World of Today: Do you believe in what you want or in the truth?

[Dualnames]

Ah, well, as I said I find humans to be terribly stupid, including me. All we want sometimes is everything that we can't have and we just want it. As for if there's a truth behind all on what's happening I've always loved Douglas Adams for this phrase.

"I knew there was something sinister and dark going on in the world, but I never could figure out what it was or who was behind it."
"No, ah..that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe has that."

[Jim Reed]

Material things pass by, all you have is what you know.
Live and let live I say. I have no quarell with anyone, as long as they don't harm me or mine.
But, Jim, didn't you just say you don't hold much faith in material things, and in the next sentence, openly say you'd quarell woth anyone that touches anything that belongs to you?

Sure =), the more greedier I am, the more stuff I think belongs to me.
Keep giving away stuff, and one day you'll have only a few things distracting you.

Cheers!

[seraphimdreamer777]

I may regret saying this but money is not the only problem in the world but...

I admit I believe in God but I deal with a very sinful life that I came from and yet because of the way the world is going. I'm drowning in a lot of what the media has been pushing down my throat and I don't know if this forum would be any different. But  even most forums I've openly talked about my issue say go for it. You can't change who you are inside. And stuff like that. But I'm not here to judge people over it because I'd be a hypocrite but I do want to live my life for God. Don't know much else to say but this is how I feel.

But getting back on topic yes money is a great problem and it is said {The love of money is the root of all evil} and I believe it.

[RickJ]

First of all, I like Jim, am a follower of Douglas Adams; I guess that makes us Adams-ists  .   Humanity is a collection of pathetic creatures, ill suited for survival, and capable of stupidity on a colossal scale.  I offer this as proof that god does, in fact, exist and that she has a sense of humour.   Surely our ancestors would have perished many thousands or millions of years ago without divine intervention.   

The way I figure it, in the beginning god and a couple of angels were cruising around on a cloud or something creating creation.  They got to the part where god made monkeys.  The monkeys started playing around doing funny monkey kinds of things.  This made God and the angels laugh and God said "Funny is good".    Then one of the angels said "Wouldn't it be funny if we made a kind of monkey without a tail" and another one said "Yeah, and without fur too.". Then another chimed in laughing "...and without sharp teeth and claws...", and another laughing "..yeah, and make them walk on two legs instead of four so they can't run very fast ...".  And so God created man and we have been keeping god and the angels entertained ever since.

Many of you may not share this belief but you have to admit if it were true it would explain a hell-of-a-lot of shite.



I noticed in the previous discussion with regard to selfishness, greed, and capitalism that there seems to be a couple of underlying presumptions that I would like to challenge.  The first presumption is that acting in one's own economic interest is the same as greed and the second presumption is that there is something inherently immoral or unethical about a corporation's profit motive.   

Let's start with greed.  According to TheFreeDictionary.com/greed is "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth or power".   Let's think about this and what it actually means for a second. 

First of all the term "excessive desire" is subjective and refers to a person's state of mind.  Consider two people each engaged in exactly the same economic activity, employing exactly the same methods, and achieving the exactly same result of earning $1,000,000/yr.  Is one man greedy because he wants to be wealthy and the other is not greedy because he doesn't give a shit?  Yes, absolutely, according to the definition of the word.   In this case the greedy man is doing exactly the same actions as the non-greedy man and so their effect on society does not differ in any way.  So does does greed have any relevance in a discussion about capitalism, socialism, communism, or anyotherism?   

Next consider what is meant by "more than what one needs".    Suppose a 50yr old man has worked
his entire life for $50,000/yr.  He encounters an opportunity to take another job that pays $100000/yr.  Clearly he doesn't need more than $50,000/yr.  If he takes the new job is he greedy or is he just acting in his own economic best interest?   

