"Beggar-the-kids"

[Henrik Unné 0]

Today´s young will likely have to devote a major portion of the fruits of their labor to paying the interest and amortization on the debts run up by the baby boomer generation and, especially, by that generation´s politicians. The baby boomers philosophy as parents can be described as "live it up and beggar-the-kids".

Formerly, parents prided themselves on ensuring that their children would get to live a better life than they themselves had. But the baby boomers have instead lived for the moment, as their schoolteachers and college professors taught them to. They have lived on credit, instead of saving. Their politicians have run up an enormous public debt. The baby boomer generation´s businessmen have practiced the pragmatism taught to them by their college professors, and have leveraged their companies to the hilt. Today´s elder generation has, in short, largely destroyed the future for its own children.

I feel contempt for the majority of the baby boomers, both the American baby boomers and the Swedish baby boomers. Although the baby boomers here in Sweden have committed somewhat different moral crimes than the American baby boomers have. Here in Sweden the household savings rate is higher than it is in America, and the government´s borrowing is relatively smaller, so the Swedish baby boomers´ depravity consists primarily of other things than living on credit (such as, for example, indulging in egalitarian hatred of the good).

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

[ewv 0]

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

It hasn't corrupted that generation any more than the rest. The majority of the responsibility lies with the intellectuals of all kinds at all ages.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

Other than philosophers and intellectuals, I don't think you can condemn a specific group of individuals based upon the ideas in society. One can criticize a society based upon the dominant and fundamental ideas within that society. One can criticize specific individuals based upon the specific ideas he holds. Ideas have consequences regardless of the age of the adherents or when they were born. The accepted ideas of one generation are the consequences of the ideas accepted by previous generations. It is the active minorities who produce change in the long run.

[Mindy Newton 0]

----------

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

Other than philosophers and intellectuals, I don't think you can condemn a specific group of individuals based upon the ideas in society. One can criticize a society based upon the dominant and fundamental ideas within that society. One can criticize specific individuals based upon the specific ideas he holds. Ideas have consequences regardless of the age of the adherents or when they were born. The accepted ideas of one generation are the consequences of the ideas accepted by previous generations. It is the active minorities who produce change in the long run.

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

Other than philosophers and intellectuals, I don't think you can condemn a specific group of individuals based upon the ideas in society. One can criticize a society based upon the dominant and fundamental ideas within that society. One can criticize specific individuals based upon the specific ideas he holds. Ideas have consequences regardless of the age of the adherents or when they were born. The accepted ideas of one generation are the consequences of the ideas accepted by previous generations. It is the active minorities who produce change in the long run.

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Henrik's question concerned what "we" should state about the baby boomers acceptance of ideas. There are a lot worse things to do than fault people for the date of their birth.

[piz 0]

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Henrik's question concerned what "we" should state about the baby boomers acceptance of ideas. There are a lot worse things to do than fault people for the date of their birth.

I disagree! All you guys not born on January 19th are clearly inferior beings! And my birth year ROCKS!

(Sorry, had to.)

[Mindy Newton 0]

----------

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

Other than philosophers and intellectuals, I don't think you can condemn a specific group of individuals based upon the ideas in society. One can criticize a society based upon the dominant and fundamental ideas within that society. One can criticize specific individuals based upon the specific ideas he holds. Ideas have consequences regardless of the age of the adherents or when they were born. The accepted ideas of one generation are the consequences of the ideas accepted by previous generations. It is the active minorities who produce change in the long run.

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Henrik's question concerned what "we" should state about the baby boomers acceptance of ideas. There are a lot worse things to do than fault people for the date of their birth.

And I'm trying so hard to be "nice!"

Let's see, group...ideas. Anybody see anything wrong with this? Like the fact that ideas belong to the individual? That it is the individual who has a mind? And therefore that membership in a group defined in any other way than by ideology has absolutely no significance regarding their beliefs?

What worse thing is there? It completely de-humanizes the person. It negates their individuality. Slavery also does that, so it isn't worse, intellectually. Ditto for murder. You tell me, what worse thing is there?

