Damned, this is depressing...

[Francois_Dumas]

Yes, sad but true. And to a large extent incomprehensible as well. If only we could turn the time back for a bit eh?

[Whip]

....those items that do nothing to preserve and enhance life in any meaningful way.

 

Spending trillions of dollars to prop up companies and policies that continue to degrade our world, is the really sad part of the whole thing. IMHO

 

 

Please clarify........That makes no sense to me.

 

Examples would be helpful.

 

Thanks

 

Whip

 

 

...remember use small words. I'm from Texas.

 

 

 

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

And here's me thinking that everything in Texas is BBBBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGG !!!!

[Lineareagle]

Oh my, I can think of lots of 'garbage' that really is unnecessary and that consumes our resources.

 

One that is making the news here right now is plastic bags in retail stores. True they are convenient but man anywhere you go they are hanging in trees, floating amongst the coral etc. Cloth bag? Easy lasts forever, made out of old shirts.

 

How about the bigger is better vehicle scene. Why anyone needs more than 200hp to drag the kids around town is beyond me, and yes I do have 100hp between my legs and not terribly efficient either but better than the 2500 Silverado I gave up 2 years ago.

 

Bottled water, wow unbelievable, even if we had to have it because everything else was unsafe, it would still be nice to just have a bottle you could refill.

 

Aircraft flying routes that could be more efficiently served by high speed rail. Chicago to NY for instance.

 

How about trains instead of trucks?

 

As far as policies and companies go. The arms dealing countries come to mind as well as the companies that produce them. The Congo conflict, apparently, goes back to the Rwanda genocide because France, among others wanted to withhold intrusion until their buddies escaped with their military hardware across the border.

 

How about bio fuels, absolute garbage. More energy in then you get out AND it devastates whole regions and cultures. Borneo ripping down their rain forest to grow palm oil palms, for bio-diesel. Tanzania grows crops, inedible, to ship to Europe for bio fuel.

 

The people get paid a pittance to farm it and get none of the profits, all so they can have a substandard life.

 

Our relentless need for more and better resulting in more waste than necessary, ergo, cell phones, computers, crts, all great but why do we need new all the time and why do we make stuff we can't recycle? And why don't we have to pay the REAL cost of products. The cost right down to when it is re-used.

 

We are living in a fantasy land which is great for us, it just spells disaster for longevity of the human species and most of the world as we know it.

 

I think we can do better, yes we can! heh heh had to throw that in just to hear the scream all the way from TX!

 

 

 

[David]

Our relentless need for more and better resulting in more waste than necessary, ergo, cell phones, computers, crts, all great but why do we need new all the time and why do we make stuff we can't recycle? And why don't we have to pay the REAL cost of products. The cost right down to when it is re-used.

 

Man, what a spoil sport. I'm reading this on my iPhone!

[Ken H.]

+1

 

Humans are nothing if not short sighted.

[Ken H.]

Oh my, I can think of lots of 'garbage' that really is unnecessary and that consumes our resources.

Some things would be one one person's garbage list and not on another's. And visa-versa.

 

One think is certain though, we've totally blurred, lost track of even, the line between "needs" and "wants." And for the most part sought out our wants with little regard for the consequences.

[Ken H.]

I'll add one to your list though that consumes a unbelievable amount of resources in its quest for, leaves a trail of negative consequences a mile long, and IMHO serves no redeemable purpose - The never ending pursuit in suburbia across the land for the perfect lawn.

[steve.foote]

What really is sad is not the economic collapse we are seeing, but some of that economic collapse is the result of spending our finite resources on absolute garbage, those items that do nothing to preserve and enhance life in any meaningful way.

 

Such as motorcycles, for example?

 

BTW, you shouldn't have ridden yourself of the 2500. It's a great truck. I just picked up my new 2500HD this afternoon. 660 ft. lbs. of torque to hall my butt around at 23 mpg for only $24k after rebates and tax bene's. That's what I call economy.

[steve.foote]

Electric Light

 

All right, I can see your spoiling for a fight.

 

Perhaps I should have more accurately stated, "useable electric light."

[Dave McReynolds]

There is something intrinsically wrong with a system that exists in a finite world but requires infinite growth.

