Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Cringing Negativism Network

We all had a hand in this.

We destroyed our own industry.


I agree, in the sense that we as a nation have rationalized and embraced immorality of all kinds. We then make foolish and lazy choices because we are cut off from wisdom. So the obsession with short term has brought us to the long term consequence.


23 posted on 11/27/2011 6:07:17 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: ecomcon

Our biggest problem right now is not morality.

It is industrial.

We are dismantling our own manufacturing. Are we really that brainwashed we cannot see what that is doing? How can anyone think destroying our own industrial base is a good idea?


27 posted on 11/27/2011 6:10:45 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network ("Galts Gulch" <> Communist China)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: ecomcon
“So the obsession with short term has brought us to the long term consequence.”

Yep, and not a new thing.

See “Essays on Political Economy” by Frederic Bastiat (1874)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15962/15962-h/15962-h.htm

go to: “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen”

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. If often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man, absorbed in the effect which is seen, has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.

This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters—experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen.

100 posted on 11/27/2011 5:20:51 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson