American Dream

[quantumcarl]

I'm not too sure about what the American Dream is... I think it has to do with recognizing and actualizing opportunity. And the fact that anyone can do it.

I think its a really grand idea!

It seems to have sprouted from the suppressive effect of the Feifdoms and Landlords of the English, German and Italian traditions. America offered an escape from the tyranny of these traditions and people went for it.

What's your idea of the American Dream?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
I'm not too sure about what the American Dream is... I think it has to do with recognizing and actualizing opportunity. And the fact that anyone can do it.

What's your idea of the American Dream? Thats pretty much it. The main problem with it is that it is such an extrordinary thing that many (most?) people don't believe it is possible and make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Dissident Dan]

I'm going to try to live the American Dream. I think that I have the skills to do it. However, I think that it's not possible for everyone to "live the American Dream", because that usually involves being famous or having well above average wealth..which, both of which, by definition, cannot apply to everyone.

[GENIERE]

For some of us, wealth has nothing to do with living the American Dream. In retrospect, the financial worst of times was the best of times(Apologies to Dickens).

Rgeards

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
However, I think that it's not possible for everyone to "live the American Dream", because that usually involves being famous or having well above average wealth..which, both of which, by definition, cannot apply to everyone. I don't believe that being famous is part of the American Dream. And if everyone were a millionaire, "average wealth" would be a million dollars.

[BoulderHead]

My idea of the American dream consisted of;
Owning your own house, being able to comfortably support a family, and having the opportunity to create your own business, be your own boss, and make lots of money.

Rage Against The Machine, on the other hand, says;
Hypocrisy, Brutality, the Elite... all of which are American Dreams.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't believe that being famous is part of the American Dream. And if everyone were a millionaire, "average wealth" would be a million dollars.

this is not unbelievable to me.

Each person is worth an infinite amount to each other person... in terms of their potential.

A factory worker can come up with the extreme best way to do something that saves the factory owner millions of dollars. It is in the owner's best interest to foster that relationship with all people. And, of course, a good relationship is recognizable in the presence of equal pay for equal efficiancy and contribution. Rewarding ingenuity only fosters more ingenuity and this can only lead to better products and production.

The woman at home with the kids can become the next Oprah or the next big Jewlery designer... or contract out her tutoring skils as a Sculptor or musician.

This type of condition was never possible under the Old World Kingdoms. People were classified and stamped and sent off to dig the coal or the field or the fresh dung.

In the American Dream a person can get a start as a coal miner or a McDonalds employee... and concentrate on a goal that they are assured of getting if they are persistant. There won't be some dark figure telling them their family belongs to it... that they owe the Landlord another 3 generations of farming to pay their great great great great granddaddies debts.

Todays economy works a little better... it is a science and it is intticately woven with the science of sociology. This is where Democracy works its way in. Tolerance of religion, creed, tradition...........and this tolerance is what the american dream is founded on.......... the tolerance is metamorphized by the american dream where each individual has so much to offer to its Country that the Country, by way of Democratic rule, no longer must "tolerate" these various types of peoples... but will profit, as a whole, by experiencing this variety of ideas and cultures/peoples.

Thanks.

[N_Quire]

The American Dream is a compelling myth. If you want to measure its accuracy, I guess it's fairly accurate if you are talking about the opportunites for improvement from the level at which you are at. But it's not accurate if you try to describe America as a level playing field where everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to become president, the next Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson. Then it's more like a handicap race with the most privileged starting well ahead of the pack.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by N_Quire
The American Dream is a compelling myth. If you want to measure its accuracy, I guess it's fairly accurate if you are talking about the opportunites for improvement from the level at which you are at. But it's not accurate if you try to describe America as a level playing field where everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to become president, the next Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson. Then it's more like a handicap race with the most privileged starting well ahead of the pack. If you replaced the word "privileged" with "able," we'd be in near complete agreement. Though "myth" is a little strong of a word too.

Many people seem to think the American Dream should simply be handed out stapled to your US birth certificate. Thats not the way it works. You have to EARN it. Some people are not smart enough, motivated enough, or tenacious enough to earn it. But that doesn't mean it isn't available to them. Certainly some people have more obstacles to overcome than others, but that does NOT mean that there is a level of obstruction that can't be overcome. People have realized the American Dream from the worst possible starting point.

[kat]

"The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." -James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America

[N_Quire]

Russ, I don't think that starting with wealthy, famous or in other way privileged parents has anything to do with the children's ability. The child of such parents has a head start and that head start can even compensate for a lack of ability. Just look at George W Bush.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If you replaced the word "privileged" with "able," we'd be in near complete agreement. Though "myth" is a little strong of a word too.

Many people seem to think the American Dream should simply be handed out stapled to your US birth certificate. Thats not the way it works. You have to EARN it. Some people are not smart enough, motivated enough, or tenacious enough to earn it. But that doesn't mean it isn't available to them. Certainly some people have more obstacles to overcome than others, but that does NOT mean that there is a level of obstruction that can't be overcome. People have realized the American Dream from the worst possible starting point.

I agree, the proof is all over the place.

There's this guy who's been whacked with a brain hemmorage and heart failure... for whatever reasons... who is easily making 30 - 40 grand a year driving around in his little custom wheelchair........ He's sold space on the thing to all the local bussinesses for advertising. Each space brings him 300 bucks a year... he's got room for about 50 ads. This guy is having fun, meeting people and raking in the cash... and he's not ripping anyone off.

He's simply living the dream

The Canadian Dream, however, is slightly different. I think it involves images of Don Cherry in a plaid, pleated miniskirt on a can of beer... and a frozen muckluck for lunch. Don't ask.

[N_Quire]

The American Dream is.... you can appear on a show called Fear Factor, eat some cockroaches and worms and win $100,000 or you can go to a good graduate school, do a masters and phd in physics and then join the unemployment line.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by N_Quire
The American Dream is.... you can appear on a show called Fear Factor, eat some cockroaches and worms and win $100,000 or you can go to a good graduate school, do a masters and phd in physics and then join the unemployment line.

Why would anyone join the unemployment line (whatever that is)?

No telling for taste... or imagination (or lack thereof), I guess.

