Though I consider it inappropriate to engage in name-calling and other such incivilities, it is hard to resist that itch when dealing with a provocation called Sanjiv Sabhlok (SS). In my earlier post about him I have conveyed my very dim opinion about his intellectual capacity, prowess and philosophy. I will use the more euphemistic term of mealy-mouthed while describing the verbal hostilities of this man when denigrating people and ideas he is in violent disagreement with
SS's strident comments in his blog post below indulge in that kind of cheap negative characterization theatrics
http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/10/info-for-the-occupy-wall-st-movement-entrepreneurs-get-only-2-per-cent-of-the-wealth-they-produce/
This comment below from SS takes the cake
http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/10/info-for-the-occupy-wall-st-movement-entrepreneurs-get-only-2-per-cent-of-the-wealth-they-produce/comment-page-1/#comment-64267
So it is worth reproducing
"Dear RR
I’m afraid there is NO FAIR SHARE of income and assets except that which is earned. Let people CONTRIBUTE and then earn. No freebies exist or should exist. Stealing is not earning. That’s what socialists want.
I’m NOT at all saying that those who break the law should not be punished. Instead, I’m strongly in favour of good regulation and enforcement (justice). However mixing up issues as you (and other socialists) do doesn’t help anyone.
I agree with you that those who cheat must be punished. But don’t even try to punish those who earn from their own effort. The vast majority of “capitalists” are hard working innovators and I detest those who want to destroy human motivation and incentives by stealing from them. Socialist must learn to distinguish good from bad. The vast majority of wealth producers are doing a GREAT favour to humanity. For the crimes of a few black sheep (who SHOULD be punished and will be in the India I talk about), don’t destroy the ONLY engine of wealth production in this world.
Your continuous ill-informed and blind sniping at hard working diligent honest people who produce 99% of the world’s wealth (through their innovation) is getting a bit much. I will no longer take further comments from you on this topic.
You refuse to read my books, you refuse to learn, yet keep harping on. Are you sincere about learning or not? If so please demonstrate that you’ve read and understood at least BFN before coming back to this blog."
So now below is the well-deserved retort to the above grand-standing which was predictably censored by the "LIBERAL HYPOCRITE" SS
SS,
Your foolish and obstinate sloganeering about earning and bad mouthing socialists as beggars of freebies will not change perspectives by themselves.
On one hand you have admitted your ignorance of how big banks and Investment banks in particular and the financial sector in general operate/function inresponse to my comments on the ruinous activities of firms like Goldman Sachs. In another article to my comment poser of the social and economic utility of exotic banking products like swaps, CDS and derivatives, you again had no idea or view of its moral hazards or conflicts of interests and other critical shortcomings.
Yet you have the brash confidence of a delusive ideologue in proclaiming that hard working diligent honest people produce 99% of the world’s wealth(through their innovation) and are being targeted for abuse
Is the financial sector that at recent estimate made up 40% of Corporate profits in the USA which consists of a rogues gallery of GS, Morgan Stanley, AIG,Citi Bank, BOA who socialized their losses while paying themselves obscene bonuses also included in that 99% of pure as honey honest innovators and wealth builders. How about the honesty, integrity and diligence of the other half of the Corporate sector that not only preserved but expanded its profit by laying of close to 20% of US workforce and slave-driving the remaining work force with more hours and less to no pay rises.
Maybe classical liberalism does not believe in conventional math or facts. It has the licence of maxims, slogans and specious arguments to conjure up themagic number of 99% wealth creating honest wizards of innovation and creativity. I am waiting with bated breath to meet that mythical animal that could be rarer than the Unicorn or the Griffin.
I dont know what is the 'classical liberal' definition of 'contribution' and 'fair share'. But many critics and the short-changed and shafted middle classand poor are not such blind and compulsive prisoners or captives of a counterfeit and spurious ideology the way you hopelessly are. OWS and similar movements are realizing for sure how they have been gamed out of their legitimate claims and needs by the manipulative nexus of govt, wall street and big business.
There are many pretenders of classical liberalism like you in the USA who are blowing hot and cold over OWS. One such republican in Boston was recentlyhooted out. You anyway have no sympathy for OWS which you are using only for your usual agenda of grandiose moral posturing and hurling of invective at socialists and general populace who are quite reasonable in not having faith in your fairy-tales idea of liberty and free-market orthodoxy. As a pesky critic I love to return that compliment in full measure
Regarding your 'commandment' of reading BFN and acknowledging my 'subservience' to the specious ideological prescriptions in it, all I can do as the Americans say LOL!!.
I have had a foretaste of the kind of conservative rightist nonsense that it is replete with, when I followed an argument you had with the 'Arm Chair Guy' commenter. The poor guy took your advice of reading one of your works and regretted it as he confessed in one of his blog posts. I am surprised that a level-headed person like G Das could endorse the work of a maverick and delusive crack-pot like you. But who knows, the world is made of all kinds of people. I don't refuse to learn. But I have every right to refuse learning on your terms. I have indicated my reading preferences and book titles in quite a few of my comments. Did you read those books and articles and learn and understand them?.
For all your liberal pretensions, you have not resisted in the past the itch to censor comments that are unpalatable to you. So much for your tom-toming of liberty and freedom. You have very little patience for debate and when answers to discomfiting questions from a critic are not available or too disconcerting, censorship is the easiest weapon to reach for. If you are rattled by a small time critic and blogger like me, your promises of Indian political and social transformation sound very very hollow indeed!.
