A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

[editec]

Agnapostate,

One of the many concepts that I have come to understand, thanks to coming to places like this one, is the meaning of the adage:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.​

You can attempt to school these people until you are blue in the face, but since they cannot fit the true definition of socialism into their world point of view, they have reassigned its meaning to describe whatever government does which they do not personally approve of.​

They must continue to deny the definition of that polticial philosophy in order to reassign blame from the cleptocrary they bow down to and WORK FOR, to some mythical mythical conspiracy of collectivists.​

Remember , you are writing to long time supporters of George Bush II who, upon reading that he was forced to come to the aid of his banking masters to once again save capitalism from its propensity of eating itself, declared Bush II, possibly one of our cleptocracy's most loyal supporters -- a socialist.​

Word magic such as theirs is in the nature of people seeking to delude themselves. Socialism is, to these folks , at least, nothing more than a convenient scapegoat word meaning BAD GOVERNMENT.​

Such circular logic is impenetratble by facts and logic, Agna.​

I wasn't a big fan of Bush...but I was less a fan of Gore and Kerry....that's simple enough that you can even understand E. Next....most of us on here prefer capitalisim over any other kind of government intervention. Now can you understand THAT? I think you can. I don't know, it may be a stretch for you.

No stretch at all, actually. I can understand it perfectly.

Honest capitalism is undoubtably the most productive economy system yet devised by man.

I personally would LOVE to see us living in a meritocracy which is what HONEST capitalism must have to suvive.

What I fail to understand is why so many people who claim to be conservtive, keep voting and supporting the very same people who TALK TALK TALK about economic conservatism, but who have consistently for the last thirty years done EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they claim they believe in.

Neither party is a party which supports either HONEST CAPITALISM or merit.

 

[Bern80]

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Again, such crude conflations and inaccurate depictions can only serve to foster a poor understanding of political economy and related topics. There are necessary distinctions between collectivism and communism, for instance, which are themselves varieties of socialism. "Progressive" is a broad label insufficient for reference to any specific economic school. It's quite clear that most anti-socialists here don't understand what is referred to, given their incapacity to make accurate reference to socialism.

Irrelveant, but to put your ridiculous argument to bed and since we all understand what someone means when they say socialism, why don't you simply tell us what less uncomfortable word you would like us to use instead so we can move on.

 

[Old Rocks]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

I disagree. In John's Texas Tech example, the students (social) own the grades (means of production) for the class (society). The experiment resulted in failure for all.

And we have just had a wonderful experiment in unregulated capitalism, and the result is failure for the whole of our nation and most of the world. Rather more relevent than these silly exercises.

 

[driveby]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

I disagree. In John's Texas Tech example, the students (social) own the grades (means of production) for the class (society). The experiment resulted in failure for all.

And we have just had a wonderful experiment in unregulated capitalism, and the result is failure for the whole of our nation and most of the world. Rather more relevent than these silly exercises.

This was an actual experiment, the so called experiment in unregulated capitalism that resulted in whatever failure you're talking about is a conspiracy theory from far left hacks like yourself.......

 

[Zoom-boing]

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Again, such crude conflations and inaccurate depictions can only serve to foster a poor understanding of political economy and related topics. There are necessary distinctions between collectivism and communism, for instance, which are themselves varieties of socialism. "Progressive" is a broad label insufficient for reference to any specific economic school. It's quite clear that most anti-socialists here don't understand what is referred to, given their incapacity to make accurate reference to socialism.

Irrelveant, but to put your ridiculous argument to bed and since we all understand what someone means when they say socialism, why don't you simply tell us what less uncomfortable word you would like us to use instead so we can move on.

Bern - I don't know exactly what to call it either but the closest I can come up with is 'governmentism'. Government in control of more and more and Americans in control of less and less. From what I am observing, Obama wants sweeping governmentism.

 

[Annie]

I can't do a Ronnie Reagan barnyard metaphor so this will have to do:



Market socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

Oh human nature, you mean like avarice? The avarice that fucked up the world's economic system? Yes, must remember that.

Avarice? Competition? Getting the most toys?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

What label/theory of social behavior do you think is most applicable to the original post?

 

[Agnapostate]

I must admit, I know that there are plans out there - do any of the current ESOP's actually give a voice to the employees that is strong enough alter a management decision?

