The decline of America

[steve.foote]

The free market will regulate those resources just the same way the current market is, by destroying jobs and leaving a trail of environmental destruction in the name of economy for the big corporations. It's not a workable model for a society that cares about its people.

 

Bob, free markets are self regulating, and corrections are as normal as expansions. It is not a system void of any pain. But, in spite of its periodic corrections, it produces the most wealth (lifestyle) for the most people than any other system.

 

It works great if we let it do its thing. Of course, not so great if we don't.

 

[edit] Arrrggghh, and now I see that Whip has already said that in a much more eloquent manner. Sorry for the redundancy. [/edit]

[Whip]

Whip.....eloquent.

 

It must be Christmas time.

 

I will leave somethin under the tree for ya.

[Bob Palin]

We have tried it your way long enough.

We haven't tried it my way at all, not even close.

[ghaverkamp]

There is no such thing as a free market, nor will there ever be one, so even talking about one is silly.

[Whip]

There is no such thing as a free market, nor will there ever be one, so even talking about one is silly.

 

What is silly is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

[Whip]

We have tried it your way long enough.

We haven't tried it my way at all, not even close.

 

 

If you won't admit that big bro/environmentalist regulate every part of our economy then we can't have a discussion and you aren't paying attention.

 

And if you are saying we need more regs, then you may has well learn to speak mandarin with me.

 

Like I said, we don't live in the same world.

 

I live in the world of tryin to make money, employ more peeps and grow. Every single month it gets harder. Every single month I am forced to jump through a new hoop. It only got easier during one time in history and I was too young to realize how good I had it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[steve.foote]

I will leave somethin under the tree for ya.

 

Suweeeet!!

[Bob Palin]

If you won't admit that big bro/environmentalist regulate every part of our economy then we can't have a discussion and you aren't paying attention.

Talk about wrongo bongo - you only have to look around to see that the environment is pretty low on the goverenment's agenda, new strip mines, coal fired electric plants, subsidies for dirty uneconomical forms of fuel and farming. A ludicrous assertion!

[ghaverkamp]

What is silly is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

 

Oh, I agree. Where I imagine we disagree is over what's been done over and over again.

[Whip]

If you won't admit that big bro/environmentalist regulate every part of our economy then we can't have a discussion and you aren't paying attention.

Talk about wrongo bongo - you only have to look around to see that the environment is pretty low on the goverenment's agenda, new strip mines, coal fired electric plants, subsidies for dirty uneconomical forms of fuel and farming. A ludicrous assertion!

 

Every one of those industries is regulated and re-regulated.

 

Only one of us is making ludicrous assertions.

 

You should talk to someone that has run or works in one of those industries.

 

When was the last time a refinery was built?

 

How come we don't get our power from nukes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

What is silly is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

 

Oh, I agree. Where I imagine we disagree is over what's been done over and over again.

 

I bet we agree on more than you think.

[Whip]

 

You wanna start a bidness in the US?

 

Time to make it easier and bring back the rewards.

 

Right now there is too much risk.

 

 

[FlyingFinn]

Q: When was the last time a refinery was built?

A: The last time an oil company was able to make more profit by building one.

 

Q: How come we don't get our power from nukes?

A: Because it's cheaper to get our power from coal.

 

--

Mikko

[Bob Palin]

You wanna start a bidness in the US?

"So even if you are able to start a viable business that can compete with the monolithic global corporations that dominate our economy, you still might not be able to make it"

 

And there you have it - it's not the government that is coming up with the regulations, it the monolithic mega corporations, they essentially bribe the government to pass regulations that prevent competition with them. Oil and Ag companies are prime examples. The government (not just this administration) is corrupt.

[Whip]

Q: When was the last time a refinery was built?

A: The last time an oil company was able to make more profit by building one.

 

Q: How come we don't get our power from nukes?

A: Because it's cheaper to get our power from coal.

 

--

Mikko

 

Right and wrong.

 

Big Bro has put so many rules and regs on it no one could afford to do it.

 

....but the snail darter, the blind salamander, and the golden cheeked warbler are safe.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Big Bro has put so many rules and regs on it no one could afford to do it.

