Right, and everyone knows how "smart" the market is. Yes, the market is so wise, which is why microsoft is number one. The problem with the market is that it has no focus on the future. Market decision making is made with a very narrow, here and now focus. Markets are not for planning and building long term projects, that is what government does better. Markets are good for producing short term solutions to problems. If something takes an incredible amount of inevestment, but has a huge reward, you can't always count on the market to make that long term investment. The market is too focused on quick gains to be a reliable source of technical leadership.
According to you, we need to throw out all long term decisions, and just let the short term highly reactionary markets make every decision for us. Clearly that's a recipe for disaster, we would never have gotten anywhere as a country if we let the markets decide everything. Would there be highways? What about the phone system? Airplanes? Space travel? Computers? Did any of those technologies start without massive government subsidy? Government isn't great at everything, but let's give credit where it's due.
Buy a digital tuner. They are already out right now and have been for years. Probably will cost $100 by the time you get around to buying one. They will likely also be built into VCRs or DVD recorders, so you can pick one up then. Think about it this way, if you put away fifty cents a week, you'll have the $100 by then. So, start saving fifty cents a week (I know, it's a lot of money, but you can do it), and by the time 2007 rolls around, you'll be all set. And, unlike analog over the air tuners, digital tuners have no snow, no distortion, nothing but a crisp clear picture, either that, or you don't get the signal at all. It's a better format in every way.
You obviously don't have any clue. HDTV is broadcast at 1920x1080 with Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. It is superior in every way to analog NTSC format. Stations are broadcasting it right now, we have 8 stations here in Atlanta broadcasting digitally, 10 up in St. Louis where I am moving, and more in larger markets such as NY and LA. So, you would be happy if they took a step backwards to 640x480? Are you stupid?
Actually, you have it wrong. The broadcasters have been playing the part of "chicken", not the hardware makers. All broadcasters in major cities have been required to go digital this year, and here in Atlanta, we have 10 stations broadcasting digital, with PBS being the last station to convert. All that the FCC is doing is asking TV manufacturers to be the egg and they are dragging their feet. I have no sympathy for TV manufacturers, the broadcast signal is there, the market is there, they need to quit being lazy and make the damn sets, and not just a few high-end, over priced ones.
That people are unemployed because there AREN'T ANY FUCKING JOBS TO BE FILLED, DON'T YOU? If there is a 7% unemployment, which is an understatment, it's really above 10%, then that means, that no matter how hard those people try, they are SOL. There just aren't jobs for that 10%, period. They can throw there shoulders back all they want, they can quack like a fucking duck for that matter, it's not going to make a bunch of jobs appear, stupid. According to your logic, all America has to do is throw it's shoulders back, and corporations are going to pull out of India, move back ashore, the government is going to clean up it's corruption, start investing in education, and everyone will be happy again.
I'm supposed to believe that your way of "not taking it for granted", is to promote an ideology that trivializes the plight of that 10+% that doesn't have a job? In other words, those poor people whose plight you are using, ironically, to trivialize their plight. You have to be the stupidest, most superstitious fool that I've met in a long time. Just because you worked in a children's hosptial and a job magically appeared doesn't mean that the same magic trick is going to work for everyone else. I know people that have been out of work for YEARS. I bet if you hopped on one leg and got a job the next day, you would be telling people to do that too.
Don't point out the problems you say, just let the rich eat the poor. The economy is bad, and your solution is to ignore the corruption. Don't compalin, just keep your chin up. Great idea. Yes, you're real "optimist".
Yes, go back to school you say. Never mind if you're still busy paying back your loans for the first time around, and you're still trying to catch up on earning money. Simply spend more. That's just great. That's exactly what America needs, is a middle class that's in even more debt, that is ever more willing and subservient to employers that don't wannt to drop a dime on education. My response to employers is "Fuck 'em." Let 'em rot, burn and implode. Why should I spend the rest of my life worrying about what their needs are? I've got a bright future without them.
