For those of you hoping to continue ...

Poor old people. They have it rough.

At least I'm going to be a dirty old man, not a haggard and saggy old woman.

Actually, parodyman, I personally have it pretty good. I just get pissy at tax time becaue I think our tax burden is outrageous, because most of the money is spent on things that the government shouldn't even be doing. I'm a firm believer in personal freedom, once described as "the best government is that which governs least." Too bad we've never tried it.

I don't really think our tax burden is outrageous. I do think the government spends it quite poorly, and I therefore wouldn't be among the first to advocate higher taxation rates. But in most of the developed world. they get a lot more from their government, and they pay a good deal more for it, too, and I think their lifestyles are a lot better thanks to that type of arrangement. Our tax burden is around half or a third of what it is in Austria or Sweden, for example, or France; but their longevity, health, opportunity for education and training, general outlook on life, seems mostly a helluvalot better than ours in the USA, overall. Also their cheese is nicer ... :)

FONDL, I hear you brother. The two most interesting proposals for reforming Washington I ever heard both dealt with taxes. One was to hold elections the day after taxes were due. The other was to eliminate witholding so that people had to actually pay a monthly tax bill and would see how much per month of their income goes to the government. Needless to say they will never be considered by any politician. Federal, state, and local income taxes alone (not counting things like sales tax, gasoline taxes, all the hiden taxes the government puts on things plus property taxes) were over one third of my income. I haven't done the math yet, but I'd guess that by the time I totaled up all my taxes (including property, etc) they are more than my take home pay after I've deducted retirement, health insurance and life insurance payments.

I am however getting a refund this year, which I plan to blow on strippers.

Book Guy, your post exemplifies the thing I dislike the most about our tax system - the fact that because our taxes are so fragmented most people have no idea how heavy a burden they pay. If you look at just the federal income tax you might think that we pay less than people in a lot of other countries. But if you look at your total tax burden you'll realize that isn't true, we're among the most heavily taxed people in the world. Most middle class working people in the US pay at least 50% of their incme in taxes, which I think is outrageous. To me one of the greatest personal freedoms one can have is the benefit of your own labors. A 50% tax burden means we have lost that freedom. I'd personally like to see a constitutional amendment that says no one ever has to pay more than 25% of their income in taxes. I think such an amendment would have overwhelming public support, but no poltician would ever propose it.

BG, I think you got to a core issue and spoke a great truth in your post. Their cheese is a lot better than ours. Other than that I'd say that yes, there is a lot of subsidized education, but no jobs. Great health benefits, if you don't mind the rationing. I very much doubt most Americans would vote for a Europeanized system given the choice. With our "disastrous" "Bush economy" our rate of economic growth is still double Europe's, our unemployment a half to a third, and despite all the doom and gloom about our looming medicare and social security debts, they are a fraction of what the "progressive" Europeans are facing.

AN, must you continue to refute widely held but incorrect beliefs with facts? It's so annoying. I think the most interesting question of all is, why are Americans so uninformed? I wonder if it has anything to do with the media's obsession with really important stuff like who fathered what's-her-name's baby or the phony outrage over what some has-been DJ said in really poor taste even though his fame is based on decades of insulting people of all kinds and half the rap "songs" use the same language and nobody cares?

FONDL, I agree with the fragmentation complaint. Most European countries have one or two big taxes (income and VAT) as I understand it. They often pay around 50% of their income in taxes. Using just the big or easily identifiable ones I pay (Federal income, local and state income, property, social security, medicare, per-cap, sales and gasoline) I come up with a tax rate that is 43% of my income. That doesn't count my health or life insurance, which is rolled into the European taxes, or the fact that I must have car and liability and property insurance by law. I did the math. Not counting the voluntary portion of my retirement or my medical and life insurance, just the taxes I must pay and insurance I must have by law I come in at about 48%. There are also a TON of hidden federal and state taxes nobody notices, like airline, utility, import, insurance, liscense, and excise taxes rolled into the cost of everything. Estimates are that the average person pays about another $2000 in these other taxes. Everyone always looks at one number, Federal income tax rate, and nothing else when we talk taxes. The truth is indeed much different.

FONDL (wrote my last post before I saw yours), I think the uninformed part is because for the most part this stuff is BORING. Titilation is much more fun, so people don't want to think about hard boring stuff. I say fine, for the most part all the big questions in this country are off the table, so most people can live their lives unmolested by the government (or reality) as long as they pay their taxes and keep out of trouble. And lets be frank, those are pretty damn good lives even by today's standards. I can understand most people not wanting to be bothered by things we discuss, they have fulfilling lives and want to enjoy them, politics aren't that big a deal to most people. I do get out of DC frequently it always amazez me how little Washington matters to most people. All these grand power struggles and "scandals" barely register. That's cool with me for the most part, I just don't want the loons who cheer on Rosie O'Donnell's conspiracy theories deciding my fate. So yes, I must soldier on, a lone voice of sanity in the vast wilderness of complacency and ignorance.. thanks for asking. ;)

Plenty of money, as long as food, shelter, and clothing are not needed.

By the time I'm ready to retire, I expect the government to have screwed over social security so much that social security will only be a supplement to my 401K and anything else I have. It should be called social insecurity since if I had that money to invest myself, I would have a very nice and large retirement fund just using that money alone. The really sad truth is that our government has no trust fund and is using the money collected for social insecurity to pay now and hope they figure out something later for everyone else who will retire later. If I had an opt out option, I'd still be better opting out even though I've paid social security for many years.

I always thought that it was "generally understood" that the US's tax burden was lower than Europe's. I'm being gently disabused of this misapprehension ...

If I'm wrong, forgive me, I'm just another one of the typical American misinformed, thanks no doubt to CNN. I don't care about Britney's new hair cut, though, so at least I'm one step up on my competition. :)

From where I stand, my interest is in "educational training." I've been (in some way or another) outside of a lucrative field all my life, trying to get into one, and denied the opportunity. I have a college degree and a master's, thing which cost me HEFTILY out of pocket for a school which, in (for example) Germany, would have been FREE. I always wanted childhood training in a systematized method in two things -- the opportunity to play professional sports, and the opportunity to play jazz clarinet. In a socialized system, each one of those talents would have been identified early and perhaps fostered. Here, because my parents weren't wealthy, my talents went to waste. Heck, I was my High School's most valuable player in my sport; how many kids in Germany who get that accolade don't get looked at by at least a minor-league scout? But in the US, there's this "you have to hustle in order to beat the system" mentality about all systems, and as a 14-year-old I didn't get anyone to help me start hustling. So, I see a lot of adults who, as 14-year-olds, had a mentor help them hustle, who have the jobs I could have gotten if I'd had their mentor -- has nothing to do with me, but because I had the misfortune of living in a non-systematized location, I took the punishment for the failures of a previous generation. So I look for things to improve in the future, by allowing a set-up to help and foster the talented, which is something we DON'T do in the USA. It spooks me. My country deliberately fosters false and perverse incentives, reducing the success level of most talented people, unless their talents are in ONE field only: financial speculation. It appears in a variety of forms, but it's likely a death knell for our culture. No surprise we're so misinformed about Iraq or taxes or both ...

CasualGuy, I think you are wrong about Social Security. I say that because the baby boomers have always gotten their way politically, since there are so many of them. And they are getting close to retirement age. When they retire in large numbers over the next decade, you can bet that all of Social Security's problems will be resolved in their favor. It's the generations that follow who I feel sorry for because they're going to get stuck with the bill, both during their working lives and when it's their turn to retire. If you're under 40, count on getting screwed.

AN, you've hit on what I consider to be the fatal flaw of democracy. Namely that most people don't much care about politics but those who do invariably want government to do more not less. And elected officials of both parties come from this small latter group - people who believe in government and want government to do more run for office; people who think government sould do less aren't very interested in government and don't run for office. Which creates a built in bias in favor of more government. So governemnt keeps getting bigger even though the vast majority of the public would much prefer that it shrunk. I think eventually that's going to lead to a huge conflict in the US.