[Zero]

Some people would lie to you(and themselves), and claim that ability and hard work are all it takes to get teh 'American dream.' They [i]are[//i] wrong, though, because so much of attainuing sucess depends on factors out of our hands. To claim otherwise is short-sighted, and frankly false. Who your parents are, what economic class you are born into, etc, play a HUGE role in your adult acheivements.

The people who believe otherwise are just wrong.

[Dissident Dan]

I would also add to that list: the intelligence that you are born with, along with other factors that are out of your control (at least, partially) that are still part of you, stuff as physical abilities and attributes.

[BoulderHead]

This American Dream, is it for each individual to decide, or is it for another to tell him about?

[GENIERE]

Most wealthy Americans can truthfully say they had a very poor great grand parent.

Each of us aspires to fulfill our own dream.

Regards

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Most wealthy Americans can truthfully say they had a very poor great grand parent.

Each of us aspires to fulfill our own dream.

Regards

Yes, this is a natural tendancy that is less prohibited in America than it is in some other countries. Cuba, on the other hand is still working on the theory that handing out food vouchers and artificially limiting incomes if people like it or not is a good, evolutionary social policy. Kind of like a worrisome nannie. [s(]

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Most wealthy Americans can truthfully say they had a very poor great grand parent.

Each of us aspires to fulfill our own dream.

Regards

What I find is ironic is that those great grandparents would credit things like opportunities and luck as much as their own hard work...while their great grandchildren, who never worked for anything, would claim that people are poor simply because they aren't trying hard enough.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Zero
What I find is ironic is that those great grandparents would credit things like opportunities and luck as much as their own hard work...while their great grandchildren, who never worked for anything, would claim that people are poor simply because they aren't trying hard enough.

Some people like being poor... that's the opportunity they've seen and that they've gone for.

Robert DeNero was a security guard at Penn Station or another. Not a big wage... Obviously his idea was not to remain in that wage category or that profession. He dreamed... he made good on his dreams......... that's the American Dream... something like 20 million per picture![6)]

My compatriot Brian Adams used to serve burgers at a restaurant that my wife almost had my first kid in....... not his dream... there in poverty.... there in the grease pit.

Today, Brian has met the Queen, Paul McCartney, EVERYBODY in the music buz... and has many gold records. That is the manifestation of his dreams... and he did this by seizing the opportunities available to him.... that are available to everyone.

Look at Stephan Hawkings. Most people would have stayed in their hospital room and given up... (taking that opportunity over all others)... Now look at the guy!!!... he's even chasing his secretary around... (not that I know... simple gossip)!!!

[quantumcarl]

American Dream:

does this imply that America is asleep? A "sleeping giant"?

It could. But, originally, the term was coined by some pretty experienced and bright people. If I had the time I'd find out who exactly coined the phrase and developed the concept. If any of you by the glory of the dawning of the coming of the light dudes or dudettes know off hand who started this snowball, the american dream, please illuminate this thread with your info. Thank you very much!

[kat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
American Dream:

does this imply that America is asleep? A "sleeping giant"?

It could. But, originally, the term was coined by some pretty experienced and bright people. If I had the time I'd find out who exactly coined the phrase and developed the concept. If any of you by the glory of the dawning of the coming of the light dudes or dudettes know off hand who started this snowball, the american dream, please illuminate this thread with your info. Thank you very much!

Uhh..I thought I already had![;)]
Originally posted by kat
"The American Dream is "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." -James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by kat
Uhh..I thought I already had![;)]

Yes, I wondered if that quote was from the originator or
an expansion on the existing idea.

Do you know which it is?
Is the statement 200 years old or more?

Obviously not since it mentions motor cars.

Did the American Dream start at the same time as Ford?

[kat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Yes, I wondered if that quote was from the originator or
an expansion on the existing idea.

Do you know which it is?
Is the statement 200 years old or more?

Obviously not since it mentions motor cars.

Did the American Dream start at the same time as Ford?

The term was first coined in Adams novel, The Epic of America. The book was published in the early 193o's during the worst of the depression. I believe Adams expressed that the "American Dream" had always existed, that in fact it was the ideal that our country was built upon. I think Ford's automobile production started a few decades before that.

[Dissident Dan]

It looks like we have a way to go, then. Hopefully, we can continue to make progress.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by kat
The term was first coined in Adams novel, The Epic of America. The book was published in the early 193o's during the worst of the depression. I believe Adams expressed that the "American Dream" had always existed, that in fact it was the ideal that our country was built upon. I think Ford's automobile production started a few decades before that.

Thank you kat...

that's pretty wild... James Truslow Adams... identifier of a certain, very healthy quality of the United States of America. Excellent!!!

Canadian Dream? The return of the fashionablity of shag carpets and black light posters. (not really) actually, I couldn't tell ya.

Could be more something like Gold Fever.. we had quite a bout of that back before the depression... it was a big boom for the Cnd Northwest.
We learned a bit of independence then.

People left their Landloards and Kingdomes and Servitile existances and struck out to become independent prospectors and dream-makers. The Gold Rush could have been the seed of our dream. As nightmarish as it may have been![;)] Thanks again

[Zero]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Some people like being poor... that's the opportunity they've seen and that they've gone for.



This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read...pretty impressive!! How do you explain poor people with two jobs? I know ALOT of them.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read...pretty impressive!! How do you explain poor people with two jobs? I know ALOT of them. They should get better jobs. Not enough school or training? Get some. There is no excuse for an able-bodied/unburdoned person being poor in the US.

[kat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
They should get better jobs. Not enough school or training? Get some. There is no excuse for an able-bodied/unburdoned person being poor in the US.


There are just too many possible impacting factors in life that could undermine this outlook, even for the able bodied and highly educated. I know people here in Maine who have worked hard all their lives, lost their jobs through the closing of so many of the mills here, many of them with college educations and still unable to get jobs, competing with 100's for jobs in positions on the level of a cashier at a pizza place. Often hard working people with multiple jobs can't afford to stop working in order to get further education, and today more then ever perhaps..it is very clear that a degree isn't the key to success it used to be.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
There are just too many possible impacting factors in life that could undermine this outlook, even for the able bodied and highly educated. I know people here in Maine who have worked hard all their lives, lost their jobs through the closing of so many of the mills here, many of them with college educations and still unable to get jobs, competing with 100's for jobs in positions on the level of a cashier at a pizza place. Often hard working people with multiple jobs can't afford to stop working in order to get further education, and today more then ever perhaps..it is very clear that a degree isn't the key to success it used to be.

