Can You Find Fault With This?

I'm at the point now where I agree with everything Carlin says here. Very sad..

AmericanDream

Love George Carlin, God/Gods/moist earth rest his soul.

Since you asked, I'll hop on the jaded cynics train for a moment (I pretty much live there, but I supress it when I'm in the House of Wiz). Yes, I can find fault. I agree with almost everything he said, but education alone is not enough. Knowing you're 'getting fucked' doesn't change a thing. Disliking it, hating it, being enraged about it, changes it not one iota. There's brilliant and successful people in this forum. There may even be some dull-yet-still-successful people in this forum. Brains alone did not bring success, hard effing work brings success. Although I see some of this 'work' on the part of the American people more so than I have in previous times, I don't see it to the point that things will change.

I look at 'being educated' refers to things like the bank collapse, the GM deal, the housing bubble bursting. These things were happening for awhile before they were widly known, all the while we Americans went to our 9 to 5's like empty headed cows. All of the sudden everything breaks, and peoples eyes were opened. They were educated. But has anything changed?

I think if Americans were given insight to everything, from what our taxes were spent on, to how our economy works, to where Federal aid goes to, to why gas costs what it does, and we could actually understand it the way a economics major could, still, not much would change. People would bitch, and a few might get together in a rally every now and then, but I wouldn't see change. Because it would take Work, it would take Sacrifice, in order for the message to be heard. These guys that start those 'On this day, no one in the country buy gas. That'll show 'em!' demonstrations, they have the right idea, but they don't follow through. Make it a week, make it a MONTH, then maybe you will make an impact. Ah, but of course, that would take work and sacrifice. That would mean no family vacation, no road trip, no night out on the town, some missed days of work, and that is just too damn much work for us to handle.

I don't really have answers, but I agree with Carlin in the sense that I believe the credit companies and advertisers are holding hands, and that each of their free hands have us by each of our balls. Since I am also sick of it, I'm doing everything I can to buck the trend. I used to have a big hemi truck, a crotch rocket, a four wheeler and a boat. Now I have a truck with a 305, sold the rocket and the wheeler, and got a canoe and some rollerblades. Instead of weekly trips to the lake and a yearly trip cross state to fish on the boat, I take weekly walks to the local creek and take the canoe instead. I don't outfit myself with the latest gear because Kevin VanDamme and Rapala tell me to, I use the same old stuff I used when I was 9, which was handed down to me by my great-grandfather who bought it in the 40's - 60's. I drive only to work, to family's for birthdays and to hockey. I rarely watch TV, I haven't been to the movies since Lord of the Rings was out (sorry Nareed, it was AWESOME), I don't buy X-box games until I can find it used for $20 or less, I wear simple clothes I don't replace until they are literally unwearable (I still wear stuff I had in high school and I'm 30), anything I can do to buck this trend of always having to be 'cutting edge' and 'in style' and 'hip' (advertisers terms for 'being accepted'), I do. It takes work, and I sacrifice. I don't get to discuss the latest movies, or the latest X-box saga. While everyone's off to Vegas, or Cancun, or Florida, I'm having a fire in my backyard. I got one friend who will man up and forsake a boat for a creek-walk, I got one friend who will put the remote down and go skating with me, and at almost all other times I am alone. It's sucks, but in my eyes it's what I have to do to make a difference.

If only we could come together in a like fashion and demonstrate our dissatisfaction as one. I think a wake up call and a revolution is in order. Without a serious change in our habits and what we will accept, The Man will continue to fuck us, no matter how much we absolutely know we don't like it.

/rant complete.

Quote: Face

Without a serious change in our habits and what we will accept, The Man will continue to fuck us, no matter how much we absolutely know we don't like it.

In the 50's when I was a kid, nobody had 2 cars or 2 TV's or even 2 phones. Nobody wore designer clothes except the wealthy. No McD's of BK or KFC, we only went out to eat on very special occasions. I had restaurant food maybe half a dozen times by the time I was 10. My dad always bought used cars and fixed them himself, everybody did. Riding my bike around the neighborhood on Sat and you'd men everywhere washing their cars by hand or the hood was up as they changed their own oil. You could have Wards deliver a 55 gal drum of oil for like 15 cents a quart. There were no shopping malls, no Big Lots, no Home Depot or Lowe's, just little grocery stores and hardware stores. There were no special camps or activities for kids like they have now. No band camp or math camp or cheerleader camp. There was the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. No power lawn mowers, everybody had a rotary push mower. No microwaves, TV dinners or frozen entree's.

Why did people live this way? Nobody had a CREDIT CARD! Everybody lived within their means. People didn't spend money they didn't have. They made do with what they had and didn't know the difference. The first card my dad got was from Sears in 1961. He got a Visa in 1970, I believe. The country has gone downhill since then, everybody lives way above what they can afford. The average middle class family today lives better and has more than a moderately wealthy family had in the 50's. Can we go back to doing more with less? I don't think we have a choice.

What Do You Want From Life?

What do you want from life
To kidnap an heiress
or threaten her with a knife
What do you want from life
To get cable TV
and watch it every night

There you sit
a lump in your chair
Where do you sleep
and what do you wear
when you're sleeping

What do you want from life
An Indian guru
to show you the inner light
What do you want from life
a meaningless love affair
with a girl that you met tonight

How can you tell when you're doin' alright
Does your bank account swell
While you're dreaming at night
How do know when you're really in love
Do violins play when you're touching the one
That you're loving

What do you want from life
Someone to love
and somebody that you can trust
What do you want from life
To try and be happy
while you do the nasty things you must

Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to:
a heated kidney shaped pool,
a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook,
a Dyna-Gym--I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,
a king-size Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,
a foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,
real simulated Indian jewelry,
a Gucci shoetree,
a year's supply of antibiotics,
a personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth
and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number,
a beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick,
Rosemary's baby,
a dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams,
a new Matador, a new mastodon,
a Maverick, a Mustang, a Montego,
a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor,
a Mercedes, an MG, or a Malibu,
a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck,
a Mazda, a new Monza, or a moped,
a Winnebago--Hell, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away,
or how about a McCulloch chainsaw,
a Las Vegas wedding,
a Mexican divorce,
a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot,
or a baby's arm holding an apple?

It funny, EvenBob. Even though I was born in '80, I can relate. With two young parents working odd hours, I spent a good deal of my childhood under the care of my born-in-the-30's grandparents. I grew up thinking life was much like you descibed it. There was no going out to eat, grandma cooked a homecooked meal with food from the garden, or the local butcher. I wasn't plopped in front of the TV (since they only had 2 channels anyways), I was taken for walks in the woods or to the local fishin' hole. I wasn't bought Nintendo Baseball, my grandpa went out and played baseball with me. They didn't give me a dollar and send me to the candy store, we walked the train tracks and picked raspberries. If there was something you wanted, you made it, and if you couldn't make it, you probably didn't need it. I was underfoot as grandpa changed his own oil, sharpened his own mower blades, cut his own trees to make his own fences.

My family always rolls their eyes when he gets to talking about 'when I was a kid'. I always thought, even then, that he was the only man who knew what the hell he was talking about. Life was so rich then, it had depth, it had substance. Now it seems we just run the treadmill, trying to keep up with the Kardashian's in a never ending fools errand of obtaining commercial happiness, all the while our spirit slowly starves to death. Tis a pity.

Quote: Face

If only we could come together in a like fashion and demonstrate our dissatisfaction as one. I think a wake up call and a revolution is in order. Without a serious change in our habits and what we will accept, The Man will continue to f*** us, no matter how much we absolutely know we don't like it.
/rant complete.

Changing habits won't cut it unless you change the game. We live in a capitalist economy where shareholder value trumps social benefit, and where it is natural and expected that capital (the measure of success) is aggregated in a small percentage of the populace. External regulations on allowable behavior (Madoff, Enron, mortgage crisis, Greece's economy) have proven less than effective, and mitigating social externalities is always going to be a poor substitute for a system that intrinsically values social benefit over wealth accumulation. The problem is, no major human society has ever been able to design and execute such a system successfully (to my knowledge -- I'm admittedly a poor student of history).

Point is, if you really want to change the world, you have to start by changing the rules, not the players. Change the incentives (i.e. measure of success) from "make more money" to "make the world better" and you'll be on the right track. Until then, if the goal is to make more money, that's what people will try to do.

Edit: No, I have no ideas how to do this. Well, I have a few, but nothing really workable yet.

Quote: MathExtremist

Changing habits won't cut it unless you change the game. We live in a capitalist economy where shareholder value trumps social benefit, and where it is natural and expected that capital (the measure of success) is aggregated in a small percentage of the populace. External regulations on allowable behavior (Madoff, Enron, mortgage crisis, Greece's economy) have proven less than effective, and mitigating social externalities is always going to be a poor substitute for a system that intrinsically values social benefit over wealth accumulation. The problem is, no major human society has ever been able to design and execute such a system successfully (to my knowledge -- I'm admittedly a poor student of history).

Point is, if you really want to change the world, you have to start by changing the rules, not the players. Change the incentives (i.e. measure of success) from "make more money" to "make the world better" and you'll be on the right track. Until then, if the goal is to make more money, that's what people will try to do.

Edit: No, I have no ideas how to do this. Well, I have a few, but nothing really workable yet.

I agree, ME. But like you, I have no idea how to do this. And, even if I was gifted with The Answer, how could I as one unknown person effect the change? Since the world's rules are set on 'make more money', the only thing I can do as a single person is withhold my money from them. I don't like the fact that we are made to feel, through advertising, that we NEED product X to be complete. That we NEED a new pair of Calvins to look good, that we NEED a new iPhone to stay connected, that we NEED the latest model car, with Wifi, Tomtom, OnStar and a host of other nonsense to make it in this world. I don't understand most of mkl's 'Why does gas cost so much' thread, but I do know I don't like it, so I use as little as I can regardless of the fact I miss out on activities because of it.

We do live in a capatalist economy, and that fact won't change in our lifetimes. You say changing habits won't cut it unless we change the game, I believe the game won't change unless we change our habits. Protests, demonstrations and the like might get attention, but unless the bottom line takes a hit, the big companies don't care that you're upset. Why would they? To the small business owners, if your customer base hated you, yet kept buying your product and keeping you fat and happy, would you have an incentive to change? That's what I feel we do as a people, we get fed up and we demonstrate and we reveal these companies as heartless devils, but we won't dare inconvenience ourselves by sacrificing the happiness their product gives us. To any of us here that are not Vegas residents; if you planned a trip to Vegas for a week of gambling and found the entire town to be 6:5 BJ, 7/5 JoB, 85% payback slots, triple the rake on Poker and terrible lines on sports, how many would immediately scuttle your trip to stand up for what's right? Maybe the forum is a bad example, but I think the majority of people would just grumble and play anyways.

The term 'what the market will bear', to me, refers not only to price but to the standards of that company. If a company will charge too much, send their jobs overseas, pollute the environment, or any other hot topic issue, and people will still patronize that company, then these practises will continue. I look at every dollar I spend as a vote to that company saying 'I approve of what you are doing'. As a single person, the only power I have to effect a change is to withhold that dollar. If a great majority of people stood up against 6:5 and the casino's saw their profits plummet, 3:2 would reign supreme. Of course you'd have to sacrifice by refusing to play BJ until the casino's changed, but it would get done. I think the same concept can be put towards any economic issue we face, but no one is willing to sacrifice since our culture has become one where anything you want is a swipe of a card away. That somehow we're entitled, no, that we NEED to have a 60" TV, and movies on demand, and a garage full of toys, etc, when everything you NEED is right in front of your face and you ignore it everyday.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't believe the game needs to change, and I don't believe anybody really has a clue on how to change it, but that WE need to change. If we stop contributing our money to that which makes the world 'worse' and patronize that which makes the world 'better', you'd see a swing towards goodness. Companies would be happy, the people would be happy, and it would take no incredible shuffle of econimic structure. We just need to revolutionize our thinking. Viva la revolucion!

Quote: MathExtremist

Change the incentives (i.e. measure of success) from "make more money" to "make the world better" and you'll be on the right track. Until then, if the goal is to make more money, that's what people will try to do.

WWII changed everything. Before the war, people went to college to improve themselves, not to get a better job. The 'rat race' was very small. Home ownership was low because houses didn't go up in value. After the war, they skyrocked. Before the war, asking for credit was an insult, being on the dole was an embarrassment. Now entitlements and credit are our way of life. I doubt if that bell can ever be unrung.

Quote: Face

I was underfoot as grandpa changed his own oil, sharpened his own mower blades, cut his own trees to make his own fences.

I'm curious, did he also build his own house, sew his own clohtes, write his own books, stage his own plays, and, at need, perform his own surgery?

Quote: Face

If we stop contributing our money to that which makes the world 'worse' and patronize that which makes the world 'better', you'd see a swing towards goodness. Companies would be happy, the people would be happy, and it would take no incredible shuffle of econimic structure. We just need to revolutionize our thinking. Viva la revolucion!

Sure, but that's an impossible "if". You're effectively asking people to intentionally act contrary to their own self-interest. That's the tallest order there is, and it simply won't happen as long as (a) the prime metric of success is capital and (b) it is more cost-effective to do "worse" than "better".

I think the right direction lies somewhere in the vicinity of a meritocracy, but I have no idea how to implement one. For example, everyone knows that it's not a good idea to eat hamburgers for lunch and dinner every day. A healthy diet has more components to it than that, and being healthy improves intellect and stamina, lowers individual and societal health-care costs, and has lots of other ancillary positive outcomes. I believe there is a moderate positive correlation between health and income, for example, though I can't recall the cite. However, I can get a double cheeseburger for $1 from McDonalds which has 390 calories, but which is in many respects not a good food choice for regular consumption (e.g. that $1 also buys you 38% RDA of sodium and 42% RDA of saturated fat). If my immediate priority is getting fed and not so much on my arteries or the public health as a whole, how can you ask me not to spend my $1 on a McDouble vs. taking the same dollar to a store, buying produce, and attempting to make a meal? (Have you ever tried buying anything at a grocery store for $1?) Isn't it the "right" thing for me to do, economically, to buy the cheeseburger? In contrast, imagine a future society wherein eating healthfully was less expensive than eating junk food, and/or individuals were either punished for making poor health choices or rewarded for making good ones. In that situation, the "right" economic move coincides with the "right" societal one. That's where things need to be in order for it to not be a sacrifice to do so.

Asking people to make sacrifices and act against self-interest is a losing formula. A winning one is where what people want to do coincides with what they should be doing anyway.

Quote: Nareed

I'm curious, did he also build his own house, sew his own clohtes, write his own books, stage his own plays, and, at need, perform his own surgery?

The point he's making is, people did most things themselves. My dad did build our house, he did make clothes, which he learned to do in the Navy, sharpened knives and mower blades, changed his oil, washed the car with a bucket and a hose, had a vegetable garden, canned tomatoes and green beans for the winter, cut wood for the furnace, hung clothes on the line in the backyard. Today people bitch because they have no time to take their kid to soccer practice. Some things parents didn't do: They didn't spend 90min in the bathroom every morning, they didn't watch TV 10 hours a day, they didn't play video games and sit on a computer, they didn't let us kids sit on our asses and do nothing, we were always busy doing chores. Look at all fat kids today, why do you think that is. And oh yeah, he even made his own cigarettes with a little machine he got from the Sears catalog. It made five at a time and a pack cost about 15 cents making them that way.

.....

Here's the cigarette maker, somebody had one on Ebay. Cool..

Machine

Quote: Nareed

I'm curious, did he also build his own house, sew his own clohtes, write his own books, stage his own plays, and, at need, perform his own surgery?

He didn't build his own house, but he did build a large addition and two car garage. Books and plays were not an issue as he spent all day either taking care of me, his garden, or the thousands of maintenance needs of one who owns a car, home and large property and does things himself. And the man's fit as a fiddle, 78 years young and no surgeries thus far.

Sarcasm aside, EvenBob made my point. They grew up in a time where a man was judged by his character, not by his possessions. Where wealth was gained by hard work, not by luck or underhandedness. Where you didn't need a brand new Packard in your driveway to feel complete, you only needed the love and support of your family. Where any sort of the shady dealings we see today would have you ran from town and out of business. I liked that life better. It had meaning, it had depth, it had color. Nowadays just feels off, like getting your stories through movies instead of reading the book. Life is losing it's richness.

Quote: MathExtremist

Sure, but that's an impossible "if". You're effectively asking people to intentionally act contrary to their own self-interest. That's the tallest order there is, and it simply won't happen as long as (a) the prime metric of success is capital and (b) it is more cost-effective to do "worse" than "better".

I think the right direction lies somewhere in the vicinity of a meritocracy, but I have no idea how to implement one. For example, everyone knows that it's not a good idea to eat hamburgers for lunch and dinner every day. A healthy diet has more components to it than that, and being healthy improves intellect and stamina, lowers individual and societal health-care costs, and has lots of other ancillary positive outcomes. I believe there is a moderate positive correlation between health and income, for example, though I can't recall the cite. However, I can get a double cheeseburger for $1 from McDonalds which has 390 calories, but which is in many respects not a good food choice for regular consumption (e.g. that $1 also buys you 38% RDA of sodium and 42% RDA of saturated fat). If my immediate priority is getting fed and not so much on my arteries or the public health as a whole, how can you ask me not to spend my $1 on a McDouble vs. taking the same dollar to a store, buying produce, and attempting to make a meal? (Have you ever tried buying anything at a grocery store for $1?) Isn't it the "right" thing for me to do, economically, to buy the cheeseburger? In contrast, imagine a future society wherein eating healthfully was less expensive than eating junk food, and/or individuals were either punished for making poor health choices or rewarded for making good ones. In that situation, the "right" economic move coincides with the "right" societal one. That's where things need to be in order for it to not be a sacrifice to do so.

Asking people to make sacrifices and act against self-interest is a losing formula. A winning one is where what people want to do coincides with what they should be doing anyway.

Again, I can't disagree (and I had to look up meritocracy, thanks for expanding my vocab). And even though your position seems to point out the flaws in mine, it also kind of makes my point. Your statement of 'that's an impossible 'if'' and 'a winning one is where what people want to do coincides with what they should be doing anyway' is kind of my point. Could we force McD's to offer a bounty of nutritious foods? I think so. How? By demanding it and refusing to spend one dollar on the garbage, which would mean McD's would have to change in order to survive. Of course, getting the majority of the public to do so, as you said, is impossible. A very small minority is so poor that they're totally dependant on the cheap, unhealthy food at McD's. The number of people who COULD stand up is absolutely enough to make a change, yet it is still considered an impossibility. Impossible why? IMO because people don't want to sacrifice their time and money into real food. THAT is what I think is sad.

I just feel that The People are truely the only ones who can affect a positive change. Whether it's our current capitalism, socialism, this meritocracy you speak of, these are all people who will be in control of us, and who will no doubt, sooner or later, look out for themselves more than us. I hate to quote fiction, but it seems the 'Fight Club' scene with Ed Norton's character explaining recalls pretty much sums up our situation. He basically said that recalls, as in auto recalls for safety issues, are not made based on the horrible accidents they may cause, or the pain the victims suffer, or the deaths that will result. They are based on the cost of the recall vs. the cost of the resulting litigation. If the litigation costs less, the recall doesn't go out even though they know that people will die. I feel the point of his fiction rings true here. Our dissatisfaction does not matter. The only thing that matter is the bottom line, and the only way to effect change is by affecting the bottom line, which you state and I agree is impossible. And it is my opinion that it is not impossible as turning lead to gold is impossible, it's impossible because people can't handle giving up a few luxuries, a few possessions, a few symbols in their driveways.

To me, this is sad. I could very well be wrong and maybe even giving up stuff really wouldn't make a difference. The more I think about it the more I want to change my vote to 'no, EvenBob, I can't find anything wrong here. Carlin's right, and we're f***ed over and out without any hope of being saved.' I don't know how to fix it, I just know I'm making my own personal stand against it. And now, I'm going for a walk. At least this year, walking is still free.

Quote: Face

Nowadays just feels off, like getting your stories through movies instead of reading the book. Life is losing it's richness.

I think the reason is, we were forced to spend a lot of time outdoors, dealing with things in our lives that we don't deal with anymore. We spent time with neighbors, life was a community event. I went to the library all the time, now I never do because I have a keyboard. We borrowed sugar and salt and small things from neighbors, I have no idea who my neighbors are today and they've been here for years. We were plugged into the details of our lives and the community, now we're more and more isolated. We don't feel connected anymore.

Quote: Face

And the man's fit as a fiddle, 78 years young and no surgeries thus far.

Lucky him. How many of his siblings died before age 5? My father lost one sister. How about polio? Did he develop his own vaccine for it?

Quote:

Sarcasm aside, EvenBob made my point. They grew up in a time where a man was judged by his character, not by his possessions. Where wealth was gained by hard work, not by luck or underhandedness.

That may be true, although corrupt politicians and their cronies have been getting rich since politics and cronies existed. But the reason is not that he had to make things or fix things himself.

Quote: MathExtremist

Change the incentives (i.e. measure of success) from "make more money" to "make the world better" and you'll be on the right track.

Why should someone try to make the world "better" (with "better" probably being your definitions such as peace, love, "green" stuff, and the like)? Why should meeting your neighbors be a lifestyle metric? One dealer lived in Nevada for a decade without meeting any of his neighbors, he then transferred to a different state and met all four of his neighbors with forty-eight hours as they came visiting while bearing plates of welcoming food gifts. He hated it. One enlisted man was sent to Alaska as punishment and loved it. He chose to spend his life there hunting and fishing and married a woman who spent her days preparing food, bearing and raising children. There was far more variety in a grocery store that was a few hundred miles away. And its hard to think up new ways to prepare bear meat through a long cold winter, but some people consider that a natural and desirable life. An Apache warrior killed his enemies and raised his sons to be big strong warriors who never showed weakness. Why should this be defined as wrong because it is insufficiently "green" or insufficiently oriented to peace and free love? Decades ago the Indian ambassador delivered some address at the UN wherein he castigated America for consuming too much of the world's resources? What should we do? Turn "green" and "go hippie" so that India can grow strong and consume too much of the world's resources? Labor saving devices were not invented to liberate the housewife from a life of monotonous drudgery, they were invented so people could make more money. Henry Ford did not produce Model Ts to benefit the average American family and broaden their horizons. He produced Model Ts to make more money. You may think that Madoff or Enron is a return to Cuspidor Capitalism but it is simply an example of laziness. Its the way a Gypsy child is brought up: You didn't steal it, he gave it to you by not protecting it. A rule change? There were several rule changes: Decades ago most orders were market orders. Now only a fool would put in a market order rather than a limit order. Decades ago an IPO was brought out at the determined value and it pretty much stayed trading at or about that value with the Investment Banker proud of the good job they had done. Then the rules changed: bring it out and have someone make a killing on the first day and another killing by the first week and so on. Which meant that the issuing company did not get the rightful value of its shares, but the Investment Bankers and various cronies sure got rich. And when the Widows and Orphans Pension Fund bought those overpriced shares, the bankers got rich once again by selling short as the final phase of fools rushed into the market thinking that "Where are the customer's yachts" was just a joke. If you build a better mousetrap, the world will yawn and the investment banker will give you a teaser Front End loan and then become a Naked Short aggressively dumping your shares on the market. Perhaps the essence of capitalism is that a business man who thinks a banker is patting him on the back to congratulate him rather than find a good spot for the knife deserves to win a Darwin Award in economics and common sense.

Quote: EvenBob

I think the reason is, we were forced to spend a lot of time outdoors, dealing with things in our lives that we don't deal with anymore. We spent time with neighbors, life was a community event. I went to the library all the time, now I never do because I have a keyboard. We borrowed sugar and salt and small things from neighbors, I have no idea who my neighbors are today and they've been here for years. We were plugged into the details of our lives and the community, now we're more and more isolated. We don't feel connected anymore.

You say 'think', I'm pretty sure we know. Open doors where a kid could get a glass of water are now behind fenced in properties. Lots you could play football or hide and seek in are posted for fear of injury lawsuits. Farmers markets where you could get local produce and some good conversation are gone in favor of inpersonal supercenters. The coffee shop where the old timers gathered in mornings is gone, replaced by the sterile environment of Timmy Ho's. Why read a paper when Huffington Post has all you need to know? Why think when there's Google? Why would I go camping when the woods has no bars for my iPhone? Fishing? Hunting? You know they sell meat at Walmart now, right?