 

I don't disagree with your sentiments regarding wasteful consumption, but I think the problem lies less with a "system" and more with psychology or sociology. This distinction is important, because you're not going to be effective if you're attacking the wrong target.

 

I don't think the capitalistic system is any more to blame for wasteful consumption than the communistic system is to blame for the gulags. The same capitalistic system that brought you plastic shopping bags brings you your neighborhood farmers market. The same capitalistic system that brought us the extremes of conspicuous consumption since the '80's brought us long periods of living within our means without excessive use of credit during earlier times.

 

Capitalism, communism or socialism are just tools that can be used in different ways depending on the personalities of those in positions to influence their use.

[Bud]

Unregulated capitalism led to abuses in the early 20th century that were no acceptable to Americans.

 

Seems like lack of regulation recently has also caused some of the current problems.

 

But then again, I'm not from Texas and maybe not as smart as Whip.

[steve.foote]

Unregulated capitalism led to abuses in the early 20th century that were no acceptable to Americans.

 

Seems like lack of regulation recently has also caused some of the current problems.

 

But then again, I'm not from Texas and maybe not as smart as Whip.

 

I think you hit it on the head, Bud. It's a regulation problem. Now we all can move on to another issue, this mystery has been solved. Nice work.

[Dick]

And, while it is true that these unknown borrowers may eventually pay everything back at no cost to the taxpayer, it is the taxpayer who gets soaked if they default.

 

Actually, isn't it true we get soaked either way? The only why I know of to get the money back to pay off the "loan" is to charge more for goods and services. I wonder who pays for that?

[Pilgrim]

There is something intrinsically wrong with a system that exists in a finite world but requires infinite growth.

 

Ultimately the system must come to a place where the infinite desire for growth reaches the finite ability of the system to absorb the growth.

 

The answer is in part found in a humorous bumper sticker that makes a true point: "Strip mine earth now; we can get to the asteroids later."

 

If you assume it all must take place on earth, you're right, except that Mother Nature is a humorless, relentless bitch, and she will set the equation straight someday. That is, unless capitalist drive moves mankind off the earth.

 

If it doesn't, then we (all creatures big and small) are but an ephemeral blip on earth's geologic history. We'll all be wiped out by an asteroid strike or some unforeseen calamity that's beyond even our imagination now.

 

Emigrate or die. That's the long-term prognosis. It's not going to be done by anyone except some capitalist looking to make a buck and willing to take a gamble.

 

Pilgrim

[TyTass]

The position from which you argue from is not new, nor is it unquestionable ...

 

"Because I sacrifice so much more than others in the name of conservation, I can speak ex cathedra on the subject, point my finger with impunity, and argue for legislation to force others who don't care (as much as I) to live up to my sense/understanding of an eco-friendly lifestyle."

 

I really find this sort of half-hearted, nominally-committed conservationist view to be pretty freakin' humourous. What's funny to me is "sacrifice so much more than others " really does translate directly to "only what I'm willing to give up", of course.

 

That view ignores the fact that there are indeed many, many other people FAR more willing to "give up" even more (REAL tree-huggers, anti-technologists, the Amish, and other Luddite groups). We just aren't going to find those people discussing conservation (wait, allow me to state that in today's more sexy, ego-satisfying, melodramatic terminology ... saving the freakin' planet) on a BMW Sport Touring (I-wanna-go-waste-gas-and-resources-for-my-own-pleasure) website.

 

Do you conserve more than most people on this site even? Hmmm, I'd say that's debatable but my guess would be that you may indeed. But the point is ... if your feelings are indeed so strong, why not do more by not using the roads for your pleasure? Whatever your reason, clearly you are comfortable with your desires because you have choosen to compare your "sacrifices" to those who you view as sacrificing little.

 

It's nothing but a big, fat, juicy rationalization ... and without any humility.

[Whip]

[quote=Lineareagle

I think we can do better, yes we can! heh heh had to throw that in just to hear the scream all the way from TX!

 

 

George Carlin says it so much better than me.......and he ain't from around here.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bud]

In the meantime I'm investing in Smith & Wesson, Remington, Browning, and KelTec.

 

I think Remington is owned by the same holding group that owns Chrysler! I know for a fact that their product is getting worse and worse. Glad to have a 30 year old 12 gage Wingmaster.