All good points...and to me, sometimes it seems like people who ignore these points want to maintain the illusion that everything they have is based solely on hard work, and want to discount things like their parent's ability to help, luck, being in the right place at the right time, etc.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Zero
All good points...and to me, sometimes it seems like people who ignore these points want to maintain the illusion that everything they have is based solely on hard work, and want to discount things like their parent's ability to help, luck, being in the right place at the right time, etc.

I think its all about recognizing opportunity.

If you don't know how to recognize opportunity... you will miss out on it. So... if you're in the right place at the right time... if you have parents willing to help you or educate you... if you have a large lump of quartz impregnated with gold in front of you....... and you are unable to recognized these gifts and opportunities (for whatever reason)... then... yer screwed.

That's why its a good idea to get a well rounded education or to offer one to your children. Education is the key to recognizing a good opportunity as opposed to a stinky one.

One thing evident in the past in America is the opportunity for people to advance their education. This, perhaps, is the foundation of the American Dream. Mind you... the europeans who came to this continent... with a ruck sack and a family of 18... would say the foundation of the American Dream was the large amounts of free land being offered. But, it still took some education to recognize this offer as a good thing.

[Zero]

Originally posted by quantumcarl


That's why its a good idea to get a well rounded education or to offer one to your children. Education is the key to recognizing a good opportunity as opposed to a stinky one.

One thing evident in the past in America is the opportunity for people to advance their education. This, perhaps, is the foundation of the American Dream. Mind you... the europeans who came to this continent... with a ruck sack and a family of 18... would say the foundation of the American Dream was the large amounts of free land being offered. But, it still took some education to recognize this offer as a good thing.

On teh other hand, if a kid only gets one meal a day, and lives in poverty, how good of an education can he get?

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Zero
On teh other hand, if a kid only gets one meal a day, and lives in poverty, how good of an education can he get?

In this case, your right... the basic needs are to be met for your children. This helps to build a strong constitution upon which to build a strong education. This is where parents... practical and experienced or educated parents come in handy.

However, the children who learn to survive on one meal a day and still enjoy life are often the ones that learn, early on, what a good opportunity looks like. It looks like two meals a day, maybe... or a tricycle with wheels that work. Whatever. Kids are smart. If they don't get what their body is asking for... they go out and find it.

There are a ton of success stories out of America that speak of children who had nothing growing up. This condition made them hungry for the things they didn't have. It also made them appreciate the little things. Consider Elvis, for example. If you're American you probably know more stories than me.

The other factor... glaringly obvious... is the parenting of the child. In some cases the parents had no scruples... were too drunk... too hung up on their own trips... to get down and provide a good example for their children. The provision of good examples of values, respect of others... etc... seem to help the impoverished or any child grow up and succeed in their "American Dream".

Values, good manners and respect don't cost squat. These are perhaps some of the other components of the American Dream. Why is it that they are beginning to become extinct? Who knows... perhaps its natural for all things to go the way of the Pteridactyl.

[Raven]

The American dream is simply that -- a dream.

It just doesn't add for me. There are no gains with no losses. When someone rises another falls. All are taught to strive for the highest gains, but it is never mentioned how many will suffer. The hierarchy that exists in a capitalistic society is built on an elite top with a huge bottom base of low and medium range wage workers who support them. Without this structure it may collapse.

Everyone will strive to rise, but in reality the system can only allow a few to actually move up. In time the base will increase the the top will shrink. Dismal thinking I know, but that's how I see it.

Needless to say, the opportunities that exist in America are abundant, unfortunately the greed that feeds it tends to be self-destructive to the country and the world in general. This country's wealth in my opinion has prospered on other countries means as well as on its own citizens. I personally think the dream should be revised to take what you need and make sure to contribute back what you can. Capitalism in itself isn't the problem but like all systems it has its flaws. The death of a capitalistic system will be caused by those who horde (that could probably to all systems).

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Raven
The American dream is simply that -- a dream.

It just doesn't add for me. There are no gains with no losses. When someone rises another falls. Thats a terribly fatalistic and pessimistic point of view. The quantity of wealth and the overall size of the economy in the US (and most western nations) consistently grows faster than both inflation and population. If you look at historical income statistics, EVERY income level is increasing (even taking inflation into account). One person's success does not require the failure of others - quite the contrary: A successful person usually takes others along for the ride.

[schwarzchildradius]

The American Dream is going to be difficult for the majority of Americans to achieve in the future because of this:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030610/budgetdeficit_june2003_graphic.gif
Kids will be paying for tax breaks for millionares far into the future. And in return, they recieve crappier schools, a destroyed environment, and a democracy in-name-only.

One person's success does not require the failure of others - quite the contrary: A successful person usually takes others along for the ride.
Interesting that you should mention this. It's only true if there are laws protecting the rights of employees and tenants etc (call 'em "clients"), which there are. However, analysis of benefits vs. cost of success should show that it depends very much on the type of business the successful person is in. For example, a logging company becomes successful if it logs more trees than anyone else, a chemical co. becomes successful if it produces more chemicals. All industrial activities have great costs to the environment.
The chemical industry isn't in the business to PREVENT cancer, so it behooves them to lobby to remove laws that do that that might cost them money. If you investigate, you'll definitely find that poorly regulated or unregulated industry is a net COST to the country, not a benefit.
In Texas, they might not believe that, but they don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas either, which is easily proven by any 9 year old child.

[Zero]

This all reminds me of the NBA...in a dream world, anyone who wants it bad enough, can get in. In reality, there are a limited number of opportunities, and luck plays a bigger part than any other single factor.

Oh, and I's so glad to hear that we should allow children to be malnourished, to build character.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats a terribly fatalistic and pessimistic point of view. The quantity of wealth and the overall size of the economy in the US (and most western nations) consistently grows faster than both inflation and population. If you look at historical income statistics, EVERY income level is increasing (even taking inflation into account). One person's success does not require the failure of others - quite the contrary: A successful person usually takes others along for the ride.

