Capitalism

[PLAYER57832]

What! You sir are a fool if you think the Nazis have anything to do with Communism or Socialism. Hitler murdered tens of thousands of German communists in his death camps and if you think nationalism has any place in socialism you are badly mistaken. Fascist parties are polar opposites to communists.

Then you will have to explain why the fall of Nazis Germany is was cited by economists as the earliest example we have of a controlled economy becoming truly capitalistic.

Every aspect of the Nazis lives was dictated and controlled in pursuit of a new world order. They just happened to limit those ideals to the "naturally superior" "aryan race" .... as opposed to the "completely egalitarian" dictates of Stalin and his ilk. (not)

[PLAYER57832]

Capitalism is a process that was designed in nature, and would work beautifully, were it not for your kind of "everything for everybody" approach to winning minds. Be responsible for your self, your beloved socialist government can't do it for you.

Designed by nature and "works beautifully" ... if you consider the likes of Donald Trump and John D. Rockafeller to be somehow inherently superior human beings.

[flashleg8]

What! You sir are a fool if you think the Nazis have anything to do with Communism or Socialism. Hitler murdered tens of thousands of German communists in his death camps and if you think nationalism has any place in socialism you are badly mistaken. Fascist parties are polar opposites to communists.

Then you will have to explain why the fall of Nazis Germany is was cited by economists as the earliest example we have of a controlled economy becoming truly capitalistic.

Every aspect of the Nazis lives was dictated and controlled in pursuit of a new world order. They just happened to limit those ideals to the "naturally superior" "aryan race" .... as opposed to the "completely egalitarian" dictates of Stalin and his ilk. (not)

This has nothing to do with Communism. I don't understand your position?

[PLAYER57832]

What! You sir are a fool if you think the Nazis have anything to do with Communism or Socialism. Hitler murdered tens of thousands of German communists in his death camps and if you think nationalism has any place in socialism you are badly mistaken. Fascist parties are polar opposites to communists.

Then you will have to explain why the fall of Nazis Germany is was cited by economists as the earliest example we have of a controlled economy becoming truly capitalistic.

Every aspect of the Nazis lives was dictated and controlled in pursuit of a new world order. They just happened to limit those ideals to the "naturally superior" "aryan race" .... as opposed to the "completely egalitarian" dictates of Stalin and his ilk. (not)

This has nothing to do with Communism. I don't understand your position?

The halmark of Communism is state ownership and control. That existed under Nazism. The only difference was that instead of it all being controlled by a select group of official communists, it was decided by Hitler and his cronies.

i.e. a book of a different color, but the pages were very much the same.

Certainly the Nazis were horrific in their oppression of those who "differed" and yes, it is different to judge folks on things they cannot control than it is to judge people .. no matter how harshly on political beliefs. However, I don't think either example was particularly stellar.

And, I don't think the difference mattered much to those who were on the wrong side of the fence.

[Snorri1234]

Anybody with average intelligence and average hearing can be a great musician if they spend 1,000 hours or more practicing.

Success is mainly a matter of effort and as a general rule if you have average potential in a field and you spend 1,000 hours doing it you will be very good. Most people never approach their true potential in anything.

I would argue that surroundings do not limit success because in a free society, which most capitalists advocate, a person can leave. It's a matter of walking.

Wow. Holy shit. I knew people like you existed but I never thought I would meet any.

I think he means Social Darwinists.

I meant people who believe that circumstances do not limit succes on a very fundamental level.

[mpjh]

Actually, Gabon is almost correct. The missing element is competence, and mentorship. People who are competent in their area, can become very, very good with practice. So anyone can be a great muscian with practice.

One problem is how to become competent. Incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent, but they can learn if someone points out their deficiencies, and they accept the criticism and work on the weakness.

However, for that to work, you need a mentor, or teacher, that is competent to provide help in creating "purposeful practice." In other words, just spending 1000 hours doing the wrong things will not make you an expert; the practice must be purposeful and focused on eliminating weaknesses and reinforcing strengths.