[Ken H.]

That is, unless capitalist drive moves mankind off the earth.

Yeah, but it will take a socialist effort to get us there!

 

(Hee, hee. Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

 

[TyTass]

But it will only because manned-space flight is yet another industry nationalized by US Government, who created NASA to run and govern this enterprise. (Hee hee, back at ya!)

[Ken H.]

George Carlin says it so much better than me.......and he ain't from around here.

Well while Carlin in the literal sense had a point, what he failed to recognize, or acknowledge at any rate, is that “Save the Planet” is a euphemism for, ‘Don’t change it so much that we end up making it uninhabitable for ourselves.’ But that's hard to fit on a bumper sticker. Lacking another planet at the moment, that seems like a rather valid basic idea. Now how to do it; that's a whole ‘nother discussion!

[TyTass]

‘Don’t change it so much that we end up making it uninhabitable for ourselves.’ But that's hard to fit on a bumper sticker.

 

That's pretty funny right there!

[tallman]

In the meantime I'm investing in Smith & Wesson, Remington, Browning, and KelTec.

 

I think Remington is owned by the same holding group that owns Chrysler! I know for a fact that their product is getting worse and worse. Glad to have a 30 year old 12 gage Wingmaster.

 

To paraphrase...

It's the econo, err, ammunition, cupid. (sorry, couldn't resist, not meant personally, or politically)

But, I'm talking about the bullets of various calibre that Remington makes.

You're right, many long rifles and shotguns have better ancestors than progeny.

My 30 ought six is as old as I am, nearly.

I have several that are older than I am.

Then there's the flintlocks, some even older than our country.

Looking at a kalashnikov now...

[Pilgrim]

That is, unless capitalist drive moves mankind off the earth.

Yeah, but it will take a socialist effort to get us there!

 

(Hee, hee. Sorry, couldn’t resist!)

 

Tell you what, Ken. If you socialists will leave us capitalists enough money to make the trip, we'll go, and gladly, just for the peace of mind. But we're taking our money with us.

 

Pilgrim

[PRC]

If you socialists will leave us capitalists enough money to make the trip, we'll go, and gladly, just for the peace of mind. But we're taking our money with us.

...and we'll take our creative drive (the want to create things so that the world's a better place and in the process make a buck) with us as well!!

[T.M. Roe]

Damm, I think we're all boogered...

[Whip]

If you socialists will leave us capitalists enough money to make the trip, we'll go, and gladly, just for the peace of mind. But we're taking our money with us.

...and we'll take our creative drive (the want to create things so that the world's a better place and in the process make a buck) with us as well!!

 

There's a great book along those same lines........but they went to Colorado.

 

The book was written 60 years ago.

 

It's being made into a movie has we speak. Too bad they'll prolly ruin it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PRC]

There's a great book along those same lines........but they went to Colorado.

 

What's the name of the book?

[Whip]

Atlas Shrugged

[KMG_365]

There's a great book along those same lines........but they went to Colorado.

 

What's the name of the book?

And you claim to be a capitalist! Sheesh . . . even Ken and I knew that one!

[KMG_365]

If you socialists will leave us capitalists enough money to make the trip, we'll go, and gladly, just for the peace of mind. But we're taking our money with us.

...and we'll take our creative drive (the want to create things so that the world's a better place and in the process make a buck) with us as well!!

Unfortunately, you'll need to take The Creative Class with you too to create those things which the capitalists can market . . . and my guess would be . . . .

[Whip]

There's a great book along those same lines........but they went to Colorado.

 

What's the name of the book?

And you claim to be a capitalist! Sheesh . . . even Ken and I knew that one!

 

 

BTW....I think it should be in Torrey and we should just go.

 

 

.....today.

 

 

 

 

 

[PRC]

And you claim to be a capitalist! Sheesh . . . even Ken and I knew that one!

I knew the name, just wanted it out there for the masses!!!

BTW....I think it should be in Torrey and we should just go.

.....today.

 

 

IN!!!!!!!!!!!

[TyTass]

If you socialists will leave us capitalists enough money to make the trip, we'll go, and gladly, just for the peace of mind. But we're taking our money with us.

...and we'll take our creative drive (the want to create things so that the world's a better place and in the process make a buck) with us as well!!

