Pubbie v. left THUNDERDOME (apparently)

[GGT]

Whatever goal you identify for yourself in life, assuming its not an absurdity like suicide or homelessness, you can't achieve it without building your life meticulously around acquiring and managing money. Want to raise a family? You need money. Want to be a great painter? You need money. Want to be a scientist, an athlete, a movie star, an astronaut, a doctor, a lawyer, a garbage collector, a politician, a priest, you name it? You need money. Nobody can be safe, secure and healthy without money.

We all know it's a matter of degree. You're ignoring the "starving artist" or bohemian lifestyle, and even off-the-grid or self-sufficient lifestyle. Those are choices that don't require much money at all. There are blogs about people cutting up credit cards, growing their own food, living in micro houses, only buying used clothes or household goods, not being conspicuous consumers of energy or retail crap.

You seem to be caught up in your own consumer desires, and confusing them with needs. No one needs a house in the burbs with 1.8 children, 2 cars (with their own house), leather sofas, granite kitchen counter tops with cherry wood cabinets and stainless steel appliances, a flat screen tv, or a dog and a cat and fish tank.

[LittleFuzzy]

I guess it's official, no one reads my rants except Wraithy

That may be because recently, anyone who has read your rants and attempted any sort of non-joking reply that wasn't an overt agreement with your rant has been met with "what, you thought I was being serious?" rebuttals from you.

[Nessus]

The simple truth is that today Western capitalism is in the final stages of infiltrating, and for lack of a better word mutating, the rest of the world's cultures into some version of what the US has become. Everyone will live this way to some extent in the years to come, even you socialists in Europe - that's the necessary outcome of Globalization. Look at what's happening now with all the debt crises in Southern Europe; that's the beginning of the End for all that humanism. Money already is, and will be to a greater and greater extent over time for everyone everywhere, the fundamental organizing concept, factor, element, reality around which human life choices are made and time is spent. One way, or ther other.....

Until the Teapers run America to the ground.

[Nessus]

That may be because recently, anyone who has read your rants and attempted any sort of non-joking reply that wasn't an overt agreement with your rant has been met with "what, you thought I was being serious?" rebuttals from you.

Nothing lost and nothing gained, then. And the world continues to progress towards perfection...

[GGT]

(I read all your rants, Nessie. Sometimes they just don't need a reply. )

[EyeKhan]

We all know it's a matter of degree. You're ignoring the "starving artist" or bohemian lifestyle, and even off-the-grid or self-sufficient lifestyle. Those are choices that don't require much money at all. There are blogs about people cutting up credit cards, growing their own food, living in micro houses, only buying used clothes or household goods, not being conspicuous consumers of energy or retail crap.

In every example you just cited money was required to do whatever it is these folks want to do. It can't be avoided.

You seem to be caught up in your own consumer desires, and confusing them with needs. No one needs a house in the burbs with 1.8 children, 2 cars (with their own house), leather sofas, granite kitchen counter tops with cherry wood cabinets and stainless steel appliances, a flat screen tv, or a dog and a cat and fish tank.

I didn't say, or even imagine, piling up the extra trappings of middle America. I was thinking more along the lines of food, housing, health care and retirement. You need money for the very basics, not just for goodies. And if you don't focus on a career, maybe work retail 40 hours a week, and live modestly, your life still revolves around earning the money. Again - its the very basic structure of our civilization and it can't be avoided.

[GGT]

In every example you just cited money was required to do whatever it is these folks want to do. It can't be avoided.

I did say some amount of money is necessary for life. Not sure why you think being a garbage collector---or applying for work---requires having money first, though.

I didn't say, or even imagine, piling up the extra trappings of middle America. I was thinking more along the lines of food, housing, health care and retirement. You need money for the very basics, not just for goodies. And if you don't focus on a career, maybe work retail 40 hours a week, and live modestly, your life still revolves around earning the money. Again - its the very basic structure of our civilization and it can't be avoided.

I don't agree with you, when you say the nucleus of life is making/managing/saving/growing/investing money, and all other things revolve around that. That may be how many (or most) people operate, but that doesn't make it true. Just very common. There are millions of wealthy people who aren't happy, ya know. Plenty of other people strive to learn or create, do what they love doing, and accidentally find monetary wealth along the way. If they don't find wealth, it's not seen as a failure to do what they LOVE doing.

Musicians, writers, and artists are prime examples. If they can't make a living doing what they love, they'll work whatever odd job needed for their minimal lifestyle. Their happiness and success in life isn't measured by money. Big difference.

[EyeKhan]

Until the Teapers run America to the ground.

From their POV, they're saving America from our doomed-to-financial-failure experiment with European style socialism. You know, giving undeserving poor people free food and medicine to the detriment of people with moral fiber and character.

[EyeKhan]

I did say some amount of money is necessary for life. Not sure why you think being a garbage collector---or applying for work---requires having money first, though.

How many garbage collectors show up to their job interview naked and starving or wearing rags? How can someone find out about job availability without buying a newspaper or using some internet appliance? How can you set up an interview without making a phone call? How do you get to the interview without a car, subway fare or bus fare? Yes, some money is always necessary to live and operate in modern society. Your level of comfort, health, safety, and to some degree happiness is directly proportional to the amount of money you are able to bring in, at least for a certain span of the income spectrum. Once you are at a high enough, or low enough, income these things probably don't change much to go higher or lower.

I don't agree with you, when you say the nucleus of life is making/managing/saving/growing/investing money, and all other things revolve around that. That may be how many (or most) people operate, but that doesn't make it true. Just very common. There are millions of wealthy people who aren't happy, ya know.

Note, I haven't mentioned happiness until just above, and I said 'to some degree.'

Plenty of other people strive to learn or create, do what they love doing, and accidentally find monetary wealth along the way. If they don't find wealth, it's not seen as a failure to do what they LOVE doing.

Again, I'm not talking about rich and poor, happy or said, fullfilled or lost - I'm not measuring the value of lives - I'm only saying everyone's life must revolve around a common central theme- acquiring and managing money for meeting needs and wants. That's all. You've added all this extra baggage....

[Nessus]

From their POV, they're saving America from our doomed-to-financial-failure experiment with European style socialism. You know, giving undeserving poor people free food and medicine to the detriment of people with moral fiber and character.

And they're heading for the Sovetskaya system where a few hundred people live on the slave labour of hundreds of millions. These things haven't worked so well in the past.

[EyeKhan]

And they're heading for the Sovetskaya system where a few hundred people live on the slave labour of hundreds of millions. These things haven't worked so well in the past.

Are you kidding? They've worked FANTASTIC in the past. Its been the basic human social organization worldwide since at least when humans first started building cities. Its only recently that someone had the bright idea to share the wealth some. In the end, as long as that top tier is firmly in control, does the quality of life of the bottom masses really matter?

[Nessus]

Are you kidding? They've worked FANTASTIC in the past. Its been the basic human social organization worldwide since at least when humans first started building cities. Its only recently that someone had the bright idea to share the wealth some. In the end, as long as that top tier is firmly in control, does the quality of life of the bottom masses really matter?

They tend to execute their robber barons at some point.

[GGT]

How many garbage collectors show up to their job interview naked and starving or wearing rags? How can someone find out about job availability without buying a newspaper or using some internet appliance? How can you set up an interview without making a phone call? How do you get to the interview without a car, subway fare or bus fare?

How many Americans are running around naked? Main assumption is everyone has some help while they're children, from family or social services, no matter which social strata they're borne into....that's part of being a first world nation. At least as long as we have public education, public libraries, and public transportation. We used to have public phone booths for local calls (first a nickel, then a dime, then a quarter), but cell phones rather obliterated those.

Yes, some money is always necessary to live and operate in modern society. Your level of comfort, health, safety, and to some degree happiness is directly proportional to the amount of money you are able to bring in, at least for a certain span of the income spectrum. Once you are at a high enough, or low enough, income these things probably don't change much to go higher or lower.

Note, I haven't mentioned happiness until just above, and I said 'to some degree.' Again, I'm not talking about rich and poor, happy or said, fullfilled or lost - I'm not measuring the value of lives - I'm only saying everyone's life must revolve around a common central theme- acquiring and managing money for meeting needs and wants. That's all. You've added all this extra baggage....

And I agreed that everyone needs a bit of money, to some degree. That can mean anything from fifty bucks a day to fifty million a year. It's totally subjective. You may not be measuring value of lives, but you are measuring value of life styles based on money.

I'd say you've added the extra baggage and existential crises to your own life, based on your previously stated priorities (large homes, nanny for the kids, private tutoring for math, Disney vacations, etc.) and assume everyone else does the same.

[EyeKhan]

How many Americans are running around naked? Main assumption is everyone has some help while they're children, from family or social services, no matter which social strata they're borne into....that's part of being a first world nation. At least as long as we have public education, public libraries, and public transportation. We used to have public phone booths for local calls (first a nickel, then a dime, then a quarter), but cell phones rather obliterated those.



And I agreed that everyone needs a bit of money, to some degree. That can mean anything from fifty bucks a day to fifty million a year. It's totally subjective. You may not be measuring value of lives, but you are measuring value of life styles based on money.

I'd say you've added the extra baggage and existential crises to your own life, based on your previously stated priorities (large homes, nanny for the kids, private tutoring for math, Disney vacations, etc.) and assume everyone else does the same.

Don't read too much into it. When this discussion began, Nessus was right, I was not serious. However, when you take a step back and look at your life and the lives of everyone in the nation, money is the center of it all. Everything revolves around being able to make at least some minimum amount of money to survive. Whatever else we do on a regular basis, you can bet the one thing we do most consistently is whatever we have to do to earn our money. And everybody does something, except those at the very bottom, the outcasts living in the streets. And even they will wash your car window for a buck, or sit on a sidewalk displaying their misery for your sympathetic spare change.

[Nessus]

Don't read too much into it. When this discussion began, Nessus was right, I was not serious. However, when you take a step back and look at your life and the lives of everyone in the nation, money is the center of it all. Everything revolves around being able to make at least some minimum amount of money to survive. Whatever else we do on a regular basis, you can bet the one thing we do most consistently is whatever we have to do to earn our money. And everybody does something, except those at the very bottom, the outcasts living in the streets. And even they will wash your car window for a buck, or sit on a sidewalk displaying their misery for your sympathetic spare change.

What about the cops? You can end up being boiled alive for stealing tooth paste, or talking smack at an "officer". How much money do you think helps there?

[EyeKhan]

They tend to execute their robber barons at some point.

Only when the elite get too callous or loosen their brutal grip too much. Arguably, the rise of the generous elite was to stop such things, and no more. Maybe that will stay the rule...

[Nessus]

Only when the elite get too callous or loosen their brutal grip too much. Arguably, the rise of the generous elite was to stop such things, and no more. Maybe that will stay the rule...

Again, I'm placing my bets on the Teapers, like Randy.

[EyeKhan]

What about the cops? You can end up being boiled alive for stealing tooth paste, or talking smack at an "officer". How much money do you think helps there?

I don't understand your question in the context of what I'm saying. Just because everyone's lives are centered around getting money doesn't mean people don't find themselves in trouble they don't have the money to get themsevles out of.

[GGT]

On a serious note, this question warrants some serious thought and introspection. What is the truth of our existance?

Don't read too much into it. When this discussion began, Nessus was right, I was not serious.

Well, which is it? A serious question that merits serious thought and introspection....or nothing serious at all?

However, when you take a step back and look at your life and the lives of everyone in the nation, money is the center of it all. Everything revolves around being able to make at least some minimum amount of money to survive. Whatever else we do on a regular basis, you can bet the one thing we do most consistently is whatever we have to do to earn our money. And everybody does something, except those at the very bottom, the outcasts living in the streets. And even they will wash your car window for a buck, or sit on a sidewalk displaying their misery for your sympathetic spare change.

It's not money at the center, but being productive or creative. What you're really asking is for us to distinguish between thriving or simply surviving. They're not mutually exclusive to all people.

[LittleFuzzy]

And they're heading for the Sovetskaya system where a few hundred people live on the slave labour of hundreds of millions. These things haven't worked so well in the past.

Tear, is that you? I'm getting that familiar stench of demonization again.

[EyeKhan]

Well, which is it? A serious question that merits serious thought and introspection....or nothing serious at all?

Are you daft? Come on - I was not being serious until I sat back and thought some about it. Then I decided that with some real consideration it is in fact not all that silly a concept. Indeed, it is a defining characteristic of at least Western Culture and probably all modern human culture. Duh.

It's not money at the center, but being productive or creative. What you're really asking is for us to distinguish between thriving or simply surviving. They're not mutually exclusive to all people.

Unfortunately, it IS the money at the center. Today you can't be productive or creative without money and that lions share of productivity and creativity involves making money. Those of us who are creative in our spare time, well, we buy that spare time and the materials with which to be creative with the time we spend working for money, no? And no, that's not what I'm asking at all! I'm not asking anything, in fact. I'm merely stating that people's lives are largely arranged around earning and managing money because money is absolutely essential to live in our culture. I have no idea where you're getting all these complaints from. You ought to sit back and ask: "What does this concept EK is presenting really mean to me?" Then ask, or speculate, or read my posts, and try to understand what this concept means to EK. I'm certain you'll identify a pretty big disconnect.

[Nessus]

Tear, is that you? I'm getting that familiar stench of demonization again.

I think I can get myself banned on my own merits, thank you

[Nessus]

I don't understand your question in the context of what I'm saying. Just because everyone's lives are centered around getting money doesn't mean people don't find themselves in trouble they don't have the money to get themsevles out of.

That there are arbitrary check-points where even those who are not the "outcasts" will find themselves reduced to the legal rights of a shovel. Of course prior to this and probably afterwards in some way their life will revolve around money, but especially after it will primarily be around the money of someone else. Of course if this distinction is not important to you, well never mind

[GGT]

You ought to sit back and ask: "What does this concept EK is presenting really mean to me?" Then ask, or speculate, or read my posts, and try to understand what this concept means to EK. I'm certain you'll identify a pretty big disconnect.

[LittleFuzzy]

Are you daft? Come on - I was not being serious until I sat back and thought some about it. Then I decided that with some real consideration it is in fact not all that silly a concept. Indeed, it is a defining characteristic of at least Western Culture and probably all modern human culture. Duh.

It's a way of looking at things. Certainly not the only way but the validity of other perspectives in no way impinges on it's validity as a perspective. Money is a ubiquitous tool for facilitating interpersonal exchanges and for the vast majority of people, interpersonal exchanges are as important to our lives as breathing.

[GGT]

It's a way of looking at things. Certainly not the only way but the validity of other perspectives in no way impinges on it's validity as a perspective. Money is a ubiquitous tool for facilitating interpersonal exchanges and for the vast majority of people, interpersonal exchanges are as important to our lives as breathing.

Yes. And those interpersonal exchanges include reliance on family, extended family, neighbors, communities. Not simply as an efficient way to pool money, but using valuable resources that nurture the individual and the group.

If I'm daft it's because choobs seemed to connect money with self-reliance and independence, which is more of a right-leaning philosophy than his usual left-leaning philosophy.

Pretty much everything he highlighted could be made better with less rat-race work and money, but shared responsibilities of "unpaid" work. The kind of things extended families provide. It's not the way most of us in the US were raised, where importance was placed on rugged individualism and one's own boot straps---move out at 18 or 21, make your own way, move away, make a lot of money---success defined as not needing anyone, or being able to pay for everything needed.

[GGT]

I don't understand your question in the context of what I'm saying. Just because everyone's lives are centered around getting money doesn't mean people don't find themselves in trouble they don't have the money to get themsevles out of.

Uhm, "everyone's lives" are centered around getting goods or services. Some of those have to be bought with money, but not all.

Childrens' Services like Day Care or After-school Care, and some Elder Care can be provided by a relative or neighbor. Ditto for domestic things like shopping-cooking-cleaning-building/landscape maintenance-pet care-bookkeeping-accounting. But that means extended family needs to live close-by, or *gasp* together under one roof.

All those things have great value, but not just because they're services people can buy. Americans have bought into this Work for Money idea as the definition of success, by paying others to do all sorts of things we could do within our families....if we weren't all so damn busy working, to make money, to pay others to help us....




edit to add this tangent about values, lifestyles, priorities, money and The American Way:

So many empty family homes during the course of a day. Millions of single parents and/or couples working outside the home, to be able to afford their time away from children, family, and home. It's crazy stuff. A vicious cycle. And we're schizoid about the value of "family economics".

People would apparently work jobs (calling them careers sounds better) in order to live "independently" and appear "successful". Never mind the expenses involved, both direct and indirect. Paying lowest wage possible for their domestic services, to off-set the costs of being away from home.

Professional wardrobes, personal stylists, assistants or aides, networking and organizing tech gadgets, nannies, au-pairs, tutors, baby-sitters, housekeepers, cooks, nutritionists, personal trainers, gym memberships, cars and their maintenance, lawn mowers, landscapers, handymen, house-sitters, dog-walker-trainers, pet-sitter-kennels. With insurance products for all, in case they fuck something up.

Being at home with kids and seniors, or sharing family duties without an official paycheck, has become the shameful equivalent of.....being unemployed or unproductive. That's just stupid.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes. And those interpersonal exchanges include reliance on family, extended family, neighbors, communities. Not simply as an efficient way to pool money, but using valuable resources that nurture the individual and the group.

And all of that CAN be framed in monetary terms, and it frequently is since a vital part of making any sort of comparison is to use like terms.

Pretty much everything he highlighted could be made better with less rat-race work and money, but shared responsibilities of "unpaid" work.

See the above comment on using money as a tool for comparison. Just because something is "unpaid" does not mean it can't or shouldn't be examined from a monetary perspective.

[EyeKhan]

It's a way of looking at things. Certainly not the only way but the validity of other perspectives in no way impinges on it's validity as a perspective. Money is a ubiquitous tool for facilitating interpersonal exchanges and for the vast majority of people, interpersonal exchanges are as important to our lives as breathing.

Money is a fantastic concept, there's no question about it. You describe it as a tool, but I think its more than that. Its really the essence of civilization. Almost nothing happens without money being involved in some way or some role. It motivates and enables. It shapes decisions and plans. Its really amazing when you sit down and think hard about it.

[EyeKhan]

If I'm daft it's because choobs seemed to connect money with self-reliance and independence, which is more of a right-leaning philosophy than his usual left-leaning philosophy.

You're daft because you keep ascribing value judgements to my statements that I'm not making. Now, please don't take this too personally because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but your recent posting has reminded me a bit (I'm sorry) of, ugh, Loki. There, I said it.