Being able to provide for yourself and the people you care about with ease. That in itself leads directly to personal happiness aswell.Depends what you mean by successful.
inane little opines
Being able to provide for yourself and the people you care about with ease. That in itself leads directly to personal happiness aswell.Depends what you mean by successful.
Well thanks for your answer. I think the whole thing is just personal interpretation of just what mediocrity is, in general, career wise, family wise, happiness wise, intelligence wise, wisdom wise, etc. There's no real concrete answer.JohnG@lt wrote:
Was at a wedding rehearsal and class yesterday. Ambition means nothing. Achieving it is everything. I'm still in school but I graduate in December and I already have a standing offer and two business cards in my pocket. The guy that's getting married tomorrow happens to be from a family of engineersjord wrote:
Though I would like an answer on how having ambition and dreaming of being great puts you above the mediocre general populace. You've been online for some time since this post without an answer. I'm curious is all.jord wrote:
No, all valid dreams and goals. The thing is many people have such dreams and ambitions, and yet all that means is they're mediocre dreamers. Once you have it then you can proclaim you're above mediocrity, but only then.
I can't see us debating your personal life going down well unless you can keep a cool head so maybe we shouldn't dive into this eh...
I dunno jord, I put in a lot more time and effort than the vast majority of people on the planet. I taught myself economics not only because I enjoy it, but because it's a practical way to increase my future production. I'm a nuts and bolts guy, I like to know why things are the way they are. It helps me understand the world I live in and profit from it. So I study politics, history, religion, and economics... for fun and profit.
However it is in England, over here, mediocrity is becoming one of the mindless drones that sits on their couch watching tv from the moment they walk in until the moment they pass out in bed. Those mindless drones are the majority so it's rather easy to rise above mediocrity with just a little bit of effort
People who define themselves by class are the ones who limit themselves. Those who aspire to become middle class are aspiring towards mediocrity. Those who are aspiring towards the working class are setting their eyes below the mean. Those who wish to leave themselves unbounded, and who have their eyes set on the top with the ambition and intelligence needed to get there are the ones who should be admired, not saddled with excessive burdens. Ambition should not be punished, but via taxation and other means, it is in every western society that has adopted socialist beliefs.jord wrote:
Well thanks for your answer. I think the whole thing is just personal interpretation of just what mediocrity is, in general, career wise, family wise, happiness wise, intelligence wise, wisdom wise, etc. There's no real concrete answer.JohnG@lt wrote:
Was at a wedding rehearsal and class yesterday. Ambition means nothing. Achieving it is everything. I'm still in school but I graduate in December and I already have a standing offer and two business cards in my pocket. The guy that's getting married tomorrow happens to be from a family of engineersjord wrote:
Though I would like an answer on how having ambition and dreaming of being great puts you above the mediocre general populace. You've been online for some time since this post without an answer. I'm curious is all.
I dunno jord, I put in a lot more time and effort than the vast majority of people on the planet. I taught myself economics not only because I enjoy it, but because it's a practical way to increase my future production. I'm a nuts and bolts guy, I like to know why things are the way they are. It helps me understand the world I live in and profit from it. So I study politics, history, religion, and economics... for fun and profit.
However it is in England, over here, mediocrity is becoming one of the mindless drones that sits on their couch watching tv from the moment they walk in until the moment they pass out in bed. Those mindless drones are the majority so it's rather easy to rise above mediocrity with just a little bit of effort
Yeah, that essay is pretty much the opposite of my life philosophy. It's essentially saying 'it's ok to fail, success isn't worth the price, don't even bother to make the attempt'. It's a losers philosophy.jord wrote:
There are those that don't subscribe to the class system. I.e people who travel the world, people who spend their lives working for charity, people who have inherited a comfortable life and only desire knowledge, love or happiness. I can see what you're driving at though.
There's a short essay I read not too long ago on happiness, it too circumvents the whole class system and driving for financial success. If you have a few minutes read it. It's not massively thought provoking but I believe it relates to this conversation and I agree with it mostly.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-re … iness.html
Again I'm sure its very low brow for you, but its an alternate outlook on life for most people.
I do think there is a certain happiness to be had from helping others, regardless of personal success. Though if you are truly happy anyway then props to you.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, that essay is pretty much the opposite of my life philosophy. It's essentially saying 'it's ok to fail, success isn't worth the price, don't even bother to make the attempt'. It's a losers philosophy.jord wrote:
There are those that don't subscribe to the class system. I.e people who travel the world, people who spend their lives working for charity, people who have inherited a comfortable life and only desire knowledge, love or happiness. I can see what you're driving at though.
There's a short essay I read not too long ago on happiness, it too circumvents the whole class system and driving for financial success. If you have a few minutes read it. It's not massively thought provoking but I believe it relates to this conversation and I agree with it mostly.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-re … iness.html
Again I'm sure its very low brow for you, but its an alternate outlook on life for most people.
I don't believe in altruism. I'm also quite a happy person.
no seriously that does not reflect my beliefs in any way possible.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends what you mean by successful.OK.....Trotskygrad wrote:
[troll]
My manifesto for saving america is that no other country is worth saving
[/troll]
Seems like a good philosophy to keep your ego in check.JohnG@lt wrote:
People who define themselves by class are the ones who limit themselves. Those who aspire to become middle class are aspiring towards mediocrity. Those who are aspiring towards the working class are setting their eyes below the mean. Those who wish to leave themselves unbounded, and who have their eyes set on the top with the ambition and intelligence needed to get there are the ones who should be admired, not saddled with excessive burdens. Ambition should not be punished, but via taxation and other means, it is in every western society that has adopted socialist beliefs.
Jantelov:
The ten rules state:
1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as much as us.
3. Don't think you're wiser than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.
Fuck that noise.
Why?dayarath wrote:
I found it hilarious that 10 rule set originated in scandinavia.
I'd like to add a hard cap on government spending as percentage of the average of the previous five annual GDP figures as well. 15% would do. Also a constitutional amendment. Hard cap meaning no off balance sheet items like Fannie/Fredide.JohnG@lt wrote:
Solutions for saving America...
Well, to start, I don't really think it needs saving. I think the fundamentals of the economy are sound and we'll be back to normal within a year or so.
That said, if I could list my 'dream sheet'...
- A return to a commodity based currency (gold standard) which would mean an end to the Federal Reserve. This removes the governments ability to debase the currency and limits its borrowing potential.
- A balanced budget Constitutional Amendment.
- Tax rates taken out of the hands of politicians. Install a new government accounting office and remove the tax rate as a political tool for buying votes. The tax rate would be set to reflect the need to have a balanced budget. (lifetime appointment for these accountants so they aren't swayed by politics)
- Free trade policies at all cost. No mirrored trade policies, no tariff wars etc. The end result of protectionism is stagnation and the prime victim is the consumer. If a nation wants to erect a tariff wall, who cares? They're only hurting themselves for the long run.
- Destruction of the Electoral College.
- A shrinking of the military to only what is necessary to defend our own borders.
- A consumer based health insurance system rather than employer (though I would not want this mandated, it is a great recruitment tool for companies)
- Destruction of the NLRB. Unions should be standalone, not government supported.
- An end to government interference in the free market to include: an end to bailouts, an end to government entities like Fannie and Freddie Mac, S&Ls etc.
- Regulation to police fraud and theft only.
- Destruction of Social Security and Medicare as currently incarnated. All they've done is allow people to ignore their future and 'live in the moment'. Hence the overwhelming debt the people of this nation face. It was a nice concept but it has utterly failed in practice. A mandated 401k in its place would be a better option if one were necessary.
- All political donations within a campaign to be pooled. No more donations to individual candidates, if you want to donate that money is going to the opponents as well. Any political party receiving 5% of the popular vote in the previous election gets an equal share in the next cycle. Campaigns should not be decided based upon who has a larger 'war chest'.
Not a bad start but it's late and I need to get to bed.
change " be a conservative " to " Learn " Re read it and see how it sounds.BN wrote:
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I am too smart to be a conservative.
The Australian conservatives are a mile away from the American version you seem intent on defending, so you can calm down now and put down your shield.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
change " be a conservative " to " Learn " Re read it and see how it sounds.BN wrote:
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I am too smart to be a conservative.
Ok ! I had heard this. Americans always think they are talking to other Americans like New Yorkers always think everyone is from New York. I owe you one.jord wrote:
The Australian conservatives are a mile away from the American version you seem intent on defending, so you can calm down now and put down your shield.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
change " be a conservative " to " Learn " Re read it and see how it sounds.BN wrote:
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
I am too smart to be a conservative.
So basically you want to take the US back to the Hoover era?JohnG@lt wrote:
I'd like to add a hard cap on government spending as percentage of the average of the previous five annual GDP figures as well. 15% would do. Also a constitutional amendment. Hard cap meaning no off balance sheet items like Fannie/Fredide.JohnG@lt wrote:
Solutions for saving America...
Well, to start, I don't really think it needs saving. I think the fundamentals of the economy are sound and we'll be back to normal within a year or so.
That said, if I could list my 'dream sheet'...
- A return to a commodity based currency (gold standard) which would mean an end to the Federal Reserve. This removes the governments ability to debase the currency and limits its borrowing potential.
- A balanced budget Constitutional Amendment.
- Tax rates taken out of the hands of politicians. Install a new government accounting office and remove the tax rate as a political tool for buying votes. The tax rate would be set to reflect the need to have a balanced budget. (lifetime appointment for these accountants so they aren't swayed by politics)
- Free trade policies at all cost. No mirrored trade policies, no tariff wars etc. The end result of protectionism is stagnation and the prime victim is the consumer. If a nation wants to erect a tariff wall, who cares? They're only hurting themselves for the long run.
- Destruction of the Electoral College.
- A shrinking of the military to only what is necessary to defend our own borders.
- A consumer based health insurance system rather than employer (though I would not want this mandated, it is a great recruitment tool for companies)
- Destruction of the NLRB. Unions should be standalone, not government supported.
- An end to government interference in the free market to include: an end to bailouts, an end to government entities like Fannie and Freddie Mac, S&Ls etc.
- Regulation to police fraud and theft only.
- Destruction of Social Security and Medicare as currently incarnated. All they've done is allow people to ignore their future and 'live in the moment'. Hence the overwhelming debt the people of this nation face. It was a nice concept but it has utterly failed in practice. A mandated 401k in its place would be a better option if one were necessary.
- All political donations within a campaign to be pooled. No more donations to individual candidates, if you want to donate that money is going to the opponents as well. Any political party receiving 5% of the popular vote in the previous election gets an equal share in the next cycle. Campaigns should not be decided based upon who has a larger 'war chest'.
Not a bad start but it's late and I need to get to bed.
Minus the protectionism, yeah.Dilbert_X wrote:
So basically you want to take the US back to the Hoover era?JohnG@lt wrote:
I'd like to add a hard cap on government spending as percentage of the average of the previous five annual GDP figures as well. 15% would do. Also a constitutional amendment. Hard cap meaning no off balance sheet items like Fannie/Fredide.JohnG@lt wrote:
Solutions for saving America...
Well, to start, I don't really think it needs saving. I think the fundamentals of the economy are sound and we'll be back to normal within a year or so.
That said, if I could list my 'dream sheet'...
- A return to a commodity based currency (gold standard) which would mean an end to the Federal Reserve. This removes the governments ability to debase the currency and limits its borrowing potential.
- A balanced budget Constitutional Amendment.
- Tax rates taken out of the hands of politicians. Install a new government accounting office and remove the tax rate as a political tool for buying votes. The tax rate would be set to reflect the need to have a balanced budget. (lifetime appointment for these accountants so they aren't swayed by politics)
- Free trade policies at all cost. No mirrored trade policies, no tariff wars etc. The end result of protectionism is stagnation and the prime victim is the consumer. If a nation wants to erect a tariff wall, who cares? They're only hurting themselves for the long run.
- Destruction of the Electoral College.
- A shrinking of the military to only what is necessary to defend our own borders.
- A consumer based health insurance system rather than employer (though I would not want this mandated, it is a great recruitment tool for companies)
- Destruction of the NLRB. Unions should be standalone, not government supported.
- An end to government interference in the free market to include: an end to bailouts, an end to government entities like Fannie and Freddie Mac, S&Ls etc.
- Regulation to police fraud and theft only.
- Destruction of Social Security and Medicare as currently incarnated. All they've done is allow people to ignore their future and 'live in the moment'. Hence the overwhelming debt the people of this nation face. It was a nice concept but it has utterly failed in practice. A mandated 401k in its place would be a better option if one were necessary.
- All political donations within a campaign to be pooled. No more donations to individual candidates, if you want to donate that money is going to the opponents as well. Any political party receiving 5% of the popular vote in the previous election gets an equal share in the next cycle. Campaigns should not be decided based upon who has a larger 'war chest'.
Not a bad start but it's late and I need to get to bed.
Nope, the socialist movement had been building since the 1880s or so. It took root in New York City among what became the Champagne Socialists. The Roosevelts happened to be leading members. The height of irony is that socialism was foisted on us by some of the wealthiest men in the nation.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wow, and it was Hoover who drove the US into socialism.
And they wouldn't have got in but for the failure of Hoover and capitalism - GGJohnG@lt wrote:
Nope, the socialist movement had been building since the 1880s or so. It took root in New York City among what became the Champagne Socialists. The Roosevelts happened to be leading members. The height of irony is that socialism was foisted on us by some of the wealthiest men in the nation.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wow, and it was Hoover who drove the US into socialism.
I'm not H/J, 11B or lowing.Dilbert_X wrote:
And they wouldn't have got in but for the failure of Hoover and capitalism - GGJohnG@lt wrote:
Nope, the socialist movement had been building since the 1880s or so. It took root in New York City among what became the Champagne Socialists. The Roosevelts happened to be leading members. The height of irony is that socialism was foisted on us by some of the wealthiest men in the nation.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wow, and it was Hoover who drove the US into socialism.
you'd need a few inches no doubt.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not H/J, 11B or lowing.Dilbert_X wrote:
And they wouldn't have got in but for the failure of Hoover and capitalism - GGJohnG@lt wrote:
Nope, the socialist movement had been building since the 1880s or so. It took root in New York City among what became the Champagne Socialists. The Roosevelts happened to be leading members. The height of irony is that socialism was foisted on us by some of the wealthiest men in the nation.