Unfortunately, you'll need to take The Creative Class with you too to create those things which the capitalists can market . . . and my guess would be . . . .

Hmm, after reading that Wikipedia bit, it seems to me that those who Florida would categorize as the Creative Class will most likely have already been on the flight with the other capitalists (albeit, even the less-creative ones).

 

As presented in Wikpedia, Florida has merely defined a new class of workers to respond directly to Rand's theories (and her corresponding proofs) that socialism - or any Marxist-based system (for that matter) - in and of itself has no Prime Mover, nothing to motivate people to create. It pretty much sounds like a case covered by the old Abe Lincoln adage: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

In this case, categorizing a group of people with similar aspects of work/profession as a new social class doesn't make them a new social class. I'll have to read much more but it certainly seems likely to be yet another case of "correlation not implying causation".

[KMG_365]

As presented in Wikpedia, Florida has merely defined a new class of workers to respond directly to Rand's theories (and her corresponding proofs) that socialism - or any Marxist-based system (for that matter) - in and of itself has no Prime Mover, nothing to motivate people to create.

Interesting theory, but how does that explain the rage in Open Source . . . like the free browser I'm using to type this??

 

It seems to me that the further we move away from the source of life and rely more on technology to sustain us the more precarious our position becomes. Capitalism relies on a stable economy and hoards of consumers with the means to buy. When the economy "resets" closer to a balance point there is (usually temporary) chaos, but the taller they are the harder they fall. For instance, the Amish will be largely unaffected by whatever economic disaster causes the global markets to crash. When the rich man's paper becomes worthless, they will still have food, shelter, protection from the elements and be passing these skills on to their kids. I wonder what "useful" life skills we are teaching our youth and how would our young survive if they had to live without cell phones, shopping malls, the internet and ATM's on every corner. The guys showing up for jobs as Firefighters have almost no practical, real-world skills anymore. They can't troubleshoot, don't even change their own oil and barely know which end of a hammer to pick up.

 

 

Could it be . . . ?

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

Nerds shouldn't be firemen.

 

:rofl:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

As presented in Wikpedia, Florida has merely defined a new class of workers to respond directly to Rand's theories (and her corresponding proofs) that socialism - or any Marxist-based system (for that matter) - in and of itself has no Prime Mover, nothing to motivate people to create.

 

He seems to be defining creativity in a fairly narrow way. Certainly, a whole range of creative people, such as scientists, writers and artists, are not generally known to be great fans of capitalism (or maybe disinterested in economic systems in general, would be a better way of characterizing it). I believe you could include most creative people in the entertainment field in this same category, if it were not for the fact that they make so darned much money doing it. But I would include them anyway, since I'll bet most of them would keep on entertaining, with the same amount of enthusiasm, if the monetary incentive were not there, so long as the adulation of the crowds remained.

 

While I'll agree that motivation is always necessary for creativity, limiting the motivation to monetary profits simply ignores all the other motivational forces that exist:

 

The scientist is motivated by the possibility of discovering new knowledge.

 

The artist is motivated by original expression of art.

 

The writer is motivated by communicating an idea or story.

 

The entertainer is motivated by fame.

 

Any of us may be motivated by the desire to create just for the pure joy of creation, whether it be a photograph or a hand-made longbow.

 

While all these creative forces would remain under different economic systems, the creative force to start a business in order to make a profit is mainly present under the capitalistic system. I would hate to see that disappear, as we have all benefitted from it, whether we choose to acknowledge that or not. We have all been damaged by it too, of course, and that's what some of us are looking for now - a better balance, while others of us are resisting that.

[TyTass]

As presented in Wikpedia, Florida has merely defined a new class of workers to respond directly to Rand's theories (and her corresponding proofs) that socialism - or any Marxist-based system (for that matter) - in and of itself has no Prime Mover, nothing to motivate people to create.

Interesting theory, but how does that explain the rage in Open Source . . . like the free browser I'm using to type this??

Good example ... and I can take a crack at it. Obviously, someone developed various programs in a rather open source manner before the home computer industry began. However, there weren't too many people to share programs with back in the 70's (I was even doing a bit of programing in school). Then companies like Microsoft and Apple pursued their vision and "succeeded" in creating a gargantuan home computer market. Obviously, they got wealthy.