-Joe

Some ESOPs incorporate worker participation into management decisions, and are run in a more democratic manner than others. I'd say it's a trait that varies from each firm...but those that do implement some degree of employee participation at the management level, especially democratic participation, enjoy efficiency gains superior to those of the traditional capitalist firm or the non-democratic ESOP firm.

Firms enjoy a significant profit increase when non-managers are appointed to the Board, and an even greater increase when they are elected. They also enjoy a slight increase in quantitative impact when non-managers are appointed to the Board, and a far more significant increase when they are elected. Perhaps most interestingly, they experience no discernible increase in qualitative impact when non-managers are appointed to the Board, but a huge increase when they are elected.

One of the largest owners of private capital in the world are public pension funds. Public pension funds are a good example of "market socialism" whereby the government owns stock in the company but acts as any private owner would - to maximize profits.

That isn't "market socialism." Market socialism necessitates a greater degree of economic democracy in that it involves market competition between worker owned and managed enterprises. Hence, market socialism necessarily revolves around labor cooperatives.

Agnapostate,

One of the many concepts that I have come to understand, thanks to coming to places like this one, is the meaning of the adage:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
​

You can attempt to school these people until you are blue in the face, but since they cannot fit the true definition of socialism into their world point of view, they have reassigned its meaning to describe whatever government does which they do not personally approve of.

They must continue to deny the definition of that polticial philosophy in order to reassign blame from the cleptocrary they bow down to and WORK FOR, to some mythical mythical conspiracy of collectivists.​

Remember , you are writing to long time supporters of George Bush II who, upon reading that he was forced to come to the aid of his banking masters to once again save capitalism from its propensity of eating itself, declared Bush II, possibly one of our cleptocracy's most loyal supporters -- a socialist.​

Word magic such as theirs is in the nature of people seeking to delude themselves. Socialism is, to these folks , at least, nothing more than a convenient scapegoat word meaning BAD GOVERNMENT.​

Such circular logic is impenetratble by facts and logic, Agna.​

I've decided to blame the public schooling system. Bowles and Gintis noted that its authoritarian organizational structure would prove invaluable in the hierarchical capitalist workplace; I'd say that it's had a deleterious impact on learning capacities in general.

I wasn't a big fan of Bush...but I was less a fan of Gore and Kerry....that's simple enough that you can even understand E. Next....most of us on here prefer capitalisim over any other kind of government intervention. Now can you understand THAT? I think you can. I don't know, it may be a stretch for you.

Government intervention is a necessary element in a capitalist economy, since the state functions as a stabilizing agent without which capitalism would collapse. For instance, let's consider trade theory. It was through the very protectionism that they now disavow for developing nations that the capitalist powers of the world were able to gain supremacy, namely through the protection of infant industries. The dismissal of the infant industry argument now permits capitalist powers to enact trade liberalization and prevent such industries from developing in other countries, thus keeping them in a state of dependency. For instance, I'd recommend having a look at Ha-Joon Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder.

Irrelveant, but to put your ridiculous argument to bed and since we all understand what someone means when they say socialism, why don't you simply tell us what less uncomfortable word you would like us to use instead so we can move on.

I'm a socialist. I have no objection to usage of the word "socialism" in its proper context. Reference to a capitalist welfare state and Soviet state capitalism as being forms of "socialism," however, is simply inaccurate. Socialism necessitates the public ownership of the means of production.

What label/theory of social behavior do you think is most applicable to the original post?

Soviet state capitalism perhaps, although Western Anglo-Saxon capitalism involves similar elements of coercion at times.

 

[Diuretic]

Every time you used the word socialism the word liberalism could be substitutd and it shouldn't be any less true. yet knowing what it was and how self proclaimed liberals choose to define it you accept it yet you don't call them out on the carpet for mis0-using the word.

Maybe problem isn't how we use the word. It's YOUR feeling about it that causes you a problem. You said it yourself. Socailism is practically regarded as a swear sword. You know the negative connotation it has. You know that it is described policy in a negative way. You therefore know it isn't good, but you can not reconcile that with the your beliefs which tend to more leftist than not. So to reconcile this 'bad word' and it's allignment with your beliefs you try to make the rest of us define it in a way that is more palatable for you.

