Opinion

Nicholas Wapshott

Not in the spirit of Hayek

By Nicholas Wapshott
May 14, 2013

It has been a bad couple of weeks for conservative social scientists. First a doctoral student ran the numbers on the study by Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that underpins austerity and deep public spending cuts as a cure for the Great Recession and found it full of errors. Then a policy analyst, Jason Richwine, who angered Senate Republicans trying to pass immigration reform with a one-sided estimate of the cost of making undocumented workers citizens, was obliged to clear his desk at the Heritage Foundation when it became known his Harvard dissertation suggested Hispanics had lower intelligence than “the white native population.”

It makes you wonder what Friedrich Hayek would have to say about such aberrant research. Hayek has become the patron saint of conservative intellectuals – and with good reason. He went head to head with John Maynard Keynes in 1931 in an effort to stop Keynesianism in its tracks. Hayek failed, but his attempt gave him mythical status among thinkers who deplore big government and central management of the economy.

Hayek became a conservative hero a second time with publication of his Road to Serfdom  (1944) that suggested the larger the state sector, the more there was a tendency to tyranny. Many of today’s Hayekians harden up Hayek’s carefully expressed thoughts to declare that all government is potentially despotic, while also ignoring his arguments in favor of governments providing a generous safety net for the less advantaged, including a home for every citizen and universal health care – perhaps because Americans were first introduced to Serfdom in a much truncated Reader’s Digest edition. They would do well to re-read the original.

The rest of Hayek’s vast oeuvre doesn’t get much notice, even from those who boast of their devotion to the master. But it is not a stretch to say that the very notion of conservative think tanks grew out of his plea for an ideology that would inspire and unite the right as effectively as socialist theory continues to inspire the left.

In the aftermath of World War Two, when Western governments adopted Keynesianism wholesale and Social Democrats with big spending agendas won landslide elections, Hayek assembled a ragbag of nonconservatives and maverick thinkers to a summit in an off-season ski resort on Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. He set them a task: Come up with an ideology to inspire conservatives and arm them with cogent arguments to counter socialists and Keynesians. He warned them the effort could take 25 years.

The group met annually, argued sharply with each other, and eventually outlived the fashion for Keynes and socialism. Mont Perelin’s achievement is that conservatives, once mostly traditional and opportunistic, are now armed – some would say cursed – with a compelling ideology of their own. By the time of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both Hayek devotees, a worldwide conservative revolution was challenging the onward rush of socialism and, with various degrees of success, slowing its progress.

Hayek, however, was not satisfied. A born contrarian and pessimist, he hotly denied responsibility for Reaganomics or Thatcherism. He distrusted all politicians for the compromises they must make, which is why he tried to deter protégés like Milton Friedman from joining the Nixon administration.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy Hayek left, along with an immense body of work,  is the clutch of conservative think tanks that fuel conservative political debate, among them the Hoover Institution, the Cato Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

So what would Hayek make of the Richwine affair? One thing right off: Hayek disliked national borders because they inhibited the free movement of labor. He was also color-blind. So the racial prejudice that underpins much opposition to immigration reform he would find abhorrent. He would also find Richwine’s sloppy and partial immigration paper an affront to scientific integrity.

Hayek had tough things to say about traditional seats of learning that apply equally today to the lavishly appointed think tanks he inspired. His views were so out of the mainstream that for most of his life he was treated as a pariah – even by Chicago University’s conservative economics professors who did not think his economics up to snuff.

Instead, Hayek had to accept a specially established chair in the social studies department funded by a businessman who had adored Serfdom. As a truly original and free thinker, Hayek was wary of businessmen who spend shareholders’ dividends on employing tame academics to research pet projects.

It was from personal knowledge, then, that he wrote, in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), about “the need for protecting institutions of learning against the cruder kind of interference by political or economic interests.” He advocated “watchfulness, especially in the social sciences, where the pressure is often exercised in the name of highly idealistic and widely approved aims.” He went on, “The danger lies … in the increased control which the growing financial needs of research give to those who hold the purse strings.”

