Americans don't hold monopoly on stupid ideas

[Willmeister]

The world isn't clearcut. I really do hate the Puritanical/Marxist/Revolutionary view of everything being black or white. The world is just one big grey mess. People are drawn to the comfort of absolutes. They don't want to think. Actually, I can be a bit more accurate. People don't want to stand out because they fear opprobrium of the group. So much so, when someone pushes an agenda they don't agree with, or they simply remain silent because it's safer and easier. This is a very big problem since people will usually follow the salvational ideology that presents the least amount of work, even if they know it's not right. I'm of the opinion that if people are just made conciously aware of it, then eventually change will come. And I think this new conciousness is coming forward in an evolutionary way.

Motivation = good

Motivated to do what? Hitler was certainly very motivated to kill Jews wasn't he?

Hard work = good

Hard work or necessary work. For what purpose? I seperate the two, and necessary work is much more important than just hard work. Work should be done, not because it's hard, but because it is necessary. To me, necessary work isn't hard or easy. It's just work that has to be done.

Trying to better one's self = good

For what? So people admire you? That's almost the venal sin of vanity so one has to be truthful to himself/herself. The very first things I think of when this "I'm trying to better myself" comment are: 1) That person as some form of excuse, or 2) trying to make themselves sound somehow cultured. To me, the second is worse than the first.

Competition = good

Two things drive competitive nature: vanity and greed.

I see the above 4 things very interwoven.

 

[RussSchultz]

The world isn't clearcut...Two things drive competitive nature: vanity and greed.

Certainly you don't need me to point out the irony of your statements.

You're just trolling, aren't you? No, its alright. You can tell me.

 

[pax]

Bit odd of you to challenge Canada's pool of talent in terms of actors there legion... Quite a few a-list actors are canadian. Id be wiling to bet you mistake many as being american when they arent.

As for our bankrupting welfare system we spend in terms of capita less on it than you do especialy because of our very efficient health care system which though underfunded would still compare very favorably if it was allowed to grow to 13% of gdp vs your 16% (its now at 11% approx). Not to mention it would be gold plated at that level of funding. I find it very funny how taxes are seen to be such an evil but insurance premiums and other bills for essentials arent. Ill pay tax anyday as I know the bang for the buck I get out of it.

Gov has been running surpluses since 1998...

Oh but we're bankrupt...

 

[Willmeister]

What brings him at all is his ability to market his product.

You're making an assumption that everyone is a slave to the pursuit of money. Not all 'products' are sold now are they? How else do you explain why people pursue reasearch projects in academia. Research products are probably the worst way of becoming rich.

Not to sound like some sports star, but people do things for the love of it.

 

[Willmeister]

Two things drive competitive nature: vanity and greed.

Enlighten us mere mortals oh master.

I can see no other things that drive competition. Just because I can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, what are other motivations to competition other than vanity and greed.

 

[Legion]

Bit odd of you to challenge Canada's pool of talent in terms of actors there legion... Quite a few a-list actors are canadian. Id be wiling to bet you mistake many as being american when they arent.

that must be because its so well known. You know we watch movies from canada and canadian companies all the time.

Now Quite a few boils down to how when many comparited to the americans? Didn't i just get through saying what you have doesn't compare to what we have?

As for our bankrupting welfare system we spend in terms of capita less on it than you do especialy because of our very efficient health care system which though underfunded would still compare very favorably if it was allowed to grow to 13% of gdp vs your 16% (its now at 11% approx). not to mention it would be gold plated at that level of funding.[/quote}

Lol please don't tell you you are comparing figures to a populace much larger in size then your country who also invest heavily in charitable medical donations around the world on a level canada does not.

Futhermore don't insuating that your waiting system is efficient. It takes high taxations to fund it already as time progresses and the baby boomers move out of the working fields and into retirement medicare benefit prices will increase. Not to mention there must be an increase in labor to deal with all of these patients, medicine, equipments, etc, etc. David Gatzer is not the first person to state the canadian medical system is going to fall aparts. This is probably why your government is so willing to import business for reasons of taxation to try and counter balance the massive bills that will be coming.

Gov has been running surpluses since 1998...

Oh but we're bankrupt...

Do i really need to repeart Democoder's explinition of deficit to you?

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Willmeister,

People don't want to stand out because they fear opprobrium of the group.

