-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
ASTRO has gone full woke
Started by Chartreuse Wombat
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
And fix the loopholes... Trump promised to close the carried interest loophole for hedge fundies... What happened to draining that? Ditto on letting real estate investors get the 20% s-corp deduction, but limiting it for physicians with tax reform.
This is what people are getting "woke" to. Can't campaign as a populist and dish out the same supply side corporatist swamp agenda.
Trump’s popularity slips in latest Military Times poll — and more troops say they’ll vote for Biden
About half of troops surveyed for the poll said they have an unfavorable view of the commander in chief.
www.militarytimes.com
Look up Jim Mattis or Colin Powell's statements as well
Last edited:
D
deleted480308
“Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder. Nobody wants to life these heavy as- weights” -Ronny Coleman
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It shouldn't be too shocking. It's happening all across academia as well as the public and private sector. It's the racket made popular by Al Sharpton and the like. Pay up or we will smear your organization as racist.
No doubt someone high up in ASTRO pushed for him, or a speaker like him if not specifically him, and ASTRO capitulated lest they incur the wrath of the woke mob. It's easier to just pay the blackmail rather than have to argue about why it would be inappropriate to invite (and presumably compensate richly) an anti-American race-baiting Marxist to speak about how inherently awful we all are.
Say what you will about Trump and his childish Twitter rants, boorish personality, and awful taste, he at least puts his neck out and speaks out against this nonsense unlike most politicans on both sides. His recent actions about shutting down federal funding for critical race theory re-education seminars and elmiinating CRT in public schools and teaching that America is actually a good place founded on good principles and that patriotism is a good thing should really push anyone who was on the edge about who to vote for (probably all 7 of them at this point) to his side. The establishment of the "1776 commission" in response to the lies of the 1619 project was just awesome.
Kendi's proposal to establish a federal "department of anti-racism" that has carte blanche authority to overrule any other governing body to forcefully redistribute in order to achieve equal racial outcomes is de facto facism. Through it, the government would have the authority to override individual rights to achieve its desired outcomes. By Kendi's definition of racism, because individual rights outlined by the constitution do not necessarily produce equivalent racial outcomes, these rights are in fact racist and can be invalidated. It's hilarious (in a 1984-esque sense) that Trump's initiative to teach the positive attributes of America in public schools is being called "facist" instead and being compared to the Hitler youth. You know, as opposed to teaching minority children that no matter what they do they will never be able to climb in America because the system is racist and stacked against them and teaching white children that they are fundamentally racist and nothing they do will ever make them non-racist and their only option is perpetual atonement and penance.
Anyway, did anybody ever find out how much ASTRO is paying Kendi? I want to know this!!
Yeesh, when did SDN turn in to Breitbart
In a democratic republic (especially with a conservative SCOTUS arguing that money = speech), unchecked capitalism is destined to become 'crony capitalism'. Why wouldn't the rich use their money to secure future wealth by influencing laws to favor the rich?... and that is how the virus wins. You think we need fewer inverventions? Monsanto wants farm subsidies. Who wins that fight?
I don't think this is a left-right issue, per se... but rather a 1% vs. 99%
"Let them eat cake" Marie Antoinette (though likely not from her in real life)
I think the keynote is doing what it supposed to accomplish. Generate conversation and thought, no matter where you stand (or sit) on these issues.
i remember a few years ago when the keynote was some bull**** basic science talk on preclinical tumor micro environment or nano medicine or some nonactionable esoteric nonsense.
Say what you want about the speaker (or Jagsi, who I’m sure will be glued to him the entire weekend if they’re in the same locale) but we exist in a specialty that’s struggling to stay at the forefront of the conversation. The real solution is innovative research and a radical reimagining of our field (imo, and as expressed elsewhere, this should be via “Linac as OR” as Gfunk so aptly termed it, though he described it succinctly while disagreeing with the notion). Although this talk is essentially a clever, attention grab ruse that does not address the fundamental issues of our speciality, at least it is keeping us engaged as a field in the current cultural conversation, and to that limited extent I think it should be lauded. And we should — to in a guarded and with an appropriately critical eye — be thankful that Jagsi and others produce the vomitous research that they do because at least it shows the outside world that RadOnc exists and can contribute. Even if it’s in this banal, trite, and self serving manner.
Baby steps. We’re all just surviving.
i remember a few years ago when the keynote was some bull**** basic science talk on preclinical tumor micro environment or nano medicine or some nonactionable esoteric nonsense.