No it can't. Your idea of "liberalism" is half-arsed, that' why it can't be substituted. I have to accept that Americans have mangled the definition of "liberal" to make it almost unintellgible for those outside the US to understand. And since it's used in the domestic political discourse in the US and Americans know what it means (it means something or someone right wingers don't like) far be it from me to criticise.

But that doesn't mean I have to surrender when it's chucked at me. As I said, "socialism" isn't just a word, it's a word used to describe a particular socio-economic concept. You might call it "liberalism" and that's fine, but I will continue to point out that the rubbery idea of "liberalism" as held by many Americans is not connected to the socio-economic concept called "socialism".

 

[Meister]

Every time you used the word socialism the word liberalism could be substitutd and it shouldn't be any less true. yet knowing what it was and how self proclaimed liberals choose to define it you accept it yet you don't call them out on the carpet for mis0-using the word.

Maybe problem isn't how we use the word. It's YOUR feeling about it that causes you a problem. You said it yourself. Socailism is practically regarded as a swear sword. You know the negative connotation it has. You know that it is described policy in a negative way. You therefore know it isn't good, but you can not reconcile that with the your beliefs which tend to more leftist than not. So to reconcile this 'bad word' and it's allignment with your beliefs you try to make the rest of us define it in a way that is more palatable for you.

No it can't. Your idea of "liberalism" is half-arsed, that' why it can't be substituted. I have to accept that Americans have mangled the definition of "liberal" to make it almost unintellgible for those outside the US to understand. And since it's used in the domestic political discourse in the US and Americans know what it means (it means something or someone right wingers don't like) far be it from me to criticise.

But that doesn't mean I have to surrender when it's chucked at me. As I said, "socialism" isn't just a word, it's a word used to describe a particular socio-economic concept. You might call it "liberalism" and that's fine, but I will continue to point out that the rubbery idea of "liberalism" as held by many Americans is not connected to the socio-economic concept called "socialism".

Thank God, because the United State is far better than that. Have a great life in your country, d.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

No, it's a stupid OP that's why I hammered it. And your theory that no-one will want to work is also ridiculous. If the idea of socialism is going to be critiqued, that's fine, but at make some valid points instead of indulging in flights of fancy.

The valid points are obvious. Productivity will go down and unemployment will go up. Eventually, the economy will come to a grinding halt. That's human nature. You take away incentive, you lose it all. Sorry.

Grinding to a halt as in Europe?

 

[Diuretic]

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

Oh human nature, you mean like avarice? The avarice that fucked up the world's economic system? Yes, must remember that.

Avarice? Competition? Getting the most toys?

I need to make a point. I am not well educated on economics, I have a rough idea, that's about it, so I won't pretend that I have anything else to offer. Toro is a well informed poster and I always get a lot out of his balanced, sensible, informative posts and I understand just that bit more about real world capitalism and why it works. Agna is well educated on socio-politlcal theory and is far better equipped than I am to explain some fairly arcane socio-political theories. Me, I'm just bumbling along trying to reconcile lots of thoughts that, because of my lack of formal education in economics, just won't line up and make sense.

I've read a little of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, not all of it, in fact, not even half of it. But the little I did read informed me that that bloke nailed it in time and place. Against what I think was a backdrop of economics based on imperalism, colonialism and mercantilism, Smith brought in some (then) radical ideas about how economics could work to benefit the ordinary person. To those who say Smith was a genius, I concur. If a genius is a person who can see clearly, through the obfuscating received wisdoms and conventional thinking of one's own times, then Smith was a genius. I think it was he who gave us the idea of "enlightened self-interest" which is at the heart of the idea of capitalism and its associated mechanism of free markets and its iron laws of demand and of supply.

Capitalism has been more beneficial than deleterious to humanity. We in the advanced west (cut me some slack Merkans, my country, little economy that it is, is part of it) would not have the sort of living conditions we enjoy now without capitalism. One of the most inspirational leftist writers and academics I've read, the late T.R. Young, featured an inspiring appreciation and critique of capitalism on his website (I think that essay isn't there any longer but this is/was his site - Red Feather Home Page ) in which he defended it as an economic system that transformed the world but which was to be jettisoned as soon as it became or becomes less beneficial and more harmful to humanity.