 

But now, after many years of devolopment of both hardware and software, the market is ripe for the various flavors of Open Source. It may even replace Microsoft's hold on the home market but let's make no mistake, Open Source did not create the market. Perhaps that market has seen its best growth years and the big guns will move off to develop other markets (or perhaps a complete replacement ... we'll have to wait and see). But no matter ... there are no guarantees in a capitalistic market or a socialist run system.

 

Note: I use Open Office for my Asus Eee PC, mainly because I don't need anything terribly fancy for that computer anyway - and Open Office is quite good. However, where things stand at the moment I'm not switching my publication teams (on my contract) to open source software. It's too immature for what my customer's needs are (and if history teaches anything, it won't mature nor cover all bases).

 

It seems to me that the further we move away from the source of life and rely more on technology to sustain us the more precarious our position becomes. Capitalism relies on a stable economy and hoards of consumers with the means to buy. When the economy "resets" closer to a balance point there is (usually temporary) chaos, but the taller they are the harder they fall. For instance, the Amish will be largely unaffected by whatever economic disaster causes the global markets to crash. When the rich man's paper becomes worthless, they will still have food, shelter, protection from the elements and be passing these skills on to their kids. I wonder what "useful" life skills we are teaching our youth and how would our young survive if they had to live without cell phones, shopping malls, the internet and ATM's on every corner. The guys showing up for jobs as Firefighters have almost no practical, real-world skills anymore. They can't troubleshoot, don't even change their own oil and barely know which end of a hammer to pick up.

Yes ... you definitely brought up a another whole topic to debate - and you might be right on a personal level ... but I doubt anyone on this board possesses the power to extinguish man's quest for knowledge, our thirst for investigation, or to slow our flirtation with evolving new technologies. Right or wrong, it's clear this journey will continue until man can no longer sustain it or is consumed by it. So, until that time, hopefully each person will be fortunate enough to live in a country the that pursues life with the precise balance of technology as that person wants ... OR ... are fortunate enough to live in a free society where each person may choose to withdraw from "that quest" (as the Amish do).

 

As for "many of today's kids" ... well, the same thought applies here as in the thread regarding today's military ... one that you agreed with my post. If too many of todays kids don't know the basics, it's because too many of our generation didn't teach them the basics ... didn't motivate them to learn ... or perhaps even failed to disipline them when they didn't mind their teacher or focused on their studies.

 

But just what are the basics? I'm sure that we'll have a whole lot of different ideas there.

[Boffin]

Then companies like Microsoft and Apple pursued their vision and "succeeded" in creating a gargantuan home computer market. Obviously, they got wealthy.

 

But now, after many years of devolopment of both hardware and software, the market is ripe for the various flavors of Open Source. It may even replace Microsoft's hold on the home market but let's make no mistake, Open Source did not create the market.

 

A little technological history is needed here - the PC as we know and love (or hate) it was the direct result of the IBM-PC being released as an Open Architecutre project. It came to dominate the market because it was the basis of all the clones, clone which allowed Microsoft to grow their product.

So your example is actually a great example of Open Source growing a market to the benefit of all - especially Bill Gates.

 

Andy

[Francois_Dumas]

We have all been damaged by it too, of course, and that's what some of us are looking for now - a better balance, while others of us are resisting that.

 

Dave, I think that is hitting the proverbial nail on the head..... and a better balance does most certainly not equate to the much dreaded 'socialism'.

Behaving more 'social' on the other hand might have a major positive influence on our current-day society that seems to have drifted off into a very egocentric mode in many places and areas.

[Whip]

Dave, I think that is hitting the proverbial nail on the head..... and a better balance does most certainly not equate to the much dreaded 'socialism'.

Behaving more 'social' on the other hand might have a major positive influence on our current-day society that seems to have drifted off into a very egocentric mode in many places and areas.

 

 

Nice idea Dutchy.

 

I think it would better left to the individual to decide how 'social' he or she wants to be. I know you know what can happen when the government makes the decisions for the people.

 

 

As far as...."our current-day society that seems to have drifted off into a very egocentric mode in many places and areas."....I think the markets just corrected that for us.

 

 

Which IMHO would never have happen if the government had not used the market for a little "social/society engineering project".