FONDL: in a funny way, it might be possible to establish a form of democracy by which the powers which CREATE governmental rights and duties and privileges were different from the powers which would then ENACT those functions. But we don't have that system right now. I always distrusted the Reaganites precisely because of reasoning that went along your syllogism: if they're so darned distrustful of government and want to reduce it, then why are they so busy running for government positions? I think maybe Ronnie at the top had a bit of vision, and of course many adherents of the Goldwater "revolution" really believed what they preached, but today we're seeing the petty functionaries who were swept up in that Republican change as they go about abusing governmental privilege and power to an even greater extent than the Democrats. Things like censorship, oppression of alternative lifestyles, governmental control of self-expression, prosecution of people for laws that don't yet exist, abrogation of signed-sealed-delivered international treaties, are all at an all-time high for all of American history, signaling a RISE not a fall in government activism and control of our lives.

I'm a card-carrying Libertarian. I'll bet most of you would be, if you knew what that meant. Problem with that is, just the same as FONDL says about democracy as a whole, it has a circular argument ensconced within it. For Libertarians, here's how it goes: if everyone were as smart and as responsible about civic duty as most members of the Libertarian party are, then society would work fine. Problem is, most people aren't smart enough or responsible enough to control themselves. So, Libertarianism in government generally tends to work only among those people who wouldn't have needed government in the first place. In other words, those who would need to be controlled might not see much control imposed on them, while those who would not need to be controlled might suffer under greater exercise of governmental control, if truly "laissez-faire" approaches to government and economic policy were enacted. The drug-dealers and child molesters aren't going to sign up for political parties, whether those are pro- or anti-control; but it's THEM whom we most need to teach some responsibility and civic duty.

Same circular argument, applied to Libertarianism instead of to Democracy. It just comes down to human nature, perhaps. Was Hume right? Are we all just in it for ourselves?

Nice point about Social Security, FONDL. Boomer weight may indeed reverse those changes, hand't thought about that.

I am not going to retire untill my health forces me to. I started delivering newspapers on my bike when I was about 10 YO. I have never really been unemployed. Just celebrated my 40th year with my employer. The company's CEO is almost 80 YO. If he can do it, I can do it. When I have to retire, I won't be able to afford strip clubs. I have seen how Shekitout has had to cut way back. At 65 YO, I am enjoying financial freedom. I can damn near afford anything I want. I have more money in my checking account than most people make in a year and the only debt that I have is my home mortage. On November 13 of this year, I can start drawing full Social Security benefits and continue to work with out penality. MY tax man has already given me a form W-4V, voluntary withholding request, to give to the SS Adminstration. When I retire, unless I can outlive the bitch, my exwife gets 35% of my retirement pay (not SS). That will hurt a little but then when my health fades, so will my interest in strippers and strip clubs.

IGU, you are obviously the exception not the rule. Most people don't have any choice about when they will retire, they do so when their company realizes that it can cut costs by laying off older workers and replaceing them with younger less expensive ones, and then they discover that nobody want to hire older workers so they can't get another well-paying job. Which is why you see so many 60+ yo's working retail at near minimum wage. That's become the norm in this country. And few people today get the chance to work long enough for any one company to get much of a pension. Many of tomorrow's oldsters are in real rouble.

I frankly would retire the first instant I could afford it. I never understood people who continued to work for no reason other than, because that's what they do all day. I have better things to do. I could reduce my carbon footprint, be nicer to people, get enough sleep, wear clean clothes, stop having traffic accidents because of lack of sleep, not be treated like the dumb kid on the block by insecure unintelligent people who need to put down others in order to feel good about themselves, and FINALLY contribute something POSITIVE to mankind, if I didn't have to ...

fucking

... work all goddamned day.

I contribute something positive to mankind through my job, and to a large extent I enjoy most of it (except for the parts where I spend hours getting into a "time saving" government travel service that travelocity does 1000 times better at a fraction of the cost). I still plan to retire the first day I am able, but that's beacuse I want to do some of the things, such as travel, that I don't have time for now. I plan to work for the rest of my life at something.

FONDL, BG, I have a theory (one of many) about people. Greatly simplified, there are two kinds of people. One kind wants to be something. Be something people are very interested in how others see them, their image and their status tend to define them. The other kind wants to do something. Do something people are goal oriented, whatever you want to call it, but they are more internally motivated by their sense of what is right or wrong, or what they think needs to be done. In general I think conservatives tend more to the "do something" type. I think it meshes with the conservative philosophy. My perhaps jaded view of liberals (in the modern sense) is that they want to be (and be seen as) something or someone. Virtuous, green, crusader, the actual results seem to me to be seconadary to "being for" whatever the cause. Cheap virtue in my opinion, you achieve virtue by having the right outlook and saying the right things, not by actually doing something constructive. I know many will disagree, but consider what I call the bumper sticker test. Think of any car you've ever seen with more than three bumper stickers. I'd venture 90% are liberal slogans, often quite strident. These people want to be seen by others as having the viewpoint that they feel makes them a person to be admired for the correctness of their opinions. Bill Clinton, so far the greatest politician of his generation (note, great at politics, not necessarily good at governing) wanted to BE president. Reagan wanted to DO something, being president was the most effective way to do it. DC, IMHO, tends to attract the "be something" crowd disproportionately, so they aren't particularly interested in changing things once the achieve their goal. Every so often a leader comes along who wants to do something. If that leader is lucky he can inspire other "do something" people to join up for a cause. That is how occasionally you get change in the government and why conservatives will sometimes sign up. Unfortunately many of the "do something" people get seduced into the "be something" camp once they get a taste of the status and privledge.

Where I'm from, 99% of the bumper stickers are reactionary. "God Guns and Guts Made this Country Free" and "AmerICAN and Fuck you United Nations" and "Taxes are for people who need to be told what to do" (and "The Bitch fell off" of course). You should take a ride through the Deep South and take notes on how few liberal bumper stickers you see. It's just a matter of local perspective. But I've also seen the old V-Van with 1000 stickers on it, all of them related somehow to Flower Power and the 1960s, so I know what you're talking about.

I agree on the Be-People versus Do-People dichotomy. I think we all have it in us. I think of myself as a Do-Person, in fact, and I do spend a great deal of time volunteering and not asking for accolades from it. More so than the average Pelosi-Crat, I'm sure -- I agree that many, if not most, of them are doing their left-wing act in order to be show-offy.

Problem I have with that analysis is, that showing off IS what politics is all about. I dunno that ALL left-wing voters are necessarily against personal responsibility, for example, or that you can really go that far with a bumper-sticker game. Most of the Republicans I know may be Be-People -- that much is good -- but they also insist that *I* not only be a Be-Person, but also that I be one JUST LIKE THEM. If you're born gay, DON'T be. If you're interested in inter-racial marriage, DON'T do it. If you want sexual activity with a variety of females out of wedlock, DON'T do it. Be a Be-Person and serve your fellow man with good works, sure, is what they say; but also toe the hard line of a traditional, non-creative, regimented lifestyle which is much more about their right to control me, than about their insistence that I perform good works. It's not about volunteering to fix houses after Katrina (which I do most of the day); it's about making sure their day is hidden from a variety of types of humans so that their hatred of "the other" is accepted. They tend to wish to damage and avoid those of us who are different -- in sexual preference (a biological fact that cannot be changed) or in skin color or in income level. That might be a Be-Person, but it's a hateful one. They only approve of those of us who "Be" like THEY are Being. White middle class fundamentalist christian work ethic nuclear family ...

It might be good for them. But why must they impose it on me?

We live in a democracy. If they don't appreciate variety they can go found a fascist nation elsewhere, that's their prerogative. I might even join them.

AN, good post, as usual your logic is easy to follow and makes sense. I was planning to point out the one problem with your characterization but you beat me to it with your last sentence. I think most people get involved in politics because they want to do something, but the power and prestige corrupts them, especially if they get to DC. And I don't think it makes much difference whether they are liberal or conservative, the arrogance that results from the conversion is exactly why the R's are no longer in power and probably won't be again for a generation - they turned their backs on what they set out to do and alienated their supporters (like me) in the process.

The one thing I would add to your characterization is that people vary greatly in how they define "doing something" or success. For some it means making a great deal of money, for others it means building a successful company or creating a great work of art, but for most people it means raising a family, obeying the rules, staying out of trouble and doing their part for community, church etc. I think these are the real heros in our society - the people with the big goals could never accomplish them without the support of these "little people."

I've always found it puzzling that senior executives (at least the ones I've known) assume that everyone in the organization has the same goals as they do of getting to the top. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if that were true? The main reason an oranization functions well is because most people in it are content with their lot.

The bible says "the meek shall inherit the earth." In my opinion they already have. They are the happiest and most successful people in the world.

BG, FONDL, you guys both raise some good points. Originally the Be/Do post was a LOT longer. My reluctance to re-read and edit a long post meant that I took what I thought were the key paragraphs and edited them down. I will post at greater length, but I'll address a few things briefly.

BG, I didn't mean to imply that conservatives are all "do something" types. In fact I see now I was a bit remiss in that I should have been even more specific. The unfortunate consequence of extreme editing is that the context is sometimes stripped. When I originally referred to conservatives as "do something" types it was in the context of those willing to put aside private pursuits to run for office. Lately I think liberal POLITICIANS are largely in the "be something" camp. Your phrase "showing off IS what politics is all about" contains an unfortunate truth. Mass media and marketing have MADE politics about image, and I feel the left and liberal politicians, largely through a sympathetic press and academy, have played that game a lot better since Kennedy in 1960. I think the proof of that lies in the fact that when Republicans started using Kennedy's speeches in their campaign commercials the Democrats were incensed. Kennedy was a cold warrior, foreign policy hawk, anti communist, tax cutter, only slightly to the right of Nixon. When Republicans pointed this out the reaction was, at least to me, amusing. What Kennedy said, the Democrats argued, didn't matter, what mattered was that he was a Democrat. Forget the substance, remember, handsome popular president, Camelot, Democrat. Nixon, Watergate, corruption, Republican. Image.

I'd also contend that you reinforce my thesis to an extent, given the caveat above.

FONDL, I agree that people greatly differ on what constitutes "doing something". Again, probably too much editing, BG, I'm having a lot more sympathy for your long form lately. As mentioned above, to a great extent I was referring to a political reflection where the image of "being" for the right (as in correct) things seems more a feature of the political left, i.e. PC.

Lastly, FONDL, I think you've hit on something that used to be understood in this country, that it isn't necessarily true that everyone wants the same thing. I also think this tends to be a more recent mass media creation of "success" that hasn't permeated society as deeply as some people think.

More later, but feel free to pick apart this post too.

I understand (and sympathize heartily) with the issues centering on the problem of making yourself understood in this medium. We're all struggling to long-form our short-forms, and vice versa.

I'm looking at a special about Islam right now, this young woman in Canada is basically speaking out about the oppression and backwardness of the fundamentalist Islamist terrorist types who are ruining her religion the world over, and I wonder ... do I really have the room to complain about oppression here in the USA?

On the one hand, we basically have more civil liberties here than anywhere else, at any other time in human history. Want to write a book about slaughtering Jews and sell it to children? Go right ahead! Want to teach strangers how to blow up the government? Go right ahead! It's all PROTECTED. So it's danged silly of me to worry about mild social conservatism like the sort that doesn't want the word "marriage" applied to certain groups. It's just a word, yeesh. They can still run their web pages ...

But on the other, if the free side of the world doesn't constantly struggle against the repressive side, why would we bother to claim to be free in the first place. This young woman can't stay in Pakistan to write her books about peaceful, air-conditioned Islam. So I think, golly, if you have freedom, you should use it, as Rushdie advises her. Don't just take it for granted, and certainly don't ignore it and go about your daily life as though nothing's wrong if you do think something's wrong.

That much, I think we all agree about. As Tom Paine said, when all else is said and done, a man will fight for nothing else as much as for his right to complain. :)

BG, Here is my complaint. You rightly point out that people going against the social norm in many countries face a lot more than the harsh criticism of others that seems to constitute "repression" and "censorship" in this country nowdays. You point out one of my favorite topics;

"On the one hand, we basically have more civil liberties here than anywhere else, at any other time in human history. "

But I don't quite understand this;

"But on the other, if the free side of the world doesn't constantly struggle against the repressive side, why would we bother to claim to be free in the first place. This young woman can't stay in Pakistan to write her books about peaceful, air-conditioned Islam. So I think, golly, if you have freedom, you should use it, as Rushdie advises her. Don't just take it for granted, and certainly don't ignore it and go about your daily life as though nothing's wrong if you do think something's wrong. "

Are you actually saying that we should make a moral judgement that a society, such as ours, that allows freedom of speech and religion, but where individual citizens may express (nonviolently) their disapproval of others is somehow "better" than one where with government approval women are stoned to death for being raped, hanged for going to school, and where one can be punished for NOT practicing the proper religion, where there really and in the most literal sense IS a theocracy?

Wait, are you asking:

You think morally a free society is BETTER than a repressive theocracy?

If you are, then my answer is yes. I would expect 99.9999% of TUSCL members to feel similarly, so it shouldn't be a surprise and is hardly worth asking. In addition, I don't see how that question derives from the quotation you make of my earlier statements.

Were you just being ironic?

AN, your theory of people meshes quite nicely with a theoriy I've long held, which I call my theory of organizations. Most organizations are originally founded by someone who wants to do something, to make a product, to offer a service to help people, etc. But successive generations of managers who follow are less and less focused on the original objective and more and more focused on the growth and survival of the organization and their own status and power. In your parlence, the original "do something" types are replaced with people who more and more want to "be something."

I think that transition is true regardless of the type of organization. It's true of governments, of businesses, of organized religions and other nonprofits, etc. For example. look how far the Catholic Church has strayed from the original teachings of Jesus. Or how far our government has drifted from the ideals of the original founders.

I'm especially conscious of this change taking place in large businesses, having spent most of my career there. The changes that have occurred in business in my lifetime are both interesting and informative. I got an MBA back in the early 1960s, long before it became fashionable. The philosophy of business taught then was that a business has 4 groups of stakeholders (in order of priority): customers, the communities in which it operated, employees, and finally the owners. If the business did a good job of serving its customers, if it was a good citizen, if it provided job growth and treated its employees fairly, then the owners are entitled to a reward. Profitability was a measure of how well you did meeting the objectives, not the objective itself.

In the 1970s that philosophy was turned upside down. Profits became the objective, not the reward. They became the first priority. You can see this changein how companies are managed (speaking now mostly of manufacturing organizations.) In the 1950s companies were headed by engineers and the product was the primary focus. Then in the 60s marketing was discovered and companies were headed by marketing guys and the focus was on the sizzle not the steak (and product quality fell sharply.) But the marketing guys spent too much and profitability fell, so along came the accountants whose focus became cutting costs. And today they still hold sway, along with the lawyers.

What's interesting about all this is that as the focus increasingly shifted from product to profit, profits fell. That's because accountants only know how to cut costs, which may boost profits in the short term but often mortgages the long term future. (I can still remember my first accounting prof on the very first day of class telling us that accounting is good for one thing only - telling you how you did after the fact - and to never let an accountant tell you what to do because they aren't trained to do that. If only business heeded that warning.

FONDL: Amen to last 2-3 paragraphs of last post. Having this thread already hijacked, allow me to go further by asking what kinds of individuals (do something or be something) run stripclubs? Many would probably say the later, but few people fall 100% into 1 category. Admitedly, stripclubs are of a smaller scale business than a GM, Dupont, etc. While many owners merely want to make some $ and or be viewed as Mr. Big about town, some want to be cutting edge. To an extent, the chain clubs (Deja Vu, Spearmint Rhino, and previously MJ Peter) created chains of clubs that operate much the same way. Perhaps these people want to change the way stripclubs are packaged and presented. Many of the "ways" smack of gimmickery, and while the quality may be better than a lot of clubs out there, the "chains" don't appeal to customer as much as the good local clubs like Mons Venus, Brass Flamingo, etc. For the customer, its the front line "employees"- dancers- that make or break it, but its management that sets the policies that can allow things to flow smoothly, or alienate the customers(or even dancers).

One modern philosopher who discusses this phenomenon is a guy named John Ralston Saul. His mainstream work, "Voltaire's Bastards," is a discussion of the manners in which good ideas from the Enlightenment epoch (including Voltaire) got screwed up such that we ended up only using them bad form (bastardized). Many modern creations are thereby explained -- grey men in grey suits; the WWI staff officer continuing to send wave after wave to their deaths in Passchendaele; organizational systems eventually becoming much more competent at securing their own perpetuation than at performing their avowed function (Microsoft, Catholicism).

I think non-profit enterprises are extremely prone to this phenomenon. Most start with one man or woman, a dream, and a lot of energy. Then they move on to bureaucracy.

Life, in general, is a self-perpetuator. The notion of being a replicating device is more important than being a GOOD PERSON, biologically speaking, for humans.

As far as the Be-Do dichotomy, I think it's a fairly intelligent way to think about people, to put them on a useful "matrix" for certain analyses. As with any generalization, there will be flaws and rough edges that don't fit.

I once saw a website about some kind of "anti-marketing" theory. It was basically economic history, but from the point of view of a non-economist. The dude knew a lot about European history -- the invention of double-entry book-keeping, and the growth of printed and minted currency, and so forth -- and pointed out the economic slumps that inevitably followed the growth, in certain eras, of marketing and advertising. He had historical parallels to marketing -- people wanting to dress like the king, for example, despite its obvious lack of utility -- and the statistics to back it all up. Your four-fold stakeholder point, FONDL, suggests to me your thinking was right in line with his.

I wish I could find that website. It was quite smart, well put together, and seemed pretty much right. We are marketing ourselves to death.

I think the perfect example of what I was describing earlier is General Motors. When they were headed by engineers they dominated the auto market. Then in the 1960s the marketing types took over and things turned south. Then accountant Roger Smith took over and the decline accelerated. Today the market is dominated by Japanese companies, which are still headed by engineers and still focus on product.

I think one of our problems as a country is that we are increasingly becoming a nation of me-oriented "be-somethings" while there are fewer and fewer other-oriented "do-somethings." And that's because the former are often paid more. MBA students are taught that their first priority is to themselves, managing their own careers, when is the opposite of what I was taught. Today when a conflict arises between what's best for the company and what's best for the individual, managers choose the latter course. And companies suffer. When I graduated from college, the brightest students went to the biggest companies; today it's the exact opposite.

And I think this discussion is on topic, because it relates directly to one's ability to retire on favorable terms.

BG, "Were you just being ironic?"

Well I was attempting to, unsuccessfully apparently. I thought it was over the top enough to be plain. I know you're not a big fan of postmodernism, thought you might get a kick out of it. I also think that sadly there are many people on the left who while they would never want to live anywhere other than America will indignantly declare that we are the driving force behind all the worlds problems. A sort of post modern Stockholm syndrome.

Very ... umm ... "post modern," this idea of complaining and staying. If they dislike it so much they're free to leave. Heh, I'd just call it hypocritical. :P