Now consider what is meant by "more than what one deserves".  Suppose there are two men who repair widgets and that there is no shortage of broken widgets.    The going price for repairing a widget is $100.  The first man loves widgets and repairs 20 every week ($2000) and the second man likes his work but has other interests an so only manages to repair 10 widgets per week ($1000).   Doesn't each man deserve to be paid for each widget they repair?  Is the first man greedy because he either spends more time or is better at repairing widgets than the second man?

I contend that making choices and working in one's own best interest is not the same thing as greed however you can answer the above questions for yourselves and come to your own conclusions. Milton Friedman uses a broader definition of greed in this interview which is perhaps closer to what you consider to be greed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

He says that everyone is greedy (i.e. everyone is acting in their own self interest) and that's what the world runs on in every country, society, form of government, etc.  He points out that people, governments, corporations, etc act in their own economic self interest or their political self interest.  He poses the question "Is it nobler to act in one's political self interest than to act in one's economic self interest?".

Star Trek TNG is a brilliant illustration of his point.   The series goes to great lengths to negatively portray the Ferengi who were primarily profit motivated. The profit motivation itself was apparently not enough to make such a negative impression; they also had to be portrayed as devious ugly little thieves, con-men, liars, and criminals.   The Federation, the Enterprise, and it's crew however were always portrayed as being virtuous and never pursuing  economic self interests.  But if you think about how expensive it must be to build and operate Star Ships you have to wonder what the Federation got out of the whole endeavour?   I know that the Federation, or at least the Earth, has done away with poverty and the concept of money but still someone has to do all the work (i.e. mine minerals to make metal, design and manufacture all the mechanical and electronic parts, program the computers, train the engineers, miners, officers, crew members, etc, etc).   What they are getting out of it is political power throughout the galaxy.  It's their mission isn't it.


This brings us to a proposition I would like to share and discuss with you.

In discussions such as this, there always seems to be an unchallenged presumption that corporations and individuals who act in their own best economic interest are some how immoral and/or unethical.   This position is typically supported by equating such behaviour with greed and the assumption it is accompanied by other nefarious, dishonest, fraudulent, or illegal acts (as in the case of the Ferengi).

I would challenge this notion and submit the following proposition(s) for discussion and commentary:

There is noting inherently immoral or unethical about people and organizations acting in their own economic self-interest.  It is perfectly natural and common that buyers desire to negotiate the lowest possible price for goods and services and that sellers desire to negotiate the highest possible price.   It is also perfectly natural and common for person and organisations to choose to engage in activities that are the most profitable.   

Proposition: Transparent and honest activities motivated by the economic self-interest of the parties involved are a pillar of freedom and are higly ethical and moral.  Activities not motivated by the economic self-interest and where the motivation is not apparent are lmore ikely to be unethical, immoral, dishonest, and/or nefarious.

[Jim Reed]

Well, I wouldn't go that far to call myself a follower of Douglas Adams, although I have a good opinion on him.

Dunno, I define greed not by making/earning as much as you can, but as not sharing/giving away when asked or feel to do so.

Yes, a man should be payed for his work and there is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth.

On a side note, imagine a man living in a barren 2 room house vs. a man living in a 20 room house. They each have a roof over their head (the purpose of the house). How much time do you think those two spend maintaining their houses?
As the only thing certain in life is that you'll die, time is the only thing you don't have.

But at last, this is only my opinion. =P

[miguel]

It's strange that this topic has surfaced again!

I have to agree with you there, Rick. A businessman should not be accused of immorality because he makes a profit, given that he pays his taxes, hires people and doing so benefits his social universe.

I always found the communist notion that the rich should pay more taxes than others (this happens in my country) quite wrong. What I don't agree is when rich people do not declare what they earn. Now that's immoral.

If a man makes his money legally then to aim for a better profit isn't immoral.

The problem here is that money generates money, making the businessman someone powerful enough to buy goods at lower prices and with bonuses when buying large quantities that clearly inflate it's real price.

I own a coffee shop, the more merchandise I buy the cheaper it gets, it gets to a point that I can sell things that didn't cost me anything. Now, imagine the profit margin that  huge hypermarkets get!
What's the price for the same bottle of whisky around the globe? How much does it really costs?
Who cares, it's a luxury item, but lets talk about a litre of milk, it costs cents (euros) to produce but it can be sold at whatever price I'm willing to sell...