Or, and these are my thoughts, when capitalism becomes unable to help us in terms of providing us with an efficient, effective economic system.

Capitalism with its twin laws of supply and demand has, to date, pretty well regulated our natural resources (there will be examples where this is wrong but I'm trying to draw a broad brush here). When there's plenty of something the price goes down and we can all buy it. When there's not much of something the price goes up and only a few of us wealthy enough to afford it can buy it, the rest of us do without. Ergo the stuff won't run out in a hurry. Equilibrium is achieved, isn't that how it works? Corrections welcome.

But with the advent of mega-corporations more powerful than the countries that they notionally reside in came the beginning of the deleterious phase of capitalism. Mega-corps can afford to ignore the strictures of government and that's bad for us. Mega-corps have ravaged some third world (and first world) countries for their natural resources and seem to have been able to ignore all the common sense laws of basic economics while so plundeirng. They've given us what we demand and we - and it's not completlely our fault, but we're not entirely blameless either - have got what we want without paying the real price. We've been terribly spoilt.

The causes of the recent GFC are beyond my understanding so I can't explain them, I can only mouth what I've read whch isn't exactly illuminating, just repeating what experts have already said. But it seems to me when I'm trying to understand those experts as they converse using arcane terms to describe complex financial transactions that I look at the global financial industry (sorry Toro) and exclaim WTF? I mean, apart from moving capital around from place to place as it's needed, what else was it producing that enabled people in the industry to make such fantastic wealth? It wasn't productive at all was it? It was just a bloody great mobile Ponzi scheme, fabulous bonuses were pulled out of other people's money and given to the insiders at a rate that had sod-all to do with what was actually being produced.

Wealth is useful, accumulated wealth is very useful to an individual, it doesn't guarantee wellbeing but it goes a long way to ensuring it. But for some people wealth isn't about material wellbeing, it's about ego. I mean, what's the usefulness of someone having so much wealth that they couldn't dispose of it (usefully I mean) in six human lifetimes? Wealth then becomes not something of use-value but something to show off, like Birds of Paradise headdresses for chieftains of tribes in Papua-New Guinea. When any economic system starts existing for the ego of the main players and not for the wellbeing of a society then it has to be critically examined and if necessary it has to be changed and sometimes changed radically.

Okay, I'm rambled out, I hope some of that made sense.

 

[Diuretic]

Every time you used the word socialism the word liberalism could be substitutd and it shouldn't be any less true. yet knowing what it was and how self proclaimed liberals choose to define it you accept it yet you don't call them out on the carpet for mis0-using the word.

Maybe problem isn't how we use the word. It's YOUR feeling about it that causes you a problem. You said it yourself. Socailism is practically regarded as a swear sword. You know the negative connotation it has. You know that it is described policy in a negative way. You therefore know it isn't good, but you can not reconcile that with the your beliefs which tend to more leftist than not. So to reconcile this 'bad word' and it's allignment with your beliefs you try to make the rest of us define it in a way that is more palatable for you.

No it can't. Your idea of "liberalism" is half-arsed, that' why it can't be substituted. I have to accept that Americans have mangled the definition of "liberal" to make it almost unintellgible for those outside the US to understand. And since it's used in the domestic political discourse in the US and Americans know what it means (it means something or someone right wingers don't like) far be it from me to criticise.

But that doesn't mean I have to surrender when it's chucked at me. As I said, "socialism" isn't just a word, it's a word used to describe a particular socio-economic concept. You might call it "liberalism" and that's fine, but I will continue to point out that the rubbery idea of "liberalism" as held by many Americans is not connected to the socio-economic concept called "socialism".

Thank God, because the United State is far better than that. Have a great life in your country, d.

M, a great life is relative. I want for nothing because I'm lucky enough to have a reasonably well paid job and I'm in secure employment. And here, although we're a small country in terms of population (21.5m) and we have a small economy (we scrape into the G20 but that's about it), we have a pretty fair country. It has its problems, for sure, but we have a culture that is built on several concepts. The first is a "fair go." That means everyone should be given a chance to make a go of it. That means not holding someone back. But also it means if someone falls over then we give them a hand back up but only when they fall over.

