The Boomer Supremacy

[pietillidie]

^That's me saying that, not David.

Mercifully, self-interest doesn't have to be destructive, and with some effort perhaps much of the time. But we also know it can be a lot of extremely ugly things, from poisoning the GBR and risking climate instability, to cheering on war and chaos because we might get some contracts out of it, to raising university fees because "cuts have to be made" (but not to our old fart superannuation handouts).

In this thread, among other things, self interest is broadly causing a shift in access against young people. Some of it is, as 3.142 said, a case of certain historical contingencies; some of it is about handouts being directed to people who are considered influential voting groups regardless of needs; all such mal-allocated monies are either cheered on or allowed to pass through without due consideration because those who benefit don't give a feck about the effects on young people.

I'm not sure how the data can be whitewashed; it will be another national apology in a few decades, with the usual sort of beneficiaries trotting out the old favourite face-saving line, "but people didn't know any better back then".

Well, the usual suspects never seem to know any better, except miraculously until after they've gotten what they want and need to save face and not look like ar$eholes.

If you want to see this in action, go and watch the recent questioning of George "It just wasn't of much interest to me" Pell. I bet most people have already forgotten the plague of denial going back decades, allowing the molesting of children to carry on all over the place. Oh, but no one knew better back then....

[think positive]

If it was you, how was I abletoquote David saying it?

[pietillidie]

^David was saying they're indifferent "at worst", which was actually distancing himself from my even stronger view! Read back and he's mostly questioning my view.

[think positive]

Oh ok

[Morrigu]

[stui magpie]

^

Goddamn, you go girl

[pietillidie]

A man claps excitedly at a showing of The Old and the Abandoned

See, David, you tried to be more accommodating than me, but that was just thrown back in your face. It wouldn't have mattered if you had shown the greatest depths of empathy, or the framed the most inclusive proposal, which is exactly what you and I would instinctively try to do, anyhow.

As explained, it doesn't matter what the data says, it's where the incentives lead; the fantasies have long been built up in the brain to buttress them. That's why politics as a discipline of action exists.

You need a good policy for housing and education affordability, then you need to fund it with changes to the super and negative gearing handouts, and such, and then you need to drive that baby home through political action.

All the drama and BS in between won't mean a damn once you've done the right thing by the whole. Like Keating, down the track it will be known you did the right thing, though the old fogies of the day will *never* forgive you.

[Morrigu]

^ whatever you do please don't call the cat Fluff - it's just too cliche!!

[think positive]

[pietillidie]

^It fits together something like this:

> I agree with Wokko on the older generations impacting young people negatively with their self-serving politicking and choices
> David agrees with the facts, but thinks we shouldn't whack people too hard, agreeing with 3.142 noting it's just a historical flow issue, and the older generation is not doing this intentionally
> I disagree with David, thinking he's pussying out of politics and is just going to get walked on, even as things worsen
> David agrees with me in terms of content, just not political method, or me getting specific in blaming people
> David and I debate politics and how to go about things for a bit
> You quote David as if he's the one taking the hard line (I think?), but actually Wokko and I are taking a much harder line
> I pointed that out to you in order to be fair on David (i.e., you should be blaming Wokko and I here; David's being much more accommodating)
> Morrigu confuses that sequence further by telling you that you were right to target David

So, there are two debates in the thread: The OP, and an aside derived from it between David and I on politics.

There's nothing sinister here: I am actually trying to get you to blame me more than David because I used the harsher language and have the harsher position!

It just got confusing, is all. But, keep kicking David if you want; he probably deserves it anyhow Morrigu is just being an angry ant and reckons I think she uses blue rinse, meanwhile feeling embarrassed about her pink fluffy slippers, lavender talcum powder and mothball-smelling cardigans [*Ducks and runs for cover*]

[think positive]

[think positive]

[David]

[think positive]

so david, ignoring my questions?

[David]

My response to those two questions would be:

1) If you look at policies in areas such as housing, educational funding and the minimum wage, I think it's fair to say that younger people don't get the best deal in our society. And in case you think that governments basically mean well, let's not forget that our current federal government wanted to make unemployed people under 30 wait six months for the dole. As I said, callous indifference at best.

2) I'm of course motivated by self-interest as much as anyone else, but when it comes to economic policy I feel a bit more like a neutral observer � basically, because I don't care about money all that much and tend to think I'll do my best to get by in any situation. But I am concerned about other people in my age group, and I care about what's good for society as a whole (which, of course, affects my own quality of life in the end regardless).