Say what you want about the speaker (or Jagsi, who I’m sure will be glued to him the entire weekend if they’re in the same locale) but we exist in a specialty that’s struggling to stay at the forefront of the conversation. The real solution is innovative research and a radical reimagining of our field (imo, and as expressed elsewhere, this should be via “Linac as OR” as Gfunk so aptly termed it, though he described it succinctly while disagreeing with the notion). Although this talk is essentially a clever, attention grab ruse that does not address the fundamental issues of our speciality, at least it is keeping us engaged as a field in the current cultural conversation, and to that limited extent I think it should be lauded. And we should — to in a guarded and with an appropriately critical eye — be thankful that Jagsi and others produce the vomitous research that they do because at least it shows the outside world that RadOnc exists and can contribute. Even if it’s in this banal, trite, and self serving manner.
Baby steps. We’re all just surviving.
D
deleted480308
But that argument was from a woman using govt to steal from the poor, you’re attributing that to all wealthy people as though they didn’t earn their money honestly. If you find a bad actor out their break laws, let’s imprison them. Or bad laws? Let’s decide if it’s bad and change it.
but, “hey, you have way too much in relation to someone else!”? Sorry, that’s not a thing
It doesn't have to devolve into crony capitalism. Strong anti-corruption and anti-monopoly laws and policies would go a long way.
She wasn't stealing, she had arranged for a government subsidy. If you are wealthy enough to lobby politicians to create government policy that allows you to make even more money, it's only because the free market wants you to get richer... right? And if 90% of wealth in this country ends up in the hands of 20 people
Do you think the true principles of capitalism as described by Walter Rostow and Adam Smith envision a society in which wealth inequality was accelerating due to the influence of wealth on politics?
D
deleted480308
Govt shouldn’t redistribute money in either direction. I’m not sure why you think i’m defending subsidies, we must not have had many talks before
Again, that's crony capitalism or state capitalism or even facism, depending on your definition. Not true capitalism, and our government needs to do a LOT more to prevent the state from picking winners and losers in the economy.
Data shows that while income inequality has risen, so have standards of living for those at the bottom.
That may be true, but the middle class is evaporating. See here an interesting analysis that was actually produce by a Romney economic advisor.
The average American is increasingly living paycheck-to-paycheck, and the lion-share of our country's profits are appreciated by an increasingly small fraction of people. How are these trends beneficial? How do they support the robust marketplace or the social mobility that American capitalism is known for?
The inflation/deflation trends are interesting.
TVs, computers etc get cheaper as time goes on, but Healthcare, food, housing etc doesn't.
A market-based solution would probably fix things, esp in healthcare
Why Luxury TVs Are Affordable when Basic Health Care Is Not
Imagine you aren't feeling well. You pull out your smartphone and click the Rx app. A nurse arrives in 20 minutes at your home, gives you a blood test, and recommends to the doctor that she prescribe a treatment. It is sent to the CVS down the street, which delivers it to your door in 20...
fee.org
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I can appreciate the worry about future trends. But the past shows that capitalism is the best system ever developed to raise a population out of poverty.
Looking at the expenditures from your graph -- college is increasing price, arguably from government intervention. I don't think anyone here could argue that government is making healthcare more expensive. Government mandates make cars more expensive.
I don't particularly like the gains that Amazon for example has made over the last 7 months. But... when the government locks us down and prevents local stores from operating, what else can people do?
Looking at the expenditures from your graph -- college is increasing price, arguably from government intervention. I don't think anyone here could argue that government is making healthcare more expensive. Government mandates make cars more expensive.
I don't particularly like the gains that Amazon for example has made over the last 7 months. But... when the government locks us down and prevents local stores from operating, what else can people do?
To be clear, I am a capitalist and believe in a free market -but only to a point. Capitalism is an elemental force of nature -like fire- and has created enormous prosperity for the American people... however, if you want to heat your house, you shouldn't simply set your couch on fire and go to sleep, hoping for the best.
A market purist will argue that any time capitalism fails, it's because of government intervention... but this simply isn't true. Capitalism fails when market incentives diverge from public interest.
For example, the privatization of the prison system has lead to an increase in the length of prison sentences. -A booming prison industry isn't really something in our best interest.
Similarly, while a rising tide raises all boats... that's not what is happening
The entire premise of capitalism requires the belief that meaningful work is rewarded. The more income inequality destroys the possibility of social mobility, the fewer there will be who believe this. Said another way, if working harder doesn't give me a better chance at the American dream, why bother?