Returning to some early posts, I think that, yes, we've came this far and the world is a much better place to live for developed countries, healthcare is indeed one of humanity's biggest achievements, but my question is why doesn't the rich world regulate prices for primary needed goods?
If we were really advanced and morally evolved than we'd come to the conclusion that food shouldn't be something to earn money from. Having food and water should be something as normal as breathing.
Governments should handle food production to supply the right amount for every citizen. They should supply energy so that people would not freeze to death on winters.
Everything else is luxury if we really think about it.
And everything else besides basic survival items could and should be rated or priced according to free market rules.

Morality is something very subjective, and because something is legal it doesn't mean that the maker of that law had any moral sense.

[Damien]

Morality is something very subjective, and because something is legal it doesn't mean that the maker of that law had any moral sense.

I agree.

Morality does not exist in an objective sense, yet it's constantly used as propaganda. It's a personal thing and yet individuals expect others to embrace their values.
Of course, there are some general values that most come to agree upon but they're either necessary or just practical.

He says that everyone is greedy (i.e. everyone is acting in their own self interest) and that's what the world runs on in every country, society, form of government, etc.  He points out that people, governments, corporations, etc act in their own economic self interest or their political self interest.

Like Miguel, you assume "given that he pays his taxes, hires people and doing so benefits his social universe". What happens when you attach "no matter what" to your self interests?


But going back to the first post:

One of the big mistakes of modern civilization is to think History didn't happen. The words of the elder and wise lost their weight on young people who are dominated by tons of superfluous information that arrives in a constant wave of propaganda every single minute.
Like zoombies modern people live to buy and work for the ones that sell.
Who is awake? But more important and dangerous, what kind of people are awake?

You make it sound as if something is out of it's place.

We are capable of making our own choices (in democracies at least). The state (not saying it is negative) of our society/societies is a result of them. So, what's the problem? We're not talking about a system that has been forced upon us.

[miguel]

"We are capable of making our own choices (in democracies at least). ", how much of that sentence is exactly true?

I'm afraid that life's choices are very limited right now, and I do think that modern societies are profit oriented.
The price of land has risen so much that most people can only expect to live in a building surrounded by pollution and noise. A house in the country costs the amount of bricks it took, water pipes, electric connections, sewer facilities and a roof, and I know what I'm talking because my grandfather built his house.
This days you have to pay for an architect that will charge you what he wants, the City Hall will send inspectors to verify the quality of the building as if they will ever live there, and they will arrange a "workaround" so that the project goes through, and because all those materials are so damn overpriced you'll get to a final bill that clearly exceeds the real price of the house.
And that's if you want to build it, when comes to buying the price rises 5 to 10 times or even more depending on the location.

So, how come we have a choice here? We have the choice of not having a house and to live on a apartment...

Governments are elected by us, that is the truth. But sometimes I think I have to choose between Darth Vader, Dr. No or even Goldfinger!
   

[InCreator]

I agree with those who mentioned capitalism as the rotten apple in our world: it is.

To be honest, I wonder why DO we live in capitalism yet: it's a legacy of upset British peasants from 17-18-th century who chopped their King's head off. And later, the French. With so much advance in modern world, why haven't we adapted more fair and effective way to rule world? Competition and man's greed pretty much killed communism, but I'd say that Soviet and Chinese communism was build on weak foundation also: to make something work, snitches and secret torture chambers, mass graves plus shitloads of propaganda/brainwash probably isn't most motivating way.

I do believe that socialism does come back. Probably along with heavy global catastrophe and poverty - as all major changes in world -- and humankind - without any bullshit - WILL work as one big family - or species of a planet. But it should be nothing like earlier attempts at socialism and way more advanced that earlier form - tribalism.