Yes, I almost forgot... one needs an accounting degree to actualize their american dream![;)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
However, analysis of benefits vs. cost of success should show that it depends very much on the type of business the successful person is in. For example, a logging company becomes successful if it logs more trees than anyone else, a chemical co. becomes successful if it produces more chemicals. All industrial activities have great costs to the environment. Thats really not relevant to my point. Its a whole other topic altogether. The typical measure of "success" people talk about is economic. The fact that income levels for *ALL* segments of the US population continually increase means the level of "success" of Americans is continually increasing.
This all reminds me of the NBA...in a dream world, anyone who wants it bad enough, can get in. In reality, there are a limited number of opportunities, and luck plays a bigger part than any other single factor. Bad analogy. There may be a limited number of available NBA teams, but that does not extend to other segments of the economy. Anyone can open a business in any number of fields.

[schwarzchildradius]

Thats really not relevant to my point. Its a whole other topic altogether. The typical measure of "success" people talk about is economic.
That's exactly what I said - economic success.
The fact that income levels for *ALL* segments of the US population continually increase means the level of "success" of Americans is continually increasing.
Not. The value of a dollar depends on how many other dollars are in circulation. If all incomes rise at the same rate, the value of your income will remain constant.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Bad analogy. There may be a limited number of available NBA teams, but that does not extend to other segments of the economy. Anyone can open a business in any number of fields.

Can you please, for just a moment, try to imagine the real world? In teh real world, most of the economic niches are filled. In the real world, new businesses go out of business constantly, because you can't compete with giant corporations like Walmart. In the real world, there aren't unlimited jobs for everyone, and the jobs that ARE available aren't always the best paying. In the real world, employers continue to get mnore work out of people for less pay. And, in the real world, when EVERY employer plays unfairly with wages, benefits, and hours, there is nowhere to turn. All the hard work in the world will get 99% of people nowhere but just a little bit less poor.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats really not relevant to my point. Its a whole other topic altogether. The typical measure of "success" people talk about is economic. The fact that income levels for *ALL* segments of the US population continually increase means the level of "success" of Americans is continually increasing.
Bad analogy. There may be a limited number of available NBA teams, but that does not extend to other segments of the economy. Anyone can open a business in any number of fields.

I think its a physical law that follows:
Where there is success, cash is soon to follow. Depending on the type of success.

There are people who gage success by the number of people they reach with their product... and not entirely on how much money flows back from the marketing process. It depends on what the product is and the motivation behind its distribution.

Once there is success in reaching a desired market... and the product is well received then it seems only natural that the product will be supported... as long as it provides all the aspects of a good product... coupled with good service.

Products that do not meet these requirments... and the many others associated with them will often fail to succeed, if not right away... over time. They say its all in the presentation but its actually "what" your presenting that will make or break an american dream.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The value of a dollar depends on how many other dollars are in circulation. If all incomes rise at the same rate, the value of your income will remain constant. It isn't just how many dollars are in circulation. It fluctuates constantly because it is based on how much people THINK it should be worth. Overall, the value of the currency in any growing economy will decrease at a rate of a couple of percent a year. This is called INFLATION. But you are correct in your conclusion - IF the increase in income matches the inflation rate, the overall value of your income will remain constant. However, I specifically stated that even factoring in inflation, income rates are rising. Can you please, for just a moment, try to imagine the real world? In teh real world, most of the economic niches are filled. In the real world, new businesses go out of business constantly, because you can't compete with giant corporations like Walmart. In the real world, there aren't unlimited jobs for everyone, and the jobs that ARE available aren't always the best paying. In the real world, employers continue to get mnore work out of people for less pay. And, in the real world, when EVERY employer plays unfairly with wages, benefits, and hours, there is nowhere to turn. All the hard work in the world will get 99% of people nowhere but just a little bit less poor. What you describe, Zero, is NOT the real world. Its how you WANT the real world to be so that you can blame it on Bush. Your data is wrong (mostly anecdotal anyway) and because of that your conclusions are wrong.I think its a physical law that follows:... Quantum, I agree with everything you said, but the reason I said shwarz's comments were irrelevant is beause he was talking about measures of CORPORATE economic success and I was talking about INDIVIDUAL economic success. Certainly corporations can be compared in many ways to determine success, but people are almost exclusively compared based on income.

[Zero]

Poor Russ...hit in the face with truth again, huh? I can tell, because that is when you start bringing up irrelevant comments like I 'blame Bush'.


The reality is, not everyone can be a rock star. There are not high-paying jobs for everyone. And, it is silly to call poor people lazy, since their jobs are generally harder than a wealthy person's.

[schwarzchildradius]

But you are correct in your conclusion - IF the increase in income matches the inflation rate, the overall value of your income will remain constant. However, I specifically stated that even factoring in inflation, income rates are rising.
They might be, but unemployment is also rising. I don't see how income could be rising for very long if unemployment is swelling! If there are more potential hole-diggers, the cost of a hole goes Down!

[quantumcarl]

[i]Quantum, I agree with everything you said, but the reason I said shwarz's comments were irrelevant is beause he was talking about measures of CORPORATE economic success and I was talking about INDIVIDUAL economic success. Certainly corporations can be compared in many ways to determine success, but people are almost exclusively compared based on income. [/B]

I think corporations could be viewed as extremely complicated individuals. The kind that don't know what the left hand is doing etc... The idea of a corporation is a very complex American dream.

I recommend reading Men Like Gods by H.G Wells to get a better idea about how everyone one earth can be a rock star... rocket scientist... wind turbine engineer... train engineer... bridge builder... etc etc.... This possibilty and this dream can come true when everyone shares an equal opportunity, equal responsibilty and equal education and is able to preform any of these occupations for period of 6 months at a time. There's time off every 6 months as well.

To achieve Well's Utopia that has to do with this... each person is educated and enthused about Sanitation, Nuclear Physics, Medicine and Infant care, the Arts, Research... and the whole list of civic duties required to maintain a community and society and resulting civilization. This society is so well educated that their economic and civic engineering duties are shared by each person for 6 month periods... ad infinitum. Lets just say everyone makes a healthy living.

Read the book... its outlandish. H.G. Wells is a classic writer.