 

This also, would never have happen in a true free market, hence time to do the Atlas Shrugged thing and check out ASAP, because if a smart person like you believes what you just wrote, it's over for guys like me. I don't wanna work and invest in a market or country that vilifies my dreams and ambition.

 

So in the future when someone I know needs help or has a cause worth helping I can just say, sorry I can't afford it. Instead of.......How can I help???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Being social, i.e. caring for others and helping each other, is what I am talking about. I don't believe that has anything to do with any government, or market, at least that's not what I am referring to. But the 'effects' of the behaviour, or lack of it, DO!

 

There is nothing wrong with running a business and making a profit. We can't do without businesses unless we'd go back to a money-less society where we'd only trade services and goods for services and goods. And lets face it, for many of us running a business it is not just necessity, it is also a way of having fun, feeling needed and providing in a demand by others and having a challenge!

 

And we all know that without a profit there's no money left to buy our own groceries, gas and pay for the rent, after subtracting all the cost.

 

But what I am doubting is the 'need' to get ever MORE, and more. We all have our dreams, our skills, our experience and our limitations.

MY 'ideal' is to fulfill (part of) my dreams, of course. But once I've managed to do that, I do not intend to be wanting more and more and more. I'd just like to enjoy the achievement and maintain my - admittedly self-selected - level of comfort. And sure, if I'd get bored, I'd look for a new challenge.

 

If I get lucky (mainly through hard work) and get much more than I need, I'll be happy to have some lesser souls benefit from that (I have been doing so for many years through taxes, contributions, donations and other means)..... and when things turn around, well, I'll tend to myself and my family first and try and get things back on track.

 

Maybe it makes more sense explained like that ?

[Whip]

I feel better now.

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Good.

 

Then I can tend to the pictures of my 'fortress ride' now.... (I'll try to limit the number of them, too ..... )

[Whip]

(I'll try to limit the number of them, too ..... )

 

...it's basic etiquette,

 

 

[TyTass]

Then companies like Microsoft and Apple pursued their vision and "succeeded" in creating a gargantuan home computer market. Obviously, they got wealthy.

 

But now, after many years of devolopment of both hardware and software, the market is ripe for the various flavors of Open Source. It may even replace Microsoft's hold on the home market but let's make no mistake, Open Source did not create the market.

 

A little technological history is needed here - the PC as we know and love (or hate) it was the direct result of the IBM-PC being released as an Open Architecutre project. It came to dominate the market because it was the basis of all the clones, clone which allowed Microsoft to grow their product.

So your example is actually a great example of Open Source growing a market to the benefit of all - especially Bill Gates.

 

Andy

Oh for pity sake. Are you suggesting that Open Architecture was created by IBM as a not for profit venture - for the betterment of mankind? If so, I'm thinking you've been reading too much of IBMs marketing materials. Just a wee bit further investigation reveals that Open Architecture was funded by IBM for the express purpose of creating new markets in the small business (or home) market. It was open architecture in that they didn't go the way of Amiga and Apple who owned their system and the architecture. And thus, IBM did create a new market. They just didn't realize it and if it weren't for IBM's lack of foresight and missing the boat initially - unwittingly giving rise to a bunch of smaller companies and upstarts with MS being foremost in everyone's mind - IBM would have released their product lines ... eventually. As it was, it took them a very long time to really do anything of relative significance in that industry.

[TyTass]

As presented in Wikpedia, Florida has merely defined a new class of workers to respond directly to Rand's theories (and her corresponding proofs) that socialism - or any Marxist-based system (for that matter) - in and of itself has no Prime Mover, nothing to motivate people to create.

 

He seems to be defining creativity in a fairly narrow way. Certainly, a whole range of creative people, such as scientists, writers and artists, are not generally known to be great fans of capitalism (or maybe disinterested in economic systems in general, would be a better way of characterizing it). I believe you could include most creative people in the entertainment field in this same category, if it were not for the fact that they make so darned much money doing it. But I would include them anyway, since I'll bet most of them would keep on entertaining, with the same amount of enthusiasm, if the monetary incentive were not there, so long as the adulation of the crowds remained.