Is America even "free enterprise"? Are you fucking kidding me? A country where a corrupt government regularly bails out it's richest? And gives billions of dollars to corporations, which immediately pay off corrupt CEO's. A country that doesn't give a shit about educatingg it's youth, because it's too busy gutting social programs and giving that money to Enron, Haliburton, et al. That's "freedom". Freedom means picking on the little guy. Apparently I'm supposed to understand that supporting a corrupt system is "freedom" to you. Call it what you want, I won't support it, and neither will a growing number of Americans. Let's not talk about fantasy land, I'm too busy trying to deal with the real world, I don't know what country you're talking about, but the country I'm living in is corrupt, and has problems that need fixing, and "freedeom" is the last thing that our business leaders are after. If you're too stupid to realize that, then I'm sorry for you.
which is why you don't want to make too many generalizations or attempt to learn anything from it. What the control-freaks in the majority of upper management (CEO) positions are doing is clamping down and refusing to take a lot of risks. This makes sense to them and is their reaction to stress. The problem is that there need to be risks taken, new products, etc. But it's hard to convince CEO's, who are scared shitless of losing their jobs and working outside their comfort zone. So, instead, what they are doing is laying people off, clamping down, working people longer, for more hours. The situation will change as those of us creative engineers get out there and create some truly new and innovative products, or perhaps even entirely new markets, that brings money back into the US. Until then, the PHB's will refuse to take risks, and things will simply get worse. We certainly won't be able to count on marketing to pull us out of this nor the stiff, rigid CEO's who refuse to take risks in this market.
Anyway, to be clear, I was making a point that you could just as well say that engineers deserve more and the point is that neither argument makes sense, I wasn't making a serious argument in either direction, since I think it's all pretty silly to begin with. There is no real sense to it either way. We could just as well say that janitors deserve the highest salary since no one wants to clean toilets.
Anyway, to answer your question of why an engineer deserves more money, well, really, it's all BS, but I'm just playing the same game that marketing people play when they try to say they deserve to get paid more. I say that engineer's deserve more because I'm an engineer, of course.:) If engineers learned to use their analytical skills to put forth a strong argument for why they deserve more, I have a feeling that we would have more status as a class. I think it's only a matter of time. Most of the arguments I've heard from marketing departments are really pretty funny, and for the most part seem to be calling for an enforcement of the status quo, which ironically, is what many engineers were doing back in the late 90's. "Yes, we deserve more because we make more, which obviously is a reflection of our vastly superior skills and value." Yeah, whatever.:)
The reason I said that the discussion is "beside the point" is because there is no real rationale to markets. That is why we need to be very watchful for market tampering. H1B Visas are one way of flooding the labor market. This can really affect just about any profession(marketing is NOT immune), and creates a lot of artificial situations that benefit a very small but wealthy class of owners and investors. What I have learned is that there is no logic to the markets. This is why engineers as a class need to learn to be more vocal about their position. Whether or not a group gets paid more depends on how vocal, and eloquent they are in stating why they deserve more. Marketeers, as a class, are obviously very good at this skill, after all, their job is creating value, or perceived value, where there might not even be any. If they can sell bottled water, why not a skillset that contains an MBA?:) The real point, which I think is the most important point, is that we as a society need to realize that we need people to clean toilets, we need marketeers, we need engineers, we need janitors, we need people to build houses, etc. In order for one of us to drive our BMW's to work, requires that many others do not. A truly just society will try to take care of those who are less fortunate. Otherwise, we might not be around in 30-50 years to continue this trivial discussion of who should drive a better car.
They also say that those with Asperger's syndrome have a hard time communicating with others, and tend to see things in black and white. This simplistic understanding would be a good description of your world-view. That's one reason that some of them can be good with computers. The simple logic makes sense, and they can focus on it and understand it without problems. Perhaps you should get yourself checked out?