[Ganshauk]

I think the American dream is founded in an open frontier.

This, of course, no longer exist. We have nowhere else to go...

"I have a strong urge to fly.
But I've got nowhere to fly to."
- Pink Floyd, Nobody Home.

Until we have a new frontier into which we can expend our boundless energy, we will turn upon ourselves in an irresistable urge to become a bunch of lemmings...

[schwarzchildradius]

quantumcarl, it sounds very communist. Such a system will only work in idealized world, unfortunately. Unless we had our greed gene removed... dam-dam-daaam.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
quantumcarl, it sounds very communist. Such a system will only work in idealized world, unfortunately. Unless we had our greed gene removed... dam-dam-daaam.

I suppose there is a silver lining to every Gentically Modified Organism. (snickers) [;)]

I know its sounds communistic... but, so does democracy when you boil it down to its roots which seem to say... equal opportunity for all. Key word... " equal". With this word we slip into the string that carries us through those Marxist idealisms.

I'd like to point out that H.G. Wells was over one hundred years ahead of his time when he envisioned humans landing on the Moon. What a dude!!!

His book, "Men Like Gods" has a probability factor of reaching 100 percent accuracy within another 300 years or less... if we can keep our heads together.

But then, so does Hitler's "Mein Kampf"... and C.M. Foresters "The Machine Stops" and Herbert's "Dune" etc.......... yet Well's dreams seem to be... to me... spot on... what what?...

PS. Mind you... there'll always be those Mick Jaggars that can't let go of their bloody Rock Star rush for a second. Mick would have been useful as an economic advisor... but nooooooooo... must prance and make coloured lights... hmmmmmmmmm.

[Raven]

Quote from Russ below is in response to my quote "It just doesn't add for me. There are no gains with no losses. When someone rises another falls."

Thats a terribly fatalistic and pessimistic point of view. The quantity of wealth and the overall size of the economy in the US (and most western nations) consistently grows faster than both inflation and population. If you look at historical income statistics, EVERY income level is increasing (even taking inflation into account). One person's success does not require the failure of others - quite the contrary: A successful person usually takes others along for the ride.

Russ you left out the part where I believe this country's dreams of success is benefiting from the means of foreign countries. The corporations that most Americans work for in one manner or another takes advantage of other countries most powerful resources (people) and in most cases abuses it. Corporations are taking advantage of other countries lax humanitarian laws -- just read the papers. These are the people who are falling.

Here is a statistical quote which many of you have probably already heard, "10% of American's control 66% of the nation's wealth" according to the American Affluence Research Center (AARC). This breaks down to 26 million people controlling the wealth of a nation with a 260 million population -- that doesn't quite add, subtract, divide or multiply too well for the medium and low income earners of the country. It is also projected that the control more and more of the nation's wealth will be controled by less and les Americans. This is what I was refering to when I said fewer people will control the wealth while the base of people (medium and low income earners) will increase.

I also agree with the fact that corporations and individuals who work for them are destroying resources all over the world. This fine since are resources are protected by our laws, but taking advantage again of lax environmental laws of other countries creates a damage not only to their environment bu to their economy as well. These countries continue to grow poor while we grow rich. We need to contribute back and I know where that money can come from. Start at the top.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
I think the American dream is founded in an open frontier.

This, of course, no longer exist. We have nowhere else to go...

"I have a strong urge to fly.
But I've got nowhere to fly to."
- Pink Floyd, Nobody Home.

Until we have a new frontier into which we can expend our boundless energy, we will turn upon ourselves in an irresistable urge to become a bunch of lemmings...
I would extend youir statement to say that the sucess of American capitalism is based on the idea of an openm frontier. All talk to the contrary, it seems that the stock market expansion of the 1990's was nothing but a bubble. A lesson could be learned from teh ecologists, who preach the concept of sustainable growth.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
They might be, but unemployment is also rising. I don't see how income could be rising for very long if unemployment is swelling! If there are more potential hole-diggers, the cost of a hole goes Down! I'm talking LONG TERM here. Unenployment is up in the past two years, but even that isn't all that high historically. In the US, unemployment always fluctuates from about 4-8% with the economic cycle except in severe recession or depression. That is NOT something that has changed. As the economy recovers, the unemployment rate will again go down toward the lower end of that range. It always has and it will agin.

Check out the historical income tables HERE (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/histinctb.html) There are a bunch of tables. Slice the data any way you choose. Individuals, households, families, whatever. Overall, the income levels of EVERY BRACKET has increased about 9 of every 10 years since 1967 (as far back as the tables go).

The reality is, not everyone can be a rock star. Zero, if you have data that supports your opinion, I'll certainly read it. The data I have provided directly contradicts your opinion and attacking me personally won't prove you are right.

Read the book... its outlandish. H.G. Wells is a classic writer. Sounds like an interesting book. I may read it. There is a major flaw in what you describe though. Not everyone has either the intelligence nor the desire to be a nuclear physicist. I certainly don't. And I agree with schwarz on this - it does sound like communism. Communism sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't fit with human nature (for the reason I described) and is unworkable in the large scale.
I know its sounds communistic... but, so does democracy when you boil it down to its roots which seem to say... equal opportunity for all. My boss described the political spectrum as a circle - taking both democracy and communism to their extremes makes them very similar in some respects. I don't buy that they connect, but I'll agree that they are close.
Russ you left out the part where I believe this country's dreams of success is benefiting from the means of foreign countries. The corporations that most Americans work for in one manner or another takes advantage of other countries most powerful resources (people) and in most cases abuses it. Corporations are taking advantage of other countries lax humanitarian laws -- just read the papers. These are the people who are falling. People in Indonesia are not failing because they make Nike's for low wages. The alternative to those low wages is starvation. I would prefer it if all countries would reform and become stable, prosperous capitalistic democracies like the western world, but the 300 million people in the US can't make it happen for the 5 billion in the 3rd world. They are going to have to do it largely on their own. Either way, the presence of Nike is HELPING these people, not hurting them. it is putting MORE money into the local economy than was there before.

These countries continue to grow poor while we grow rich. 3rd world countries are not "grow[ing] poor" they have always BEEN poor. There isn't anything that they have that we can take from them to make them more poor.

