The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]
Replies: 14   Last Post: Dec 6, 2012 7:00 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
kirby urner

Posts: 3,690
Registered: 11/29/05
Re: WG 13 Announcement: CERME 8 [Turkey]
Posted: Dec 6, 2012 2:15 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (2.6 K)

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Paul Tanner <> wrote:

> But there is truth there. There is a number of very rich and very
> powerful people who by definition are part of the top 1% in the income
> distribution - this includes for instance some of those who run the
> big banks - have through massive amounts of money spent on lobbying
> and other means have "bought" a large part - if not a majority - of
> the US Congress. That is, to say that they own the government is
> rhetoric that is not too far from the truth that their influence over
> government is very, very, very, very, very out of proportion to their
> numbers. (I do not see why you think that this is OK if you think that
> this is OK - and you speak as if you think that it is OK.)

I don't think it's OK to be ridiculously sloppy in one's thinking.

People say "rich and powerful" as if these were synonyms and further
there's the implication that "not rich" means "not powerful" i.e. "if and
only if rich, then powerful".

I think as math-focused people with some respect for logic, we should not
traffic in such slovenly thinking. One may be rich and not particularly
influential, influential and not rich, influential and then rich, rich and
then influential etc. etc.

Does this mean I'm denying the existence of rich and powerful (influential)
people? Not at all.

What I notice about a lot of people is they swill in victimhood saying to
themselves "I'm not rich and therefore not powerful and therefore it's not
my problem or concern how the world is going -- other people are to blame
for everything that's bad about the world".

A lot of rich folks are so bogged down managing their portfolios and
looking after their assets that they really have no time to focus on
policy, public affairs, or whatever. People with little money and not much
to lose may be able to devote themselves to various forms of activistism
quasi full time.

Of all the Nobel Prizes given out in the last 100 years, how many went to
people who had been millionaires and billionaires?


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.