Have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"? The story about John Nash, Nobel Prize winning mathematician (and schizophrenic). Bet you have. I watched it again recently. Maybe we could all learn something from that. I'm certainly no mathematician like him, but it isn't that tough of a concept. What is best is not just best for the individual like Adam Smith economics, or what is best for the society like social liberalism, but is best benefit for the individual AND society. So if my criteria are what are best for me, also serves society, it is incomplete. If my criteria is what is best for society, then that is incomplete. I think in reality most people instinctively know this, but it gets lost in the shuffle.
Really, a lot of it comes down to the golden rule, Treat others as you would have them treat you. We seem to have lost our sense of ethics, in a narcissistic mentality of what I'm doing will benefit me, so it will benefit society.
But this isn't bashing wealthy people. If you build wealth, it can benefit others, as long as you do it ethically.
I'm in general against government intervention, but there needs to minimal amount of regulation, so people aren't taken advantage of. The question is just where is that line? When are too many regulations a disincentive for the entrepreneur and when is the government failing to look out for the "little" guy? I suspect we will argue about where that line is for years to come.
2007-12-10 04:34:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by robling_dwrdesign 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Here's the thing.. Socialism is 100% greed as well, except the people who are at the top are the ruling elite and it involves both monetary and political power greed. There's no way for a population to fight back against it because you don't have any options. With Capitalism, you always have the option to using your money as your power. You can stop buying certain products or change services to a different provider. The first step in fixing the economy is to remove the imposed barriers. Then get out of the way so it can function. It's critical to allow failure regardless of how large. That's the only way the system can work, because it promotes smart decisions. Sure there's pain, but with it comes a better system overall. A key lesson in economics is that regardless of how poor a private corporation's actions may be, government is always going to be worse. Heck, our entire country is run like a mixture of Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff's schemes. Why are they sentenced to prison while our leaders in Washington as permitted to continue the games? They are continuing to spend money, leaving the next generation to pay for it. Over time that "next generation" pays more and more into the system yet ultimately gets less out of it until eventually the people paying in won't get anything at all. That's called a pyramid or ponzi scheme.
2016-05-22 11:34:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bob, I'm not sure that it is wealth that is the corrupting influence, but I do see a culture of entitlement as being a real problem.
I know people of wealth who are also people of conscience. My college room-mate ate spinach because she knew it was good for her. She was really quite attractive, but she dressed for the circumstances (a harsh winter climate) with practical clothing, not "high fashion." I did not even realize her level of wealth until she invited us to her "cabin in the foothills," after graduation. Her family "cabin" was a 6 bedroom stunner in a gated community!
However, I saw a lot of young people through the years that thought because they had access to money, the world automatically owed them something, and it didn't matter what they did or who they cheated to get it. At the end of my years as a teacher, I saw more and more kids who had an "if I don't have it, it's okay for me to take it" mentality among children NOT of privilege. It isn't the money itself; it's the idea that money can buy self-worth. The idea seems to be "If you have none, then take it the same way I'm going to, and too bad for you if you don't."
Don't lose hope or heart. Many can quote the Beatles - even if they think it's spelled like the insect. "I don't care too much for money; Money can't buy me love."
2007-12-10 02:46:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Arby 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Geez, what a bunch of crap. The 'good old days' were no different than they are today. And that sentiment goes both ways. People cared then, they do now. They also didn't care then, just as some don't care now.
In fact, I'd venture to say that folks back in the good old days got along better because those of 'lesser means' wouldn't dare get 'uppity', particularly the minorities. That'll go a long way to thinking folks get along. You think the middle class folks in the 50's would have supported welfare for blacks or hispanics? Geez, keep smokin' it, Moonbeam. You're dreaming.
2007-12-10 02:49:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by The emperor has no clothes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think this has happened because of wealth. I don't think the average American is "wealthy." I think the American spirit has been corrupted by people looking out only for themselves, and having the attitude that they, themselves, are far more important than any other person in this country, or even on this planet.
We've become selfish and spoiled and have adopted this attitude of entitlement (to power and material things) that is probably making the founders spin in their graves.
That's not what America is, or was ever intended to be.
2007-12-10 02:40:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I was with you on your initial premise but then you lost me. I think the generally higher standard of living for all Americans has taken away what used to be most important about being an American- a solid work ethic, indvidualism, self reliance and so forth. When the WWII generation came into money after WWII, their kids had more than any generation ever on earth and it showed, then the babyboomers had kids, and they had even more, had little to know needs but tons of wants and the parents were all too willing to give because God forbid we say no and be parents rather than friends. People now have no idea what it is like to have a hard life when compared to people just 60 yrs ago or so. It isnt the super wealthy, it is the average American who has lost that sense of self worth, self reliance, rugged individualism and so forth that made this country great. We expect everything to be done for us and provided to us by the government or other entities, you just gave me a headache and its only 10:30
= )
2007-12-10 02:34:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
I don't think so. The nation has always been built on pursuit of wealth in a market economy.
I think that the character of the nation will be sourced in the character of the ruling classes of the time. And while the character of the current day's ruling class isn't great, the truth is that the United States has seen a LOT worse in terms of character and morality in its ruling classes.
As far as the average American goes, I think that the potential for disregard of society's needs was always operant. I think the difference today is that the average American has been led to believe that he is something more than average. He claims disregard of the poor for the sake of not being fancied a member of that socio-economic group himself. He's been convinced to sabotage his own interests as a seller of labor all for the sake of wearing an image of being a capitalist.
The period you're recalling, I take, is the 1940s to 1960s, which saw a rise of the working class and middle class to a point of greater wealth equity than exists today. That period was made possible by the actions of the middle class themselves. Back then, they were willing to argue on what their REAL interests were (better wages, better working conditions, better access to opportunity), then what they believe their interests will someday eventually BE...someday.
So, has the average American turned against the poor lately? I say, not as much as he has turned against himself.
2007-12-10 02:39:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lynne D 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
You are absolutely right. When I was growing up we had very little money, but we always helped the less fortunate. I always seems to have fun as a kid and I didn't have any of the things that the kids have today. I was born in 1970 and life back then was much more fun and carefree. It didn't matter what you had but how you were as a person. Now it is all about what you have. I hear the kids talking and saying "lets be friends with Mike he has an in ground pool" if you ask them if they like the kid they will say no we want to swim. It is all about $$$$$$. It is sad
2007-12-10 02:33:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Yes, life is now becoming a paid for experience. Our country is turning into Corporations and it's all about profits. Some rich people use their wealth to better the world..while some like many politicians ,CEO's etc. use it to go on vacation 75% of the year. People should realize that the rich are getting richer and thats wrong. This is why I am moving to a Socialist country....
What you fail to recognize is that we might have higher standard of living, but compared to other countries our life longeivity isn't as high. So to me that is irrelevant..James
You see in other countries..health care..education are paid for by taxes...even if you have money in America..everyone is in debt because everyone wants their cut. I had a shot @ St Mary's for a allegeric reaction..now I have a 1,000 bill and I am 20 yrs old...already in debt
2007-12-10 02:32:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Consider this, back in the 50s and 60s the 2 parent family still existed, we said the pledge of allegiance every day in school, we sang America in school every day, we said the lords prayer every day, we didn't need calculators to do math, and the Principal still used the paddle.
2007-12-10 03:07:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Johnny Reb 5
·
2⤊
0⤋