 

While I'll agree that motivation is always necessary for creativity, limiting the motivation to monetary profits simply ignores all the other motivational forces that exist:

 

The scientist is motivated by the possibility of discovering new knowledge.

 

The artist is motivated by original expression of art.

 

The writer is motivated by communicating an idea or story.

 

The entertainer is motivated by fame.

 

Any of us may be motivated by the desire to create just for the pure joy of creation, whether it be a photograph or a hand-made longbow.

 

While all these creative forces would remain under different economic systems, the creative force to start a business in order to make a profit is mainly present under the capitalistic system. I would hate to see that disappear, as we have all benefitted from it, whether we choose to acknowledge that or not. We have all been damaged by it too, of course, and that's what some of us are looking for now - a better balance, while others of us are resisting that.

I'm starting to think that folks here think that because I'm espousing a Randian sort of path, that I am suggesting that working for money/wealth should be a person's only goal. I don't, and neither did she btw. There's just nothing morally wrong with pursuing wealth as long one does no harm to (takes away rights of) others or does what they think is immoral in that pursuit. No matter what profession a person chooses, they generally do it for reasons on top of the need for a paycheck - and sometime aside from money entirely. And a truly enlightened person will take pride in what they do, knowing it is a job that needs to be done ... and done well.

 

Do people over-focus on money? Of course some do. And some people are obsessed with power and/or ego that has nothing to do with money. I agree with you wholly that abuses will remain regardless of the system. However, philosophical roots of those systems aside, I think the evidence of history clearly reveals the freedom to choose will not remain regardless of the system.

[Boffin]

I am suggesting that the PC was made open architecture because IBM thought it was only going to sell to geeks and that there was no future in small computers. At that time the computer industry was all about mainframes for business and no one considered that the home market could exist - after all what would a home need a computer for? Don't forget, this was when the Internet was still Arpanet, games were in expensive arcade machines and LED display calculators were the preserve of geeks - engineers still used slide-rules. No one foresaw a market, no one even came close to thinking there would be a market for small machines. If IBM did think such a market were possible they would have held on the rights for the architecture in order to fully exploit it. There was serious work going into distributed terminal computing for business - a small company hiring time on a remote mainframe - that was the business model IBM and their competitors in the business machine market were pursuing. If IBM had thought they were opening up new markets, why were they not ready for them?

The wealth created by the home computing and small business computer market came about because an open architecture provided the fertile soil into which the seeds of the modern software giant was sown. A mixture of the two systems was needed, the closed architecture model could not have allowed the explosion of cheap "compatible" machines, application software could not have grown without the corporate investment into software development to exploit the opportunities presented. I see this as an example of how social co-operation coupled with capitalistic speculation led to incredible growth. The other times this is seen is during wartime, when social co-operation to defeat the enemy provides the fertile soil for the capitalists seeds. Its just much nicer when it does not involve killing people.

 

Andy

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

There is nothing wrong with running a business and making a profit. We can't do without businesses unless we'd go back to a money-less society where we'd only trade services and goods for services and goods.

 

??? That's the same thing, i.e. trading two things of equal value. In both cases that value is mutually agreed upon by the two parties involved (buyer and seller in the first case, or simply trading partners in the second); the money is just a placeholder.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm starting to think that folks here think that because I'm espousing a Randian sort of path, that I am suggesting that working for money/wealth should be a person's only goal. I don't, and neither did she btw.

 

Yes, I'm struck by Howard Roark, in the Fountainhead. He was clearly an artist, who was unwilling to compromise his standards in order to sell a product. He achieved wealth by the end of the book, but wealth clearly wasn't his prime motivating force. He was a lot like Picasso, the main difference being that Picasso could produce his work without having to round up million dollar backers first. Both became successful after the public came to accept their view of things, after initially rejecting them. Both were able to use their quirky personalities as a kind of marketing tool for their work, whether they would admit it or not. I don't see in either case that the capitalistic system was necessary for their success, which is probably easier to see in the case of Picasso.

 

But how could that be in the case of Roark? Well, he had to find backers for his projects; in his case, private backers. He had to convince them that his projects were superior to the other projects being offered. I could see him going through the same process if the projects were publicly funded. In fact, looking around the world, I see no clear advantage, perhaps even a disadvantage, in seeking funding for avant-garde architectural projects from private vs. public sources.