I think #9 may the most important of all, and relates to something Don posted earlier. There's way too much emphasis today on making money for its own sake, especially in the financial industries, and way too little on developing, making or maintaining something of importance to the country and world as a whole, which will also usually make money (sometimes a lot) but isn't the primary motive.
Most in US won't be able to escape 'fiscal cliff'
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
I think #9 may the most important of all, and relates to something Don posted earlier. There's way too much emphasis today on making money for its own sake, especially in the financial industries, and way too little on developing, making or maintaining something of importance to the country and world as a whole, which will also usually make money (sometimes a lot) but isn't the primary motive.
+10!
And to think this comes from someone whose thinking is so fuzzy that he only listens to LP's through horns driven by SET's
+10!
And to think this comes from someone whose thinking is so fuzzy that he only listens to LP's through horns driven by SET's
or even better yet, Bill is an attorney. Never saw one quite so rational
The question is what should be the role of Government in engineering this type of "cultural change", and how could they implement it? I personally think it is totally illusive and not even desirable for Government to try to mess "cultural values". In my view, it is also an inversion of the cause and effect. People choose the form of government that reflects their cultural values. You cannot expect that same Governement to then turn around and say, "these values are flawed, let's do some reengineering". Cultural value engineering is a totalitarian concept (found in communism, theocracy and facism), incompatible with democratic principles.
You guys are too nice. I'm just tired of all the fighting and posturing- frankly, if I didn't need to continue earning a living, I'd probably just move to Provence (my wife likes the idea of a hill town in Sicily) and raise mushrooms or something.
I thought that was supposed to only apply to manufacturers, not directly on consumer sales? Not that we won't see it in the end, one way or another...
True, but we are being socially engineered all the time in the US anyway, so i'm just suggesting we change the focus. And, I copped to the fact that some of my ideas may be wrong, i'm a little idealistic in thinking that because we are so fragmented and divisive these days, it would be nice to look toward some positive goals, and building toward something that is ennobling, and larger than the immediate need rather than having everybody fight in crisis mode over the same piece of pie.
check the tax rates in France before you decide
Reconsider if Berlusconi gets elected
.....raise mushrooms or something.
Magic mushrooms would be even more fun!
I would agree that we get a government that reflects ourcultural values. (And since national finances reflect cultural values, we should be quite concerned.) But I believe that government does alter the culture and does not merely reflect it. The effect of government on culture is roughly proportional to its size and scope.
The Government is not an alien entity dropped on the people. it is a reflection of their culture. The dynamics between the different cultural currents and philosophies do alter a Government provided of course it is democratic ... and even an absence of democracy is also a reflection of a nation's culture.
I agree. look at all the people who suck off the gov't teet in order to survive. That is a cultural change...There are more and more people living off the gov't...Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, Over-extended unemployment bennies.
Perhaps if companies stopped hoarding billions and billions of dollars to pad their warchests, maybe some of that could be invested in jobs.
That is very short sighted. Companies are there to make a profit, not to provide social welfare. If gov't greates conditions unfavorable to business..ie taxes, Obama care, over-reaching regulations ect., they are not going to provide as many jobs to individuals.
So its more important to provide favourable conditions for businesses than the peoples need for a job? Interesting.
business is under no obligation to provide jobs. They will provide enough jobs to meet the demand of producing products or providng their services. If they gov't takes more, there is less profit and growth. If a business not not grow, they will continue to shed jobs to the point they tread water and eventually go out of business. This is capitalism my friend, not socialism.
Yes, and look where it's got you! The picture ain't pretty!
EDIT: I am NO socialist, but I do have a social conscience.
Good point - business should get out of the health care business. Never understood why conservatives continue to favor businesses providing health care coverage. A single payer system would be a much more efficient system
How many businesses suck at the government teat - farm subsidies, oil subisdies, defense contractors, consultants, lobbyists, law firms not counting the wide range of tax incentives for businessses.
The irony is too great.
How about Ross Perot. EDS made its fortune providing computer services to the government. Yet, he ranted against government spending.
Here's another one, John Ricketts (TD Ameritrade) , who funds right wing causes, is asking for hundreds of millions in govenmentsubsidies for a new stadium for the Chicago Cubs.
The term hypocrite comes to mind.
Similar threads