Raven, are you suggesting that the US should start taking over and modernizing all of the 3rd world countries in the world? All talk to the contrary, it seems that the stock market expansion of the 1990's was nothing but a bubble. It WAS a bubble, Zero - not unlike 1929 (though nowhere near as bad when it burst). But just like 1929 it will grow again. Through its entire history, the stock market has averaged about a 12% yearly gain (I believe thats NOT adjusted for inflation) and has never been down for more than 15 years at a time.

[schwarzchildradius]

RW:As the economy recovers
It's not going to recover soon, because its a consumer driven economy- more people are laid off so they buy less stuff, simultaneously with the price of stuff goes up (local sales taxes to cover state expenses). $22,680.16, per capita national debt. Debt is not free, maintenance for the debt will come out of public social services and infrastructure. It's just anarchy in government. Sid Viscious would be proud.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


Zero, if you have data that supports your opinion, I'll certainly read it. The data I have provided directly contradicts your opinion and attacking me personally won't prove you are right.



Show me the personal attacks..oh, wait, there are none, and you are making it up, like your lying Right-wing heroes![:D]


Anyhoo, it is a simple fact that there are only so many dollars to be spent on any one thing. There is a limited market, and some people will get left out, simple fact.

[Dissident Dan]

With the way our system works, not everyone can be rich, as in the amount of goods and services they can get. However, technological changes could change the system to make conditions more ideal. This would be a long process.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Sounds like an interesting book. I may read it. There is a major flaw in what you describe though. Not everyone has either the intelligence nor the desire to be a nuclear physicist. I certainly don't. And I agree with schwarz on this - it does sound like communism. Communism sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't fit with human nature (for the reason I described) and is unworkable in the large scale.

Communism proved itself to be a cancerous mess. It was enforced democracy or equality. Democracy comes about through equal and totally accessable, unedited education and through the education of the people of a community concerning their rights and their responsibilities to one another.

Democracy had a start in a small society somewhere near Greece. It was as doomed as you make Well's ideal sound today. Yet, because of its sound principals and logistical approach to the survival of the community... it did survived, somehow... and was adopted... in a variety of forms, by various countries.

Intelligence and desire are nurtured by education. Education is the key to an independent individual and an individual country. I do truely believe Well's Utopia could actually come to fruition if democracy and all its implications were allowed to take their course.

It is only by the definition of the "rich" that a country is "poor".

How rich is a country that cannot drink its own water... or breath its own air?... or that poisons its own children everyday with "new and improved" compounds?

Like any adventure or exploration... Democracy has its pitfalls and pinnicales. What matters is that the foundation of the precipice is stable... and this would hold true in the case of any American Dream.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
It's not going to recover soon, because its a consumer driven economy- more people are laid off so they buy less stuff, simultaneously with the price of stuff goes up (local sales taxes to cover state expenses). Currently the economy IS expanding (GDP is rising) and the stock market is rising. Consumer confidence is next. Historically, there is a specific order to which the various indicators come back up. Unemployment is actually usually the LAST of the indicators to rise or fall.

The economy *IS* in the process of recovering. The only question is how long? I said for all of last year that the war uncertainty is what is holding the economy back. Now its over and what happens - the stock market is up some 20%-30% in 3 months. The economy will recover relatively quickly now - but that still means 6 months until unemployment has dropped by a meaningful amount.

And the national debt is certainly a big issue. I am in favor of MASSIVE cuts in the size of our government. Social Security for starters. Personal responsibility is the other side of the freedom coin.

Show me the personal attacks..oh, wait, there are none, and you are making it up, like your lying Right-wing heroes! Zero, calling me a liar is a personal attack. "Poor Russ" is a (pathetic) personal attack. These really do nothing at all to help your arguement. Why even do it? Are you trying to distract us from the substance (or lack thereof) of your arguement? it is a simple fact that there are only so many dollars to be spent on any one thing. There is a limited market, and some people will get left out, simple fact. Example? Supporting data?

It is only by the definition of the "rich" that a country is "poor". Actually, this is part of the problem in the US. How do you define rich/poor? It would seem to me that you should define it according to a specific income level. But if you do that, you wind up with the data showing an ever shrinking number of poor people and that is unacceptable to a great many people. For some reason people WANT a well defined number of poor people, so it is more common to define rich/poor according to percentages, IE the bottom 20% regardless of income are considered poor and the top 5% regardless of income are considered rich. That way, the number of rich and poor is a constant proportion of the population. But that glosses over the fact that the bottom 20% is 40% LESS POOR than they were 35 years ago because they make 40% more money (inflation adjusted).

People in 3rd world countries would LAUGH at our definitions of rich and poor in the US. Enough food? Running water? A CAR!!!?? A place to live with solid walls? Anyone who has that in a 3rd world country is rich.

[schwarzchildradius]

Unemployment is actually usually the LAST of the indicators to rise or fall.
It's been rising for two years, and since the 2001 Bush tax cut! Where are these jobs going to come from? It's hogwash: states and corporations are laying people off, they're losing not only their income but health care.
And the national debt is certainly a big issue. I am in favor of MASSIVE cuts in the size of our government. Social Security for starters.
I suppose it would be unconstitutional to vote on this one too eh?
RW, the government already uses SS money to cover their budgets. But that's beside the point. Get rid of SS and grannies are going to be homeless. You don't want to get carjacked by a hungry homeless granny do you? That's what I thought.

[Raven]

RW: People in Indonesia are not failing because they make Nike's for low wages. The alternative to those low wages is starvation. I would prefer it if all countries would reform and become stable, prosperous capitalistic democracies like the western world, but the 300 million people in the US can't make it happen for the 5 billion in the 3rd world. They are going to have to do it largely on their own. Either way, the presence of Nike is HELPING these people, not hurting them. it is putting MORE money into the local economy than was there before.

Russ, you may be missing my point. Nike hires workers in Indonesia because labor is cheaper there and people who are already poor need more than the opportunities than the way Nike provides it. Simply put, Nike is taking advantage of the labor laws for its own good and not the good of Indonesia. And yes their economy does grow but not at the rate that other countries who use their resources to increase their own at faster rate and in essence keeps them down from reaching equal competition.