Bottom line, you need COOPERATION to succeed in competition.

[Snorri1234]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

[ahunda]

The halmark of Communism is state ownership and control. That existed under Nazism. The only difference was that instead of it all being controlled by a select group of official communists, it was decided by Hitler and his cronies.

i.e. a book of a different color, but the pages were very much the same.

You are grossly misinformed. The only expropriations in Nazi Germany were those of Jewish property. As a matter of fact, many businesses formerly owned by Jewish people were handed over to private ownership of "Aryans". There were war profiteers, who followed the German troops into the occupied countries across Europe and through connections & bribery got hold on Jewish businesses there too. But other businesses & industries were not touched by the Nazis.

The capitalist class had supported Hitler with money, before his rise into power, because there was much turmoil & political unrest in Germany. A strong workers movement and a rather large socialist faction existed (as in basically all European countries at that time), and the socialists were the strongest opposition to the Nazis. There was quite a bit of violence between those two factions, street-fights & riots. And once the Nazis seized power, one of their very first actions was to smash the unions & workers movement. The socialists were the first, that were sent to the camps, even before the Jews. Nazi Germany is just one example of many, where the capitalist class - when faced with the "red threat" - fell back on fascism to protect their privileges.

[mpjh]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

[GabonX]

A teacher is a very valuable thing in terms of being able to point out flaws. With that said, it is not impossible for a person to improve by themselves. Many people are their own biggest critics.

Snorri, if you want to try this, choose anything that you would like to be good at and have no experience in. Practice whatever that thing is and keep a log. After 1,000 hours try to judge the progress you've made. This experiment should take you a year.

This idea that all of the great athletes and musicians have some kind of innate ability that most people don't doesn't make sense. The odds that the people with the highest innate ability would happen to be the ones who choose to pursue those fields is very low. In other words, the odds that the people who have the greatest ability to be, say, football players would all choose to be football players is extremely low. Despite this there are a lot of people who have highly developed skills who play football.

It is the development of these skills which is most important, not innate ability. These people are where they are because they worked their butts off and if we're talking about American football probably because they took steroids but not because they were genetically inclined.

Some people may have greater innate ability in certain fields but in general this is not something which cannot be overcome by thousands of hours of practice.

[GabonX]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

If you spent 10,000 hours on any given instrument and applied yourself to the best of your ability I would be very surprised if you weren't one of the great players of the world.

[mpjh]

Bunk. If you spent 1000 hours doing it wrong, you will become very good at doing it wrong.

Your bourgeois notion of individualism is unscientific, and more ideological than rational.

[sailorseal]

Human behavior is not communist it is very much capitalist

[mpjh]

Sure, and that is why so many humans consider themselves socialists and communists, uh huh.

[Snorri1234]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

Actually, I'm just terrible bad at keeping rhythm. And I'm not that creative so even if I learned how to play perfectly, I would still only be able to play other peoples music.

It is quite frankly absurd to say talent can be learned. Some people are just better at some things than everyone else, it's ridiculous to deny that because it flies in the face of everything we know about the brain and people. We aren't all the same blank slates who think exactly the same and are mentally and physically fit to become anything.



Practice can ofcourse hone your skills, but the difference between "good" and "great" is quite simply one of talent.

[GabonX]

Bunk. If you spent 1000 hours doing it wrong, you will become very good at doing it wrong.

Your bourgeois notion of individualism is unscientific, and more ideological than rational.

If you do the same wrong thing for 1,000 you're right. There is a process whereby improvement can occur and that is why it is essential to be critical of oneself.

What are we talking about doing wrong anyway? I agree that if you do it wrong for enough time you will be good at doing it wrong but wrong is a very loose concept, particularly when we don't even know the topic.

The point is that, effort, labor and practice lead to progress, results and skills. Even if you have the potential to be the greatest musician in the world, your talent will never be realized unless you dedicate yourself.

