Lets just say...

[no1tovote4]

So people should not worry and be happy in the west, adopting Buhddist/Gia (sp) philosophies, have fun and not work? How low are your living standards? Just how much are you willing to give up, in exchange for meditation and well being?????????

One doesn't have to give up everything to be a Buddhist.

This is more a cultural thing. Like all those articles about the "quality of life" that are always skewed toward a European opinion on it. They take the amount of vacation and time doing nothing and equate that to quality of life, along with the question about how satisfied that they are, but in the US we are not largely satisfied with things to remain static.

People in the US consistently work to improve their situation in regards to new situations. Each time one reaches a goal, in the US they set a new goal, thus remaining "unsatisfied" while they are still happy with the direction they have taken or even where they currently are. Thus when asked about their level of satisfaction in the US you are more likely to get a negative answer, not because they don't like their life but because they have already set new goals that they are working towards and have yet to reach them. Satisfaction is a relative term.

 

[Abbey Normal]

As someone who disagreed with Sage's original premise (and still do), I did mention that there are some exceptions to the general rule of supply and demand, and paying for talent. To elaborate, those would be the CEO's who are cozy with their Board of Directors and essentially give themselves over the top multi-million dollar salaries. This is not supply and demand and pay for talent, but cronyism.

 

[Said1]

One doesn't have to give up everything to be a Buddhist.

This is more a cultural thing. Like all those articles about the "quality of life" that are always skewed toward a European opinion on it. They take the amount of vacation and time doing nothing and equate that to quality of life, along with the question about how satisfied that they are, but in the US we are not largely satisfied with things to remain static.

People in the US consistently work to improve their situation in regards to new situations. Each time one reaches a goal, in the US they set a new goal, thus remaining "unsatisfied" while they are still happy with the direction they have taken or even where they currently are. Thus when asked about their level of satisfaction in the US you are more likely to get a negative answer, not because they don't like their life but because they have already set new goals that they are working towards and have yet to reach them. Satisfaction is a relative term.

I know one does not have to give up everything to be a Buddhist, my comment was in response to Sage's remarks about Tibet and learning something from the experiences of Chineses soldiers. It didn't seem as though she realized it is a cultural thing, maybe my question could have been phrased differently instead of poking fun at her. :huh:

Also, people in the US are not so different from other westerners with respect to working towards a goal, attaining, then setting new ones, thanks for the "heads up" though.

 

[sagegirl]

One doesn't have to give up everything to be a Buddhist.

This is more a cultural thing. Like all those articles about the "quality of life" that are always skewed toward a European opinion on it. They take the amount of vacation and time doing nothing and equate that to quality of life, along with the question about how satisfied that they are, but in the US we are not largely satisfied with things to remain static.

People in the US consistently work to improve their situation in regards to new situations. Each time one reaches a goal, in the US they set a new goal, thus remaining "unsatisfied" while they are still happy with the direction they have taken or even where they currently are. Thus when asked about their level of satisfaction in the US you are more likely to get a negative answer, not because they don't like their life but because they have already set new goals that they are working towards and have yet to reach them. Satisfaction is a relative term.

Your comments ring true to me......and I see nothing wrong with setting goals, achieving them, and setting new goals, life is change and I appreciate the flow of information, ideas, and energy. Like I said this is my time and place and I am an active member of the community, I have almost everything I want on a personal level and more than I need for sure.

 

[Mr. P]

... I have almost everything I want on a personal level and more than I need for sure.

So what are you doing with the part you don't "need"? Giving it away or keeping it? If you keep it, isn't that greed?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Would you prefer Socialism?

Given the fact that the pure capitalism you envision can only operate within the framework of a rational society, it will not...cannot, work in the world today. No truly rational society exists on the face of this world.

Thus it is necessary that business practices be regulated to reign in the worst human excesses and impulses that arise in the pursuit of commerce. Many businesses are thoughtful and ethical in their pursuit of profit. They are posessed of a long term vision of their own futures as well as those of their employees, their neighbors and their customers. They are good corporate citizens. Conversely, many businesses pursue a scorched-earth, profit at any price, narrow vision. Such business ventures are utterly unconcerned with the consequences of their activities on their employees, neighbors or customers. It is they who sour so many against capitalism.

Socialism, defined as collective or state ownership of the means of production, has been shown to be an absolute failure. Such centralized planning stifles innovation and competion, ultimately collapsing upon itself as the inherent inefficiencies of such a system destroy its very foundations.

Similarly unbridled, unregulated free-market capitalism destroys its base of employees and consumers, wreaks havoc on the environment, and benefits no one but the captains of industry. We need look no further than the robber-barons of 19th and early 20th century America or the British Empire under Queen Victoria and later under Edward VII and George V.

SO, until we achieve a truly rational society, our best option is to adopt, and vigorously police, regulated free markets.

 

[Said1]

Given the fact that the pure capitalism you envision can only operate within the framework of a rational society, it will not...cannot, work in the world today. No truly rational society exists on the face of this world.

Thus it is necessary that business practices be regulated to reign in the worst human excesses and impulses that arise in the pursuit of commerce. Many businesses are thoughtful and ethical in their pursuit of profit. They are posessed of a long term vision of their own futures as well as those of their employees, their neighbors and their customers. They are good corporate citizens. Conversely, many businesses pursue a scorched-earth, profit at any price, narrow vision. Such business ventures are utterly unconcerned with the consequences of their activities on their employees, neighbors or customers. It is they who sour so many against capitalism.

Socialism, defined as collective or state ownership of the means of production, has been shown to be an absolute failure. Such centralized planning stifles innovation and competion, ultimately collapsing upon itself as the inherent inefficiencies of such a system destroy its very foundations.

Similarly unbridled, unregulated free-market capitalism destroys its base of employees and consumers, wreaks havoc on the environment, and benefits no one but the captains of industry. We need look no further than the robber-barons of 19th and early 20th century America or the British Empire under Queen Victoria and later under Edward VII and George V.

SO, until we achieve a truly rational society, our best option is to adopt, and vigorously police, regulated free markets.

True, corperate culture replaced feudalism, but even Locke and Smith felt government was a nessesary evil. The reform liberals argued for the welfare state, and I think what we see now, in lots of places, is something in the middle.

 

[sagegirl]

So what are you doing with the part you don't "need"? Giving it away or keeping it? If you keep it, isn't that greed?

Let me just say I am probably considered middle class, because of the way I was brought up and live, I am not a typical consumer. I have no debt.....we saved and bought some property and developed it, I pay off my credit card every month. We both have modest retirement funds, and a small nest egg set aside for retirement. There are several charities we give to (time and money)and we still have a little left over for toys.....like a computer
All of us, as we get older, have to accept that we cannot count on producing income and will have to get by on what we have been able to save/invest.
That security is not absolute, inflation being a big threat, hence it is difficult to know what you will NEED to get by. In the end, since we didnt have kids, it all goes to charity.

 

[Mr. P]

Let me just say I am probably considered middle class, because of the way I was brought up and live, I am not a typical consumer. I have no debt.....we saved and bought some property and developed it, I pay off my credit card every month. We both have modest retirement funds, and a small nest egg set aside for retirement. There are several charities we give to (time and money)and we still have a little left over for toys.....like a computer
All of us, as we get older, have to accept that we cannot count on producing income and will have to get by on what we have been able to save/invest.
That security is not absolute, inflation being a big threat, hence it is difficult to know what you will NEED to get by. In the end, since we didnt have kids, it all goes to charity.

So you're angry that the suits have more? Is that it? You think you are entitled to more? I just don't understand the point you were trying to make I guess.