We also have a culture that approves of the "battler". The battler is someone who might be on a low wage, without much material wealth but who is decent and honest and hard-working. We like battlers, we don't see them as "losers". We like to see the battler get a fair go.

Sadly though in the 11 years of the Howard conservative government we started to lose touch with those basic cultural concepts and we had our own 11 years of breakneck avarice. Truth is we went a bit nuts on the proceeds of the mining boom (we're good at digging up stuff and selling it, we're bloody hopeless at using the stuff to make things) and we got greedy, plasma televisions for all!!! (I don't have one). Now we're being pulled back to reality because China has slowed, because the US has slowed. But you know the funny thing about it? We're re-disovering our cultural values and it seems kind of nice.

Thank you for your kind wishes and I wish the same for you and yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

Agnapostate,

One of the many concepts that I have come to understand, thanks to coming to places like this one, is the meaning of the adage:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
​

You can attempt to school these people until you are blue in the face, but since they cannot fit the true definition of socialism into their world point of view, they have reassigned its meaning to describe whatever government does which they do not personally approve of.

They must continue to deny the definition of that polticial philosophy in order to reassign blame from the cleptocrary they bow down to and WORK FOR, to some mythical mythical conspiracy of collectivists.​

Remember , you are writing to long time supporters of George Bush II who, upon reading that he was forced to come to the aid of his banking masters to once again save capitalism from its propensity of eating itself, declared Bush II, possibly one of our cleptocracy's most loyal supporters -- a socialist.​

Word magic such as theirs is in the nature of people seeking to delude themselves. Socialism is, to these folks , at least, nothing more than a convenient scapegoat word meaning BAD GOVERNMENT.​

Such circular logic is impenetratble by facts and logic, Agna.​

I wasn't a big fan of Bush...but I was less a fan of Gore and Kerry....that's simple enough that you can even understand E. Next....most of us on here prefer capitalisim over any other kind of government intervention. Now can you understand THAT? I think you can. I don't know, it may be a stretch for you.

Unregulated capitalism is a short road back to feudalism. Unregulated capitalism leads to exactly the sort of economic debacle that we see today. Capitalism and Socialism are not Gods or religions to be enforced for the sake of rightouness, but tools to be used for the betterment of all in society.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every time you used the word socialism the word liberalism could be substitutd and it shouldn't be any less true. yet knowing what it was and how self proclaimed liberals choose to define it you accept it yet you don't call them out on the carpet for mis0-using the word.

Maybe problem isn't how we use the word. It's YOUR feeling about it that causes you a problem. You said it yourself. Socailism is practically regarded as a swear sword. You know the negative connotation it has. You know that it is described policy in a negative way. You therefore know it isn't good, but you can not reconcile that with the your beliefs which tend to more leftist than not. So to reconcile this 'bad word' and it's allignment with your beliefs you try to make the rest of us define it in a way that is more palatable for you.

No it can't. Your idea of "liberalism" is half-arsed, that' why it can't be substituted. I have to accept that Americans have mangled the definition of "liberal" to make it almost unintellgible for those outside the US to understand. And since it's used in the domestic political discourse in the US and Americans know what it means (it means something or someone right wingers don't like) far be it from me to criticise.

But that doesn't mean I have to surrender when it's chucked at me. As I said, "socialism" isn't just a word, it's a word used to describe a particular socio-economic concept. You might call it "liberalism" and that's fine, but I will continue to point out that the rubbery idea of "liberalism" as held by many Americans is not connected to the socio-economic concept called "socialism".

Thank God, because the United State is far better than that. Have a great life in your country, d.

I just came from a grocery store. While the wife was shopping I read about the plight of a local child that was born without the soft areas in it's skull. They are doing the neccessary surgery to insure the childs survival, but the insurance does not cover the special helmut that the child needs. And both parents were just laid off from their jobs. In every other industrial nation in the world, this would have been taken care of.

So, in view of the above, what makes the US better than Australia in this case, and many others like it. In France, Germany, Great Britain, ect. this would have been taken care of as a matter of course. Here, our compassionate Conservatives care nothing about our children.

 

[Old Rocks]

No it can't. Your idea of "liberalism" is half-arsed, that' why it can't be substituted. I have to accept that Americans have mangled the definition of "liberal" to make it almost unintellgible for those outside the US to understand. And since it's used in the domestic political discourse in the US and Americans know what it means (it means something or someone right wingers don't like) far be it from me to criticise.