Looking at history, the farthest and most sci-fi moment for capitalism to expire is when technology completely makes worker class obsolete. Again, it has happened - so could happen again. Imagine a robot flipping burgers or checking out in supermarket. It's cheap enough to use in every western store. How many workplaces do you lose? How many pissed off cashiers would it generate?

I wonder if I live long enough to actually see this. Right now, the dark leaders of capitalist system have fortified themselves into hopelessly unbreakable fort and any individual freedom is simply a big pink lie.

[Damien]

"We are capable of making our own choices (in democracies at least). ", how much of that sentence is exactly true?

As people, we are in charge of everything man-made. It's just that we are more interested in securing ourselves from opposing views than informing ourselves to be capable to create and understand a better society. There's nothing wrong with that, it is also a matter of choice.

I'm afraid that life's choices are very limited right now, and I do think that modern societies are profit oriented.
The price of land has risen so much that most people can only expect to live in a building surrounded by pollution and noise. A house in the country costs the amount of bricks it took, water pipes, electric connections, sewer facilities and a roof, and I know what I'm talking because my grandfather built his house.
This days you have to pay for an architect that will charge you what he wants, the City Hall will send inspectors to verify the quality of the building as if they will ever live there, and they will arrange a "workaround" so that the project goes through, and because all those materials are so damn overpriced you'll get to a final bill that clearly exceeds the real price of the house.
And that's if you want to build it, when comes to buying the price rises 5 to 10 times or even more depending on the location.

So, how come we have a choice here? We have the choice of not having a house and to live on a apartment...

Well, greed self interest was already agreed with, doesn't this fit? You wouldn't expect everyone owning land in exclusive locations in a free market, would you? Come to think of it, you wouldn't expect everyone owning land no matter the location.

However, there is nothing dishonest or non-transparent with how the location affects the land value.

Looking at history, the farthest and most sci-fi moment for capitalism to expire is when technology completely makes worker class obsolete. Again, it has happened - so could happen again. Imagine a robot flipping burgers or checking out in supermarket. It's cheap enough to use in every western store. How many workplaces do you lose? How many pissed off cashiers would it generate?

Wouldn't that be weird, we create a machine that frees people from a boring job and gives them more free time for their loved ones, hobbies, etc. but instead, it ruins their lives. Why is it like that? Well, I'm sure the supermarket owner has his best interests covered. I bet his former employees won't be buying that house in the city any time soon, though.

[miguel]

I don't expect any of those because it simple is not allowed to the common people.
And that is a choice made by somebody for a lot of people.

[InCreator]

I gave this topic another thought and reached rather strange conclusions:

Maybe I was too eager to blame capitalism. There is NO form of economy where democracy would actually exist.
There is no good democracy.

For example, let's take Iraq/Afganistan war. It is clearly capitalist war. Ruling class needs resources/stabilty/power image/whatever and people fight. If anyone's doubting in democratic support in this, polls are being made (ideally, I doubt that IRL). And people support the war. Sounds democratic, right? Wrong.

To have fair opinion in should we go to war, every person asked should be competent at matter. Know truth about everything, be able to calculate billions of variables behind the war and possible outcomes, etc.
Not some redneck or kid loving guns overwhelmed with abstract words "nation", "people", "country" etc even though none of those exist. Also, humans are mostly idiots. For every 10 people 8 of them are dumber than you. And you're not too intelligent yourself (with some rare exceptions)...!

And even if every human could give opinion correctly, actually considering stuff and not be moved by propaganda, there's still a chance of human error or emotion. So how can power of people be good if it's factually wrong at its roots?

Which led me to another thing: What if such decisions would be made by a computer instead of human beings? Computer would surely do all the math, wage every pro and con on the matter and make the best choice?

But then I suddenly realized in such "computer" people believed and hoped for already 5000 years ago... all-knowing-always-correct-deciding-everything-seeing every piece in puzzle... it's called God.