Quote: Nareed

Lucky him. How many of his siblings died before age 5? My father lost one sister. How about polio? Did he develop his own vaccine for it?

No sibling deaths. His son did die at 5 from a reaction to the sedatives for a tonsilectomy. And no, his last name is not Salk.

Quote: Nareed

That may be true, although corrupt politicians and their cronies have been getting rich since politics and cronies existed. But the reason is not that he had to make things or fix things himself.

I'm unsure as to how to respond because I don't understand these pokes. Perhaps I lost you by switching back and forth between what I think needs to be done and my stroll down memory lane? Of course he didn't perform self-surgery or invent vaccines, and of course sharpening knives does not deter white collar crime or political corruption. If you want to discuss any of the thread, I'd be willing.

Quote: FleaStiff

Why should someone try to make the world "better" (with "better" probably being your definitions such as peace, love, "green" stuff, and the like)? Why should meeting your neighbors be a lifestyle metric?

I didn't say it should be, and I don't pretend to define "better" for others. It's not even clear I can define better for me. However, the fact that it's really hard to determine what's "better" -- for an individual, neighborhood, community, city, nation, etc. -- should not mean we should all throw our hands up in the air and say "aw heck, let's just make it about money". But that's precisely what the free market system does. It rewards only one end, the accumulation of capital, but it rewards it simply and directly. In other words, it's an easy fallback. Consider that all economic regulations everywhere are essentially restrictions how one can operate within an otherwise free market, and that those restrictions are in place precisely because -- in those instances -- regulators and/or society has deemed the restriction of the free market to be a greater good than an unregulated one. But that begs the question, why is the "right" starting place a free market to begin with?

That's the underlying premise I'm questioning. The system we have is a market-driven system with a primary goal of capital accumulation at all costs except those legislated against, and I'm not at all sure that's the "best" system for improving the lot of humanity. But then, I start with the fundamental assertion that improving the lot of humanity is a greater good than accumulating capital.

Quote: Face

I'm unsure as to how to respond because I don't understand these pokes. Perhaps I lost you by switching back and forth between what I think needs to be done and my stroll down memory lane? Of course he didn't perform self-surgery or invent vaccines, and of course sharpening knives does not deter white collar crime or political corruption. If you want to discuss any of the thread, I'd be willing.

Face, great job in controlling yourself with all the sarcasm directed at you. You don't have to apologize to anybody because half your siblings didn't die before the age of 5 and you didn't know anybody with polio.

In the grand scheme of things, the modern, liberal(*) capitalist democracy has been around a pin prick of time. Maybe 100 years? Look at history, and empires and countries have risen and fallen in short time periods as that and everyone living during those times probably thought the way it was was the way it will be for a long time.

Personally I think the days of easy credit and cheap debt (for people and countries) is going to come to an end, and some (but not all) of the things Face and EvenBob and George Carlin rail against will end. And some won't (hows that for a Nostradamus like prediction). Some of it's Nostalgia for simpler times, some of it was indeed better in the "Good old days". Some things we have now and love (like say, reality shows about Pawn Shops in Vegas; or the modern gambling Mecca of Las Vegas) are things have come from progress and change. And it's a trade of between some of those things and other things.

I don't believe life is worse than 40 years ago. I do believe it could get worse. Carlin is interesting, and funny, but sometimes (like in the bit you sent) I think he's believing or selling a conspiracy that doesn't -explicitly- exist.

(*) liberal with a small l, meaning a relatively open and socially free society like we have in Canada, the US and the UK, rather than a more constrained world some people may have or had. It's possible for it to be both liberal and conservative (again with a small c) where the laws are open and (or but depending on your view) change is slow and measured and resisted.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's the underlying premise I'm questioning. The system we have is a market-driven system with a primary goal of capital accumulation at all costs except those legislated against, and I'm not at all sure that's the "best" system for improving the lot of humanity. But then, I start with the fundamental assertion that improving the lot of humanity is a greater good than accumulating capital.