I know I'm new here, and don't know where the regulars are "coming from" (read that context) but did I take the wrong subway, or is this still Objectivism?

Mindy Newton

[ewv 0]

At least the datism was restricted to only the "majority of baby boomers". But even that isn't factually correct. There is no reason to single out one generation for this mess even through crude statistical observation. Barney Frank is too old and Obama is too young to fit, to say nothing of the fanatical Obamanauts in the youngest generations. The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with the fact that one generation in particular is about to retire.

[piz 0]

At least the datism was restricted to only the "majority of baby boomers". But even that isn't factually correct. There is no reason to single out one generation for this mess even through crude statistical observation. Barney Frank is too old and Obama is too young to fit, to say nothing of the fanatical Obamanauts in the youngest generations. The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with the fact that one generation in particular is about to retire.

Obama is the first U.S. president to be younger than I am (by some 7.5 months) and, based on nearly every definition of "baby boomer" I've encountered, I came into existence at the very tail end of the boom. So Obama might just barely qualify as a boomer. Of course, such designations are very approximate.

Not that any of that matters, as ewv said.

[ewv 0]

Obama is the first U.S. president to be younger than I am (by some 7.5 months)...

Is this why we feel we are being forced to take place in a re-enactement of Lord of the Flies?

[Henrik Unné 0]

----------

What do the rest of you Objectivists think of the majority of the baby boomers? Are they as bad as I think that they are? Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

Other than philosophers and intellectuals, I don't think you can condemn a specific group of individuals based upon the ideas in society. One can criticize a society based upon the dominant and fundamental ideas within that society. One can criticize specific individuals based upon the specific ideas he holds. Ideas have consequences regardless of the age of the adherents or when they were born. The accepted ideas of one generation are the consequences of the ideas accepted by previous generations. It is the active minorities who produce change in the long run.

What worse intellectual fault could baby-boomers, or anybody else, commit than to condemn people because of the date of their birth? This is an example of that "short-cut" mentality I mentioned before.

I only condemn the *majority* of the baby-boomers. I am well aware that moral judgments always have to be individual. As one concrete example, I am myself a baby-boomer, since I was born in 1954, but I do not condemn myself.

[Henrik Unné 0]

At least the datism was restricted to only the "majority of baby boomers". But even that isn't factually correct. There is no reason to single out one generation for this mess even through crude statistical observation. Barney Frank is too old and Obama is too young to fit, to say nothing of the fanatical Obamanauts in the youngest generations. The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with the fact that one generation in particular is about to retire.

Of course there are a lot of morally corrupt individuals in other generations as well.

[ewv 0]

At least the datism was restricted to only the "majority of baby boomers". But even that isn't factually correct. There is no reason to single out one generation for this mess even through crude statistical observation. Barney Frank is too old and Obama is too young to fit, to say nothing of the fanatical Obamanauts in the youngest generations. The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with the fact that one generation in particular is about to retire.

Of course there are a lot of morally corrupt individuals in other generations as well.

Why start a thread under the banner "The majority of the baby-boomers are immoral" as responsible for today's statism, targeting one age group and condemning most members of that group? The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with age, and it is not in any way restricted to that age group.

[RayK 0]

At least the datism was restricted to only the "majority of baby boomers". But even that isn't factually correct. There is no reason to single out one generation for this mess even through crude statistical observation. Barney Frank is too old and Obama is too young to fit, to say nothing of the fanatical Obamanauts in the youngest generations. The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with the fact that one generation in particular is about to retire.

Of course there are a lot of morally corrupt individuals in other generations as well.

Why start a thread under the banner "The majority of the baby-boomers are immoral" as responsible for today's statism, targeting one age group and condemning most members of that group? The cultural and intellectual causes of the statism have nothing to do with age, and it is not in any way restricted to that age group.

I agree that one's age has nothing to do with the cultural and intellectual causes of statism. But, since the baby-boomers are considerd to be the largest group and have the largest/majority voting power and the most money, we can claim that it is their majority vote that is at least part of the problem. For example, 40% of Obama's votes came from the 50 and older crowd. Compare that to 23% from 18 to 29 year olds, 19% from 30 to 39 year olds, and 20% from 40 to 49 year olds. The 50+ crowd also has the so called non-profit orginzation AARP which is really a lobbying group that brought in over $1.17 billion in the year 2007 and has over 40 million members.

Once again I am not stating that every baby-boomer or person over 50 is corrupt and a "beggar." But, over 40 million people belong to AARP and one might conclude that those members all generally agree with it's ideas as no one has forced them to join, at least not that I know of.

[ewv 0]

I agree that one's age has nothing to do with the cultural and intellectual causes of statism. But, since the baby-boomers are considerd to be the largest group and have the largest/majority voting power and the most money, we can claim that it is their majority vote that is at least part of the problem. For example, 40% of Obama's votes came from the 50 and older crowd. Compare that to 23% from 18 to 29 year olds, 19% from 30 to 39 year olds, and 20% from 40 to 49 year olds.

Every age group has individuals who are "part of a problem". Arbitrarily "considering the largest group" based on a larger age range does not magnify the responsibilities of its members. This use of statistics compares, for example, a group with ages ranging over about 15 years and compares it to ranges for other groups spanning about 10 years, ignores all those who did not exercise their responsibility to vote and what their views are, and ignores the reasons why people voted the way they did in their ignorance of misleading campaigns. Both candidates appealed to sacrifice, and Obama pretended he was "moderate" while denying his ties to leftist terrorists and demagogues and his collectivist background now driving his radical fascist agenda. There is no indication that the younger generations are becoming any less philosophically corrupt or have a better understanding of American history. Far from it, given the worsening trends in education. The trend for over a century has been for increased statism and that appears to be continuing to become worse in all age groups.

The 50+ crowd also has the so called non-profit orginzation AARP which is really a lobbying group that brought in over $1.17 billion in the year 2007 and has over 40 million members.

Once again I am not stating that every baby-boomer or person over 50 is corrupt and a "beggar." But, over 40 million people belong to AARP and one might conclude that those members all generally agree with it's ideas as no one has forced them to join, at least not that I know of.

Most people join AARP for financial reasons such as discounts and availability of different kinds of insurance. AARP does not advertise its politics in its appeals for membership and is not recognized by the general public in any age group for the nature of its lobbying for leftist causes.

[RayK 0]

Ewv, I am not denying the facts that you mention and as a matter of fact I did mention that the baby-boomers/50+ are the biggest group. I also realize that it is arbitrary to group people together in such a way under the context of them being any more corrupt than other age group. But, I do not think that we can deny that 40% of the vote for Obama by the so called "baby-boomers" is worth a lot more than the 23% of the 18 to 29 year olds that have very little extra money to donate to Obama's election fund. So, I think that we might be able to conclude that the wealthier group of any political party is generally the older group and in a corrupt society will have much more pull with politicians.

[RayK 0]

Ewv, most people might not know exactly what AARP's ideas are before they join. But, when a person becomes a member they automatically start receiving their magazine where it specifically states what they are attempting to do with their lobbying. I think that if a person was not corrupt and found out what AARP's real agenda and ideas are that they would not support their enemy.

[ewv 0]

Ewv, I am not denying the facts that you mention and as a matter of fact I did mention that the baby-boomers/50+ are the biggest group. I also realize that it is arbitrary to group people together in such a way under the context of them being any more corrupt than other age group. But, I do not think that we can deny that 40% of the vote for Obama by the so called "baby-boomers" is worth a lot more than the 23% of the 18 to 29 year olds that have very little extra money to donate to Obama's election fund.

So, I think that we might be able to conclude that the wealthier group of any political party is generally the older group and in a corrupt society will have much more pull with politicians.