[SSH]

1. People are greedy
2. Capitalism relies on #1 being true to work properly
3. Communism relies on #1 being false to work properly
4. Capitalism works better than most alternatives that have been tried on a countrywide scale

Capitalism is somewhat independent of most forms of government although it works better when there is a low risk of revolutions. Democracy reduces the risk of revolution by making people think they can change who is in power (whether they actually can or not is beside the point). Another way of reducing risk of revolution is to stifle it, which works when most educated people are getting richer and don't want to rock the money boat (as in some tiger economies).

Capitalism also has the anti-revolutionary attribute of making poorer people feel that its somehow their own fault. And yet things like lotteries and game shows give them a faint hope of undeserved gain and so they don't get too depressed or antsy.

[RickJ]

@Damien

Morality does not exist in an objective sense, yet it's constantly used as propaganda. It's a personal thing and yet individuals expect others to embrace their values.

I agree with this point.   In the same post you go to illustrate this point further by doing it your self when you say this:

Like Miguel, you assume "given that he pays his taxes, hires people and doing so benefits his social universe". What happens when you attach "no matter what" to your self interests?

The clear implication of your usage of "no matter what" is that acting in one's own best interest will result in immoral consequences.  That's why people who don't like free market capitalism insist on characterising actions taken on one's one behalf as greed.  

I agree with the point SSH makes in his previous post except that he also uses the word "greed" to characterise human nature.  I would restate his point #1 as follows:

"1. People do things that are in their own best interest."

[Dualnames]

I've always wanted to be part of what would make the world better when I was a small Greek boy. So I rivaled with a guy about who would be the president of the class. He was the most stupid, and well the most popular, or at least beat me in popularity terms. So I realized that good looks and style beats anyone that just wants to do something. As for the truth..even if you knew..you would hate yourself for wasting all that time for knowing. There's many things that can make you happy. But nothing evolves the knowing of truth. NOTHING!!

[Damien]

The clear implication of your usage of "no matter what" is that acting in one's own best interest will result in immoral consequences.  That's why people who don't like free market capitalism insist on characterising actions taken on one's one behalf as greed.

I never said that, there is an "if" in my question. It was a reaction to making the greed and self interest the same. Would you say that greed is a form of self interest or does self interest always equal greed?

[SSH]

We should all abolish money and move to a system based on Respect Points. We could call it "Whuffie" 

[InCreator]

In Soviet Union, it kinda was like that... respect points.

Newspapers didn't write about Paris Hilton - such section was all about great workers. That miner is a hero, mined 3 times the monthly norm of coal and that woman is a superb farmer, her cow gave 3 times more milk... Medals were also given. Great workers were set as examples to others and praised. Or sometimes... purely artificial and made by propaganda machine  

It was pretty cute, actually. For any hard-working person, getting noticed for his/her labor - who wouldn't want that?

But I think capitalist system can abuse ANY resource. Call it money, respect points or something else.
Someone ends up profiting from respect points produced by worker class, haggle them to someone with low RP, etc...

[Spummy]

Guys, guys, guys, you appear to have forgotten the disclaimer to life.

Its been a while but it went something like this

" WARNING: HEAVEN INC. CANNOT GUARANTEE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TO ANY LEVEL WITH YOUR "Life TM", INCLUDING, AND NOT LIMITED TO:

-The high asshole to non-asshole level.

-That things aren't the way you expected/should be/ makes sense/ is better.

-Never being able to find the other sock.

-That one game not releasing on time/ at all. (The Nukem clause)

WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO READ THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES:

-Octopus for a head? Got bat wings? Live in an alien under-water city? Then don't poke it, we can't urge this enough, do not, taunt, the Cthulhu.

-Theres a reason why Heroin in illegal, you people just don't get it do you?

-You can't both argue to be following the path of a righteous perfect  peaceful being and then be a totally intolerant bastard, it doesn't work that way.

-When in doubt: towel.

ENJOY(Hah) YOUR "Life TM!" "

[Dualnames]

I was saving its perfection for a later but well here it is the final message of God to its creation.

Spoiler

We apologize for the inconvenience

[close]