It's really a stupid argument that is beside the point. People get paid whatevr the market will bear. If engineers ever decide to form a Union, and stop the manipulation of the market through H1B Visa's, we will quickly see engineering rise to the appropriate level of pay, which will likely eclipse marketing, as it should. The fact is, it doesn't take a genius to market. Perhaps I couldn't do the same wonderful job that the pro's do, but it is possible to market a product without MBA's. I know, it's hard to believe.:)
I never knew Smith talked about a system where people where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over these barriers (large corporations) would be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer.
should be..
I never knew Smith talked about a system where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over those barriers (large corporations) to be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer.
Gee, I never knew that Adam Smith talked about a system where artificial differences in the value of currency are rigged in a such a way that people in certain areas of the world have a hard time getting a job, in the mean time those in other parts of the world can get a job, but would never be able to save up enough capital to start their own company. I never knew Smith talked about a system where people where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over these barriers (large corporations) would be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer. Which page of "The Wealth of Nations" is that on? Then, the artificial barriers to competition such as drastic differences in cost of living are used as a way of leeching money from the American middle class(who still buy products at American prices while getting paid less and less) while at the same time getting host governments such as the government of India to pay for all the infrustructure for you before you move your company there. Wow, now THAT's captalism! Then, when you're done with India, you go find some other country that your rich buddies can leech the wealth from, like, um, Iraq. Yep, that's capitalism.
that is used by management to divert attention from their shortcomings back on to you. I always felt like smacking people when they would ask me this question. The answer to the question is, yes, of course I love what I do, as much as I did when I was in 5th grade and reading "Teach Yourself Basic". However, when it comes from management it's a stupid question that is beside the point. The point is that if they pay a competitive salary they shouldn't have to ask such phony questions. What, am I supposed to suddenly believe that management cares about whether I'm doing what I love?
The main problem with such a question is that it portrays a version of reality where management is free from blame and are just trying to "help", when in many cases, lack of pay can be a big part of the problem. There is a saying in Zen Philosophy of "unasking" a question. Your question, "Why is it always about the money?", is a false question, since it blatantly assumes that it is "always about the money". Therefore, the appropriate response to your question is to tell you your question is wrong. It is incorrect because it assumes that it's "always about the money" and deflects blame from employers. The problem is, the question basically says that it's ok for employers to be greedy sacks of shit, but as soon as the little guy tries to get a decent salary, then they have to explain why it's an issue, or in your words "ALWAYS about the money"(emphasis added). It's an issue because money is how we pay for food. It's an issue because money in the bank is the only real security that one has in the "free" market. That's why it's an issue.
I don't think so, the facts actually support the opposite conclusion. No one in the Kennedy administration ever talked about getting Vietnam over with quickly. Dragging wars out for years wasn't even a concern, and protests didn't begin until years after the start of the war. For years you couldn't even get people to talk about the war. Today a president can't even dream of having something like that, not without the fear of major backlash. Protests start months before war is even declared. The difference is like night and day. The reason that Bush does things like declare the War in Iraq over when the occupation has barely started is because of fear of a backlash. That's the reason they focus on quick wars, it's certainly not out of the goodness of their own hearts.
Right, after World War II, the US government, and the rich running it, decided to get serious about the threat that was the labor movement and the left-wing radicals that ran it. They decided to scare the shit out of the American people by creating the boogey man of a red army coming to attack them, while at the same time using this fanatiscism to attack it's own people and ferret out the the left-wing "commies" who dared to ask for things such as higher salaries, living wages, etc.
Scaring the American people also allowed the government to shift huge amounts of money to corrupt corporations, who would turn around and put the money in their pockets. Rather than call this subsidization, it's called "defense" to remove democratic scrutiny. The reason we spend more on defsne than the rest of the world's military combined isn't just to feed the world's largest military, a lot of it is used to line the pockets of the rich, since of couse they deserve it.
