Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (38072)	10/10/2000 4:07:37 PM
From: Lone Star	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Et tu, Brian? There are many threads to discuss political bent, does this have to be one? An occasional OT is fine anywhere,but we're nearing 50% or worse lately.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (38072)	10/10/2000 4:45:43 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

OT -- OK since this is a slow news day, let's go at it. FWIW, George Soros came out several years ago and said something to the effect that we had crossed the line- from Capitalism to a form of Ultracapitalism, where everything is subjugated to the almighty dollar. Unless this trend is stopped, or at the very least slowed, living conditions for the majority of people on the planet will be miserable in the 21st Century. During the Asian and Russian crisis, I read an article that intelligently argued that rich countries will be forced to help poor countries progress (I can't remember who the author was. It may have been Noam Chumsky or George Soros [don't ask!]) The author argued that while up until now the gains of the rich countries have come at the expense of the poor ones, globalization, economic interdependence, and the huge technological difference between the two sides means that from now on lack of stability (both economic and political) in the poor countries will have a direct negative effect on the rich countries. If that is true, perhaps for entirely selfish reasons, the gap will shrink. Americans are unhappy largely because we spend so much of our time working for things that we feel we need, which cuts down on the time we spend developing meaningful relationships. Very true. I was recently reading an article against euthanasia. The author pointed to a few research studies that showed people with terminal diseases and sever handicaps were about as happy as other people if they were surrounded by a circle of family and friends with whom they had strong relationships. Regardless of your position on euthanasia, what this research proves is that the key to happiness is a social circle of friends. And in fact good social bonds are so gratifying, that they can negate the effects of chronic painful conditions. I have read other research articles in other areas that tend to confirm this conclusion. Yet social bonds are unusually weak in the industrial world. I take exception with the opinion that we choose to sacrifice social gains at the expense of material gains. In America we do not have a choice in the matter. I know of many couples among my friends who make in excess of $150k~250k/year each. And they have to work 50~70 hour weeks for that. Every single one of them would love to be able to take in less than half of that money in exchange for 25 hour weeks so that they can spend time together and live their lives. Guess what? That is not possible. As a consumer you have some options as to what you'd spend your money on (though not quite free). But as a member of the society you are not free not to produce as much as you can (not in a way that would satisfy you). And this is the dilemma of our society. ST