I have seen you use fear quite often. Would you feel that fear is a large part of most people's life? Just wondering. If so, I must be abnormal. =)

Motivated to do what? Hitler was certainly very motivated to kill Jews wasn't he?

Motivation >> laziness
Motivation >> sloth
Motivation >> inaction

I was not trying to say that if you do it with motivation, it must therefore be good.

Hard work or necessary work. For what purpose? I separate the two, and necessary work is much more important than just hard work.

Very true, but in the same vein:

Hard work >> laziness
Hard work >> sloth
Hard work >> inaction

Maybe I should have just said:

Laziness = bad
Sloth = bad
Inaction = bad

Quote:

Trying to better one's self = good



For what? So people admire you? That's almost the venal sin of vanity so one has to be truthful to himself/herself. The very first things I think of when this "I'm trying to better myself" comment arises: 1) That person as some form of excuse, or 2) trying to make themselves sound somehow cultured. To me, the second is worse than the first.

Wow, this is way off base. I wish to better myself so I better person. I have never been motivated by what others think. Peer pressure was never a big deal to me. I don't understand 1). What excuse are you talking about? I really don't wish to be cultured or elite in any way.

I wish to be a better husband. I wish to be a better son. I wish to be a better friend to my wife. I wish to be better at finances. I wish to be a better Christian. I wish to be better in my job. I wish to better understand human interaction. I wish to better understand electronics. I wish to better myself. Do you see this as wrong somehow? Please explain.

Two things drive competitive nature: vanity and greed.

No it doesn't. Well, let me rephrase, those are not the only things that CAN drive a competitive nature. I love my wife with all my being and soul. I wish to be a better husband for her out of love. I wish to be better than I was yesterday. I do not see the vanity or greed in that. I see that I wish to serve my wife better than I did yesterday.

It seems that you live in a very bleck world where fear, greed, vanity, and the like is much more of a motivating factor that in the world where I live.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. Oh, the world in many ways is a very nasty place. I just don't think it is always such a nasty mean world. /shrug

 

[Legion]

What brings him at all is his ability to market his product.

You're making an assumption that everyone is a slave to the pursuit of money. Not all 'products' are sold now are they? How else do you explain why people pursue reasearch projects in academia. Research products are probably the worst way of becoming rich.

Not to sound like some sports star, but people do things for the love of it.

No you are making a ridculous assertion that has been completely disproven. Society doesn't require some unknown to innovate. The whole concept of what you are saying makes NO sense. Companies consist of numerous people any of whom have the capacity to apply their knowledge and develope assuming they are in a field to do so. The budget they have, the budget they will have, and the capacity to aid their companies are massive insentives to inovate. How on earth do you think we have most of the technologies we have today Will? Computers were first invented and have been improved by companies do to competition in order to develope a product that will sell to the populace. In fact competition is what brought PCs to people and at afforable prices in the first place.

 

[Willmeister]

I have never been motivated by what others think.

I don't believe you at all, sorry. Schoolshooters probably say the same thing, usually before they open fire... EVERYONE cares what others think of them. It's an unescapable human condition. It helps define our self-esteem, our sense of worth. It brings sense of belonging that everyone needs. When it goes overboard, or when people fail to recognize that they are part of the group, elitism then arises. It's important to feel that one can contribute to the group and others recognize you the same way.

It's a tightrope act. It's part of the human condition.

No it doesn't. Well, let me rephrase, those are not the only things that CAN drive a competitive nature. I love my wife with all my being and soul. I wish to be a better husband for her out of love. I wish to be better than I was yesterday. I do not see the vanity or greed in that. I see that I wish to serve my wife better than I did yesterday.

I fail to see the relevance to 'competition' there at all.

It seems that you live in a very bleck world where fear, greed, vanity, and the like is much more of a motivating factor that in the world where I live.

Knowing of it's existence is the best way of dealing with it at a personal level. It's sounds heavy, but once you know about it and address it, the world actually brightens up. I suppose it creates a frame of reference...

Oh, the world in many ways is a very nasty place. I just don't think it is always such a nasty mean world.

Not to sound too... fatalistic... but the world just is. That doesn't mean it has to be. Humans were given self-determination, and an awareness and ability to change our surroundings.

 

[pax]

Legion we both have issues with baby boomers retiring... I dont remember reading any especially enlightening disgression on deficits that shows us worse off than the states in those terms. We have surpluses at the federal and most provincial levels. We have had trade surpluses for as long as I can remember. Im not up to date on consumer indebtedness in Canada but we're probly not far behind you guys there.

I suppose you could say we run % rates slightly higher than yours but thats not for maintaining bond sales its for fighting inflation... because of the booming economy...

As for actors and movies well Toronto is #2 after Hollywood. And then again we have 1\9th or so of your population. It maybe a big pink country on the average world map but dont let that fool ya .

I dont usually compare things other than per capita. We could do a LOT better if we had more people up here. But the neo cons politicians are too busy catering to their redneck constituants to let that happen...


When you say weighting system do you mean taxation? Ive never heard that term before as to address taxation... We have probs with public health care due to the gross underfunding that is going on. In terms of the north american economy and market 11% is just not enough at this time. Its not collapsing by any means right now but it could if neo con govs continue to sabotage health care to cater to the huge corporate health care lobbies that have about 500 agents in Ottawa alone... God only knows hom much $ they gave to the Libs and other neo con political parties to get their foot in the door...

 

[Willmeister]

Companies consist of numerous people any of whom have the capacity to apply their knowledge and develope assuming they are in a field to do so.

So innovation begins only in the private sector does it? More innovation has come out of academia, even Democoder couldn't argue against it. Our modern world is built upon the 'innovation' of academia over the last few centuries. Even most of the technologies we have today were innovated because of large government grants (governments *needed* innovation so they bought it), subsidies, and protecting large natural monopolies from the rigidities of the marketplace. If it wasn't for the regulation of telephone industry, the semiconductor probably would not have been created since more monies would have been allocated to 'competition' than to any R&D. R&D is usually very low on the totem pole as it's virtually unnecessary in the day-to-day operations of a firm. That's why R&D is invariably the first to be cut in bad economic times because R&D doesn't generate needed short-term revenue. It's like amputating an arm to save a body.

How on earth do you think we have most of the technologies we have today Will?

NASA and other immigrant-dominated institutions. That, and you're government sponsors most R&D anyway.

Computers were first invented and have been improved by companies do to competition in order to develope a product that will sell to the populace.

Computers were not developed by companies, or exclusively for sale, sorry. Companies will not sell anything that has no demand, so a product will be developed because there is a need for it. Initially, computers had little demand. Babbages machine went nowhere until the height of the industrial age when Holerith came calling.

Computers were developed, not because of 'competition' but because of need. Again, necessity is the mother of invention. Companies would just come in and use the oppurtunity to make profit, or because those that demand don't want to make their own.

If a company comes around and improves something with that money and you call it innovation, so be it. I guess one could call it 'innovation under duress.'

Most of the 'big' inventions were the result of some government action and see no problem with that.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Willmeister,

Quote:

I have never been motivated by what others think.



I don't believe you at all, sorry. Schoolshooters probably say the same thing, usually before they open fire... EVERYONE cares what others think of them. It's an unescapable human condition. It helps define our self-esteem, our sense of worth. It brings sense of belonging that everyone needs. When it goes overboard, or when people fail to recognize that they are part of the group, elitism then arises. It's important to feel that one can contribute to the group and others recognize you the same way.

It's a tightrope act. It's part of the human condition.

I was in error. You really should never say never. It was more of a general comment. People that have known me have commented that I don't bow down to peer pressure. It was more of a relative comment, not an absolute.

You asked "For what? So people admire you?". I was making the comment, that no, I am not. I am much less motivated by what people think that others are when it comes to peer pressure and admiration. For example, when I was in High School, I did not drink at parties, or smoke weed. When I was quite young (Middle School), I went to a party, there was lots of weed and drinking. I went in, everyone saw me, I turned around and left. A lot of kids would be not have left as they would have worried what others would think. I didn't care what they thought. I did not want to be there.

Quote:

No it doesn't. Well, let me rephrase, those are not the only things that CAN drive a competitive nature. I love my wife with all my being and soul. I wish to be a better husband for her out of love. I wish to be better than I was yesterday. I do not see the vanity or greed in that. I see that I wish to serve my wife better than I did yesterday.



I fail to see the relevance to 'competition' there at all.

I have a competitive nature. I compete with myself in most all things. I try and become better (something else you mentioned that was somehow bad). I gave you an example of that competitive nature. You said that competition was motivated by vanity and greed. I just gave you an example that was not.

Knowing of it's existence is the best way of dealing with it at a personal level. It's sounds heavy, but once you know about it and address it, the world actually brightens up. I suppose it creates a frame of reference...

Well, there is where we differ. I live in a world with much fear, greed, vanity, and the like, but I also live in a world filled with honesty, selflessness, kindness, and the like. You I guess choose to dwell on the dark side and make that you reality. I choose to dwell on the light side and made that my reality. Maybe we are both wrong.......

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Willmeister]

I have a competitive nature. I compete with myself in most all things. I try and become better (something else you mentioned that was somehow bad). I gave you an example of that competitive nature. You said that competition was motivated by vanity and greed. I just gave you an example that was not.

I don't compete with anyone, I just try and do it right the first time.

I don't buy the 'I'm competing with myself' either. I just don't. Sorry, I'm a Doubting Thomas.

...but I also live in a world filled with honesty, selflessness, kindness, and the like.

Yeah, what would be the point about worrying about those? Besides, things that are going right don't have to be addressed. Life is too short to pat ourselves on the back for EXPECTED behaviour.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

I don't compete with anyone, I just try and do it right the first time.

So you do everything right the first time? There is zero room for improvement?

I don't buy the 'I'm competing with myself' either. I just don't. Sorry, I'm a Doubting Thomas.

Have you ever heard of bicycle time trials? My father would go out and time himself. He would then go out from time to time to compete with his past time.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. You never did respond about self betterment.

 

[Willmeister]

So you do everything right the first time? There is zero room for improvement?

No, I said try.

PS. You never did respond about self betterment.

If you referring to improving 'efficiency', then yes.

 

[Legion]

So innovation begins only in the private sector does it?

Who said this? It can begin anywhere. However as a basis of development, businesses through competition, provide an excellent resource to produce and futher innovate your invention. On top of that companies themselves innovate.

More innovation has come out of academia, even Democoder couldn't argue against it.

Democoders' problem was most likely do to how the statement is worded. It is true acadamia has innovated more than business but that would be largely do to the fact acadamia has existed for thousands of years where as business as we know hasn't. However within our era more technological innovations have been made then in any other stretch of human history. Look at how we have advanced in the last 250 years alone. Its astounding. This is mainly do to business and competition (inside and outside of business) not to marxist communism which preaches a noncompetition doctrine.

Our modern world is built upon the 'innovation' of academia over the last few centuries.

Not entirely. Its is more accurate to suggest our society has innovated from innovations provided by acadamia in the past. Our society has advanced at a much much higher rate. This again is mainly do to innovations of free markets and competition to develop new marketable technologies.

Even most of the technologies we have today were innovated because of large government grants (governments *needed* innovation so they bought it), subsidies, and protecting large natural monopolies

That is a contradiction in terms . Companies bid for those grants which is a form of competition. The government grants the money to whomever it seems as best fit for the Job (IE NASA's involvments with Lockheed and MIT).

Actually governements have done less to prevent monopolies then the actually market its self has. A monopoly is a form of non competitive business which serves as a counter example to your point.

If it wasn't for the regulation of telephone industry, the semiconductor probably would not have been created since more monies would have been allocated to 'competition' than to any R&D.

That is doubtful. That is like saying we'd have had P4s years ago if AMD didn't exist. Its rather an absurd notion to assume competition doesn't require you to compete .

If the regulation concept is always beneficial what exactly happened to Minitel?

NASA and other immigrant-dominated institutions. That, and you're government sponsors most R&D anyway.

Here you go with that immigrant economy bs again. How many times must this be refuted before you give it up? It doesn't help your case to spout such propaganda.

Computers were not developed by companies, or exclusively for sale, sorry.

excuse me? Companies have done far more to develope the computer industry and innovate then singular individuals.

Companies will not sell anything that has no demand,

and you can't innovate with an invention no one wants

so a product will be developed because there is a need for it.

Of course companies will develope products because there is a need for them. Where do you think the micro-chips of today came from? The innovation we experience to computer hardware is largely do to companies innovations of the products. You are just going to have to admit this.

Initially, computers had little demand. Babbages machine went nowhere until the height of the industrial age when Holerith came calling.

It was also monsterously expensive. The Innovation of PCs has helped marketability. This is undeniable.

Computers were developed, not because of 'competition' but
because of need.

And have been imporved and innovated by competition.

If a company comes around and improves something with that money and you call it innovation, so be it. I guess one could call it 'innovation under duress.'

So we are going to argue by you exclusive definition of innovation you have created for foster your deluded perception of innovation Humpty Dumpty?

Most of the 'big' inventions were the result of some government action and see no problem with that.

And as i have said before most of those "big inventions" come from contracting out labor to competing groups.

 

[Sabastian]

As for our bankrupting welfare system we spend in terms of capita less on it than you do especialy because of our very efficient health care system which though underfunded would still compare very favorably if it was allowed to grow to 13% of gdp vs your 16% (its now at 11% approx). Not to mention it would be gold plated at that level of funding. I find it very funny how taxes are seen to be such an evil but insurance premiums and other bills for essentials arent. Ill pay tax anyday as I know the bang for the buck I get out of it.

Gov has been running surpluses since 1998...

Oh but we're bankrupt...

Average taxation in Canada is approximately 50%, that is too high.

You can get relatively the same blue cross plan in the US for about $70 US, no dental or eye coverage no asthetics.

Healthcare may be viewed as an extension of welfare.

Many Canadians go south of the boarder to get better service.

The government does not allow for private run health services at all.

Health care is in serious trouble in Canada and the service we receive, considering how much we pay, is quiet poor. If you don't use it much or at all then you are being forced to pay for something you don't use.

The budget surplus instead of being used to pay down the debt is re-spent and thrown out the window on interest payments.

Canada has more debt per capita then the US by far.

I don't argue we should have no taxes, just less I would be happy with an average taxation of around 30%.

Just sayin.

 

[DemoCoder]

...competition restrains innovation...

Qualifies as absurd statement of the year.

Personal desire to become wealthy drives a large number of people to create an ever larger number of inventions, all looking for that one golden invention that makes them rich.

Competition is a space filling function which drives people to colonize every corner of meme-space.

You need to look no further than the .com boom. Millions of people were sitting around brainstorming on whiteboards trying to dream up the "next big thing" and duplicate Netscape, Cisco, Sun, et al, like monkeys trying to create shakespear, a few of them came up with truly legitimate inventions (yahoo, google, amazon, paypal, ebay, etc), the rest of them turned out to be products no one wanted.

This is how nature works, with millions of mutations happening over time, and a large number of them end up killing the host, but a few lead to a stronger, better species.

Competition in nature drives genetic evolution.
Competition in the ecology of the market drives memetic evolution.

The reason socialism fails is because human beings can't control something as complex as an ecology, and if we can't deterministically control the environment (without destroying it with unpredictable effects) there is no way we can deterministically control the economy either.


And if it was greed and fear that drives Americans to create, it is greed and fear that drove Canadians to create, for example, ATI.

Greed and fear are not negative emotions. They are valuable parts of us. If people had no fear, more of them would die from stupid accidents. If people desired absoluting nothing, like a buddhist, there would be no reason to create anything, and we wouldn't be having this discussion today on an electronic bbs.

My desire to be wealthy is based on my desire for complete freedom. I want to engage in whatever activity I desire, and that means I need enough money so that I don't have to work (even though I want to work). I only want to work on ideas that I like. It is that desire, and seeing my parents work for 40 years on shit jobs, that drove me from lower class in inner city crack infested Baltimore to the level I am today, which according to TurboTax places my income in the top 5% of households.

 

[Legion]

Competition in nature drives genetic evolution.
Competition in the ecology of the market drives memetic evolution.

Nice.....

 

[DemoCoder]

BTW, there will never be an end to competition. If and when we ever achieve "post-scarcity" (a nanotech economy that can manufacture or copy any physical device for next to nothing), there will still be competition in the space of ideas.

Your nanotech assembler can't figure out new types of things to build. If you assume all of our inventing will be done by AI, then it will be the AIs that compete for our attention, respect, or whatever form of reward they get.

In any case, if machines are doing all the manufacturing and developing and we are nothing more than consumers, at that point, the human race has outlived it's usefulness and relevancy and as far as I'm concerned, the machines would be justified in taking over or moving away to live by themselves.