Double posting Gruff?  Good to see you emerging from a long hiatus,
leave it to capitalistic dialogue to lure you in.  Either that or the
desert heat is pointing to a better indoor environment and more time
on the computer.

As usual I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with you but regardless
of how much better poverty seems in the current light it doesn't
change the fact that much of capitalism is causal to poverty.  I could
agree with the behavioral aspect to which you point to as being a huge
flaw but not as it being the only one.  There is much to be done to
improve the system but then again we could also tweak socialism to be
a better system and perhaps a melding of the two might bring about a
whole new perspective on social governance.

On Jun 11, 4:03 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Vam.  I've pretty much always been a fan of capitalism -- at least
> since I found out what it was.  It's made us all wealthier.  A man in
> poverty today is a hell of a lot better off than a man in poverty a
> hundred years ago, and even more so for a woman.
>
> But the real question is how do we get people to behave better.  Marx
> predicted that capitalism would self-destruct because of the well-
> known propensity of human beings to behave badly.  For many years I
> believed democracy would become known as the noble experiment that
> failed for the same reason.  I now know different.  We are growing
> into democracy, not failing it.
>
> Mark Twain is long attributed with saying that people justly get the
> sort of government they deserve.  I would say the same thing holds
> true for economics.  We get the sort of economy we deserve.  And given
> the number of fingers in the pie, I'd say we have exactly what we
> deserve at the moment.  The trick will be to learn from this
> experience.
>
> In a broader perspective I see no reason we cannot have a healthy
> capitalist free-market system that fulfills it's social obligations to
> all its members because it is wealth and profitable enough to do so.
>
> There's a movement afoot that I'm very much in favor of seeing grow.
> It's the recognition and development of our spiritual and emotional
> intelligence in addition to those abilities measured by the various IQ
> tests.  See Wikipedia for a quick overview of spiritual intelligence.
> Spiritual intelligence requires no religion.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_intelligence)
>
> The basic principles of spiritual intelligence are as follows:
>
>     * Self-awareness: Knowing what I believe in and value, and what
> deeply motivates me
>
>     * Spontaneity: Living in and being responsive to the moment
>
>     * Being vision- and value-led: Acting from principles and deep
> beliefs, and living accordingly
>
>     * Holism: Seeing larger patterns, relationships, and connections;
> having a sense of belonging
>
>     * Compassion: Having the quality of "feeling-with" and deep
> empathy
>
>     * Celebration of diversity: Valuing other people for their
> differences, not despite them
>
>     * Field independence: Standing against the crowd and having one's
> own convictions
>
>     * Humility: Having the sense of being a player in a larger drama,
> of one's true place in the world
>
>     * Tendency to ask fundamental "Why?" questions: Needing to
> understand things and get to the bottom of them
>
>     * Ability to reframe: Standing back from a situation or problem
> and seeing the bigger picture; seeing problems in a wider context
>
>     * Positive use of adversity: Learning and growing from mistakes,
> setbacks, and suffering
>
>     * Sense of vocation: Feeling called upon to serve, to give
> something back
>
> We need to be raised up in these area while at the same time raising
> our next generation.  We achieved our first global prominence by sheer
> and oftentimes brutal force.  To regain prominence we must now learn
> to finesse.  We can do this.  We have it in us.  As a attendant
> benefit, once achieved these qualities, even to a small degree, we
> will see more leaders with the same qualities which will in turn lead
> to a moral society, government and economy.
>
> But then I'm an incurable optimist.
>
> /e
>
> On Jun 10, 10:56 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey, Gruff, great to hear you espouse " moral profit " and healthy
> > capitalism. Welcome back !
>
> > Depending upon the times and the state of environment, I could opt for
> > either capitalism or socialism, as it suits, if there are no other
> > choices. But there are choices galore, as in how could we go forward
> > hereon. A capitalist structure and philosophy, regulated for immoral
> > and unhealthy practices, would be our best bet now. It would not be
> > sheer capitalism and definitely not socialism.
>
> > Your apparent satisfaction at offloading the drab on to the emerging
> > economies has the same drawbacks as closing company financials after a
> > 12 - month period. When actually, matters do not just end there. They
> > rebound, disperse, proliferate, complicate, vitiate, and have global
> > and long time - scale ( destructive and undesirable ) effects !
>
> > For profits to be moral and practices to be healthy, the power of
> > capital is to be heavily moderated by our concern for the good of all
> > everywhere, and as far into the future as we can visualise. Until,
> > such concerns come to pervade the human consciousness by and large,
> > corporate thinking, management philosophy, regulatory systems,
> > political and judicial institutions, and the like.
>
> > The fact is : the destructive and undesirable effects are unavoidable.
> > But we could all work to keep it to a minimum. And, we must !
>
> > On Jun 11, 7:56 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Guess you're the only one gabby.  Good to read you too.   Zoe's fine
> > > and I'm fair to middlin' ... Thanks for asking.
>
> > > /e
>
> > > On Jun 4, 1:43 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey, gruff! Good to see you back. I hope you and Zoe have been doing
> > > > fine in the meantime.
>
> > > > On 4 Jun., 04:09, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 2, 3:24 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&feature=channel
>
> > > > > > So much for capitalism!
>
> > > > > Capitalism is very much a provider in this situation.  Only with
> > > > > sufficient profits can a company fund such an endeavor until it starts
> > > > > producing a return.  Management may be magnanimous but the CEOs and
> > > > > Board Members, sole ownerships and modified partnerships have to be
> > > > > profit motivated.  I think all this trend -- and hopefully the
> > > > > principles symbolized in the video are a trend -- will lead to perhaps
> > > > > such a thing as a moral profit.
>
> > > > > Nor don't see this perspective on motivation as a new discovery.  Some
> > > > > companies knew the benefits of less money and more creativity a long
> > > > > time ago.  It's quite possible that IBM -- which is the company where
> > > > > I first saw it in action -- may have been among the first to put it
> > > > > into action.  I had occasion to both work for IBM in the capacity of a
> > > > > contracted employee doing drone work and at another unconnected time
> > > > > roommated with two IBM software engineers.  IBM builds many of it's
> > > > > plants -- especially when they are think tanks -- in small communities
> > > > > and encourages its employees to socialize together.  They also gave
> > > > > their employees broad latitude to work on their own ideas which, of
> > > > > course, IBM owns should they become successful.  Obviously a number of
> > > > > them have so become.
>
> > > > > From what I hear and read, Google's another as is Apple.  There are
> > > > > quite a number of them and not surprisingly I think most are in other
> > > > > developed nations.  We're more or less laggards in this arena.
>
> > > > > What boggles me is the huge number of companies less successful than
> > > > > they might be and yet ignoring the principles and dynamics of more
> > > > > successful companies.  It's like saying, here's a more productive and
> > > > > satisfying means of making greater profits and have a happy, loyal,
> > > > > dependable cadre of employees and a response that is a sub-order of
> > > > > magnitude of duh, gimme da monkey wrench dude.
>
> > > > > There has always been a higher self in each of us that is not lured by
> > > > > money as much as it is by progress, achievement and the resulting
> > > > > personal satisfaction.  It's like being blessed.  And now we have the
> > > > > chance to truly achieve that state of mind.
>
> > > > > Most of the grunt work, the suffocation of doing the same boring task
> > > > > day and day out till you can retire type of work, is now -- and has
> > > > > been for some time -- migrating to emerging economies that are not
> > > > > unionized and can do that sort of work better and cheaper.  This is
> > > > > not going to suffocate the U.S. economy nor that of any other
> > > > > developed nation.
>
> > > > > In fact, I believe the opposite will happen.  The migration of grunt
> > > > > jobs to other nations will usher in a period of creative destruction
> > > > > (or destructive creation, your choice) where we will have no choice
> > > > > but to mature our educational system to produce more creative thinkers
> > > > > than grunts.
>
> > > > > Some might say the unions destroyed manufacturing in America and
> > > > > within the parameters of blame they deserve a part, but to a greater
> > > > > sense I see it as a maturing of our economy and hopefully our
> > > > > society.  Sophistication if nothing else will drive us there
> > > > > eventually but it's nice to see some who have started on their own.
>
> > > > > Insightful presentation, Orn.  Nice find.

Reply via email to