The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportiona…
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
Indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle does not help your case.