40% is even bigger compared to an even smaller age range with half the people and 11% of the total supporters, and still bigger when compared to an even smaller group with a quarter of the people and 6%, etc. etc. So what?

You also don't have any idea how much money any of those voters are contributing, which is not uniform and which is heavily influenced by enormous amounts of money and pull from Sorros, the labor unions, etc. See Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by Ron Arnold, 2009.

And what difference does it make to a comparative moral judgment how much money someone is giving simply because he may have more to give up? With the generations becoming increasingly philosophically corrupted, the younger ones will do the same and worse when they have more money. You can look at the small minority with money and political influence, and you can look at arbitrary age groupings, but you can't equate them or equate who has the money with the philosophical corruption spread through a culture.

[ewv 0]

Ewv, most people might not know exactly what AARP's ideas are before they join. But, when a person becomes a member they automatically start receiving their magazine where it specifically states what they are attempting to do with their lobbying. I think that if a person was not corrupt and found out what AARP's real agenda and ideas are that they would not support their enemy.

Most people throw the thing in the trash and don't know how to see through the spin to understand what AARP is really doing anyway.

[RayK 0]

Ewv, I am not denying the facts that you mention and as a matter of fact I did mention that the baby-boomers/50+ are the biggest group. I also realize that it is arbitrary to group people together in such a way under the context of them being any more corrupt than other age group. But, I do not think that we can deny that 40% of the vote for Obama by the so called "baby-boomers" is worth a lot more than the 23% of the 18 to 29 year olds that have very little extra money to donate to Obama's election fund.

So, I think that we might be able to conclude that the wealthier group of any political party is generally the older group and in a corrupt society will have much more pull with politicians.

40% is even bigger compared to an even smaller age range with half the people and 11% of the total supporters, and still bigger when compared to an even smaller group with a quarter of the people and 6%, etc. etc. So what?

You also don't have any idea how much money any of those voters are contributing, which is not uniform and which is heavily influenced by enormous amounts of money and pull from Sorros, the labor unions, etc. See Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy by Ron Arnold, 2009.

And what difference does it make to a comparative moral judgment how much money someone is giving simply because he may have more to give up? With the generations becoming increasingly philosophically corrupted, the younger ones will do the same and worse when they have more money. You can look at the small minority with money and political influence, and you can look at arbitrary age groupings, but you can't equate them or equate who has the money with the philosophical corruption spread through a culture.

I do not understand what you are attempting to state in your first paragraph and I think from your post that my post might have been misunderstood. But, I do not think any arbitrary group is more corrupt than any other arbitrary group. I was just trying to point out that the group with the most money can either do the most good or the most harm by backing certain people with a lot of money. Similarily, the wealthy investor can do much more good for an economy than the young patron who thinks tipping keeps the economy running. The first person has the power and the wealth to get things done while the latter can barely feed himself.

Maybe most people do throw their magazine away, but that just goes to show how corrupt both sides are. One side for lying to their customers by "spinning" the truth until it is unnoticeable. And the second side is corrupt for putting their support behind that which they do not understand.

[ewv 0]

I do not understand what you are attempting to state in your first paragraph and I think from your post that my post might have been misunderstood. But, I do not think any arbitrary group is more corrupt than any other arbitrary group.

Arbitrary groupings selecting one group against progressively subdivided smaller groupings in accordance with smaller and smaller age ranges to make the size of the groupings smaller does not make the individuals in one or another of these groupings any more or less significant. Selecting an individual to be classified in a larger arbitrary grouping does not magnify his significance in accordance with the size of the collection you declare him to be included in. These are not objective "groups" at all, let alone evidence of any one's moral stature.

I was just trying to point out that the group with the most money can either do the most good or the most harm by backing certain people with a lot of money. Similarily, the wealthy investor can do much more good for an economy than the young patron who thinks tipping keeps the economy running. The first person has the power and the wealth to get things done while the latter can barely feed himself.

Which says nothing about his alleged immorality. A band of hippies without much money is not necessarily more moral than the people who have saved more money so they do more with it. They may or may not be more damaging at the moment, depending on what they or the hippies are doing. But it does not follow from the fact that people who have more resources because they are older and had more to time save and rise to influential positions in the economy are more immoral than younger generations who are more philosophically corrupt but who have accumulated less money so far in their lives.

Maybe most people do throw their magazine away, but that just goes to show how corrupt both sides are. One side for lying to their customers by "spinning" the truth until it is unnoticeable. And the second side is corrupt for putting their support behind that which they do not understand.

People in one generation who join an organization for financial discounts with no knowlege or understanding of what else the organization may be doing are no more corrupt than any other group of individuals of any generation who don't know what they are doing or worse.

The contention starting this thread was that 'baby boomers' are more immoral than other generations. That isn't true either about individuals or statistically and it doesn't follow from any of the statistical manipulations or financial arguements presented. In fact all signs point to upcoming generations being even worse in general in a downward spiral of the culture and that their future threatens even worse actions as their influence based on their premises increases.

Enrik originally wrote:

Today´s young will likely have to devote a major portion of the fruits of their labor to paying the interest and amortization on the debts run up by the baby boomer generation and, especially, by that generation´s politicians. The baby boomers philosophy as parents can be described as "live it up and beggar-the-kids".

This portrayal of the current younger generations as innocent financial victims of the oldest is false. The massive deficit spending, including Social Security as a deliberately conceived Ponzi scheme, was begun in the early 1930s by adults who are all dead now. We are all already paying for it, it has been getting worse under subsequent generations, and all signs point to the youngest generations more fully embracing fascism and socialism making it far worse into the future.

He also wrote

Is it not a dramatic demonstration of the power of philosophy, that when bad philosophy is taught in the schools, it can corrupt almost all the members of an entire generation?

That is true to the extent that the corruption has spread through various generations, and it is that ongoing trend that is the cause, not some isolated alleged immorality of the 'baby boomers'. If Enrik intended to say that the spread of bad ideas caused people to pick up on the New Deal and make it progressively worse under the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, and Hopey Change and more into the future, that is correct. But don't try to blame it all on 'baby boomers'.

[RayK 0]

Ewv, I am not, let me repeat, I am not stating nor do I agree with the idea that any arbitrary age group is any more corrupt than another. I was stating, or at least attempting to state, that from a quick glimpse into the total size (whether objectively defined or not) of the baby-boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) and the fact that they are the wealthiest group, spend the most money, and some studies support the idea that the baby-boomers set the social/political and economic direction of this country, that they play a large part in keeping better ideas from being heard.

For example, you are the one that has written on this forum about all the financial road blocks that are thrown in the way of innocent individuals while trying to defend themselves. It is also you that has written about the "army of lawyers" that the corrupt groups have and that play a large part in making it so difficult for the innocent to defend themselves which causes the innocents to give up. So, I ask, do you think it is the individually corrupt young person that is supporting these groups with hundreds of millions of dollars, or is it the individually corrupt aged person that is making a "significant" impact on the furthering of corrupt ideas?

If you are willing, I have another question. Why is it that using the term The Enlightened Age is okay to describe the people from that time period, which also varies in accordance to who defines it? And, why is it that using a term such as the baby-boomers to generally describe the people from that time period is considered irrational? Obviously, not all the people born during The Enlightened Age were actually enlightened. And, it is also obvious that not all the people born during the time defined as the baby-boomer generation are all corrupt. I also understand that the time periods, no matter how they are defined, vary by a large amount. And, I recognize that there were many more grand minds during The Enlightened Age in comparison to the baby-boomer generation. And, although one was the culmination of reason, I am not sure we have seen the culmination of anti-reason although we are headed in that direction. So, if we changed the age's name from baby-boomers to The Anti-Reason Generation would you still hold that we cannot put the blame or praise on a culture as a whole or part thereof.