Derek, what do you think Israel is? They are the most heavily armed nation in the region, and their leader is know for his ruthlessness, much as Saddam was. Israel is practically an offshore military base. You don't think we have tributary states? What do you think got us in this mess? Have you studied what we have done in South America? Have you studied our funding of paramilitary forces that butcher villagers? Derek, the reason we don't go in and conquer every country is first, the world would not put up with it, including Americans, and second, it's much less expensive to instead force those countries to enter into trade negotiations, then take advantage of them during thesge negotiations, and when our corporations are done raping them let their leaders clean up the mess. That's essentially what we do, we ransack them, take their natural resources, and unlike superpowers in the past, we don't bother with cleaning up the mess. (Of course, the "we" I am referring to is not us, since guys like me and you aren't enjoying any of the profits from 3rd world exploitation. Guys like me and you are also getting fucked, even if we're not smart enough to realize it).
America, is, of course, "reluctant", if, by "reluctant", you maean that we spend more money on military expenditures than any other country in the world.
The wealthy classes in both Japan and Europe had plently of money to rebuild their countries after World War II. However, this would have meant that the wealthy investors running America after WWII wouldn't have gotten sweet deals during trade negotiations with those countries. So, what do you do? You come up with a plan to make the middle class American taxpayer pay for rebuilding those countries, and the rich in both Japan and Europe then would put their money in American banks, lining the pockets of the American wealthy. The people running those countries would also make sure that the American investors (mainly wealthy elites) would get excellent deals when negotiating trade. In order to make the American middle class feel good about having a dick go up their ass, you tell them what a wonderful, generous country they live in, and that America is doing it because she loves democracy. (Doesn't that sound familiar?) This plan is know as the "Marshall Plan".
Perhaps, Derek, you didn't notice the onslaught of propaganda that began in unison on every news station after September of last year. This is what is called manipulation of the public, and is why "we" fight wars. It was recognized after World War I, that while most Americans are reluctant to go to war, that the right propaganda can work wonders in instilling acquiescence, or in other words "manufacturing consent".
My advice is that if you want to learn how the real world works, then throw away the 8th grade history book and start over with an open mind. There is plenty of stuff out there to read if you want to find it.
Yeah, but why are they spending so much on bombs? Why aren't they applying more technology to the true solution to terrorism, which is of course, spying on the American peopple? I mean, that is part of the solution, is to spy on us right, and just like the war on Iraq, it's because we all love democracy so much, right?
3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we could find them, but we had no suppport, so....
Let's not lose track of the real world...
on
Building a Better Bomb
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In the real world, Saddam was capitulating to every single request.
The reasons for war in order.. 1. To get Saddam to comply with Weapons Inspections, of course, he did that, soo.... 2. To get Saddam to destroy his WMDS', of course, the inspectors couldn't find any, so... 3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we couldn't find them, but we had no suppport, so.... 4. To go in and find WMD's, unless, of course, we don't, in which case, we bombed them because we love democracy so much..
Yes, one might argue that there will always be someone with a grudge. However, I don't see you arguing that we should bomb Montana, since "there will always be someone who hates us." After all, weren't they responsible for one of the last major terrorist bombings, that of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? The truth is, without the support of the people over there, the terrorists would get nowhere. Most people throughout the world want to raise a family, be part of a community, etc. Fundamentalism doesn't have a chance unless people feel like they are continuously trampled and that they have no power. It is under these conditions that Fundamentalism grows. Sure, there are a few whackjobs no matter what the country is, but they wouldn't get any support if we quit contributing to the atrocities.
That's right, the solution to Saddam cooperating with the weapon inspections was to blow him to oblivion. I guess next you're going to say that he wasn't enthusiastic enough when we supplied him with the poison gas that he used to gas his "own" people. Oh, but gee, Bush found two tractor trailers that might have contained weapons of mass destruction. And, I need to remmember that we weren't there for WMD's, unless we find them, then of course we will be. And, our goal is to find Saddam, unless we don't, of course. Just like our goal in Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, unless we don't, then it's still victory, since the goal of course was destroy the Taliban, not find Bin Laden. I guess you just can't lose a debate when lying is not only an option, but also policy, right George?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and everyone knows how "smart" the market is. Yes, the market is so wise, which is why microsoft is number one. The problem with the market is that it has no focus on the future. Market decision making is made with a very narrow, here and now focus. Markets are not for planning and building long term projects, that is what government does better. Markets are good for producing short term solutions to problems. If something takes an incredible amount of inevestment, but has a huge reward, you can't always count on the market to make that long term investment. The market is too focused on quick gains to be a reliable source of technical leadership.
