Money does not cause happiness, but it sure as hell is often necessary
for the conditions within which _other_ things can bring about
happiness.
Didn't Lou Reed say Money can't buy you love, but it can get you a
Cadillac to go look for it?
Tom
--
Tom
I should have inserted the belief after facilitates.
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote:
the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches.
Does it?
Eugene:
With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority
that their dreams of being rich will never be realized.
Any help?
Micheal Yates has a new book out: Naming the System: Inequality
and Labor in the Global Economy. It
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sabri Oncu
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 1:36 PM
To: PEN-L
Subject: [PEN-L:36409] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
Eugene:
With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast
Max:
Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves.
I did that Max. I am the President and CEO of my own consulting
company. It doesn't help, believe me.
Or maybe, I
In a message dated 4/1/03 2:56:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and get an answer
-- of how to make clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being
rich will never be realized. Any help?
Gene Coyle
The
Better, I say, to have a political programthat speaks to individuals' ability to takethe most practical route out of wage slavery --going into business for themselves.
I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jksDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
In a message dated 4/1/03 9:34:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The recent survey of 1,000 adults found that only 2% of Americans
consider themselves rich today, but a whopping 31% expect to become rich
someday. Understandably, young people are most optimistic, with 51% of
Better, I say, to have a political program
that speaks to individuals' ability to take
the most practical route out of wage slavery --
going into business for themselves.
I presume you mean collectively, in coops and the like? jks
Facilitating coops is important, but I also mean
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36410] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
it makes more sense to start with existing political movements and existing discontents and try to link up and build on the ones that promise a better chance of building a movement that will change the balance of power
That's nuts. You know the failure rates for small business better than I do. I just know that it is veryhigh. And how amny of self-employed or entrepreneurs go into their 60s (or 70s) with enough to retire on decently? jks
"Max B. Sawicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Better, I say, to have a
In a message dated 4/2/03 10:36:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One way of making
clear to the vast majority that their dreams of being rich will
never be realized is to publish more books like that. Maybe even
in a simpler language. Another possibility is offering courses
Wierdly enough, the idea that people can become rich worked less during
the 60's when the likelihood of becoming well off was higher. How much is
the fear of being poor operative today rathern than a dream of becoming
rich?
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 01:02:19PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
it makes
Title: RE: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
The benefit of rising to the top has risen, even though the possibility of doing so has fallen drastically. But people still buy lottery tickets, don't they?
Back in the 1950s and 1960s in the US, the benefits of economic growth were more evenly
What's the difference?
The individual will prefer to be the judge of whether he or she
ought to put in the effort required to beat the odds.
mbs
I don't tell people that they'll never get rich. Rather, I present the
evidence and logic that says that only a small percentage of them will.
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance of getting
I have argued with Chris and Lou long enough and
wrote enough material ... Shit . . .I have a brand
name ... damn. I wonder ... if I got . . . . wait a
minute... from each small booklet ... and multiplied
this by at least three a year. Shit . . . . I might
still be able to move to Vegas .
Max:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90 percent chance of getting
nowhere, and a 10 percent chance
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose you have a 90
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but
stop the war now!
-Original Message-
From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36425] RE: RE: RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great
Country?
What's the difference?
The individual will prefer
At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
Economists are clueless. To quote
Your problem is that you want to solve
somebody's problem for them.
The government's problem I would say is setting
the rules to facilitate individual or cooperative
efforts, not to try to preclude them, nor to guarantee
their success.
For those who fail, there would remain social insurance.
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Lear
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36431] Re: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 17:19:54 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:17:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know the failure rate is high.
But a person could fail more than once
and still make it eventually. The real
issue I think is mobility. We know there's
a lot of immobility. Make it numbingly simple.
Suppose
Max:
Your problem is that you want to solve
somebody's problem for them.
Not at all! A complete misunderstanding...
I am in this revolution business mostly because I want to solve
my own problem.
I just want to go home and teach math to my beloved students.
That is all I want!
Sabri
In a message dated 4/2/03 2:54:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People expect, according to surveys, more wealth to make them happy, but
happiness seems to depend upon relative status. So if the person in the
mirror wants to get rich, on some level he needs to know that
- Original Message -
From: Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual
Eugene:
With my post I was hoping to encourage a discussion -- and
get an answer -- of how to make clear to the vast majority
that their dreams of being rich will never be realized.
Any help?
Gene,
How did you like my help?
Best,
Sabri
On Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 18:15:58 (-0500) Max B. Sawicky writes:
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
At 3:54 PM -0800 4/2/03, Ian Murray wrote:
Following the wisdom of my guru, the Sage of Saskatoon,
I would qualify my remarks by noting that the interest
in 'getting rich' is culture dependent in a society where
incentives are biased in favor of individual consumption
of material goods and
joanna bujes wrote:
At 02:53 PM 04/02/2003 -0800, you wrote:
There is a minor branch of economic (twig?) that studies the determinants
of happiness. Happiness does not seem to increase once a society reaches
about $15,000 a year. Happiness instead is determined by relative status.
Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately, the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community. By community I am meaning that you know and have an investment in your neighbours
This relates to an item I saw in Adbusters once.A survey asked people how much money they would need to be happy and feel financially secure. Across the board, whether the CEO of a major corporations or some poor slob working for minimum wage, the answer was roughly "twice as much." People
Sabri, I liked it. I will get Michael Yates's book.
But I am thinking of institutions -- like students loans, for example --
that seduce people into the dream of being rich. First, the loan
facilitates the education that will lead to riches. And then paying the
loan requires the drive for
At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote:
the loan facilitates the education that will lead to riches.
Does it?
--
Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus:
http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html
* Student International Forum: http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/
* Committee for Justice in
It is not only dreams but the framework of life that
we are burdened with.
Gene
I cannot agree more! This is what Max is missing! It is not the
players that are the problem, although some, such as the Bush
gang, are, but the game itself.
We need to attack the game or, better, the rules of
Yoshie:
At 7:48 PM -0800 4/2/03, Eugene Coyle wrote:
the loan facilitates the education that will lead
to riches.
Does it?
It depends. If the loan is for an MBA, it might. If it is for an
anthropology degree, forget about it!
Sabri
troy cochrane wrote:
Having nothing to back this up other than observation, I think happiness
is much more related to community than it is to wealth. Unfortunately,
the wealthiest countries seem to lack or even have destroyed community.
By community I am meaning that you know and have an
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36379] WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
the WSJ writes: Few Americans see a rich person when they look in the mirror, but nearly
a third see a rich person when they look into a crystal ball. That's the
striking result of a Gallup poll that goes a long way to explaining why
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the WSJ writes: Few Americans see a rich person when they look in the
mirror, but nearly
a third see a rich person when they look into a crystal ball. That's the
striking result of a Gallup poll that goes a long way to
Eugene Coyle quoted the WSJ:
Class-war rhetoric may work in the more socially and financially
immobile cultures of Europe
Nice try, but not true. There's not much difference in mobility
between the U.S. and Europe.
Doug
At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:
An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the
Left needs to deal with:
The author left out what is probably most important for understanding the
poll: It asked people what they thought being rich actually meant. Not
?
-Original Message-
From: Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36383] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:
An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the
Left
Forstater, Mathew wrote:
The insane aspect of this, which I suppose is obvious to everyone here,
is that they are celebrating a world in which people hold on stubbornly
to fantasies of material prosperity, even though it is clear that for
the vast majority the dreams will never be fulfilled.
, April 01, 2003 3:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:36383] Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
At 09:31 AM 4/1/03 -0800, Eugene Coyle wrote:
An item from April 1 2003 WSJ editorial page suggests something the
Left needs to deal with:
The author left out what is probably most important
- Original Message -
From: Forstater, Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:33 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:36386] RE: Re: WSJ - Is This A Great Country?
The insane aspect of this, which I suppose is obvious to everyone here
47 matches
Mail list logo
