> I suppose you are speaking of such illiterates
> as the CEO of Merrill Lynch and of the large
> hedge funds who threw billions of dollars away.
I suppose we could agree on a definition of "stupid" or the like that would apply to him and comparable others and, at that, that the standards on which we'd agree in this connection would be in many ways more stringently critical than the "dumber than dirt" characterization as applied to others (too many present day "American kids" and some more than "kids") primarily referred to in this thread.
I'm assuming, too, that we could agree at least more or less (perhaps more "more" than "less") on terms of moral and political condemnation that ought be applied to O'Neal and like others (including, of course, many who haven't yet been sanctioned in the (actually: so far very mild) way he was.
But, otherwise, No - I (deliberately) wasn't referring to him and like others, and for two very basic reasons:
First (and obviously), say what you will about him, he is leaving his job with . . . what? . . . at least $162-million _on_ _top_ of the assets he has accumulated so far (not to dwell on the fact that, meanwhile of course, he is not "illiterate" in any reasonable sense of that word); and,
Second, and more basically (and not the primary subject of this thread), variations on "illiterate" and "stupid" etc., etc., would be substantially less appropriate and yet if used would deflect from appellations like "defrauder" and "thief" and "'Ponzi scheme' operator" and the like which are far more appropriate (notwithstanding the aptness of the criticisms I've made and, in my view, are not sufficiently frequently applied to his/their [putative] and yet all too willing "victims").
---------------------------------- * knowknot at mindspring.com wrote:
>
> On 10/30/07, Miles Jackson said:
>
> > Capitalism in our society could not function
> without literate adults.
>
> Re. this "could not function" characterization, presumably the "literate
> adults" here referred were not the persons (if one believes widespread news
> reports, said to be in the millions) who in recent years eagerly agreed to
> variable rate mortgages in the belief, despite explicit cautionaries in
> their mortgage notes and related loan documents literately alerting any
> reader otherwise, that "variable" excludes "increasing" (not to dwell on:
> very probably _will_ increase) and despite, too, a comparatively huge
> amount of information, readily accessible to actually "literate" folk, if
> they actually were that, exacerbated in these self-destructive decisions by
> their also not understanding simple arithmetic?
One part of literacy, probably the major part, is trusting expertise. That is, when competent scientific opinion overwhelmingly rejects evolutionary psychology amateur scientists who are literate accept that and don't go on making up their own just-so stories. In a complicated world the _only_ way to understand it is to choose the best experts one can find. That's what the people who took out those mortgages did.
It seems that this thread is just another explosion of blame-the-victim.
Carrol
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk