as an Emperor?

The Western culture we have today is vastly different from the agarian culture of then. You need to come up with something post 1950 at least to be relivant.

[dohboi]

"Western Culture" didn't start in 1950. The fact that Western (and other) elites have been very good at accumulating and holding on to power recently only shows that a very big shift is coming. See the neighboring thread on warning signs of collapse.

But don't listen to me on this, hear it from the plutocrats themselves: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ats-108014

[Hawkcreek]

I think that hierarchical structure is part of our Western culture, a critical part. So, yes, its prety obvious we protect the privileged class, hell we created it, and float it all along. It makes some kind of sense, it must. I've some ideas about why but nothing definitive.

Greer has some ideas on that in this weeks essay/fictional prose.
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
He isn't perfect - just like the rest of us, but he is pretty smart.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The irony is that the poor, the first to be displaced, have the potential to end up being ahead of the curve, for they will be displaced early on and have more time to adapt elsewhere. Especially if they practice real frugal sustainable living arrangements. The wealthy, feeling entitled to keeping their lifestyle intact, will be dumping resources in a no win situation. In the end they may end up behind.

Remember that defining resources is not just physical. The poor will develop community based resources and learn to barter and trade outside the mainstream economy. The wealthy will be impoverished long term as they will rely more on physical walls and barbwire then they will on collaboration.

This is the potential irony.

That's a nice fantasy for those who love to "hate the rich" and pretend like the wealthy all inherited their wealth or that they did nothing to earn their wealth because, as Obama stupidly opined, "You didn't build that."

However, in the real world, the vast majority of the people who live on riverbanks that get flooded again and again, only to have their homes cleaned up, repaired, or rebuilt as "necessary", courtesy of Uncle Sam, are the poor -- NOT the rich.

In the real world, the majority of the rich (I'll include the upper middle class here) got that way by (in the words of Ayn Rand) productive achievement. They DID build that, or worked a complex, competitive, stressful career for 40 or so years. Such people may well screw up once or twice, and may not be made whole by their insurance. (Witness how many beach houses have been destroyed by storms, and how many fancy houses in the brush have been burned down). Such tend to be the provinces of rich people.

Like it or not, rich people tend to be better educated and more able to draw on resources and adapt than poor people. When it becomes obvious that behavior like building beach houses is an economic disaster for the owner -- the rich folks will (mostly) cease doing that once they find it too expensive.

Meanwhile, the poor living in flood prone areas will tend not to move until forced (and someone else pays for it) -- because like it or not, because such behavior is strongly correlated with the poor. The people hanging out in an area devastated by Hurricane Sandy and refusing to move because they claim they can't afford it, for one example, are NOT, by and large, the rich.

[ennui2]

In the real world, the majority of the rich (I'll include the upper middle class here) got that way by (in the words of Ayn Rand) productive achievement.

The second you evoke Ayn Rand you invalidate your argument. There are plenty of Gordon Gecko types in this world who gamed the system. Think Enron or the various banksters that created the credit crisis in the first place, only to walk away by virtue of "too big to fail", leading to OWS protests.

The rich don't deserve to be treated as one monolithic block, either to be demonized or praised.

[dohboi]

"“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel.

The other is a book about orcs. "

[Newfie]

Yeah, our version of Western Culture did start around 1950, maybe 1945. Although some would say about 1915ish with the invention of consumerisim.

We are talking real world, 21st century, here not freshman Western Civ.

................
I grew up around the New Jersey barrier islands. They have been hammered time and again by storms. I've seen it first hand. They have been rebuilt bigger and better time and time again. By the rich.

No doubt there are poor living in flood plains who have been repeatedly washed out. But why does it have to be an either/or situation. Why can't both viewpoints have merit?

[GHung]

O_S said; ..."However, in the real world, the vast majority of the people who live on riverbanks that get flooded again and again, only to have their homes cleaned up, repaired, or rebuilt as "necessary", courtesy of Uncle Sam, are the poor -- NOT the rich. "

Any citations for this?

My point is that the largest investment in new homes and infrastructure since we've become climate-change/sea-level-rise aware has been as a result of the non-poor, unless you want to claim poor folks can afford beach-front homes on the Outer Banks. And I'm not as divisively focussed on the rich vs. poor, or who pays for what, as I am on the "good money after bad" factor. In the end, we all pay. You seem quite adept at compartmentalised thinking. My view is more systemic and societal. Of course, maybe you think its fine for a society's people to continue to piss away resources as long as "they can pay for it".

When I see the need for change, I also look at who has the most capacity to bring that change about. Unfortunately, those who have the most capacity to make better choices generally have the least incentive to do so. I don't like hubris that we all have to pay for eventually.

[Newfie]

E and D agree on Ryand. Figures. PC Brigade.

I'll say this. I've read her book. (I find that most people who slam her have NOT read the book,they just follow the popular opinion heard.)

I was a young man and read it in a political vacum, there was no one to discuss it with. I found a lot of truth. I also find that I have a very, very different take on her opinions than most folks (who haven't read the book.). Yeah, it's a fantasy, I viewed it sort of like SciFi. I heard her as disgusted by useless middle management that adds nothing to the creative process and which leaches off the poor.

So when I hear people slam Rand, I hear folks in favor of bloated bureauocracy, middle managers, who desperately want to be rich and will screw the poor to achieve their personal goals.

I'm not a big Rand fan, her one personal appearance I saw was pretty wacky. I guess I just try to hear what she had to say and I find some merit to it.

[dohboi]

The elite I'm sure are glad to have Newf defending their right to have their viewpoint put forward. After all, they have so little power and so little means to put their own view point forward. The world has been so very, very cruel to them. Thank heavens they now have a brave hero in Newf!!

[Newfie]

Failing logical rebuttal you always turn to scarasam.

Have you ever considered taking a rhetoric class at a community college? They are inexpensive and you won't have to rub shoulders with the elite!

[ennui2]

"“There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.

Or you can just absorb both through music by listening to Rush.

unless you want to claim poor folks can afford beach-front homes on the Outer Banks.

Is it too much to consider that folks at flood risk are both rich AND poor?

Remember Katrina? They're soo poor and soo black?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sfo32rlkiE

The poor tend to live in areas that are at flood risk but are not your typical beach-front resort style locations.

when I hear people slam Rand, I hear folks in favor of bloated bureauocracy, middle managers, who desperately want to be rich and will screw the poor to achieve their personal goals.

The problem with most ideologies is they oversell themselves. Too much of anything is a bad thing. Too much objectivism = Scrooge like every-man-for-himself thinking. You know, "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" and "I've got mine, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack." Randism as it's been coopted by the elite is about THAT, not about John Galt fighting the inertia of bureaucracy or people feeling free to find and harnessing their gifts (ala The Incredibles or Rush 2112).

[Newfie]

Ennui,

I agree, I think?

I've been in a bit of a tear recently against bigotry of all kinds. Sometimes I get sort of carried away. But it rankles me to hear folks attack other, especially when it's just because we identify with a different group.

Ive been finding bigotry to be offended at most everywhere I look. Sometimes by the most left leaning PC folks imaginable.

[GHung]

Ennui selectively quotes and responds:

unless you want to claim poor folks can afford beach-front homes on the Outer Banks.

Is it too much to consider that folks at flood risk are both rich AND poor?

Is it too much to ask that you actually be honest when you quote me? As in including the qualifying part of the quote?

"My point is that the largest investment in new homes and infrastructure since we've become climate-change/sea-level-rise aware has been as a result of the non-poor, unless you want to claim poor folks can afford beach-front homes on the Outer Banks."

Not doing so is just plain dishonest. Speaking of Rush, did you go to the Limbaugh school of selective quotation and spin?

[dohboi]

N, so is that what they taught you in your community college rhetoric class, that if you are being shown to have a ridiculous position, throw out some irrelevant red herring by impugning the rhetorical skill of your opponent? You might want to get your money back from that course!!

I do like to include a bit of humor in my posts...otherwise it would just be non-stop, wall to wall doom!

I trust my comrades here are thick skinned enough to survive a bit of light joshing. No harm intended. Just tryin' to keep it light and lively!

[Newfie]

Another zero content post. If you intend humor, well they have classes for that as well.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide some serious content.

So, providing the benefit of the doubt for a moment here, exactly what was your point? Have at it.

[dohboi]

I don't have a 'point.' I have a question, as stated in the title of the thread.

And I'm pretty sure I provide more links in more posts than almost anyone else on the forum, so excuse me if once in a while have to just shake my head in linkless wonder at the need some feel around these parts to constantly stand up for the poor oppressed, neglected, and under-represented rich man.

As some street folk around here would put it: "Are you for real?"

This is not a formal debating society. We're just spitballing ideas, approaches, attitudes....wrt the total sh!t storm that is coming at us.

But if the kitchen is getting a bit too hot for ya....

[Newfie]

No one is standing up for the rich man.

Some folks are pointing out how society works.

If you don't have a point the. It comes across as though you are just baiting so that you can cluck your tongue, so you can have folks to look down upon.

While it may not be a formal debating society it should be a polite exchange of ideas. It's not the heat of the kitchen, just civil adult discourse.

If you ask a question then you have some obligation to try to hear the answer and understand it.

So, once again providing the benefit of the doubt, what is your opinion on who gets saved?