Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (186412)	3/31/2012 3:17:12 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542893

While paying more taxes might seem to be against the interests of the rich, if the taxes and safety nets stabilize society, as they seem to do, these things are in the interests of the rich, and everyone else. Entrepreneurship and capitalism doesn't just extend to legitimate activities, it extends to crime. When you deeply screw the poor, they will, often, find enterprising ways of exploiting criminal activities to "get back" at the upper classes- and make money off them. They will extort, kidnap, and steal. I find I prefer a society that keeps such initiative to a minimum.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (186412)	4/2/2012 3:37:10 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542893

>>It's the first interesting and insightful answer I have seen to the eternal question, why do people obviously vote against their interests? If it's not a lack of information or bias against that information (the latter is part of the problem of course), it means they perceive their interests differently, so in effect, their votes are FOR what they perceive as their priorities.<< I just bought and downloaded the iBooks version of the book, and I will read it on my iPad when I get that far in my reading list. I was thinking more about the review, and I had the following comment. You know that old saw, "Good, cheap, fast. Pick any two." If the what the book says is accurately represented by the reviewer, it seems that we can pick any two; Haidt's premises, his conclusions, or his prescriptions. But not all three.