 

....but the snail darter, the blind salamander, and the golden cheeked warbler are safe.

 

You're probably right about that. However, let's assume we didn't regulate business.

 

Would we still have child labor?

 

Would we still have factories emitting poisons into the air and into our waterways?

 

Would we still have monopolistic corporations actively driving any new businesses that might attempt to compete with them out of business?

 

Or are those things okay?

 

If they're not okay, then describe for me how unregulated capitalism would end those practices.

 

I'm not sure how you stop regulations from become oppressive, although I agree with you that needs to be done, but I am sure there was a need for regulations to stop practices such as I describe above, and of course I could add many more to the list.

[Pilgrim]

The country was founded on some basic principals and now we are taught to ignore em or demonize em.

I don't believe in 230 year old slave owning aristocracy's business theories, who had unlimited resources and space available to them and free or almost free labour. Fortunately times have changed.

 

What business theory do you believe in, Killer?

 

Oh, BTW, you refer to "slave-owning aristocracy." They were but a part, not even a majority of those who established the country, and aside from basic property rights (which have been sadly eroded) the Constitution does not even address the issue of economics.

 

Pilgrim

[Bob Palin]

The country was founded on some basic principals and now we are taught to ignore em or demonize em.

I don't believe in 230 year old slave owning aristocracy's business theories, who had unlimited resources and space available to them and free or almost free labour. Fortunately times have changed.

 

What business theory do you believe in, Killer?

You're going to love this - I'm a fiscally conservative socialist. It's a dream world...

[Roadwolf]

You're going to love this - I'm a fiscally conservative socialist. It's a dream world...

 

Been reading this thread for a while with much amusement... and this is by far the best comment so far. Hilarious.

[beemerman2k]

You're going to love this - I'm a fiscally conservative socialist. It's a dream world...

 

Been reading this thread for a while with much amusement... and this is by far the best comment so far. Hilarious.

 

Yes, I absolutely admire Bob's independent thinking. Given that he always takes his own stand, his words are taken quite seriously even among those who might not agree with the sentiment expressed

[Whip]

You're going to love this - I'm a fiscally conservative socialist. It's a dream world...

 

Been reading this thread for a while with much amusement... and this is by far the best comment so far. Hilarious.

 

Killer and I are very close friends, I hope y'all enjoyed the show.

 

Bob... Cheeseburgers and beers are on me at DVD.

 

I'm looking forward to it.

 

L

 

 

[Bob Palin]

You're going to love this - I'm a fiscally conservative socialist. It's a dream world...

 

Been reading this thread for a while with much amusement... and this is by far the best comment so far. Hilarious.

 

Yes, I absolutely admire Bob's independent thinking. Given that he always takes his own stand, his words are taken quite seriously even among those who might not agree with the sentiment expressed

Thanks, I admit that my overall philosophy is probably unrealisitic in the current environment. It basically relies on a desire by a (vast) majority of people to make their goals a better society for all rather than personal gain. I know many people think that is best acheived by personal ambition but I don't like the inequities that throws up based on talent, drive and luck. To me those (first two) things are just the luck of genetics and I don't think that is a good way to live or judge people's worth. I also think we can acheive a lot more working together towards a goal rather than competing. Dream world, not going to happen, so I get on as best I can.

[steve.foote]

"...based on talent, drive and luck."

 

Bob, none of those things worked for me. I only succeed by my incredible good looks.

[yabadabapal]

So Basically after reading so many good and opposing points on many of the posts in this thread, America is not Declining. Its just that all you guys haven't gotten together yet. And when you do, good things are gonna happen!

[steve.foote]

That's the chapter which hasn't been written yet. It remains to be seen how it will turn out. At this point, nobody knows.

[FlyingFinn]

So Basically after reading so many good and opposing points on many of the posts in this thread, America is not Declining. Its just that all you guys haven't gotten together yet. And when you do, good things are gonna happen!

 

That was a good post.

 

I wonder if we are all bunch of Flatlanders.

We all see the same problem but depending on our own vantage point the same problems takes a different shape.

Making us believe the also the "fix" would be different.