According to you, we need to throw out all long term decisions, and just let the short term highly reactionary markets make every decision for us. Clearly that's a recipe for disaster, we would never have gotten anywhere as a country if we let the markets decide everything. Would there be highways? What about the phone system? Airplanes? Space travel? Computers? Did any of those technologies start without massive government subsidy? Government isn't great at everything, but let's give credit where it's due.
Buy a digital tuner. They are already out right now and have been for years. Probably will cost $100 by the time you get around to buying one. They will likely also be built into VCRs or DVD recorders, so you can pick one up then. Think about it this way, if you put away fifty cents a week, you'll have the $100 by then. So, start saving fifty cents a week (I know, it's a lot of money, but you can do it), and by the time 2007 rolls around, you'll be all set. And, unlike analog over the air tuners, digital tuners have no snow, no distortion, nothing but a crisp clear picture, either that, or you don't get the signal at all. It's a better format in every way.
You obviously don't have any clue. HDTV is broadcast at 1920x1080 with Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. It is superior in every way to analog NTSC format. Stations are broadcasting it right now, we have 8 stations here in Atlanta broadcasting digitally, 10 up in St. Louis where I am moving, and more in larger markets such as NY and LA. So, you would be happy if they took a step backwards to 640x480? Are you stupid?
Actually, you have it wrong. The broadcasters have been playing the part of "chicken", not the hardware makers. All broadcasters in major cities have been required to go digital this year, and here in Atlanta, we have 10 stations broadcasting digital, with PBS being the last station to convert. All that the FCC is doing is asking TV manufacturers to be the egg and they are dragging their feet. I have no sympathy for TV manufacturers, the broadcast signal is there, the market is there, they need to quit being lazy and make the damn sets, and not just a few high-end, over priced ones.
That people are unemployed because there AREN'T ANY FUCKING JOBS TO BE FILLED, DON'T YOU? If there is a 7% unemployment, which is an understatment, it's really above 10%, then that means, that no matter how hard those people try, they are SOL. There just aren't jobs for that 10%, period. They can throw there shoulders back all they want, they can quack like a fucking duck for that matter, it's not going to make a bunch of jobs appear, stupid. According to your logic, all America has to do is throw it's shoulders back, and corporations are going to pull out of India, move back ashore, the government is going to clean up it's corruption, start investing in education, and everyone will be happy again.
I'm supposed to believe that your way of "not taking it for granted", is to promote an ideology that trivializes the plight of that 10+% that doesn't have a job? In other words, those poor people whose plight you are using, ironically, to trivialize their plight. You have to be the stupidest, most superstitious fool that I've met in a long time. Just because you worked in a children's hosptial and a job magically appeared doesn't mean that the same magic trick is going to work for everyone else. I know people that have been out of work for YEARS. I bet if you hopped on one leg and got a job the next day, you would be telling people to do that too.
just stand by and let others get crushed.
Don't point out the problems you say, just let the rich eat the poor. The economy is bad, and your solution is to ignore the corruption. Don't compalin, just keep your chin up. Great idea. Yes, you're real "optimist".
Yes, go back to school you say. Never mind if you're still busy paying back your loans for the first time around, and you're still trying to catch up on earning money. Simply spend more. That's just great. That's exactly what America needs, is a middle class that's in even more debt, that is ever more willing and subservient to employers that don't wannt to drop a dime on education. My response to employers is "Fuck 'em." Let 'em rot, burn and implode. Why should I spend the rest of my life worrying about what their needs are? I've got a bright future without them.