[ewv 0]

Ewv, I am not, let me repeat, I am not stating nor do I agree with the idea that any arbitrary age group is any more corrupt than another. I was stating, or at least attempting to state, that from a quick glimpse into the total size (whether objectively defined or not)

It matters that there is no objectively defined group and that the sizes of the groups are much different because the ages arbitrarily selected are included in ranges of different sizes, in addition to arbitrary cutoffs.

of the baby-boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) and the fact that they are the wealthiest group, spend the most money, and some studies support the idea that the baby-boomers set the social/political and economic direction of this country, that they play a large part in keeping better ideas from being heard.

Adults of all ages in influential positions are doing that. The whole focus on age as such is irrelevent. The cultural and political trends are getting progressively worse as time passes.

For example, you are the one that has written on this forum about all the financial road blocks that are thrown in the way of innocent individuals while trying to defend themselves. It is also you that has written about the "army of lawyers" that the corrupt groups have and that play a large part in making it so difficult for the innocent to defend themselves which causes the innocents to give up. So, I ask, do you think it is the individually corrupt young person that is supporting these groups with hundreds of millions of dollars, or is it the individually corrupt aged person that is making a "significant" impact on the furthering of corrupt ideas?

It is both. A lot of the money comes from previous generations, including the fortunes of past industrialists long since dead and now used to finance non-profit viro and other leftist pressure groups to the tune of billions. The activists coming out of the universities for the last twenty five years (i.e., post "baby boomers") have been worse than ever. They are in influential positions regardless of age, with many of the younger ones running political pressure groups and inhabiting government agencies where they wield extraordinary power (some of them barely out of college). They have far more impact than hoards of "baby boomers" who happened to have accumulated more money in their personal lives. Those with a significant impact in any realm are a minority of the population or any age group however specified.

If you are willing, I have another question. Why is it that using the term The Enlightened Age is okay to describe the people from that time period, which also varies in accordance to who defines it? And, why is it that using a term such as the baby-boomers to generally describe the people from that time period is considered irrational?

One refers to an identifiable period in history in terms of ideology and the other focuses on a narrow range of dates of birth without regard to any intellectual trend or shift. The Age of Enlightenment refers to enlightened intellectuals who happened to live then, with the time period selected to encompass the enlightenment, not the other way around. "Baby boomer" refers to people because they were born during a particular time: The beginning of that time period was selected because of the "boom" in the number of babies born when the GIs returned home from the war and to nothing else. It is a result of sex, not thinking. The whole notion of identifying groups like "baby boomers", "Generation X", etc. in terms of arbitrary dates and then using that for cultural analysis with no identifiable essential characteristics of the groups is an example of the anti-conceptual mentality.

Obviously, not all the people born during The Enlightened Age were actually enlightened. And, it is also obvious that not all the people born during the time defined as the baby-boomer generation are all corrupt. I also understand that the time periods, no matter how they are defined, vary by a large amount. And, I recognize that there were many more grand minds during The Enlightened Age in comparison to the baby-boomer generation. And, although one was the culmination of reason, I am not sure we have seen the culmination of anti-reason although we are headed in that direction. So, if we changed the age's name from baby-boomers to The Anti-Reason Generation would you still hold that we cannot put the blame or praise on a culture as a whole or part thereof.

The cutoff dates around 1945-65 do not define the age of unreason. That range has nothing to do with the state of the culture or any change in intellectual trends.

Remember also that Enrik originally started with a focus on the borrowing as a way of political life, which began in a big way in the 1930s, not with the "baby boomers". Statism, not government borrowing as one form of it, is the fundamental. During the rise of fascistic statism popular in the 1930s, Social Security was deliberately conceived as a Ponzi scheme, and the economics profession based an entire theory on Keynes's "in the long run we'll all be dead". No one then or now seriously expected the borrowed money to be paid back, by either those alive or those in future generations. Rather, the borrowing is simply a statist financial mechanism for re-routing investment into government spending in a continuous, ongoing transfer of wealth from private ownership through inflation, taxes and hijacking of "borrowed" investment capital, all corrupting the economy and private consumption all the time, with a future collapse of the whole rotten shell game on the horizon (or now sooner). It's not a matter of an otherwise normal economy with only a problem for the future to pay back borrowed money, which would be a lot cleaner than what is happening. What we are facing makes 'credit default swaps' look innocent in comparison.