 

And we're all mistaken and correct at the same time, we just lack the visibility and vision to see the true nature and dimensions of the challenges we face.

 

--

Mikko

[beemerman2k]

So Basically after reading so many good and opposing points on many of the posts in this thread, America is not Declining. Its just that all you guys haven't gotten together yet. And when you do, good things are gonna happen!

 

That was a good post.

 

I wonder if we are all bunch of Flatlanders.

We all see the same problem but depending on our own vantage point the same problems takes a different shape.

Making us believe the also the "fix" would be different.

 

And we're all mistaken and correct at the same time, we just lack the visibility and vision to see the true nature and dimensions of the challenges we face.

 

--

Mikko

 

I strongly believe that when it comes to life in general every person is at best a "Flatlander". This is why we need discussion, this is why we need to learn, this is why we need education, this is why we need to stop trying to win arguments and instead approach ideological disagreement as an opportunity to expand one's understanding of exactly what it is that we "see". It's not a question of "who's right and who's wrong", it's a question of "what do you see that I am somehow missing?"

 

The one who thinks they "see", loses. But the one who is aware that one does not have complete vision and understanding, wins

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Thanks, I admit that my overall philosophy is probably unrealisitic in the current environment. It basically relies on a desire by a (vast) majority of people to make their goals a better society for all rather than personal gain. I know many people think that is best acheived by personal ambition but I don't like the inequities that throws up based on talent, drive and luck. To me those (first two) things are just the luck of genetics and I don't think that is a good way to live or judge people's worth. I also think we can acheive a lot more working together towards a goal rather than competing.

 

Mother Nature is one step ahead of you. Biofilms are colonies of single-celled organisms that have developed a cooperative structure, making them a good deal tougher than an equivalent number of mavericks:

 

Bacteria living in a biofilm usually have significantly different properties from free-floating bacteria of the same species, as the dense and protected environment of the film allows them to cooperate and interact in various ways. One benefit of this environment is increased resistance to detergents and antibiotics, as the dense extracellular matrix and the outer layer of cells protect the interior of the community. In some cases antibiotic resistance can be increased a thousandfold.[11] Lateral gene transfer is greatly facilitated in biofilms and leads to a more stable biofilm structure.

 

Along similar lines, I've heard a description before of a human being (or any multi-cellular organism, really) as a colony of very specialized single-cell organisms. Working in concert, our individual cells can accomplish a lot more interesting things than an indistinct blob of protoplasm.

 

So nature has already shown us that cooperation really does work. Likewise, a nation of millions, working together, can accomplish bigger and more interesting things, more rapidly, than millions of individuals laboring in isolation. On a smaller scale, a corporation of hundreds or thousands can be expected to outperform the labor of a comparable number of individuals.

 

But I think competition will always be required, on both an individual basis and on a group basis, to assure that individuals and groups are working and thinking at their best. NASA and its contractors went from nothing to landing a man on the moon in ten years, a magnificent feat of cooperation. It wouldn't have happened that fast if the Soviets weren't competing with us. In the forty years since the Eagle landed, there has been no big competition to motivate us, and space exploration has proceeded at a correspondingly glacial pace.

 

In the business world, competition drives individuals and companies to find better ways of producing better products. Consider the ENIAC, the first electronic general-purpose computer:

 

ENIAC contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed more than 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8.5 by 3 by 80 feet (2.6 m × 0.9 m × 24 m), took up 680 square feet (63 m2), and consumed 150 kW of power.

 

Corporations of cooperating individuals, motivated by competition with other corporations, have taken us from ENIAC to the modern laptop PC, weighing in at a few pounds, powered by a few watts, and with literally billions of transistors. These advances didn't happen in communist USSR or socialist Sweden.

 

You state that your overall philosophy is probably unrealistic in the current environment. Whether you're talking about the political environment or the social environment, I don't think "environment" is the roadblock; rather, it's human nature. while acting in a completely indivualistic/selfish manner is harmful to society, I'd submit that individuals can never be made to completely subjugate their self-interest and work strictly for the betterment of society at large. Yet this is exactly what your philosophy requires:

 

It basically relies on a desire by a (vast) majority of people to make their goals a better society for all rather than personal gain.