[GabonX]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

Actually, I'm just terrible bad at keeping rhythm. And I'm not that creative so even if I learned how to play perfectly, I would still only be able to play other peoples music.

It is quite frankly absurd to say talent can be learned. Some people are just better at some things than everyone else, it's ridiculous to deny that because it flies in the face of everything we know about the brain and people. We aren't all the same blank slates who think exactly the same and are mentally and physically fit to become anything.



Practice can ofcourse hone your skills, but the difference between "good" and "great" is quite simply one of talent.

I don't disagree that there are differing levels of potential, but the fact is that most people never even approach their true potential in anything. If a person does approach their highest level of potential in any given field it will, in most cases, be quite notable.

[mpjh]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

Actually, I'm just terrible bad at keeping rhythm. And I'm not that creative so even if I learned how to play perfectly, I would still only be able to play other peoples music.

It is quite frankly absurd to say talent can be learned. Some people are just better at some things than everyone else, it's ridiculous to deny that because it flies in the face of everything we know about the brain and people. We aren't all the same blank slates who think exactly the same and are mentally and physically fit to become anything.



Practice can ofcourse hone your skills, but the difference between "good" and "great" is quite simply one of talent.

There is no such thing as talent. It is just a word people use to describe success that they haven't achieved.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, if I am interested in becoming a musician, I should put myself in a place where I can be around music and musicians as much as possible. If I like being a criminal, then I suppose that I can put myself around criminals to learn the trade. In either case, I, by the nature of my own decisions, and ultimately responsible for my own freedom.

And exactly how do you do that without money, without being born to a family that can give you those options?

You assume a lot.

I expect that people would do this the same way that I did. Finish high school. Weigh your options for getting a degree, as in join the military and get a G.I. bill, look into scholarships (usually funded by rich people and corporations), look into school loans and grants. Then you don't get lazy and squander your time in school drinking and partying. You study hard and work through.

Which presupposed that you HAVE access to a good, and free education to begin ... part of socialistic societies, but not purely capitalistic ones.

And while it is true that rich people offer scholarships, they certainly don't provide scholarships for all ... or even all the most deserving, by any stretch of the imagination.

I happen to think that science is a tool that will ultimately prove that God exists.

I agree.

And it has nothing to do with captialism. In fact, Christ was pretty socialistic.

I disagree at least in the governmental sense. Christ never intended morals to be forced upon a people at large, rather, the free will of individuals was the intended outcome. Socialism is antichristian in that it takes away the opportunity for the individual to make the choice to be good to his neighbors in their time of need.]

You mince words here. The reality is that when it is left up to people, a lot of people are NOT helped. And government assistance never will and, yes, never should completely replace individual aid. However, capitalism offers nothing. History shows us how little the wealthy really do to help the poor, when NOT forced.

There are reasons for unions, reasons for welfare, etc. We forget because we benefit from all those things and essentially take their impacts for granted, but just look back to the 20's or before and you see that things were not so rosey.

Your models, in a perfectly predictable and controllable environment, are suitable. But when they are in such an environment as the economy, you are no better off trying to predict the weather. You will, at some point, make a mistake, and it will likely be colossal.

and the alternative is better?

By far. The laissez faire approach to economic policy is the natural corrective cycle of economic affairs. Literally, it means, "Leave us be!" The economic downturn would have hurt for a little while, but it would by now, already be on the mend because the bankrupt companies would already have been bought up and their assets would be doing someone some good somewhere in a much more productive environment. This is exactly most people aren't even aware that there was a little depression in 1921. It was just a blip on the screen.]

You miss one pretty big factor, the reality of resource limits.

But that requires looking at more than simply economic theory. I would argue that economics are merely a symptom. The market does little more than respond to on-the-ground realities. The REALITY is that oil is limited, all resources have limits. Technology may or may not get us around some of those limits... but cutting science education, failure to sponsor alternative energy research or to seriously allow investigation of impacts of global warming and just plain old general pollution will ensure it is a long, LONG time before those things come to pass in our country...