Is America even "free enterprise"? Are you fucking kidding me? A country where a corrupt government regularly bails out it's richest? And gives billions of dollars to corporations, which immediately pay off corrupt CEO's. A country that doesn't give a shit about educatingg it's youth, because it's too busy gutting social programs and giving that money to Enron, Haliburton, et al. That's "freedom". Freedom means picking on the little guy. Apparently I'm supposed to understand that supporting a corrupt system is "freedom" to you. Call it what you want, I won't support it, and neither will a growing number of Americans. Let's not talk about fantasy land, I'm too busy trying to deal with the real world, I don't know what country you're talking about, but the country I'm living in is corrupt, and has problems that need fixing, and "freedeom" is the last thing that our business leaders are after. If you're too stupid to realize that, then I'm sorry for you.
which is why you don't want to make too many generalizations or attempt to learn anything from it. What the control-freaks in the majority of upper management (CEO) positions are doing is clamping down and refusing to take a lot of risks. This makes sense to them and is their reaction to stress. The problem is that there need to be risks taken, new products, etc. But it's hard to convince CEO's, who are scared shitless of losing their jobs and working outside their comfort zone. So, instead, what they are doing is laying people off, clamping down, working people longer, for more hours. The situation will change as those of us creative engineers get out there and create some truly new and innovative products, or perhaps even entirely new markets, that brings money back into the US. Until then, the PHB's will refuse to take risks, and things will simply get worse. We certainly won't be able to count on marketing to pull us out of this nor the stiff, rigid CEO's who refuse to take risks in this market.
Anyway, to be clear, I was making a point that you could just as well say that engineers deserve more and the point is that neither argument makes sense, I wasn't making a serious argument in either direction, since I think it's all pretty silly to begin with. There is no real sense to it either way. We could just as well say that janitors deserve the highest salary since no one wants to clean toilets.
Anyway, to answer your question of why an engineer deserves more money, well, really, it's all BS, but I'm just playing the same game that marketing people play when they try to say they deserve to get paid more. I say that engineer's deserve more because I'm an engineer, of course. :) If engineers learned to use their analytical skills to put forth a strong argument for why they deserve more, I have a feeling that we would have more status as a class. I think it's only a matter of time. Most of the arguments I've heard from marketing departments are really pretty funny, and for the most part seem to be calling for an enforcement of the status quo, which ironically, is what many engineers were doing back in the late 90's. "Yes, we deserve more because we make more, which obviously is a reflection of our vastly superior skills and value." Yeah, whatever. :)
The reason I said that the discussion is "beside the point" is because there is no real rationale to markets. That is why we need to be very watchful for market tampering. H1B Visas are one way of flooding the labor market. This can really affect just about any profession(marketing is NOT immune), and creates a lot of artificial situations that benefit a very small but wealthy class of owners and investors. What I have learned is that there is no logic to the markets. This is why engineers as a class need to learn to be more vocal about their position. Whether or not a group gets paid more depends on how vocal, and eloquent they are in stating why they deserve more. Marketeers, as a class, are obviously very good at this skill, after all, their job is creating value, or perceived value, where there might not even be any. If they can sell bottled water, why not a skillset that contains an MBA? :) The real point, which I think is the most important point, is that we as a society need to realize that we need people to clean toilets, we need marketeers, we need engineers, we need janitors, we need people to build houses, etc. In order for one of us to drive our BMW's to work, requires that many others do not. A truly just society will try to take care of those who are less fortunate. Otherwise, we might not be around in 30-50 years to continue this trivial discussion of who should drive a better car.
They also say that those with Asperger's syndrome have a hard time communicating with others, and tend to see things in black and white. This simplistic understanding would be a good description of your world-view. That's one reason that some of them can be good with computers. The simple logic makes sense, and they can focus on it and understand it without problems. Perhaps you should get yourself checked out?
It's really a stupid argument that is beside the point. People get paid whatevr the market will bear. If engineers ever decide to form a Union, and stop the manipulation of the market through H1B Visa's, we will quickly see engineering rise to the appropriate level of pay, which will likely eclipse marketing, as it should. The fact is, it doesn't take a genius to market. Perhaps I couldn't do the same wonderful job that the pro's do, but it is possible to market a product without MBA's. I know, it's hard to believe. :)
I never knew Smith talked about a system where people where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over these barriers (large corporations) would be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer.
should be..