SS's strident comments in his blog post below indulge in that kind of cheap negative characterization theatrics
http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/10/info-for-the-occupy-wall-st-movement-entrepreneurs-get-only-2-per-cent-of-the-wealth-they-produce/
This comment below from SS takes the cake
http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/10/info-for-the-occupy-wall-st-movement-entrepreneurs-get-only-2-per-cent-of-the-wealth-they-produce/comment-page-1/#comment-64267
So it is worth reproducing
"Dear RR
I’m afraid there is NO FAIR SHARE of income and assets except that which is earned. Let people CONTRIBUTE and then earn. No freebies exist or should exist. Stealing is not earning. That’s what socialists want.
I’m NOT at all saying that those who break the law should not be punished. Instead, I’m strongly in favour of good regulation and enforcement (justice). However mixing up issues as you (and other socialists) do doesn’t help anyone.
I agree with you that those who cheat must be punished. But don’t even try to punish those who earn from their own effort. The vast majority of “capitalists” are hard working innovators and I detest those who want to destroy human motivation and incentives by stealing from them. Socialist must learn to distinguish good from bad. The vast majority of wealth producers are doing a GREAT favour to humanity. For the crimes of a few black sheep (who SHOULD be punished and will be in the India I talk about), don’t destroy the ONLY engine of wealth production in this world.
Your continuous ill-informed and blind sniping at hard working diligent honest people who produce 99% of the world’s wealth (through their innovation) is getting a bit much. I will no longer take further comments from you on this topic.
You refuse to read my books, you refuse to learn, yet keep harping on. Are you sincere about learning or not? If so please demonstrate that you’ve read and understood at least BFN before coming back to this blog."
So now below is the well-deserved retort to the above grand-standing which was predictably censored by the "LIBERAL HYPOCRITE" SS
SS,
Your foolish and obstinate sloganeering about earning and bad mouthing socialists as beggars of freebies will not change perspectives by themselves.
On one hand you have admitted your ignorance of how big banks and Investment banks in particular and the financial sector in general operate/function inresponse to my comments on the ruinous activities of firms like Goldman Sachs. In another article to my comment poser of the social and economic utility of exotic banking products like swaps, CDS and derivatives, you again had no idea or view of its moral hazards or conflicts of interests and other critical shortcomings.
Yet you have the brash confidence of a delusive ideologue in proclaiming that hard working diligent honest people produce 99% of the world’s wealth(through their innovation) and are being targeted for abuse
Is the financial sector that at recent estimate made up 40% of Corporate profits in the USA which consists of a rogues gallery of GS, Morgan Stanley, AIG,Citi Bank, BOA who socialized their losses while paying themselves obscene bonuses also included in that 99% of pure as honey honest innovators and wealth builders. How about the honesty, integrity and diligence of the other half of the Corporate sector that not only preserved but expanded its profit by laying of close to 20% of US workforce and slave-driving the remaining work force with more hours and less to no pay rises.
Maybe classical liberalism does not believe in conventional math or facts. It has the licence of maxims, slogans and specious arguments to conjure up themagic number of 99% wealth creating honest wizards of innovation and creativity. I am waiting with bated breath to meet that mythical animal that could be rarer than the Unicorn or the Griffin.
I dont know what is the 'classical liberal' definition of 'contribution' and 'fair share'. But many critics and the short-changed and shafted middle classand poor are not such blind and compulsive prisoners or captives of a counterfeit and spurious ideology the way you hopelessly are. OWS and similar movements are realizing for sure how they have been gamed out of their legitimate claims and needs by the manipulative nexus of govt, wall street and big business.
There are many pretenders of classical liberalism like you in the USA who are blowing hot and cold over OWS. One such republican in Boston was recentlyhooted out. You anyway have no sympathy for OWS which you are using only for your usual agenda of grandiose moral posturing and hurling of invective at socialists and general populace who are quite reasonable in not having faith in your fairy-tales idea of liberty and free-market orthodoxy. As a pesky critic I love to return that compliment in full measure
Regarding your 'commandment' of reading BFN and acknowledging my 'subservience' to the specious ideological prescriptions in it, all I can do as the Americans say LOL!!.
I have had a foretaste of the kind of conservative rightist nonsense that it is replete with, when I followed an argument you had with the 'Arm Chair Guy' commenter. The poor guy took your advice of reading one of your works and regretted it as he confessed in one of his blog posts. I am surprised that a level-headed person like G Das could endorse the work of a maverick and delusive crack-pot like you. But who knows, the world is made of all kinds of people. I don't refuse to learn. But I have every right to refuse learning on your terms. I have indicated my reading preferences and book titles in quite a few of my comments. Did you read those books and articles and learn and understand them?.
For all your liberal pretensions, you have not resisted in the past the itch to censor comments that are unpalatable to you. So much for your tom-toming of liberty and freedom. You have very little patience for debate and when answers to discomfiting questions from a critic are not available or too disconcerting, censorship is the easiest weapon to reach for. If you are rattled by a small time critic and blogger like me, your promises of Indian political and social transformation sound very very hollow indeed!.
No comments:
Post a Comment