But that doesn't mean I have to surrender when it's chucked at me. As I said, "socialism" isn't just a word, it's a word used to describe a particular socio-economic concept. You might call it "liberalism" and that's fine, but I will continue to point out that the rubbery idea of "liberalism" as held by many Americans is not connected to the socio-economic concept called "socialism".

Thank God, because the United State is far better than that. Have a great life in your country, d.

M, a great life is relative. I want for nothing because I'm lucky enough to have a reasonably well paid job and I'm in secure employment. And here, although we're a small country in terms of population (21.5m) and we have a small economy (we scrape into the G20 but that's about it), we have a pretty fair country. It has its problems, for sure, but we have a culture that is built on several concepts. The first is a "fair go." That means everyone should be given a chance to make a go of it. That means not holding someone back. But also it means if someone falls over then we give them a hand back up but only when they fall over.

We also have a culture that approves of the "battler". The battler is someone who might be on a low wage, without much material wealth but who is decent and honest and hard-working. We like battlers, we don't see them as "losers". We like to see the battler get a fair go.

Sadly though in the 11 years of the Howard conservative government we started to lose touch with those basic cultural concepts and we had our own 11 years of breakneck avarice. Truth is we went a bit nuts on the proceeds of the mining boom (we're good at digging up stuff and selling it, we're bloody hopeless at using the stuff to make things) and we got greedy, plasma televisions for all!!! (I don't have one). Now we're being pulled back to reality because China has slowed, because the US has slowed. But you know the funny thing about it? We're re-disovering our cultural values and it seems kind of nice.

Thank you for your kind wishes and I wish the same for you and yours.

The point you make here concerning the 'battler' is a good one. There was a time in this nation when the honest workman, whether a janitor or an engineer, was considered a man to respect.

In the current culture, he is considered a loser. Someone who is fool enough to actually work for a living instead of scamming his neighbor for it.

So no matter how well you ply your trade, no matter how well you manage your finances according to your income, in the US, if you are not conspicously wealthy, you are a loser.

A streed corner dealer commands more respect because he can flash more money. A drugged out lying radio jock is the at the top of these peoples list of admirable people because he makes $500,000,000 a year.

Here in America, an 80 IQ basketball player that is in constant trouble with the law commands more respect and money than a scientist making major contributions to the well being of the citizens of this nation.

 

[Diuretic]

The point you make here concerning the 'battler' is a good one. There was a time in this nation when the honest workman, whether a janitor or an engineer, was considered a man to respect.

In the current culture, he is considered a loser. Someone who is fool enough to actually work for a living instead of scamming his neighbor for it.

So no matter how well you ply your trade, no matter how well you manage your finances according to your income, in the US, if you are not conspicously wealthy, you are a loser.

A streed corner dealer commands more respect because he can flash more money. A drugged out lying radio jock is the at the top of these peoples list of admirable people because he makes $500,000,000 a year.

Here in America, an 80 IQ basketball player that is in constant trouble with the law commands more respect and money than a scientist making major contributions to the well being of the citizens of this nation.

Times change indeed. I first visited the US in 1984. I spent two months travelling around and thanks to an American Airlines deal with an internal flight pass thing and car rental I had a really good look around. But I was a visitor and only scratched the surface of the country and its culture. One thing I learned though that I could never learn from mere observation from afar was the incredible cultural diversity in one country.

I had done a great deal of reading (this was pre-internet for all of course) about the US and its culture (cultures) and one thing I read which stuck in my mind was a reference to work and workers.

Unlike many countries, the UK being a prime example, I read that Americans don't look down on workers in terms of status.

The piece I read said that Americans don't look down on your even if your job is "pumping gas", provided you do it well.

That really hit home with me because I was born into a culture that is ridden with class distinction based on occupation and wealth. And I live in a culture that has, to a degree inherited that preoccupation with class but has managed to ameliorate it somewhat (hence the admiration of the battler).

I also read that tipping was an important part of life in the US (we don't have that culture to any great deal here for various reasons, being tight with money isn't one of them ).