I never knew Smith talked about a system where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over those barriers (large corporations) to be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer.
Gee, I never knew that Adam Smith talked about a system where artificial differences in the value of currency are rigged in a such a way that people in certain areas of the world have a hard time getting a job, in the mean time those in other parts of the world can get a job, but would never be able to save up enough capital to start their own company. I never knew Smith talked about a system where people where barriers to immigration would allow those who can step over these barriers (large corporations) would be able to profit handsomely from it, while the rest get to suffer. Which page of "The Wealth of Nations" is that on? Then, the artificial barriers to competition such as drastic differences in cost of living are used as a way of leeching money from the American middle class(who still buy products at American prices while getting paid less and less) while at the same time getting host governments such as the government of India to pay for all the infrustructure for you before you move your company there. Wow, now THAT's captalism! Then, when you're done with India, you go find some other country that your rich buddies can leech the wealth from, like, um, Iraq. Yep, that's capitalism.
that is used by management to divert attention from their shortcomings back on to you. I always felt like smacking people when they would ask me this question. The answer to the question is, yes, of course I love what I do, as much as I did when I was in 5th grade and reading "Teach Yourself Basic". However, when it comes from management it's a stupid question that is beside the point. The point is that if they pay a competitive salary they shouldn't have to ask such phony questions. What, am I supposed to suddenly believe that management cares about whether I'm doing what I love?
The main problem with such a question is that it portrays a version of reality where management is free from blame and are just trying to "help", when in many cases, lack of pay can be a big part of the problem. There is a saying in Zen Philosophy of "unasking" a question. Your question, "Why is it always about the money?", is a false question, since it blatantly assumes that it is "always about the money". Therefore, the appropriate response to your question is to tell you your question is wrong. It is incorrect because it assumes that it's "always about the money" and deflects blame from employers. The problem is, the question basically says that it's ok for employers to be greedy sacks of shit, but as soon as the little guy tries to get a decent salary, then they have to explain why it's an issue, or in your words "ALWAYS about the money"(emphasis added). It's an issue because money is how we pay for food. It's an issue because money in the bank is the only real security that one has in the "free" market. That's why it's an issue.
I don't think so, the facts actually support the opposite conclusion. No one in the Kennedy administration ever talked about getting Vietnam over with quickly. Dragging wars out for years wasn't even a concern, and protests didn't begin until years after the start of the war. For years you couldn't even get people to talk about the war. Today a president can't even dream of having something like that, not without the fear of major backlash. Protests start months before war is even declared. The difference is like night and day. The reason that Bush does things like declare the War in Iraq over when the occupation has barely started is because of fear of a backlash. That's the reason they focus on quick wars, it's certainly not out of the goodness of their own hearts.
Ok, Derek...
Right, after World War II, the US government, and the rich running it, decided to get serious about the threat that was the labor movement and the left-wing radicals that ran it. They decided to scare the shit out of the American people by creating the boogey man of a red army coming to attack them, while at the same time using this fanatiscism to attack it's own people and ferret out the the left-wing "commies" who dared to ask for things such as higher salaries, living wages, etc.
Scaring the American people also allowed the government to shift huge amounts of money to corrupt corporations, who would turn around and put the money in their pockets. Rather than call this subsidization, it's called "defense" to remove democratic scrutiny. The reason we spend more on defsne than the rest of the world's military combined isn't just to feed the world's largest military, a lot of it is used to line the pockets of the rich, since of couse they deserve it.
Derek, what do you think Israel is? They are the most heavily armed nation in the region, and their leader is know for his ruthlessness, much as Saddam was. Israel is practically an offshore military base. You don't think we have tributary states? What do you think got us in this mess? Have you studied what we have done in South America? Have you studied our funding of paramilitary forces that butcher villagers? Derek, the reason we don't go in and conquer every country is first, the world would not put up with it, including Americans, and second, it's much less expensive to instead force those countries to enter into trade negotiations, then take advantage of them during thesge negotiations, and when our corporations are done raping them let their leaders clean up the mess. That's essentially what we do, we ransack them, take their natural resources, and unlike superpowers in the past, we don't bother with cleaning up the mess. (Of course, the "we" I am referring to is not us, since guys like me and you aren't enjoying any of the profits from 3rd world exploitation. Guys like me and you are also getting fucked, even if we're not smart enough to realize it).
