Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> "David A. Kekich" wrote:
> > Maybe he came to his conclusions because he never really profited from
> > his grand discoveries, while lesser mortals got rich selling widgets and
> > hitting home runs. A purely capitalistic economy would have enriched
> > him. Then he probably would have been a capitalist. The inequality of
> > the system might have simply pushed him towards socialism. Maybe he
> > never gave it as much thought as most assume.
> There is no certainty that a purely capitalistic economy would
> have enriched Einstein. Perhaps he would have found it easier
> to make lots of money. Producing "good stuff" isn't enough --
> you have to get other people to pay you for your stuff.
> Discoveries in theoretical physics are pretty hard to leverage
> into a really large fortune.
He did get the Nobel Prize, did he not? That prize comes with it a cash award of about $1,000,000.00 in today's money, which should have been around $100,000.00 back then. Not a bad return for some doodling in a patent office in one's off hours....
Not to mention the nicely paid position at Princeton with plenty of grant money flowing in. The grant scam is a great business to be in, where its easy to scream poverty while caching away huge chunks, reselling old lab or field equipment to a new grant project, that has been used in other research several times and paid for each time).
How many plain old socialists get a chance to bend the President of the U.S.'s ear on occasion?
> Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
> > If no objective standard is possible, how are we to come to any agreement?
> > Fortunately, most of us are able to get along reasonably well with each
> > other most of the time. Why is this, do you suppose?
> Because there are many seemingly objective facts about our
> environment, including the fact that most of us hold
> similar, though subjective, opinions about what is right
> and wrong.
Subjectivity only exists as a consequence of each individual conducting analysis with incomplete facts, and purposely excluding commonly obvious facts that conflict with one's prejudices, while rationalizing that denial. Both are errors of logic.