On one of my several trips to the US after that initial 1984 jaunt I remember being in Oregon with a rental car and I pulled up at a service station and a young bloke came out and filled the car and started cleaning the windows of the car without me asking him. I hopped out of the car to pay for the fuel and then I offered him a tip for his work. "That won't be necessary sir", he told me. That piece I read came back to me. That young bloke was really good at his job. If I'd been living there in Oregon I would have gone out of my way to go back to that service station time and time again.

Funny how things come to mind.

 

[Annie]

The point you make here concerning the 'battler' is a good one. There was a time in this nation when the honest workman, whether a janitor or an engineer, was considered a man to respect.

In the current culture, he is considered a loser. Someone who is fool enough to actually work for a living instead of scamming his neighbor for it.

So no matter how well you ply your trade, no matter how well you manage your finances according to your income, in the US, if you are not conspicously wealthy, you are a loser.

A streed corner dealer commands more respect because he can flash more money. A drugged out lying radio jock is the at the top of these peoples list of admirable people because he makes $500,000,000 a year.

Here in America, an 80 IQ basketball player that is in constant trouble with the law commands more respect and money than a scientist making major contributions to the well being of the citizens of this nation.

Times change indeed. I first visited the US in 1984. I spent two months travelling around and thanks to an American Airlines deal with an internal flight pass thing and car rental I had a really good look around. But I was a visitor and only scratched the surface of the country and its culture. One thing I learned though that I could never learn from mere observation from afar was the incredible cultural diversity in one country.

I had done a great deal of reading (this was pre-internet for all of course) about the US and its culture (cultures) and one thing I read which stuck in my mind was a reference to work and workers.

Unlike many countries, the UK being a prime example, I read that Americans don't look down on workers in terms of status.

The piece I read said that Americans don't look down on your even if your job is "pumping gas", provided you do it well.

That really hit home with me because I was born into a culture that is ridden with class distinction based on occupation and wealth. And I live in a culture that has, to a degree inherited that preoccupation with class but has managed to ameliorate it somewhat (hence the admiration of the battler).

I also read that tipping was an important part of life in the US (we don't have that culture to any great deal here for various reasons, being tight with money isn't one of them ).

On one of my several trips to the US after that initial 1984 jaunt I remember being in Oregon with a rental car and I pulled up at a service station and a young bloke came out and filled the car and started cleaning the windows of the car without me asking him. I hopped out of the car to pay for the fuel and then I offered him a tip for his work. "That won't be necessary sir", he told me. That piece I read came back to me. That young bloke was really good at his job. If I'd been living there in Oregon I would have gone out of my way to go back to that service station time and time again.

Funny how things come to mind.

I wonder at the 'lesson' or 'message' you took from that experience coupled with your prior readings? From your posts, it seems the lesson was lost.

 

[Meister]

Thank God, because the United State is far better than that. Have a great life in your country, d.

M, a great life is relative. I want for nothing because I'm lucky enough to have a reasonably well paid job and I'm in secure employment. And here, although we're a small country in terms of population (21.5m) and we have a small economy (we scrape into the G20 but that's about it), we have a pretty fair country. It has its problems, for sure, but we have a culture that is built on several concepts. The first is a "fair go." That means everyone should be given a chance to make a go of it. That means not holding someone back. But also it means if someone falls over then we give them a hand back up but only when they fall over.

We also have a culture that approves of the "battler". The battler is someone who might be on a low wage, without much material wealth but who is decent and honest and hard-working. We like battlers, we don't see them as "losers". We like to see the battler get a fair go.

Sadly though in the 11 years of the Howard conservative government we started to lose touch with those basic cultural concepts and we had our own 11 years of breakneck avarice. Truth is we went a bit nuts on the proceeds of the mining boom (we're good at digging up stuff and selling it, we're bloody hopeless at using the stuff to make things) and we got greedy, plasma televisions for all!!! (I don't have one). Now we're being pulled back to reality because China has slowed, because the US has slowed. But you know the funny thing about it? We're re-disovering our cultural values and it seems kind of nice.

Thank you for your kind wishes and I wish the same for you and yours.

The point you make here concerning the 'battler' is a good one. There was a time in this nation when the honest workman, whether a janitor or an engineer, was considered a man to respect.

In the current culture, he is considered a loser. Someone who is fool enough to actually work for a living instead of scamming his neighbor for it.

So no matter how well you ply your trade, no matter how well you manage your finances according to your income, in the US, if you are not conspicously wealthy, you are a loser.

A streed corner dealer commands more respect because he can flash more money. A drugged out lying radio jock is the at the top of these peoples list of admirable people because he makes $500,000,000 a year.

Here in America, an 80 IQ basketball player that is in constant trouble with the law commands more respect and money than a scientist making major contributions to the well being of the citizens of this nation.

I'm really not on board with what your saying Old Rocks. Though it is true that a person that makes a lot of money seems to be held in higher esteem, that still doesn't take away from the "battler". A hard working person still does command the respect no matter how much money the person makes, not a loser. A loser would be a person that doesn't try to work, and does scam off the system. Maybe not in Oregon, but elsewhere I have found that to be true.
As far as your remarks about a street corner dealer, and (lets face it...your talking about Rush) the radio jock, is nothing more than your bias views with politics Old Rocks. The dealer doesn't command respect except for maybe in your world. As far as Rush...your really winging that one Old Rocks.
There is some truth with the 80 IQ sports player, the media has really built up those sorts. But, that's because we put such emphasis in the sports world.

 

[Diuretic]

The point you make here concerning the 'battler' is a good one. There was a time in this nation when the honest workman, whether a janitor or an engineer, was considered a man to respect.

In the current culture, he is considered a loser. Someone who is fool enough to actually work for a living instead of scamming his neighbor for it.

So no matter how well you ply your trade, no matter how well you manage your finances according to your income, in the US, if you are not conspicously wealthy, you are a loser.

A streed corner dealer commands more respect because he can flash more money. A drugged out lying radio jock is the at the top of these peoples list of admirable people because he makes $500,000,000 a year.

Here in America, an 80 IQ basketball player that is in constant trouble with the law commands more respect and money than a scientist making major contributions to the well being of the citizens of this nation.

Times change indeed. I first visited the US in 1984. I spent two months travelling around and thanks to an American Airlines deal with an internal flight pass thing and car rental I had a really good look around. But I was a visitor and only scratched the surface of the country and its culture. One thing I learned though that I could never learn from mere observation from afar was the incredible cultural diversity in one country.

I had done a great deal of reading (this was pre-internet for all of course) about the US and its culture (cultures) and one thing I read which stuck in my mind was a reference to work and workers.

Unlike many countries, the UK being a prime example, I read that Americans don't look down on workers in terms of status.

The piece I read said that Americans don't look down on your even if your job is "pumping gas", provided you do it well.

That really hit home with me because I was born into a culture that is ridden with class distinction based on occupation and wealth. And I live in a culture that has, to a degree inherited that preoccupation with class but has managed to ameliorate it somewhat (hence the admiration of the battler).

I also read that tipping was an important part of life in the US (we don't have that culture to any great deal here for various reasons, being tight with money isn't one of them ).

On one of my several trips to the US after that initial 1984 jaunt I remember being in Oregon with a rental car and I pulled up at a service station and a young bloke came out and filled the car and started cleaning the windows of the car without me asking him. I hopped out of the car to pay for the fuel and then I offered him a tip for his work. "That won't be necessary sir", he told me. That piece I read came back to me. That young bloke was really good at his job. If I'd been living there in Oregon I would have gone out of my way to go back to that service station time and time again.

Funny how things come to mind.

I wonder at the 'lesson' or 'message' you took from that experience coupled with your prior readings? From your posts, it seems the lesson was lost.

No Annie, not lost, I was just reflecting on how things have apparently changed, in the US, for the worse. You see my first visit was when Reagan was in the White House. I wasn't a fan, I think he began the rot that set in. I remember driving from Chicago to Iowa (Muscatine) and calling in in Dixon, Illinois to get some lunch and finding Reagan's boyhood home (which was a tourist location of course). Reagan didn't have a privileged life as a boy but he made himself successful in acting as we know (synchronicity - on the same visit I was shown around parts of the LA Country Sheriff's department by a woman who had a minor part in a couple of films with Reagan) and later in business and then of course in politics. But in his political life he somehow shifted from the side that would have supported battlers to that side that regarded its base as the haves and the have-mores.

Old Rocks' post caused me some reflection, that's all. I'm capable of seeing things from more than one perspective.