I would also like to point out that you might want to consider other more damaging corporations. Enron for instance destroyed the environment in India and caused more problems for their economy under the guise of helping it. About a decade ago Enron made a contract with the Indian government to help build damns. The work created floods in populated areas and made millions homeless. To make things worse, Enron was the only corporation capable of cleaning up after themselves and yet they did not do this for free despite their fault. The Indian gov't was required to create another contract confirming Enron more building opportunities along with the necessary clean-up. Enron failed to do either. Who made the millions here? Actually maybe I should ask who stole it?

RW: Raven, are you suggesting that the US should start taking over and modernizing all of the 3rd world countries in the world?

Not really, although it would not be a bad idea to help modernize other countries. No what I am suggesting is that when we employ the people and resources of other countries, we should treat them with the same standards that we would treat our own citizens. Is that too much to ask? The way I see it, if corporations had to keep US standards in foreign countries than these corporations would simply hire Americans on American soil. As it stands in your example, Nike only hopes to cut back in expenses so that they can have better prices vs. their competition. The competition does the same in order to keep their profits and the losers in this situation is the citizens of the "3rd world coutries". In my opinion this also keeps third world countries out of the competition in a free market system. If we treated them like our own citizens it would help their economy more and allow their markets to grow stronger in order to compete.

Like I said we are abusing the resources of other countries to merely increase our own. Although other countries economies may grow, the rate at which they grow and the rate at which this country's economy grows should be accounted for. If we grow ten times faster and they only twice as fast then yes they are falling due to our own greed.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Raven
Enron

American Nightmare.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Raven
Nike hires workers in Indonesia because labor is cheaper there and people who are already poor need more than the opportunities than the way Nike provides it. Simply put, Nike is taking advantage of the labor laws for its own good and not the good of Indonesia. And yes their economy does grow but not at the rate that other countries who use their resources to increase their own at faster rate and in essence keeps them down from reaching equal competition.
Raven, you are implying that if Nike weren't there, the void would be filled by other compaines that paid more. Were you asleep the day they taught supply and demand in economics class? Where would these other "opportunities" come from? Nike can pay those low wages simply because there are no other jobs for those people. The presence of Nike does NOT keep them from prospering, it keeps them from failing WORSE than they already are.I would also like to point out that you might want to consider other more damaging corporations. Enron for instance destroyed the environment in India and caused more problems for their economy under the guise of helping it. About a decade ago Enron made a contract with the Indian government to help build damns. The work created floods in populated areas and made millions homeless. To make things worse, Enron was the only corporation capable of cleaning up after themselves and yet they did not do this for free despite their fault. India prides itself at being "the world's largest democracy." Are you saying that Enron forced them to build these dams? Enron profited from a project that had negative environmental impact - but they did not start, fund, or manage the project. The project existed because the government of India WANTED it to exist and paid Enron a lot of money to make it happen. Negative effects of an ill-advised project are the fault of the entity that comissioned the project, not the entity that carried it out.Not really, although it would not be a bad idea to help modernize other countries. No what I am suggesting is that when we employ the people and resources of other countries, we should treat them with the same standards that we would treat our own citizens. Is that too much to ask? Yes, that *IS* too much to ask. How exactly would the US go about enforcing such a requirement? We'd need to set up a labor bureau in every country that had US corporations employing people in it (which is about all of them) and enforce American laws on foreign countries. The term that best describes taking over the functions of foreign governments is IMPERIALISM. I'm sorry, but most countries are going to have to come out of the dark ages largely on their own.

[Raven]

RW: Raven, you are implying that if Nike weren't there, the void would be filled by other compaines that paid more.

Actually I'm not implying that at all. In my opinion, I believe most American corporations would take the same advantages that Nike would on the people of 3rd World Countries. It doesn't, however, make it ethically correct and in my opinion it's simply immoral.

RW: Where would these other "opportunities" come from? Nike can pay those low wages simply because there are no other jobs for those people.

Russ I think it's short sighted to assume Indonesia would not be able to find other "opportunities". I think business opportunities exist all the time and it definitely exists in Indonesia despite the long revolutionary wars they have suffered in the past. Let's not assume Indonesians are incapable of improving themselves without the aid of outside corporations taking advantage of their situation.

The problem I have here is not what Nike "can afford to pay" (as you put it) but what Nike should try to do to help a developing country improve. Nike can afford to pay more than 40 cents an hour and they certainly should pay much more given the billion dollar profits this corporation is capable of generating.

India prides itself at being "the world's largest democracy." Are you saying that Enron forced them to build these dams? Enron profited from a project that had negative environmental impact - but they did not start, fund, or manage the project. Negative effects of an ill-advised project are the fault of the entity that comissioned the project, not the entity that carried it out.

Actually Enron bid for the rights for the contract. India took their offer. But I'm not disputing the fact that India has the right to choose its contracts. I also want to correct you, because Enron did start, fund and manage the project. The problem I have with Enron on this issue is that they had control and botched it. Then when no other bidders came to clean up after them, India was literally faced with the dilemma of hiring Enron again. Enron should have cleaned it up at their cost since they were the culprits to begin with. Thousands of people died due to their screw up. I really can't believe you are trying to defend a corporation with such high ethics as Enron. I think they should take responsibility for there faults.

Lastly, you mentioned that it would be "too much" for corporations to treat the people of other countries as we would treat our own citizens. I think you dug too deeply on that meaning. I am by no means asking American corporations to change the laws of a foreign country. I am merely implying that corporations should keep their own labor ethics in place whenever possible. This includes creating a good working environment for their foreign emplyees and a good living wage. As far as I know we don't have to change any laws in Indonesia to pay their people more than 40 cents an hour. I mean really, can't Nike afford better than that.

Were you asleep the day they taught supply and demand in economics class?

No, I wasn't. I aced economics. However, we aren't really talking about supply and demand in terms of creating profit here. Nike is obviously high in demand and supply can easily made available within the working standards of this country. I think what you fail to understand is that cutting expenses play a huge role in making profit. Nike is simply cutting expenses by going to Indonesia to create their products. The opted to downsize their workforce here in the states and took advantage of the expense cut they would have in foreign countries. They are not helping the American economy in this fashion (in case you missed it -- they downsized and laid-off thousands of Americans and that hurts our economy) and they are not helping the people they employ in other countries by any great means in my opinion. Nike is just trying to make more and more profits for its elite executives.