@ Flea - Indeed and likewise. I don't mean to come across as 'anti-capitalism', as I believe many of the breakthroughs in medicine and technology have resulted because of it. But I feel, and it's just that, a personal feeling, that with all these advancements we should be better off. Yet, I just don't feel it. I felt it when I was young, and make a logical, and possibly incorrect, assumption that we were better off then, that we did more with less. I made a similar comment about 'the good that came from 9/11', in that it was the first time since my childhood that I felt that connection again. That all of the nonsense was put aside and people focused on what mattered. I also share the belief that improving humanity is better than accumulating capitol, especially due to my suspicions that money isn't real (discussed in seperate thread). The old days were good. The new days should be better. But I just don't feel it.

Quote: EvenBob

Face, great job in controlling yourself with all the sarcasm directed at you. You don't have to apologize to anybody because half your siblings didn't die before the age of 5 and you didn't know anybody with polio.

Thanks, but it's more curiosity than control. Nareed is often sarcastic, but usually in a poking fun sort of way. I truely don't understand the pokes and thought an invite might bring discussion. Perhaps she feels I'm completely daft and not worth discussing. /shrug

Quote: Face

The old days were good. The new days should be better. But I just don't feel it.

I think its simply people aren't as happy as they used to be.

Quote: Face

I'm unsure as to how to respond because I don't understand these pokes. Perhaps I lost you by switching back and forth between what I think needs to be done and my stroll down memory lane? Of course he didn't perform self-surgery or invent vaccines, and of course sharpening knives does not deter white collar crime or political corruption. If you want to discuss any of the thread, I'd be willing.

To begin with you have to consider nostalgia. everyone remembers the "old days" more fondly because that's when they were young. Things may have been better in some ways, but they were worse in others. Like infant mortality. It's not an idle question. My grandparents lost a small daughter, and so did many people in their generation. Today, for middle class and upwards, that would be a tragedy. Back then it was relatively common.

Then there's polio. That was a terrible time for deadly, crippling infectious diseases. Today that's mostly gone, and even diseases that were quick killers not too long ago, like AIDS, can be treated now.

I do that, too, from time to time. I've fond memories of people dressing up to take a flight, or for the theater. Stuff like that, but it's not like civilization's collapsing because labor has gotten cheaper and yesterday's luxuries are today's every day items. Do you remmeber when buying a simple, arithmetic, pocket calculator was a big deal? Today they're pretty much worthless.

To be sure the dominant values of the culture ahve changed. But who changed tham and how? Largely your parents' generation did, and your generation has kept right on it. Doesn't that lead you to the conclussion that their values were not so great, after all, if they helped instill what you currently see as a mess?

And in any case, what values your parents had, or you hold now, have little to do with whether or not you walk to school, or ride a bike, or paint the fence instead of watchng TV.

Doing things for yourself is fine. You leanr something, suually, and you can rightfully feed your ego a genuine accomplishment. I've no quarrel with that. But it's not that important. In the end you make or fix things because either you can't afford to pay someone else to do it, or you enjoy doing it yourself. The fact that goods and servies continually get cheaper means the first reason declines, but not the second. And in the end there's only so much you can do for yourself before you need to buy goods or services from someone else. You cannot perform surgery on yoruself, which is a glaring, obvious and vital example, nor can you invent the polio vaccine. And you wouldn't expect peopel to waste their lives trying to learn all the skills necessary to build and furnish a house, raise a family, provide them with clothes and food and medical care and education, etc etc etc. It simply cannot be done. So what?

Quote: EvenBob

I think its simply people aren't as happy as they used to be.

That's the symptom. What's the cause?

And from a historical perspective, what tends to happen to nations with unhappy citizens?

Quote: EvenBob

I think its simply people aren't as happy as they used to be.

I'm reminded of an historian's description of life in the Dark Ages: "Cold, brutal, and short."

Quote: Mosca

I'm reminded of an historian's description of life in the Dark Ages: "Cold, brutal, and short."

Close enough. "Nasty, brutish, and short." -Thomas Hobbes. Kind of like a craps session with six consecutive point-sevens.