You see, capitalism only benefits things IMMEDIATELY beneficial. For long term investment, it requires and outside impetus. In rare cases, it is one person's or a gorup of people's visions. More often, it is enough people in a country deciding to go forward that they support government intervention and support.

See, that's where you are wrong. I do not need you to survive. You may need others to gather your food for you, fix your car for you, entertain you... but I don't. I can hunt, fish, forage... What you don't know is that I am a survivalist. I don't need you to survive. I don't need a government to take care of me. Ever since 911 I have been teaching myself how to survive. You could do it too, if you would just convince your self that you were man enough to do it.

Sorry, but I happen to know a good deal about this. There are several problem. Notably, there just are not enough wild resources to support more than a few individuals. That's why humanity invented farming and industry.

I am only talking about myself. I don't need you to survive because I have already taken the initiative to learn these kinds of skills. By and large, most people would rather huddle in athletic stadiums. I would rather put my small quarter acre yard to agricultural use and implement a garden and hunt and fish to sustain my self. There are also a myriad if "weeds" that are edible. You are incorrect on this, lots of people could do this if they wanted too.

Firstly, you would not know this but I happen to live in a very heavy hunting region, am a trained biologist, grew up growing and processing my own food. Furthermore, I am involved heavily in local/state/federal management issues and politics. In other words, I really DO know of what I speak.

And YOU ARE WRONG! ... There are real reasons for limits on deer take, limits on harvest of wild species in most areas (wherever people know enough to go get them ... and if there are no limits, there are few left!).

In your "survivalist" scenario, those will be the strongest... those born with wealth, and a few with special skills in weaponry and the like.

Bullocks... Many "poor" people hunt and are good at it. Rich people are less likely to hunt.

That might be the stereotype, but its not the reality. True 50 years ago, perhaps, but not any more. Now simply owning a gun is rather expensive and most people don't have deer in their backyard. We do, a lot of people in my area do as well. (there are probably more guns per capita in our town than even most in Texas). However, places like ours are getting scarce. Even here, a large portion of the hunting take goes to people from outside the area. As the take has gone down (due to a diminished population for a lot of reasons), so have the numbers of hunters coming ... and it has made a small contribution the general economic downturn here.

Further, it matters not if a few poorer individuals are better at using guns. Poorer folks still depend on wealthy folks to pay their checks. As things get slim, do you think folks will turn down chances to work for hire? Have they ever historically?

What has happened in the past will happen again. Besides, it matters not if the people with guns start out poor and wind up in charge. Once they get there... they become the new wealthy class. The only change in how one gets there. The same rules apply whether it is wealth by controlling resources, controlling money (another resource, really) or controlling people (also another resource).

Thirdly ... I am not "man" enough for anything ... but I am intelligent and resourceful enough for a good deal more than I suspect you have ever encountered. Specifically, I have kids.

I have kids too. And I will do them a far greater service by teaching them how to survive from the land than to rely on a government run handout.

Whaoo now you make a pretty big assumption.

Firstly, I do get government handouts, due to disabilities my sons have.... I have mentioned it before. I don't like it, but right now, it costs me more to pay for childcare than any work I could get in my area. Further, with a husband who is a volunteer Fire chief, I cannot depend upon my husband to care for the kids except on rare occasions. I do some freelancing, but it does not pay well. Which is why I am planting as big a garden as our yard will support, why we are harvesting leeks and everything else we can find, why our freezer is definitely full of venison (all legally caught). And, in honesty... yes, there is a part of me that sees the payments we get as partly just compensation for the many, many hours my husband dedicates to the community (he does many, many other things as well... but I try not to get into too many details).

However, though we get handouts, it is absolutely not what I am raising my kids to do. My son, age 8, has already hunted with his dad. Got his first turkey last year! He may, depending heavily upon his behavior (and his dad's assessment of his abilities) be allowed to go for a deer this year. (dad's choice ... I leave that to him). He also helps me in the garden (MY area... my husband cannot grow a thing) and I teach him constantly about nature produce. I am less skilled about the plants in this area than I was back where I was raised, but ... I learn.

AND, I make sure he does his homework, am pulling out my hair because he hates to read and the current educational system in our area is just not well adapted to active young boys who also happen to be very intelligent .. and therefore easily bored. I teach him science and history at home ... and try to keep his interest in reading alive, even as I see the school effectively killing it.

I have not been able to homeschool, for personnal reasons and due to the attention my youngest has needed. He has needed speech therapy, but is now speaking well above average, thanks to the therapy and our efforts at home.

However, I am also facing the sad reality that neither one of them will likely be able to go to college, for many reasons. I hope.. I do everything within my power to ensure they get that chance, but it is likely they will not have it.

[PLAYER57832]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

If you spent 10,000 hours on any given instrument and applied yourself to the best of your ability I would be very surprised if you weren't one of the great players of the world.

Sorry, but music requires some innate ability. Further, it is not the same as learning math or memorizing a bunch of scientific facts. It takes more than simply knowing the notes and being able to produce them.

If you look at the truly great musicians, you see that those who are the greatest were NOT always the most technically competent at all. There are many who are quite competent... and pretty bad.

To contrast, some of those truly gifted at writing and composing are not necessarily all that great at performing.


It is the same as the "any monkey can create a Mona Lisa... it just is not the case!

[GabonX]

Hey player, isn't it illegal to keep deer meet after a certain point in the year? I thought the game commission regulated that so that people don't hunt out of season.

I'm not sure about this and I don't think they're going to be breaking your door down anytime soon, but if it bothers you, or if you for some reason have the game commision in your house, you may want to look this up.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't disagree that there are differing levels of potential, but the fact is that most people never even approach their true potential in anything. If a person does approach their highest level of potential in any given field it will, in most cases, be quite notable.

True, but you have to look at why. Finding the right teacher is only part of the problem. It requires the right mix of many circumstances to rise to the top of any field.

And ... sorry, but often times there is more than one who could have gotten there... had circumstances been right. It takes a lot more than just competence and innitiative.

[PLAYER57832]

Hey player, isn't it illegal to keep deer meet after a certain point in the year? I thought the game commission regulated that so that people don't hunt out of season.

I'm not sure about this and I don't think they're going to be breaking your door down anytime soon, but if it bothers you, or if you for some reason have the game commision in your house, you may want to look this up.

It has to be out by July 1rst in our area... we have a ways to go yet. I assure you all of OUR deer is legal.

In fact, we qualify to get deer from the deer commission on a rotating basis. (when they cease an animal in decent condition, it goes to a list of mostly lower income people who ask for it).

P.S. the local game official is our neighbor... he doesn't HAVE to break the door down.

[GabonX]

If I spend 10,000 hours practicing with a good teacher, I might become a mediocre musician.

Only if you are incompetent and fail to learn from the teacher; and that sounds like one of you needs a change. Of course your own self deprecation and lack of vision may be the chief characteristic of your incompetence. Good luck.

If you spent 10,000 hours on any given instrument and applied yourself to the best of your ability I would be very surprised if you weren't one of the great players of the world.

Sorry, but music requires some innate ability. Further, it is not the same as learning math or memorizing a bunch of scientific facts. It takes more than simply knowing the notes and being able to produce them.

If you look at the truly great musicians, you see that those who are the greatest were NOT always the most technically competent at all. There are many who are quite competent... and pretty bad.

To contrast, some of those truly gifted at writing and composing are not necessarily all that great at performing.


It is the same as the "any monkey can create a Mona Lisa... it just is not the case!

Not everyone can be the best ever, but music is not some magical field which only the chosen few could possibly hope to be fluent in.

Composition is much more difficult (for most people at least) than performance. With that said, 1,000 hours dedicated to either one, if the time is spent constructively, will yield results for almost anyone.

[pimpdave]

...