|
Drastic decline in standard of living.
Tight credit.
Lower wages, fewer benefits.
More savings.
More religion.
Less catering to pressure groups, groups who get the ear of the
press and use it to create disturances.
More personal responsibility.
Less crying to Washington DC for solutions to problems.
Less social engineering/experimentation, especially of the
sort indulgied in by the Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Ivy Brotherhood
and its captive audience, the Washington DC power - clique cabal.
Greater prestige for engineers, scientists, ministers of the cloth,
tailors, hewers of wood, drawers of water, teachers, professors
who stick to their knitting, child care workers.
Less prestige for doctors of medicine, big-name professors especially
of that ilk which hold forth on Nightline, lawyers, actors, TV talk
show hosts, sports figures, radical authors, hackers.
Curbing mindless TV drivel. Replacing "Nightingales" with "Yes,
Minister".
Capital punishment. Trials which start within a month of the crime
and with verdicts delivered within 6 months. Drastic sanctions against
drug sales and use.
Can't think over any more right now...
|
|
Re .2-
I spose the timliness of the need for restrictions on behavior
is more appropriate during childhood than it is as an adult.
We should all know our limits and be ashamed of ourselves for
perhaps exceeding them by the time we're three. By the time
we're adults, our behavior is kept well in check by deeply
internalized feelings of shame. Kinda like how religion works...
Well, I think that the problem is the people need to become
more "fully functional" in terms of their relationship with others.
Yes, a child who feels shame and guilt tends to keep their behavior
in check - what a wonderful *device* for a parent to use to gain
unattended control of a child. Why, if it's working properly, you
dont even have to bother considering how the kid really feels.
Better set it up right away, so that your contention is minimized.
I think the trouble is from the discrepancy that is allowed by the
dysfunctional management of American companies. No one bothers to
intervene, because they simply dont know how to even talk to
another about "what's going on" in a productive manner. It's
expected that randomperson X will straighten themselves out via
their "personal sense of responsibility" or whatever.
This expectation exists even without knowledge of just what it is
that motivates the individual toward accomplishment. Of course, no
one bothers to find out that part - it could be guilt, shame, fear,
or an other directed contextual thing - none of which are any good
when considering a *positive* endpoint.
"Yeah, whatever motivates 'em is their problem - If this one
dont work, I'll just fire 'er and get another who can"
*THIS* is the attitude that's bringing American industry down.
Cold, pure business, and completely dysfunctional in terms of
human relations. American workers are quite neglected in this
aspect, I feel.
Joe Jas
|
| Note 575.1
SX4GTO::HOLT
Hi Don Corleone_:-),
> Drastic decline in standard of living.
We didn't share the wealth, why should we share the adversity?
> Tight credit.
For us, for business, or for everyone? I agree that our credit system is
a mess and has created numerous problems. Easy credit cost many farmers
their land, many construction companies built more condos than the world
could ever want using easy credit. Easy credit (to friends of the Loan
Officers) contributed greatly to the Savings & Loan fiasco as well.
The World Bank's extension of easy credit has caused the Third World debt
crisis. World Bank loans have practically destroyed the rain forests
(endangering the world's oxygen supply) to build dams in the jungle.
I agree with this one 100%.
The FED indicated yesterday that higher interest rates are coming... looks like
you got your wish. Lets see what it brings us.
> Lower wages, fewer benefits.
The American worker has been abused and neglected enough. The mindset you
have displayed is one of the chief reasons America is in trouble today:
From today's Globe:
"Researchers from the MIT Commission on Industrial Productivity - on Tuesday
unveiled a two-year study that found deep flaws in America's corporate culture
have endangered the nation's dominant position in the world.
The United States is neglecting its human resources at almost all levels and
will find its problems with slipping productivity insoluble unless basic
education and worker training are improved.
Specifically, they said they found no evidence to support the notion that
American workers have become lazy."
We need higher wages and better benefits, not lower wages and fewer benefits.
> More savings.
With lower standards of living, lower wages, and fewer benefits, where do
you expect the savings to come from?
Leveraged buyouts are government subsidized acquisitions through the deduction
of interest on the debt used. They could (combined with the FEDS increase of
interest rates) send us into a severe recession.
> More religion.
Religion sometimes appears to be a part of the problem, not part of the
solution. Certainly Jim and Tammy Baker, Oral Roberts, and Jimmy Swaggart
were out for all the money they could get.
Modern organized religions appear to follow their own very political agenda.
They seem more concerned with ..secular issues than spiritual issues.
Organized religions today do not appear to fill the spiritual vacuum of
modern society. Organized religions often appear to be just another form
of big business and government.
> More personal responsibility.
We have too many laws that shift personal responsibility from the individual
to the government. We should get rid of them. Legalize drugs and
prostitution for a start.
> Less crying to Washington DC for solutions to problems.
Talk about crying in the dark! We began paying taxes to pay for World War I;
and as soon as they realized how lucrative politics could be, lawyers flocked to
the profession. Washington DC couldn't solve it's way out of a paper bag.
Most current politicians are in it for the money and their political
philosophies sway with the winds of public opinion... all sound and no fury.
Looking to them for solutions to problems is an exercise in futility raised
to the level of an art form.
> Less social engineering/experimentation, especially of the
> sort indulged in by the Harvard/Yale/Princeton/Ivy Brotherhood
> and its captive audience, the Washington DC power - clique cabal.
Did you see that Bill Moyer's special on the secret society of elitists
that really run this country too?_:-)
> Greater prestige for engineers, scientists, ministers of the cloth,
> tailors, hewers of wood, drawers of water, teachers, professors
> who stick to their knitting, child care workers.
Musicians, plumbers, *mothers*, *fathers*, mechanics, nurses, artists,
singers, librarians, and anyone else who truly contributes to humanity.
> Less prestige for doctors of medicine, big-name professors especially
> of that ilk which hold forth on Nightline, lawyers, actors, TV talk
> show hosts, sports figures, radical authors, hackers.
Let us not forget the bankers and stock/bond/money people. They hoard a
great deal of our resources, and do nothing of value.
> Curbing mindless TV drivel. Replacing "Nightingales" with "Yes,
> Minister".
Lets keep government out of our private business please. You decide what
you consider to be drivel and then... don't watch it.
> Capital punishment. Trials which start within a month of the crime
> and with verdicts delivered within 6 months. Drastic sanctions against
> drug sales and use.
Amnesty International is already filing reports on us because we are so
disproportionate in our capital punishment of our minority.
Drug laws should be abolished, let them burn their brains out if thats
what they want to do. Why should we subject society to the cost and
violence in order to police their personal lives? Get government out of
our personal lives.
Mary
|
| After reading a little bit about the era of the robber barons, and
the constitutional battles about whether the (federal) government
could regulate them, I'm inclined to keep the federal government
strong. Until the early 30s companies could (and did) fire workers
for joining a union, and when that failed, called in the army to
beat them up. The courts supported this under an older view of the
"Due Process" clause. What the courts finally realized (with
Holmes and Brandeis in the lead) is that some regulation is
necessary when two parties to a negotiation have vastly different
sizes and resources.
I'm also rather fond of the truth in labelling and pure food and
drug laws, but then, I like to know what's in a package before I
buy it.
What the MIT report suggests we need is better management with a
view of the future that extends beyond the next quarterly report.
I'm inclined to agree.
--David
|