D
deleted480308
Capitalism in no way promises reward for “meaningful work”, it predicts reward for doing work that people actually want to pay for
Sure, so long as those doing the work are the ones getting paid...
When a company's profits increase but the wages of workers don't, that reflects a disconnect that is not beneficial for society. It wasn't the CEO writing his own compensation plan who created that capital out of thin air, so why is he paid as such?
D
deleted480308
I’m not sure where you get the notion that everyone gets a raise because profits go up, that’s not how it works.
If you take the government out of college funding prices would plummet back to where they were before student loans were government-guaranteed. Why should the government be forced to accept some of the risk of making student loans? The only reason college increased in cost the way it did is because banks were suddenly able to loan $$$$ to kids, so the $$$ was there for the taking. Get government out of the student loan business, and suddenly college costs would plummet, as no one would be able to afford the bill.
Price transparency in healthcare would go a LOOOONG way to reducing expenditures, as anyone who has been on the board for any time at all knows hospitals and academic centers are absolutely bilking patients as much as they can. That should be a capitalist talking point, and maybe we're finally making some headway there. The fact 11 centers were chosen to not have to be in the RO-APM tells you everything you need to know about cronyism in healthcare.
The median income hasn't risen as high as other costs because of increased competition from globalism and immigration. Now, globalization has led to the greatest period of peace and prosperity ever seen in the history of mankind, and has helped hundreds of millions get out of poverty. However, it also caused the American worker to have to compete with lower-skilled counterparts in other countries, which stagnated wages. At the same time, the 1% who owned/managed these large companies did very well, as they suddenly had a worldwide market for their goods and services. In order for Americans to compete on the world stage, then, education becomes paramount. So, I also believe we should get rid of the "property tax pays for schools" debacle and use a voucher system, so schools would have to compete for students. I've been waiting for someone to make the "property taxes are an evidence of systemic racism" argument for some time here, as I do believe that's the one area where it could be argued it still does persist.
For housing costs to go down, deregulation of housing markets is obviously the low-hanging fruit there- see the Bay Area for what happens when governments don't allow housing to be built which would alleviate pent-up demand.
So, in my opinion, each of these markets (education, housing, healthcare) could stand for LESS government intervention, so the markets could accurately price their goods and services more efficiently.
Can you imagine working in a truly free market system as a community radiation oncologist? You have limited capital. There may be some regulatory mechanism (i.e. certificate of need) that protects your geographic market presently. There is a government social program that provides a dominant payment model, pays for your services and sets a floor on the value of your services. Now take that all away.
What happens? First, you start charging what your patients can pay themselves. I wonder how much this is and what this does to your staffing and QA.
Then, a large healthcare conglomerate (university, another larger hospital system, large multispecialty practice) with massive amounts of capital comes in, sets up a state of the art linac, and markets their product. They may well be associated with an historical brand (MD Anderson?). They will offer XRT at a fraction of your operating cost and drive you out of business. They will offer you employment at a fraction of your salary if they need you. They will then charge what they can and offer financing options to the public. A small number of dominant players will emerge nationally. At that point, they will act as a cartel. You will personally be subjected to more monopsony than you are presently.
Regarding their product? Without a strong regulatory mechanism to assign value, they will rely on the market to pick winners. Is the market good at picking quality and value? Is the market going to pick the most effective treatment? Can the market discern a 5% difference in late breast cancer recurrences or a 10 % difference in Stage III lung cancer survival? Well, I guess there could be a market for reliable research and a public that believes this research but this can’t be strictly market driven and it takes a decade or more to measure effectiveness. So the large centers will market the most aspirational product. The newest particle therapy or most cutting edge robotic surgery. (This happens now despite worrisome data regarding robotics in many sites). Cost to the public may go up.
Education, child care and medical care have gone up in price because they are aspirational. Not necessarily because of government intervention. Government intervention can set the floor cost due to regulatory burden and it can impact the ceiling by allowing or guaranteeing bad loans. But these are aspirational by nature and the public will pay as MUCH for them as they can.
Healthcare, like education (and probably childcare) is one of those things where when the government sets a payment floor and subsidizes the needy or provides a basic service, both public and provider benefit.
What happens? First, you start charging what your patients can pay themselves. I wonder how much this is and what this does to your staffing and QA.
Then, a large healthcare conglomerate (university, another larger hospital system, large multispecialty practice) with massive amounts of capital comes in, sets up a state of the art linac, and markets their product. They may well be associated with an historical brand (MD Anderson?). They will offer XRT at a fraction of your operating cost and drive you out of business. They will offer you employment at a fraction of your salary if they need you. They will then charge what they can and offer financing options to the public. A small number of dominant players will emerge nationally. At that point, they will act as a cartel. You will personally be subjected to more monopsony than you are presently.
Regarding their product? Without a strong regulatory mechanism to assign value, they will rely on the market to pick winners. Is the market good at picking quality and value? Is the market going to pick the most effective treatment? Can the market discern a 5% difference in late breast cancer recurrences or a 10 % difference in Stage III lung cancer survival? Well, I guess there could be a market for reliable research and a public that believes this research but this can’t be strictly market driven and it takes a decade or more to measure effectiveness. So the large centers will market the most aspirational product. The newest particle therapy or most cutting edge robotic surgery. (This happens now despite worrisome data regarding robotics in many sites). Cost to the public may go up.
Education, child care and medical care have gone up in price because they are aspirational. Not necessarily because of government intervention. Government intervention can set the floor cost due to regulatory burden and it can impact the ceiling by allowing or guaranteeing bad loans. But these are aspirational by nature and the public will pay as MUCH for them as they can.
Healthcare, like education (and probably childcare) is one of those things where when the government sets a payment floor and subsidizes the needy or provides a basic service, both public and provider benefit.
D
deleted480308
I don’t think it’s a settled conclusion this is for both parties benefit
This is a common response... the solution is always LESS government, but when has that worked? Whenever a market fails, a tunneled hindsight is employed to find some/any government intervention to blame... but where are the prospective data. I can point to many European democracies where more government intervention has yielded more happiness and longer lives. Where is the idealistic capitalist society? Where is the purer successful market economy with less government intervention than the US?
Capitalism is evolution... but sometimes in evolution, the virus wins. My argument is simple: use capitalism when it is smart, don't when it isn't. Don't let the virus win merely because the market says so.
The fatal conceit is that "wise people" will know when capitalism is smart and when it isn't. Read Hayek's "Use of Knowledge in Society" from 1945.
Education has always been aspirational- it was only when the government tried to buy the votes of 18-year-olds in 1972 did they decide the government needed to guarantee the loans to pay for it.
What you described re: MDAnderson is a classic example of a monopoly using its power to crush competitors, which would be illegal in a capitalist economy. One of the tenents of a free market is freedom from monopolistic power. We've forgotten this in recent decades.
"So now the large centers will market the most aspirational product. The newest particle therapy..." - MDA has had billboards all over Texas advertising their proton unit for at least 8 years.
You made my point when you said "it can impact the ceiling by allowing or guaranteeing bad loans": 'impacting the ceiling" means causing prices to be higher.
How is MD Anderson a monopoly? They don't have exclusive control over anything. There are other choices in Houston. It's big, it's imposing, it sucks up all of the sunlight. It is the sort of entity that is borne of unbridled capitalism.
If the market values MD Anderson's services 5 times more than that of its competitors, who are you to argue otherwise?
MD Anderson is a CMS exempt hospital ever since 1983 when the SSA act was passed. Crony capitalism where politicians pick those that can be exempted. They are largely protected from market forces (e.g they are exempt from APM). They have been able to negotiate monopoly contracts but their margins are narrowing (witness the financial difficulties of a few years ago) as the payors come to realize that 5-10 times Medicare is not value.
As Arrow pointed out many years ago the health care industry is not a real market (information asymmetry, etc)
I have fond memories of arguing about it while attaining an overpriced liberal arts education. Sure, no one is smart enough to have their minds wrapped around a single market, let alone an economy.
I concede that pure free-market economy is the most efficient way of achieving growth. What I would argue is that "growth" is not a suitable goal for every facet of society.
Take the example I presented above of the privatization of prisons: naturally, this industry wants to maximize profits, thus they need to grow their "customer base". If the sentencing guidelines only produce a limited number of "costumers", there is incentive for private prisons to invest in lobbying to change these guidelines to create more revenue. More prisoners are good business for prisons... but it really isn't that good for society. Capitalism worked just fine, just not to our benefit... and one needn't be an infinitely wise economist to have predicted this precise outcome.
Capitalism should be reigned in when market incentives are bad for society.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The problem is what is "bad" is difficult to determine and not everyone feels the same way. this is why we have politics and large changes take a long time and (usually) the majority of the population to support it.
My view is most eloquently summarized in a book that is more than three decades old. I would have preferred if Democratic was not capitalized on the cover. I prefer small d democracy.
His thesis is that we have three power centers (political, economic and moral-cultural) that in the best of worlds contend with one another and none is more powerful than the other. I do think we have an imbalance and unfortunately i don't see an easy way out of this given the leadership of both parties.
Amazon product ASIN 0819178233
My view is most eloquently summarized in a book that is more than three decades old. I would have preferred if Democratic was not capitalized on the cover. I prefer small d democracy.
His thesis is that we have three power centers (political, economic and moral-cultural) that in the best of worlds contend with one another and none is more powerful than the other. I do think we have an imbalance and unfortunately i don't see an easy way out of this given the leadership of both parties.
Amazon product ASIN 0819178233
Capital should get taxed less than labor? And only some people deserve unlimited s-corp deductions?
There is no way to insulate a market from politics, which is why I struggle to find an example of a true market economy. Politicians are just another investment for those with too much money... and likely have an excellent ROI. Inherent in the full-throat defense of the free market economy is blaming government intervention for the market's failures; but it is usually the leaders of the market who seek out and buy the government's help to remain at its the apex... so who is to blame?
It sounds like this point is addressed in the book you recommended... will try to carve out some time to take a look.
D
deleted480308
I'm fine with a simple flat rate across all incomes and all sources if we decide to keep an income tax. No deductions
Yes, capital gains should be taxed less.
Do you understand why long term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate?
Why Capital Gains are taxed at a Lower Rate
A joint hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means CommitteeThe Committee on Ways and Means, more commonly referred to as the House Ways and Means Committee, is the chief tax-writing committee in the US. The House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over all...
taxfoundation.org
"The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption."
These all have to do with risk, which differentiates it from taxes on labor and IMO another major issue that infinite capital gains are subject to tax, but only a (very small) finite amount of capital losses can be deducted from one's tax burden.
In other words, comparing income from labor and income from investments is comparing apples and oranges and grossly oversimplying the situation (e.g., arguing that rich people pay less taxes because most of their income comes from dividends instead of labor and that somehow justifies raising the capital gains tax).
The authors summarize the perils of such over-simplification very well:
" Attempting to use the tax code to address income inequality will likely disappoint those who seek to attack the lower tax rate on high net worth individuals caused by a lower capital gains and dividends rate. Inequalities caused by globalization and differing education levels will not be remedied by destroying future investment; to the contrary those most likely to be hurt the most by lower economic growth are those with lower incomes. "
Last edited:
Completely agree.
This was bad practice. Govt essentially throwing money into an existing market and creating another source of capital gain for lenders where risk disproportionately low for lending body and disproportionately high for many borrowers. The goal was undoubtedly to expand access to higher education, which is noble. The market responded to this infusion of cash in the way that you would expect.
In general, I believe that the government should try to provide reasonable access to these aspirational products (healthcare, education) to the poorest among us. I would advocate for a public option in higher education (and healthcare), which the market can then try to beat (like public schooling, which you can thank the Jacobins for to some degree). This model is common in Europe and not radical.
I love John Rawls' argument for social justice from his "original position" thought experiment. Namely, what type of society would you live in if you didn't know what social position you would have? (I would say born into.) Guy was woke AF.
Very pro business source. Not saying that their points aren't real, just not very meaningful.
In the absence of high inflation, the disparity in tax rate is usually more meaningful than any inflationary cost. I don't have a problem with indexing this tax however. The real question is how much lower should CG taxes be, and I think the real answer is very little lower. Double taxation happens all the time and disproportionately to the poor for whom necessary consumption is a much bigger fraction of their income. Aggregate impact of sales and property taxes make these taxes regressive and many states have markedly regressive state and local taxation because of this. Third point is irrefutable (doesn't mean its very meaningful).
Most importantly though is your point about risk. Should risk be encouraged through lower taxation? Maybe, but the calculus is very tough. Lack of risk aversion may be the key variable in predicting self made very high income individuals but the relationship between absolute monetary risk and real risk is not arithmetic at all. If you make 50K a year, investing 50K is enormously risky in real terms. If you are sitting on a 10M trust, the risk of a 1M investment is nominal in real terms.
in my experience in field, there are many people with these views. SDN particularly has a lot of these voices lately. Either way, the best thing about sdn is the diversity
Prisons are an odd example of forces of capitalism. An area where the government controls all the levers. Now there are good reasons for this, but let's not pretend this is capitalism at work. Politicians get elected promising higher minimum sentences, "law and order" as it were. Politicians also get money for their elections potentially from private prisons, but let us not forget the government operated prison guard unions. All of whom want more "business".
