Talk-Polywell.org

It's good to see one's beliefs confirmed as accurate.

Low incomes make poor more conservative, study finds

New research findings add complexity to the basic assumption that humans act in their own economic self-interest. By analyzing hundreds of survey questions from 1952 to 2006, Peter Enns, assistant professor of government, and Nathan Kelly of the University of Tennessee found that as inequality rises, low income individuals' attitudes toward redistribution become more conservative. Their paper appears in the October issue of the American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-incomes-poor.html

Diogenes wrote:

New research findings add complexity to the basic assumption that humans act in their own economic self-interest.

This is [not even] wrong... according to Adam Smith (with whom I agree): Humans should act in their own economic self-interest.

There is no other self-consistent way to go about it that doesn't ultimately take us back to subsistence farming. To maintain our state of advanced civilisation, humans must act in their own economic self-interest. A more complex interpretation may be applied, of course, by recognising that allowing others to exceed your own personal benefits and rewards may subsequently further enable your own benefits and rewards. Even if you come out second best, you may still be better off than if you had prevented others from doing so well. That is therefore not saying you are ignoring your own interests for the benefit of others, you are merely being more sophisticated about it.

As Churchill once said; "The American Consitution says 'All men are born equal'. The Socialist says 'All men must be kept equal'. "

Adam Smith wrote: As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good.

chrismb wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

New research findings add complexity to the basic assumption that humans act in their own economic self-interest.

This is [not even] wrong... according to Adam Smith (with whom I agree): Humans should act in their own economic self-interest.

There is no other self-consistent way to go about it that doesn't ultimately take us back to subsistence farming. To maintain our state of advanced civilisation, humans must act in their own economic self-interest. A more complex interpretation may be applied, of course, by recognising that allowing others to exceed your own personal benefits and rewards may subsequently further enable your own benefits and rewards. Even if you come out second best, you may still be better off than if you had prevented others from doing so well. That is therefore not saying you are ignoring your own interests for the benefit of others, you are merely being more sophisticated about it.

As Churchill once said; "The American Consitution says 'All men are born equal'. The Socialist says 'All men must be kept equal'. "

Adam Smith wrote: As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestick industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestiek to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the publick good.

I can't discern if you read the article or not, but the basic premise is that poor people can't afford to be brain dead stupid and so therefore are conservatives. On the other hand, Rich people can afford to piss away a huge quantity of money and it will not constitute a threat to their survival, hence they can afford to be Liberal.

Or to sum it up more elegantly: Bad times make good people. Good times make bad people.

this article is bullshit (and I posted the comment at Physorg) because it pretends to be "universal" (it talks abot people, not americans) when this behaviour only happens in the US. And the research was only done in the US...

AcesHigh wrote:this article is bullshit (and I posted the comment at Physorg) because it pretends to be "universal" (it talks abot people, not americans) when this behaviour only happens in the US. And the research was only done in the US...

The phenomena applies to all humans. The study was done in the United States.

To give a quick example, the term "eccentric" (usually applied to the wealthy) means off center. The Brits sometimes use the term "wobbly".

Eccentric people behave eccentrically because they can afford to. They don't have to make a living working competently for others.

Those who have to make a living for themselves cannot afford to be foolish and irresponsible with their lives and money. This is an indulgence for the rich and their silver spoon offspring.

(Wobbly!?)

The argument doesn't really hold together as being 'causal', because there are other explanations (even if the observed contention is correct): The rich types contrive means to get to spend other people's money. They [can] do this because their wealth embues them with power and influence to be able to do that. Whereas those who are 'economically challenged' also have little influence so they have to spend their own money.

...and thereafter the consequence is simple... those who spend their own money are called conservatives, and those that spend someone else's money are called socialists.

So the argument that rich people are liberal over spending money because they have plenty of it, is not shown as self-evident, thought the argument depends on that inference. (Break that inference and the argument may be falsified.) I would suggest they are relaxed about spending money on liberal fads because they are using other people's money.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialism is a great idea.... but eventually you end up running out of other people's money."

chrismb wrote:(Wobbly!?)

If you're not familiar with it, it must be a regional colloquialism.

By the way, I love Brit shows. Been watching "Sherlock" for several weeks now. Wonderful show! Love watching "Are you being served?" ( et al) every Sunday night at 10:00 on PBS.

chrismb wrote: The argument doesn't really hold together as being 'causal', because there are other explanations (even if the observed contention is correct): The rich types contrive means to get to spend other people's money. They [can] do this because their wealth embues them with power and influence to be able to do that. Whereas those who are 'economically challenged' also have little influence so they have to spend their own money.

...and thereafter the consequence is simple... those who spend their own money are called conservatives, and those that spend someone else's money are called socialists.

So the argument that rich people are liberal over spending money because they have plenty of it, is not shown as self-evident, thought the argument depends on that inference. (Break that inference and the argument may be falsified.) I would suggest they are relaxed about spending money on liberal fads because they are using other people's money.

As Margaret Thatcher once said "Socialism is a great idea.... but eventually you end up running out of other people's money."

I have no disagreement with any of this. I merely point out that over time, the Rich (especially their descendants) tend to move left. This trend is very well outlined in the book "Leftism Revisited" by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. (he contends that every socialist movement in history was launched by the wives and children of wealthy men.) It is also a fitting theory to explain why the richest (and poorest) parts of this nation are so completely infatuated and addlepated with liberal doctrine. It stands out on the voting map. I suppose i'm not making a good case for the point because I keep forgetting other people may not have read the same resources on this subject that I have sought out.