He distrusted reactionary conservatism and wrote an essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” spelling out why. There was little point, he believed, in merely attempting to restore a previous age, however idyllic.

“The belief in integral freedom,” Hayek wrote, “is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.” He went further. “I doubt whether there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy. Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.”

Reading Hayek can be uncomfortable for those who are under the impression he would agree with them.

So what of the myriad, well-paid fellows attached to conservative institutions? Hayek deplored intellectuals who became involved in party political battles, as so many think-tank fellows do today.

“The task of the political philosopher,” he wrote, “can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action.” But he did not have in mind encouraging grass-roots causes like the Tea Party. An unashamed elitist and individualist, Hayek was suspicious of all mass movements.

“The higher the education and intelligence of individuals,” he wrote in Serfdom, “the more their views and tastes are differentiated.” The corollary is that “to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.”

He deplored those, perhaps like the talk radio and Fox News audience, “prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.” Instead, hope of achieving a better society “must rest on persuading and gaining the support of those who by disposition are ‘progressives.’”

Hayek believed academics could achieve their best work in an ivory tower. Most of the think tanks he spawned, however, cluster around Capitol Hill — the better to play politics.

Reinhart and Rogoff may be given a pass. They should have checked their figures more carefully and have apologized. It is the governments imposing terrible unnecessary hardships on their people, using Reinhart and Rogoff as a pretext, who are to blame for perpetuating the error.

Richwine, however, is different. If Heritage were ignorant of his racist Harvard thesis before it hired him, they are now being punished for their lack of diligence. When an institution loses the trust of the very people it sets out to please, they deserve to lose donors and be ignored in the future.

There is a hard lesson there for similar institutions dedicated not so much to discovering the truth as to pandering to a political clique. If they had read Hayek a little more closely, or with a more open mind, they might have saved themselves a great deal of embarrassment.

Nicholas Wapshott is the author of Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. Read extracts here.

 

 PHOTO (Insert): Former Senator Jim DeMint, who is now head of the Heritage Foundation.REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

arvard Professor and Economist Kenneth Rogoff speaks during the Sohn Investment Conference in New York, May 16, 2012. The Sohn Conference Foundation is dedicated to the treatment and cure of pediatric cancer and other childhood diseases. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

 

 

Comments
15 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Agreed that Hayek would not embrace the conservatism of today. He was a libertarian at heart, who was embraced by conservatives because his ideals more often aligned with those of conservatives (when compared to the statists/progressives/leftist who dominate the Democratic party of today).

Relative to Richwine’s thesis: thesis are structured so students explore topics that have not been addressed previously; or at worst, develop a new slant on a previously discussed topic. Controversial topics are not out of the norm, and in many cases are promoted by the sponsor. E.g. If one reviews many of the changes imposed in our public schools as a result of research and doctoral theses over the past thirty years, Richwine’s conclusions could never approach what has been imposed on our children by the education elite.

Fortunately, Richwine’s opinion/research only served to damage him personally. What the education establishment has imposed on our children has resulted in a crisis.

Posted by COindependent | Report as abusive
 

It feels like your entire article was an attack on the “Fox News audience”– the republican conservative with tendencies of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom. Fortunately, I identify closest with Libertarianism (not on all tenants though), so I don’t view this as an attack on my principles.

However, the recent trend of “see, Obama’s bailouts and crony capitalism turned the economy around” is shortsighted at best. The market swings, that’s what it does. If Obama and the democrats claim responsibility for the success of the market now, in 2 years will they claim responsibility for it’s downturn? No, they will blame it on other parties “noncooperation”… Hayek was a man before his time, and wouldn’t have trusted politicians– as any smart man shouldn’t.

The “Tea Party Movement” was a call of outrage over the bailouts, the blank checks given to friends of the Whitehouse to buy up their competition (PNC -> National City for example). While your assessment that he wouldn’t have supported any movements is probably accurate, he would have agreed with the basic principles that the group was calling for (low tax, no bailouts, laissez faire).

To those who hoist Keynesian as the champion here, note one thing.. Hayek never denied that government intervention would change the market, but he was a long-term and calculating man who likely would have pointed out that our interest payments on the debt made the bailouts and crony capitalism not worth it in the long run. Start preparing your defenses, devoted fans of Keynesiam– the market is most likely going to do it’s natural cycle of downturn in the near future.

Posted by NorthernLight | Report as abusive
 

Thank you so much for telling the truth about who and what Hayek really was — not an economist, but a economic and social crank, who has/had little in common with mainstream economics, and was marginalized by most other economists.

I suppose that is his appeal to those who want to reject economic theory for whatever their personal reasons.

Clearly, as you said, most don’t have a clue as to what the man really stood for.

Hayek was an “economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism”.

“Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It shares a number of beliefs with other belief systems belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, stressing the belief in free market and natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7] Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government[8] and, adopting Thomas Hobbes’s[citation needed] theory of government, they believed government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another.[9]”

Unfortunately for Hayek, he was a man born after his time and he “raged against the machine” as Don Quixote “tilted against windmills”, which may explain the rather extreme dichotomous positions of his writings.

“Hayek’s influence on the development of economics is widely acknowledged. Hayek is the second-most frequently cited economist[citation needed] (after Kenneth Arrow) in the Nobel lectures of the prize winners in economics, particularly since his lecture was critical of the field of orthodox economics and neo-classical modelization. A number of Nobel Laureates in economics, such as Vernon Smith and Herbert A. Simon, recognize Hayek as the greatest modern economist.[citation needed]

Another Nobel winner, Paul Samuelson, believed that Hayek was worthy of his award but nevertheless claimed that “there were good historical reasons for fading memories of Hayek within the mainstream last half of the twentieth century economist fraternity. In 1931, Hayek’s Prices and Production had enjoyed an ultra-short Byronic success. In retrospect hindsight tells us that its mumbo-jumbo about the period of production grossly misdiagnosed the macroeconomics of the 1927–1931 (and the 1931–2007) historical scene”.[92] ”

Just like the Bible, people who quote Hayek can find whatever “justification” for their actions they want, and tend to be just as fanatical.

Again, thanks for shedding some light on Hayek.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

@psuedo Well done. Your point that economic theory and political philosophy are intertwined is valid. Both use models and statistics to reinforce their premise, but neither are “sciences”.

The positive side of Hayek’s dissertations is that it cataloged the issues and attempted to analyze them. While one can easily embrace (or challenge) his positions and conclusions, the critical thinking alone is of considerable value to the reader. (With the acknowledgement that critical thinking is in very short supply today).

I think the same could be said about Galbraith, Keynes, Smith and Samuelson without malice.

Posted by COindependent | Report as abusive
 

One additional thought for those “wealthy elite” and equally moronic “libertarians” who argue vociferously for a “survival of the fittest” culture, each for their own incredibly short-sighted beliefs, that we need the minimum, or even more incredibly NO laws to govern their self-destructive behavior.

I have very little personal regard for Hayek or his philosophy, but not even Hayek, your “God Almighty”, was stupid enough to be so incredibly short-sighted as to make proclamations that would lead society inevitably down the path to self-destruction.

At least Hayek understood the principle of “enlightened self-interest”, which seems totally beyond what you people are capable of understanding.

I hope you and your ilk get what you deserve, and no it isn’t what you think it is or desire.

Even Hayek understood your kind of insanity was not attainable. While I despise most of what Hayek stands for, I reserve are far stronger opinion for his followers who choose to ignore their own master’s advice.

—————————–

With regard to a safety net, Hayek advocated “some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy”.[75] As referenced in the section on “The economic calculation problem”, Hayek wrote that “there is no reason why… the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance”. Summarizing on this topic, Wapshott[76] writes “[Hayek] advocated mandatory universal health care and unemployment insurance, enforced, if not directly provided, by the state.” In the 1973 Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Hayek wrote:

“There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law.”[77]

And in The Road to Serfdom:

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance — where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks — the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong…. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.”[78]“

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

@pseudo I just don’t get the ad hominem attacks from the first sentence. They only serve diminish any validity in your argument.

If you are that bitter about events, perhaps you might stoop down to us illiterates for a moment and acknowledge that their is not any perfect society.

Posted by COindependent | Report as abusive
 

There appear to be several people, who upon reading my comments, tend to be “put off” by them, to which I reply “that is your problem not mine”.

It is far easier to attack the person for what he is saying, than to try to understand the message, no matter how it is being said.

My guess is that it wouldn’t matter how my comments are worded, you detractors simply refuse see the “forest for the trees”.

I notice the author’s comments are equally misunderstood, and he is treating the subject with far more courtesy that I would.

As for those who plead for me to lower my standards — to “dumb them down” so that they can understand what I am saying — my reply is “been there, done that”, since it turned out to be a totally pointless exercise on my part.

I cannot open your mind, if you choose not to do so.

Neither am I responsible, if you choose not to make the slightest effort to educate yourselves on the issues.

My disagreement with Hayek centers almost exclusively in the area of his views on economics, not necessarily on his social views.

I have said this before. If you disagree with what I am saying, at least respond with something that merits my reply. Otherwise, IF I deign to reply to you at all, you can expect to receive back the same kind of derogatory remarks, with interest, from your wasted investment of time and energy that could be used far more wisely.

Mr. Wapshott has written an absolutely excellent article on the subject, yet from the few comments it is garnered — the paucity of comments is a strong indication that the bulk of commentors tend to flock around inane “hot button” issues that have little to do with our present or long-term survival as a nation — which is another indicator of the general low intelligence of the masses (which Hayek also mistrusted), preferring instead to … “accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

If you are disgruntled, I suggest you read Mr. Wapshott’s article and suggested references again and again, until you can understand what he is saying.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

I meant to include this quote in my comment above ““The higher the education and intelligence of individuals,” he wrote in Serfdom, “the more their views and tastes are differentiated.” The corollary is that “to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.”

Hayek and I would have agreed on many things he said, but he was no “economist”.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

“Fox News audience”– the republican conservative with tendencies of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom.”
That is extremely funny. Your being sarcastic right? No? Well, that is even more funny, because conservatives are neither fiscally conservative or supporters of freedom. What was the statement “prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.” Look in the mirror.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive
 

@pseudo. I hear the non-stop bleating of social network savvy OWS. Over-educated in the philosophies of “fairness” and “equity” for all, but with little in marketable skills that would motivate you to get a job. Instead it’s always easier to condemn success and preach the zero-sum game that success is achieved solely at the expense of someone else.

Continue the diatribe, please, while , demanding an equitable distribution of wealth you did not earn, and being compensated at the same rate as someone who made the appropriate investments in time and energy. And, further demand that you should not be accountable for the choices only you are responsible for. Yeah, I get it!

“Each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities” a dramatically failed system, in both theory and practice, that you obviously embrace.

Condemn to your hearts content, it’s the easy way out. No accountability– it will only make you feel better. But your probably a product of the self-esteem generation. Here’s your trophy. You won!

Posted by COindependent | Report as abusive
 

@ COindependent –

What in God’s name are you babbling on about?

Did you not read MY REPLY TO YOU when you said you were trying to understand what I meant when I said we had to reverse 30+ years of taxes, free trade and banking regulation to save this nation from being destroyed by the wealthy class, WHICH IS MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH THE PRESENTLY WEALTHY-CORRUPTED SYSTEM.