But in any case, I am not convinced there is an over-incarceration problem in America.
But in any case, I am not convinced there is an over-incarceration problem in America.
I wonder if Kendi will bring this up:
www.npr.org
Nationwide protests have cast a spotlight on racism and inequality in the U.S. Now a major bank has put a price tag to how much the economy has lost as a result of discrimination against African Americans: $16 trillion.
Since 2000, U.S. gross domestic product lost that much as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of activities including in education or access to business loans, according to a new study by Citigroup
Cost Of Racism: U.S. Economy Lost $16 Trillion Because Of Discrimination, Bank Says
Citigroup estimates the economy would see a $5 trillion boost over the next five years if the U.S. were to tackle key areas of discrimination against African Americans.
www.npr.org
Nationwide protests have cast a spotlight on racism and inequality in the U.S. Now a major bank has put a price tag to how much the economy has lost as a result of discrimination against African Americans: $16 trillion.
Since 2000, U.S. gross domestic product lost that much as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of activities including in education or access to business loans, according to a new study by Citigroup
D
deleted480308
From the source study:I wonder if Kendi will bring this up:
Cost Of Racism: U.S. Economy Lost $16 Trillion Because Of Discrimination, Bank Says
Citigroup estimates the economy would see a $5 trillion boost over the next five years if the U.S. were to tackle key areas of discrimination against African Americans.
Nationwide protests have cast a spotlight on racism and inequality in the U.S. Now a major bank has put a price tag to how much the economy has lost as a result of discrimination against African Americans: $16 trillion.
Since 2000, U.S. gross domestic product lost that much as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of activities including in education or access to business loans, according to a new study by Citigroup
There are a lot of "might"s in there. Also, in the last 20yrs, it's been illegal to offer different house loans by race, illegal to pay differently by race, illegal to discriminate in education (unless you are actually discriminating in favor of black students/applicants), and illegal to discriminate against black business owners (with many municipalities specifically hold aside contracts for minority owned businesses).....
I'm a little unsure if this is a "real" study
Wonder what ASTRO is paying him? can we get him back next year for free and consider it “bundled” like APM ?
Last edited:
You beat me to it!
I don't want to hear about FINANCIAL TOXICITY unless this is addressed! LOL
Grifters gonna grift, even if they claim to be "socialist"
Just because you are paid money to provide a service, that doesn't mean that you are morally bankrupt. This is a logical fallacy.
In an interview, someone asked Tom Morello (lead guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, who advocate for radical socialistic policies) why do they charge people money for their music? Isn't that hypocritical?
His response: "When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart. "
In an interview, someone asked Tom Morello (lead guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, who advocate for radical socialistic policies) why do they charge people money for their music? Isn't that hypocritical?
His response: "When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart. "
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Tesla probably another good analogy. Elon musk started it to accelerate vehicle electrification in the world but knew it wouldn't happen until it could turn a profit
This particular grift stings since my dues and meeting registration monies are paying for some percentage of Kendi's fee.
In any case, the example you cite hasn't been true since the acceleration of the internet in the late 90s, and arguably before. These rich radical marxists are only practicing for the day when they when are commissars in their dacha and everyone else in breadlines (or dead).
In any case, the example you cite hasn't been true since the acceleration of the internet in the late 90s, and arguably before. These rich radical marxists are only practicing for the day when they when are commissars in their dacha and everyone else in breadlines (or dead).
Agreed, I think the frustration are that the ideas Kendi espouses are morally bankrupt (not because he is being paid) and to be receiving that much money to rub it in our faces sucks even worse.
But I disagree with you on Tom Morello. The only reason he has the currency to spread his message is because of the millions he has from his capitalistic channels. The inability to recognize this hurts his credibility.
Last edited:
I don't mind charging fees for your expertise.
I question the wisdom of ASTRO spending five figures on having this particular speaker though at this particular time.
I question the wisdom of ASTRO spending five figures on having this particular speaker though at this particular time.
As a strong proponent of capitalism, I don't mind either and think people should be paid for their time. The question is why is this man's time so valuable? And what I mind is the hypocrisy of paying someone exorbitant sums to preach lies about capitalism, tell us we are inherently evil and should have our incomes and assets forcefully taken and redistributed regardless of whether we earned it through decades of hard work to earn a valuable skill instead of grifting, and argue for marxism while personally enriching himself.
Surely somebody here can find out what the fee is.
I don't mind him speaking so people can hear this nonsense, but I am confident ASTRO is paying him far more than he is worth.
- Status