 

Bill Gates, in the course of accumulating his billions, has created a company that provides tens of thousands of jobs, and has provided products that people want. Despite the imperfections of Windows and MS Office, I'd contend that his work has made society a better place. Would he have done all that if his salary had only been $40,000 a year no matter what he did? Moreover, now that he has amassed his billions, he's following the "captain of industry" model laid out by predecessors like Andrew Carnegie, who used his wealth to build (and promote the concept of) free public libraries.

 

These men would not have been able to do much public good had they not been motivated (or permitted) to accumulate massive personal fortunes.

[John Ranalletta]

These men would not have been able to do much public good had they not been motivated (or permitted) to accumulate massive personal fortunes

I'd offer that accumulating massive wealth was incidental, not primary.

 

For people such as those you cite, the overpowering motivators are independence, control and challenge. Money is important in that it provides the first two and sets the person up to meet bigger challenges. When an increase in wealth does not lead to a change in lifestyle, it becomes a way to measure one's achievement. I have many clients who have more wealth than they can ever spend who drive themselves mercilessly every day to grow their businesses because of the challenge therein.

 

Having wealth provides freedom from having to subjugate yourself to someone else' control and gives control. These people are the outliers who cannot and will not subjugate themselves to the will of the masses, no matter how beneficial the mass' intentions.

 

 

[Selden]

Having wealth provides freedom from having to subjugate yourself to someone else' control and gives control. These people are the outliers who cannot and will not subjugate themselves to the will of the masses, no matter how beneficial the mass' intentions.

Bill Gates, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett are asking the nation's billionaires to pledge to give at least half their net worth to charity, in their lifetimes or at death. If their campaign succeeds, it could change the face of philanthropy.

Source: The $600 Billion Challenge

 

 

Many of these people were also against extending tax cuts for people earning >$250,000 a year, or repealing the estate tax.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

These men would not have been able to do much public good had they not been motivated (or permitted) to accumulate massive personal fortunes

I'd offer that accumulating massive wealth was incidental, not primary.

...When an increase in wealth does not lead to a change in lifestyle, it becomes a way to measure one's achievement.

 

Accumulation of massive wealth may not be primary, but by your own admission it appears not to be incidental, either. I've heard the same thing before, i.e. the accumulation of wealth by the extremely wealthy is pretty much just a way to keep score.

 

Without that lifelong scorekeeping mechanism - or the anticipated ability to exercise additional control later in life via wealth-based philanthropic acts à la Gates and Carnegie - would they continue to work as hard?

[tallman]

If I was leaving an estate worth $500,000,000.00 after Estate Taxes, I could afford to be against it too.

 

Not to hijak but most likely that money has already been taxed multiple times.

[John Ranalletta]

Many of these people were also against extending tax cuts for people earning >$250,000 a year, or repealing the estate tax.

The stories of poor capitalists who magically transform into social consciousness are legion and tiresome.

[John Ranalletta]

A person like Perot or Gates who choose different challenges behave the same.

 

A Perot-like pastor of a church will likely strive to have the biggest congregation; the missionary will take on the most uncivilized missions; the army officer will want the biggest command or the hardest assignment.

 

Money is a motivator only in the sense that it buys freedom, control and challenge. If a Gates-like person already has freedom, control over his/her life and a challenge that energizes them, money is meaningless. Which explains why it's so easy for billionaires to give it away.

 

Would you say Rossi is great because of the money he can earn? Do most climbers who take on Mt. Everest do it for the cash?

[Whip]

These men would not have been able to do much public good had they not been motivated (or permitted) to accumulate massive personal fortunes

I'd offer that accumulating massive wealth was incidental, not primary.

 

For people such as those you cite, the overpowering motivators are independence, control and challenge. Money is important in that it provides the first two and sets the person up to meet bigger challenges. When an increase in wealth does not lead to a change in lifestyle, it becomes a way to measure one's achievement. I have many clients who have more wealth than they can ever spend who drive themselves mercilessly every day to grow their businesses because of the challenge therein.