That 1930s foundation quickly became entrenched in American government long before the "baby boomers" were even born. Clinton's "Age of Depends on the Meaning of Is" and Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" (the only two "baby boomer" presidents) were extensions of the "New Deal", "Great Society", etc. spending and borrowing long already entrenched. The "We Generation Hopey Changey" movement is post "baby boomer" and has already exceeded in the last few months the borrowing of all all previous presidents combined. The ages of "baby boomers" also taking part in that are irrelevent. Things are becoming progressively worse through time as the philosophy of the culture disintegrates in accordance with very old premises regardless of anyone's age.

[RayK 0]

Ewv, I understand what you are stating and I am not in disagreement with it.

I am not stating that I think the non-objectively defined* "baby boomers" are the primary reason for the problems of today. I think that they are the complex sum of the influential philosophy from the preceding generation and period. But, I do think that the "baby boomers" (because of their total size and age and not any ideology) might play the part of tipping the conditions beyond what is recoverable. I am not stating that the following generations are any better or that they cannot change the conditions and create a better future. But, it does seem that the following generations will not get a chance to demonstrate how corrupt or principled they can be if the "baby boomer" generation tips the scales before the following generations get a chance. One of the reasons I think the "baby boomer" generation might tip the conditions for the worse is America's growing debt and the soon huge demand by the "baby boomers" for social security and government run medical services.

I do not think that what I wrote has to happen as man has free will and can choose another path. But, I also know that a society's influential philosophy is what drives it and that history has shown us similar paths of destruction.

*It seems that most of the "baby boomers" generation agree with the non-objectively defined title and are some of the biggest supporters for their irrational, vague grouping.

[Mindy Newton 0]

Ewv, I understand what you are stating and I am not in disagreement with it.

I am not stating that I think the non-objectively defined* "baby boomers" are the primary reason for the problems of today. I think that they are the complex sum of the influential philosophy from the preceding generation and period. But, I do think that the "baby boomers" (because of their total size and age and not any ideology) might play the part of tipping the conditions beyond what is recoverable. I am not stating that the following generations are any better or that they cannot change the conditions and create a better future. But, it does seem that the following generations will not get a chance to demonstrate how corrupt or principled they can be if the "baby boomer" generation tips the scales before the following generations get a chance. One of the reasons I think the "baby boomer" generation might tip the conditions for the worse is America's growing debt and the soon huge demand by the "baby boomers" for social security and government run medical services.

I do not think that what I wrote has to happen as man has free will and can choose another path. But, I also know that a society's influential philosophy is what drives it and that history has shown us similar paths of destruction.

*It seems that most of the "baby boomers" generation agree with the non-objectively defined title and are some of the biggest supporters for their irrational, vague grouping.

There is an attitude prevailing here, despite ewv's intelligent opposition to it, (bravo,) that accepts the premise of praising or condemning actual people depending on what some majority they statistically belong to is assumed to endorse. The "group-think" premise behind this is so contrary to Objectivism that I can't understand how it gets any acceptance here. More than one thread has taken the tact of damning or dismissing a segment of the population as corrupt or immoral due to the faults of some.

What is the point? It is so clearly a racist syllogism, blame the jews, etc., that I am aghast at seeing it rise and arise again on an Objectivist forum. I don't understand the sympathy with the original question that gets people to offer any answer at all...can't we dismiss this group, can't we condemn this one...the glaring psychological motive aside, what is the point?

If it were the ideas of one or another group, if the historical period were the tag that identified a cultural trend, that would be different...I just don't see what the point of this sort of question is. Anybody care to explain it to me? Thanks.

Save me from forming my own, illustrative generalizations about the non-objective, etc. thought processes of various groups.