America, is, of course, "reluctant", if, by "reluctant", you maean that we spend more money on military expenditures than any other country in the world.
The wealthy classes in both Japan and Europe had plently of money to rebuild their countries after World War II. However, this would have meant that the wealthy investors running America after WWII wouldn't have gotten sweet deals during trade negotiations with those countries. So, what do you do? You come up with a plan to make the middle class American taxpayer pay for rebuilding those countries, and the rich in both Japan and Europe then would put their money in American banks, lining the pockets of the American wealthy. The people running those countries would also make sure that the American investors (mainly wealthy elites) would get excellent deals when negotiating trade. In order to make the American middle class feel good about having a dick go up their ass, you tell them what a wonderful, generous country they live in, and that America is doing it because she loves democracy. (Doesn't that sound familiar?) This plan is know as the "Marshall Plan".
Perhaps, Derek, you didn't notice the onslaught of propaganda that began in unison on every news station after September of last year. This is what is called manipulation of the public, and is why "we" fight wars. It was recognized after World War I, that while most Americans are reluctant to go to war, that the right propaganda can work wonders in instilling acquiescence, or in other words "manufacturing consent".
My advice is that if you want to learn how the real world works, then throw away the 8th grade history book and start over with an open mind. There is plenty of stuff out there to read if you want to find it.
Yeah, but why are they spending so much on bombs? Why aren't they applying more technology to the true solution to terrorism, which is of course, spying on the American peopple? I mean, that is part of the solution, is to spy on us right, and just like the war on Iraq, it's because we all love democracy so much, right?
number 3 was supposed to read...
3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we could find them, but we had no suppport, so....
In the real world, Saddam was capitulating to every single request.
The reasons for war in order..
1. To get Saddam to comply with Weapons Inspections, of course, he did that, soo....
2. To get Saddam to destroy his WMDS', of course, the inspectors couldn't find any, so...
3. To get UN approval to let us go in so we couldn't find them, but we had no suppport, so....
4. To go in and find WMD's, unless, of course, we don't, in which case, we bombed them because we love democracy so much..
Did I leave anything out?
Yes, one might argue that there will always be someone with a grudge. However, I don't see you arguing that we should bomb Montana, since "there will always be someone who hates us." After all, weren't they responsible for one of the last major terrorist bombings, that of the Federal building in Oklahoma City? The truth is, without the support of the people over there, the terrorists would get nowhere. Most people throughout the world want to raise a family, be part of a community, etc. Fundamentalism doesn't have a chance unless people feel like they are continuously trampled and that they have no power. It is under these conditions that Fundamentalism grows. Sure, there are a few whackjobs no matter what the country is, but they wouldn't get any support if we quit contributing to the atrocities.
That's right, the solution to Saddam cooperating with the weapon inspections was to blow him to oblivion. I guess next you're going to say that he wasn't enthusiastic enough when we supplied him with the poison gas that he used to gas his "own" people. Oh, but gee, Bush found two tractor trailers that might have contained weapons of mass destruction. And, I need to remmember that we weren't there for WMD's, unless we find them, then of course we will be. And, our goal is to find Saddam, unless we don't, of course. Just like our goal in Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, unless we don't, then it's still victory, since the goal of course was destroy the Taliban, not find Bin Laden. I guess you just can't lose a debate when lying is not only an option, but also policy, right George?
Umm.., Saddam didn't attack the WTC, but I'm sure you already knew that, or did you?
"You mean Saddam didn't attack the WTC? Whah?"
Correction, tell them to get a copy of "Please Understand Me II", "Please Understand Me" is a bit out of date.