 

Having wealth provides freedom from having to subjugate yourself to someone else' control and gives control. These people are the outliers who cannot and will not subjugate themselves to the will of the masses, no matter how beneficial the mass' intentions.

 

 

The $$ is how they keep score and motivate themselves to get up every mornin.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Responding the OP's theme re: The decline of America, IMO, it's not just America. What affects and infects many of us is addiction to faux celebrity.

• Oprah lovers who ooh and aah at every phrase she utters
• Michael Jackson fans who need to touch the casket
• Princess Di sycophants who need to put a candle at the gate
• Facebook and LinkedIn addicts who create their own faux celebrity under the guise of "creating social networks"
• People who camp out at Best Buy to get the first iPad

The decline of our civilization has nothing to do with abandoning religion but it has everything to do with the symbols many of our citizens need to give their lives meaning.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

The $$ is how they keep score and motivate themselves to get up every mornin.

IF money were your true motivator, how could you ever take weeks off of work to ride your moto? You could make a lot more money staying at your work. Or, did the money you made provide the freedom to ride?

[David]

I make good money, but it allows me the control and freedom to do what I want. I don't care about people who make more than I do. I just like what it allows me to do in the world, including change it for good. I've benefitted countless people and will continue to do so just because it makes me feel good.

 

I also can't stand to see people doing shitty work at jobs and I want to fix that. I like the look in their eyes when I help them change their perspective and see success in a new way.

[beemerman2k]

The decline of our civilization has nothing to do with abandoning religion but it has everything to do with the symbols many of our citizens need to give their lives meaning.

 

Took my youngest daughter to school this morning and she watched a movie during the commute; a film entitled, "Spirit". It's a very good animated film that is a ficticious biography of a wild horse that goes by that name. The priority and value both the horse and the Indian place on their own individual freedom is paramount to the movie and severely clash against the "bad" American soldiers want both the Indian and the horse to "submit to providence" and allow themselves to be broken and made useful to the new powers emerging on the frontier.

 

Anyhow, as she watched that movie, I began to wonder a few things:

 

- is there something about this land, its geography, and its plentiful resources that makes its inhabitants appreciate a free spirit more than in other places? The native inhabitants cherished their freedom above all else, and so did the early colonizers who settled here -- up to our own founding fathers

 

- is the real reason we have lost and continue to lose that appreciation for freedom with all of its risks and rewards (there is no government or laws to protect you -- no social safety net in Spirit's world, you live and die free) is directly attributable to the loss we have of experiencing the real America with all of its wilderness and natural resources?

 

Maybe that's the real parallel! -- not religion, not the "rise and fall of empires", not globalization, not political stripes; as our lives continue to move away from the once natural beauty of this land and it's once abundant resources, we also lose the value of what freedom would otherwise have to offer us -- a rich and abundant life in a beautiful and peaceful environment.

 

This is not a new thought by the way. I have read that many theologians and historians believe this is the point of the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah -- that as ancient peoples began to live in cities and away from the open and natural environments of the wilderness, they took on attributes that are considered to be an abomination to their God, and therefore had to be destroyed. But it was living in a city that removed them from the kind of life that would have otherwise have been pleasing to their God -- not the economy, not the fall of an empire, not politics, political ideologies, or political leaders.

 

This same theme is also found in Tolkien's , "The Lord of the Ring". The evil Souron's men lived in a non-rual area called, "Mordor", and they had no appreciation for the natural beauty of Illuvatar's (the God of Middle Earth) creation. Saruman, the white wizard, once had this appreciation, but apparently life in Isengard removed him from the creation long enough that he had no problem with burning the ancient forests of Fangorn. Hobbits, on the other hand, lived rural lives and therefore cherished their freedom above all else. Of course, this doesn't explain the noblity of the men of Gondor; they lived in the white city of Minas Tirith and yet they held to their dignity. Go figure.

[Matts_12GS]

I'm really decidedly anti-TV in the car except for extended drives to someplace (generally 2+ hours is our rule). Seems a missed opportunity (like so many that have put us in this bind as a nation) to talk and share and communicate what it means to be a part of "society" at the family level, in the school community, in the city/township level on up to being a full on citizen of the world.

 

But then again, my son only has to go a mile to school too ;-)

 

I'm not really calling you out on that one James, but I think it is part of the way that the traditions that made us great have been lost.

[beemerman2k]

I don't have any hard and fast rules about it. Given that the trip is 45 minutes or so (it's a very nice school she got into), sometimes she watches TV, other times she naps, and other times we talk. Whatever. I don't see it as being an issue at this point. Maybe when she gets older and her life more complex we'll talk more -- or I'll wish we would talk more!

 

Nonetheless, you provide good food for thought. Thank you, and you can call me out anytime you'd like!

[russell_bynum]

But it was living in a city that removed them from the kind of life that would have otherwise have been pleasing to their God -- not the economy, not the fall of an empire, not politics, political ideologies, or political leaders.

 

I've been saying that forever...Cities suck. People are not meant to be that close together ALL the time and all kinds of bad things happen when we are put in that situation.

 

[Antimatter]

Took my youngest daughter to school this morning and she watched a movie during the commute; a film entitled, "Spirit". It's a very good animated film that is a ficticious biography of a wild horse that goes by that name. The priority and value both the horse and the Indian place on their own individual freedom is paramount to the movie and severely clash against the "bad" American soldiers want both the Indian and the horse to "submit to providence" and allow themselves to be broken and made useful to the new powers emerging on the frontier.

 

Anyhow, as she watched that movie, I began to wonder a few things:

 

- is there something about this land, its geography, and its plentiful resources that makes its inhabitants appreciate a free spirit more than in other places? The native inhabitants cherished their freedom above all else, and so did the early colonizers who settled here -- up to our own founding fathers

 

- is the real reason we have lost and continue to lose that appreciation for freedom with all of its risks and rewards (there is no government or laws to protect you -- no social safety net in Spirit's world, you live and die free) is directly attributable to the loss we have of experiencing the real America with all of its wilderness and natural resources?

 

Maybe that's the real parallel! -- not religion, not the "rise and fall of empires", not globalization, not political stripes; as our lives continue to move away from the once natural beauty of this land and it's once abundant resources, we also lose the value of what freedom would otherwise have to offer us -- a rich and abundant life in a beautiful and peaceful environment.

 

This is not a new thought by the way. I have read that many theologians and historians believe this is the point of the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah -- that as ancient peoples began to live in cities and away from the open and natural environments of the wilderness, they took on attributes that are considered to be an abomination to their God, and therefore had to be destroyed. But it was living in a city that removed them from the kind of life that would have otherwise have been pleasing to their God -- not the economy, not the fall of an empire, not politics, political ideologies, or political leaders.

 

This same theme is also found in Tolkien's , "The Lord of the Ring". The evil Souron's men lived in a non-rual area called, "Mordor", and they had no appreciation for the natural beauty of Illuvatar's (the God of Middle Earth) creation. Saruman, the white wizard, once had this appreciation, but apparently life in Isengard removed him from the creation long enough that he had no problem with burning the ancient forests of Fangorn. Hobbits, on the other hand, lived rural lives and therefore cherished their freedom above all else. Of course, this doesn't explain the noblity of the men of Gondor; they lived in the white city of Minas Tirith and yet they held to their dignity. Go figure.

 

A good deal of Tolkien's message was in favor of the rural lifestyle of the Hobbits and against the rising tide of industrialization. Of course, he was an Oxford Don so he could afford to wax rhapsodic about the virtues of the 'simple life'.

 

I don't see that having a spread out population makes you any more virtuous. Rural populations were subject to tyranny and lawlessness, the difference being the bad guys had to travel farther to cause mayhem. Disruptions are easier to see in densely populated areas.

 

I think that the idea that early America was a place of peaceful virtue is a myth. The railroad barons of the 19th century had no qualms about using naked force to get their way, and often used the government to do their dirty work for them. Early industrialists were the same way; fire the man and hire the wife at 50 cents on the dollar, then fire the wife and hire the children at 25 cents on the dollar. And throw your waste in the river and let whoever is downstream worry about it. Those are the lessons of unregulated capitalism; maximize profits by minimizing costs. And if you can use a gun or a whip to minimize costs, you will.

 

Early US history wasn't really about rugged individualism; it was about ethnic and family groups clinging together to use a collective advantage against outside forces. Look at all the homogeneous populations both the countryside and the city. Italian neighborhoods, big German farming communities, ect. are all the result of groups of people co-operating to maximize their returns and help each other when sickness or tragedy struck. You can see the shadows of those groups in the names of streets and towns all across the country.

 

I think the rise of industrialism is more about the breaking of those social bonds and collective welfare, and making us willing to forgo looking out for each other in exchange for shiny consumer goods. We've morphed into and 'anti-society' country as a result.

 

Edit: Let me add that at the end of the Rings Trilogy the hobbits of the shire have been taken over by Saruman and Grima Worm-tongue, and it's only the actions of Merry and Pippen who rouse the hobbits to oust them. It's been a while, but I seem to remember that one of the hobbits got rich, and used the money to hire outside mercenaries to take over the shire. He is then ousted by Saruman. Money and industrialization overcome the bonds of society, and freedom is lost.

[Whip]

The $$ is how they keep score and motivate themselves to get up every mornin.

IF money were your true motivator, how could you ever take weeks off of work to ride your moto? You could make a lot more money staying at your work. Or, did the money you made provide the freedom to ride?

 

Sorry I said it wrong.

 

It ain't the money that motivates em. It is just the score keeping method.

 

Most the dudes I used to hang with didn't care about money at all. They just used it to compare their success to their piers.

 

...or their rivals....or their enemies.

 

It was never about the money in a material sense.

 

I still may not have explained it very well.

 

[John Ranalletta]

i think you got it just right.

 

it's why lots of entrepreneurs make lousy bosses. they think they can throw money out to attract other entrepreneurs. when hired, the boss entrepreneur fails to delegate authority (give up control) and doesn't include the new person in the strategic planning process.

 

when it fails (as it almost always does), the boss entrepreneur is offended. go figure.

 

 

[Ohio48]

But it was living in a city that removed them from the kind of life that would have otherwise have been pleasing to their God -- not the economy, not the fall of an empire, not politics, political ideologies, or political leaders.

 

I've been saying that forever...Cities suck. People are not meant to be that close together ALL the time and all kinds of bad things happen when we are put in that situation.

Might want to tell that to those over in Europe.

[russell_bynum]

But it was living in a city that removed them from the kind of life that would have otherwise have been pleasing to their God -- not the economy, not the fall of an empire, not politics, political ideologies, or political leaders.

 

I've been saying that forever...Cities suck. People are not meant to be that close together ALL the time and all kinds of bad things happen when we are put in that situation.

Might want to tell that to those over in Europe.

 

Huh?? European cities generally have older buildings than we have here, but otherwise, a city is a city.

[beemerman2k]

Edit: Let me add that at the end of the Rings Trilogy the hobbits of the shire have been taken over by Saruman and Grima Worm-tongue, and it's only the actions of Merry and Pippen who rouse the hobbits to oust them. It's been a while, but I seem to remember that one of the hobbits got rich, and used the money to hire outside mercenaries to take over the shire. He is then ousted by Saruman. Money and industrialization overcome the bonds of society, and freedom is lost.

 

 

I vaguely remember the drama when they all returned to the Shire. Saruman wanted to pay them back for trashing Isengaard by himself trashing the Shire. Lots of drama and fighting ensue, Saruman and Grima are killed (or kill each other), but if I recall it's Samwise Gamgee and the seeds given to him by the Lady of Lothlorian that restore the Shire to a place of beauty.

 

Tell you what, that was the book that never ended! So it may well be that I don't have the whole story. In fact, I remember epilogs and post-3rd age material tacked onto the end of "Return of the King". By then, I had enough! Tolkien had way too much time on his hands.

[Matts_12GS]

zzzzzz

 

I think I may be one of the 3 IT workers to have never read LoTR much less seen any of the movies.

 

Now I know why...

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Tell you what, that was the book that never ended! .... By then, I had enough! Tolkien had way too much time on his hands.

He'd probably say the same thing about those of us who take the time to read and post on this board!