Don't be blinded by these corporations faults. They do have major faults and they need to be corrected in their practices not defended. Just because they can do it does not mean they should nor does it mean its morally and ethically correct to do so. "Might does not equal right."

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Raven, you are implying that if Nike weren't there, the void would be filled by other compaines that paid more. Were you asleep the day they taught supply and demand in economics class? Where would these other "opportunities" come from? Nike can pay those low wages simply because there are no other jobs for those people. The presence of Nike does NOT keep them from prospering, it keeps them from failing WORSE than they already are. India prides itself at being "the world's largest democracy." Are you saying that Enron forced them to build these dams? Enron profited from a project that had negative environmental impact - but they did not start, fund, or manage the project. The project existed because the government of India WANTED it to exist and paid Enron a lot of money to make it happen. Negative effects of an ill-advised project are the fault of the entity that comissioned the project, not the entity that carried it out. Yes, that *IS* too much to ask. How exactly would the US go about enforcing such a requirement? We'd need to set up a labor bureau in every country that had US corporations employing people in it (which is about all of them) and enforce American laws on foreign countries. The term that best describes taking over the functions of foreign governments is IMPERIALISM. I'm sorry, but most countries are going to have to come out of the dark ages largely on their own.

There seems to be an antiquated cycle through which a nation thinks it must squeeze its citizens. The one that drags its people through the stone, bronze, iron and industrial age, all with the accompaning industrial polution and gradient pay scales of yesteryear. That's how we got where we are today... now its their turn.

Its ok for China and India to pollute the crap out of everything and to reduce the landscape to rubble... that's how we built this country and look at us now!!!

But, I see a better way to go about this... if any country would listen and learn from our mistakes... they, first of all, wouldn't be haranged about the Kyoto treaty nor would they have Amnesty International on their coat tails about child slavery etc... if they could only learn from our mistakes here in the Western world.

It would make a good company and a good american dream to create a legitimate and authoritative consulting firm that helps to guide countries through their early stages into the current climate of corporations and administrations. They could compile and present the best ways to avoid the devistation to the environment and their citizenry caused by the one foot forward... 4 steps back process called progress.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Raven
Actually I'm not implying that at all [re:other oppeortunities]....

Russ I think it's short sighted to assume Indonesia would not be able to find other "opportunities". Those two statements are mutually exclusive. Either someone else will employ people at higher wages in Indonesia or not - the presence of Nike is irrelevant. And the reason I think you are unclear here is this:I aced economics. However, we aren't really talking about supply and demand in terms of creating profit here. If you aced econ, then you know that supply and demand applies to all goods and services: labor for example, is a service. Supply and demand DOES apply here. If there were "other opportunities", ie other companies that could turn a profit while paying Indonesians more, they would go to Indonesia and employ the people that Nike is paying less (or Nike would raise its its wages to compete). Thats how supply and demand works in a labor market.
The problem I have here is not what Nike "can afford to pay" (as you put it) Careful - if its not a direct quote, don't put it in quotes. See my sig for what that is called. I never said it and I never even suggested it. Nike certainly can afford to pay more. That really isn't relevant to whether they SHOULD. Whether they should is a moral and legal question. Legally, they are clearly not obligated to pay more. Morally its a lot tougher. Morally, Indonesia should change its labor laws - or should they? If Indonesia changes their labor laws and enacts a $1/hr minimum wage, problem solved, right? Wrong. Nike (and every other corporation) picks up and moves to Vietnam where they can still pay $.40/hr. Supply and demand again. Raising the minimum wage could HURT Indonesia more than it helps them. So its a tough problem.I also want to correct you, because Enron did start, fund and manage the project. [?] [?] Enron funded the project? So this was charity? I don't think so. India PAID Enron to do it - otherwise Enron couldn't have profited.Enron should have cleaned it up at their cost since they were the culprits to begin with. You implied before that the project was a flawed concept to begin with. Which is it? Did they screw it up or was the concept flawed? HUGE difference. I must admit that I don't know a whole lot about this project.

quantum, I actually mostly agree with your post there. I went a little further with my arguement than I actually believe. Though most would call heavy handed nation building imperialism, I think sometimes it may actually be necessary. Regardless, it would be great if other countries could learn from our mistakes. But its tough and it doesn't always work that way. Besides which, a lot don't WANT our help. They certainly wouldn't pay a consultant to tell them how to run their country.

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
quantum, I actually mostly agree with your post there. I went a little further with my arguement than I actually believe. Though most would call heavy handed nation building imperialism, I think sometimes it may actually be necessary. Regardless, it would be great if other countries could learn from our mistakes. But its tough and it doesn't always work that way. Besides which, a lot don't WANT our help. They certainly wouldn't pay a consultant to tell them how to run their country.

If they'll pay Enron to ruin their country... I'm sure they might try paying someone with a good idea to help them run their country.

[Zero]

Originally posted by quantumcarl


It would make a good company and a good american dream to create a legitimate and authoritative consulting firm that helps to guide countries through their early stages into the current climate of corporations and administrations. They could compile and present the best ways to avoid the devistation to the environment and their citizenry caused by the one foot forward... 4 steps back process called progress.

Can we somehow skip the corporations, since they are the bane of freedom and personal achievement, not to mention the environment and economy?

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Can we somehow skip the corporations, since they are the bane of freedom and personal achievement, not to mention the environment and economy?

LOLOLOLOL thanks Zero, I needed a good laugh![;)]
BTW as a small business owner I've been incorporated for almost 10 years now, being incorporated allows me much personal freedom! and has certainaly contributed to my personal achievement!, not to mention I am environmentally green and definately have contributed to the local economy!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kat
LOLOLOLOL thanks Zero, I needed a good laugh![;)]
BTW as a small business owner I've been incorporated for almost 10 years now, being incorporated allows me much personal freedom! and has certainaly contributed to my personal achievement!, not to mention I am environmentally green and definately have contributed to the local economy! You are soulless and evil. [6)]

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You are soulless and evil. [6)]

Please see my "Hell" thread for this type of content! [<:)]