Here is an excerpt from that comment:

“You may or may not know from my previous comments that, while presently retired, I worked for several decades as a Plant Controllor and Finance Manager primarily in the high tech industry at the same time this massive paradigm shift was beginning to take place, so I got to see this whole thing happening in “real time”, as well as its pernicious effects. I am also a CPA/MBA with an intense interest in the present day “totally abnormal” global economic theory and its impact on various existing politcal systems, especially in relation to its impact on the “historically normal” global economic theory and politics that existed from the early 20th Century … .”

I am NOT some damn bleeding heart liberal who is “demanding an equitable distribution of wealth you did not earn, and being compensated at the same rate as someone who made the appropriate investments in time and energy.”

I was born EXTREMELY poor, but by dint of hard work and massive amounts of student loans, I managed to work my way up the corporate ladder to hold significant management positions in the high tech industry.

Not a God damn thing was ever handed to me in my life!

WHY would I want to give anyone who has not worked for what they have ANYTHING?

Basically, I could care less for the “masses”, or what happens to them. I don’t even like people, because they are generally stupid and aggressive, and not likely to listen to reason.

The ONLY thing I care about is the fact that the wealthy class, through their excessive greed is about to crash our economy AGAIN, thus destroying what little security I have worked my entire life to achieve.

The wealthy class generally CANNOT restrain themselves — and this applies to ALL civilizations at ANY time in history — so they must be forcibly restrained from “fouling their own nest” by effective laws and regulations.

These are stupid, greedy people who will not listen to reason, and who cannot even act rationally for their own self-preservation.

In their greed they have managed to undo ALL the regulations that were imposed on them after they managed to destroy this economy in the 1929 crash, which is the cause of the Great Depression.

What they want is to return to THEIR “good old days” of “survival of the fittest”, which WILL destroy this nation’s economy.

It makes me “crazy” to see what is happening and no one seems to understand how dangerous these people really are.

THAT IS MY PROBLEM WITH THE WEALTHY CLASS. THEY ARE SO GREEDY AND SHORT-SIGHTED THAT, LEFT TO THEMSELVES, THEY WILL DESTROY THIS ECONOMY AND WE WILL HAVE MASSIVE SOCIAL DISRUPTIONS AS A RESULT OF THEM.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM THAT YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT SIMPLE?

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

@ COindependent –

I fail to understand how, if you read what I have posted for comments, you can possibly misconstrue what I have said to such a degree.

You continue to attack me for reasons I cannot understand.

I know some people who attack me are little more than wealthy class lackeys and sycophants who think the wealthy class are some kind of Gods. We have been cursed by people like that throughout history, and even have them in great abundance in our society.

But that does not seem to be your problem, at least not obviously.

What is YOUR problem with what I am saying, EXACTLY?

ALL I WANT TO RETAIN WHAT RELATIVELY LITTLE SECURITY I HAVE EARNED BY HARD WORK MY ENTIRE LIFE, AND THESE BASTARDS WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY SO THEY CAN GET WEALTHIER THAN THEY ARE NOW.

Since you have chosen to attack me for no apparent reason on a number of occasions, you owe me an explanation.

I’d like to understand what your “problem” is with my comments. NOTHING you have said at any point has given me a clue.

How about the truth for a change, instead of the same vague mumbo-jumbo?

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

@psuedo Okay, I will indulge you:

equally moronic libertarians
self-destructive behavior

My first comments were to compliment you on the quality of your response–only then to have you go into attack mode, followed by a comment that effectively states “if you do not like it, then shove it.” My response to you obviously hit home, which was the intention, that caused you to step back and address my characterization. That’s good, because it caused you to step back and think about it.

Your last two comments were very clear, yet tempered. However, I will take exception to your repeated need to attack those of wealth without discretion. To each person “wealth” has a different meaning, so one has to be careful. To a person who struggled to achieve financial security (such as yourself) there are many who would consider you a person of “wealth”. I know many people of “wealth” (when compared to myself) who are extremely generous with their time and assets, who seek no recompense whatsoever. They are honest, hardworking individuals who made the most of opportunities. Most, were raised in humble environments without any preferential access to wealth or political influence. They did it on their own.

Allow me to make an assumption for a moment….I despise the “aristocratic” and “political” elite who seek to impose their view of society on me, effectively diminishing my opportunity to achieve my personal and financial goals. Per your response, I believe you are of the same persuasion. If so, in the future temper your attacks on those of “wealth” and target the aristocratic elites on Wall Street, who use their wealth to fund agendas which effectively allows them to retain their privilege at the expense of the masses); as well as the political elite (including our President) who demand redistribution of wealth which effectively diminishes the opportunity for motivated individuals to achieve their personal goals, financial or otherwise.

Those aristocratic elite and political elite who shroud their demands for “equality” are really demanding “equality of results” versus the “equality of opportunity” that I (and I think you as well) embrace. They are consciously deceiving the public to ensure their influence, and those of their families, is secured for the future. Their repeated demands for legislation to correct every perceived ill in society by creating new “rights” only serves to ensure all of our rights and liberties are further diminished, with the power further consolidated within the “political aristocracy”.

Thus, I personally took offensive to your comment regarding “moronic libertarians”. I am a classic liberal who detests the platforms of both political parties who have embraced the corruption of the Beltway by saddling my children with astronomic debt and further diminished liberties in order to secure their political influence. As Hayek stated, left to there own designs, in a (classic) liberal environment each person will have the opportunity to pursue their own agenda. Government, in its current form, is an obstacle; and the majority of votes are not willing to acknowledge it.

Posted by COindependent | Report as abusive
 

@ COindependent —

You seem to forget you made this comment directly to me, after which I replied to you directly.

———————————-

@pseudo I just don’t get the ad hominem attacks from the first sentence. They only serve diminish any validity in your argument.

If you are that bitter about events, perhaps you might stoop down to us illiterates for a moment and acknowledge that their is not any perfect society.

——————————-

I found you person attack on what I said above, to be quite insulting.

What I said above that was NOT directed at you, but how I feel in general about the wealthy class and libertarians. If either group gets what they want we will not survive as a nation.

Your problem is a thin skin and a quick temper, which you have directed at me before.

I don’t intend to waste my time responding to you unless you can manage to be civil about it.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

@ COindependent –

By the way, thanks for “indulging me”.

I take exception to this comment from you, since it is nothing but your personal opinion, whereas I can demonstrate the facts are otherwise, and have done so many times in the past.

——————————————-

“However, I will take exception to your repeated need to attack those of wealth without discretion. To each person “wealth” has a different meaning, so one has to be careful. To a person who struggled to achieve financial security (such as yourself) there are many who would consider you a person of “wealth”. I know many people of “wealth” (when compared to myself) who are extremely generous with their time and assets, who seek no recompense whatsoever. They are honest, hardworking individuals who made the most of opportunities. Most, were raised in humble environments without any preferential access to wealth or political influence. They did it on their own

————————————-

PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!

Clearly, your problem is not in how I say something, but in what I am saying, which is what I suspected.

You are obviously one of those people who see the wealthy class through rose-colored glasses. Thus, ANY attack on your Gods brings out the knee-jerk response of any good guard dog, no matter that his master is not worthy of protecting.

The wealthy class are NOT Gods, as lick-spittles like you think, but evil people who would destroy this world for no other reason than because they can. They are totally devoid of conscience and care for no one but their own class. History is full of what these people have done. THAT is what you object to when I attack the wealthy class. It hits far too close to home.

As a result, NOTHING I say would make any difference to you because your core belief structure is so corrupted by admiration and worship for these sick people.

NOW I finally understand who and what you are. It is people like you who are the real problem because they aid and abet the wealthy class like acolytes of some sick religion, and are willing to sacrifice not only your own life, but the lives of others to protect them.

You are like some religious fanatic who cannot allow the slightest question of his God being something less than divine.

I won’t argue with a person like you whose mind is completely closed. It is an absolute waste of my time.

Posted by PseudoTurtle | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •