It's all about oppurtunity...

[Velociryx]

Templar: Yes to the first question, no to the rest, with the inability to answer question five. Yes, it is possible. Is it the norm? Couldn't tell you. And it's interesting that you claim to be living in the here and now, yet stand in support of an outdated political ideology? Doesn't sound very 21st century to me, but okay....

And with regard to associating product with biologically rooted needs, I would say....so? If you honestly believe that we are so bound to those biological needs that they can be used as triggers by any passing external stimuli (including ad work), then I feel that you misunderstand the nature *of* those biological needs and desires. What you are describing is a vast oversimplification of control over those biologically rooted needs and desires, and if advertising worked that way, then it would be a much more insidious, effective tool at outright *brainwashing* than even you are implying.

That we are not drooling all over ourselves, or off to pop some buxom beauty on her pretty little head and drag her by the hair back to the modern-day cave to have sex with her while guzzling a Bud shortly after viewing the latest commercial hits the tube sugessts (and quite strongly, at that) that it doesn't work as you imply.

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Maniac
Ok, so everyone has a choice. But do you deny that people starting high on the social ladder have a higher chance that their choices will lead to succes instead of failure? Being a meritocrat, I find it "unfair" a more talented but poorer born person will end up lower than a less talented but richer born person.

Now this is the real problem with capitalism in a nutshell. The goal of the free market is to foster competion so that people can make money by meeting the needs of other people (or by creating desires and then fulfilling them - but enough about advertising).

The dogma is that the best and brightest will rise to the top in capitalism and that innovation will flourish. But note that these, the most desireable effects of capitalism, are at best side effects that are suppossed to occur. If we really belive in innovation and the best and brightest rising to the top, why not build a system that has these as specific goals instead of hoping that the market accomplishes these things tangentally?

[Japher]

Templar your an odd one.

I never saw a master plan for capitalism that said that they best and brightest would rise to the top.

Also, at least in Capitalism the needs and demands (which, by the way, are not one in the same) are actually met... Unlike in real world Communism...

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Templar: Yes to the first question,

Then you have never:

(1) In high school, been so nervous about asking a girl out that despite every desire to do so you just couldn't force yourself.

(2) Been so pissed off that you punch someone in the face without realizing what you are doing when you threw the punch.

(3) Rejected an ex-girlfirend who broke up with you and then wanted to get back together even though everything inside you wanted to take her back but your pride got in the way?

(4) Paralyzed with fear - the deer in the headlights thing.

I envy you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
I think the problem with most people is that they won't or don't play the 'game' that they are in. They would rather debate the 'rules' than figure out how to make the 'rules' work for them.

I couldn't agree with you more Japher. You hit the nail on the head.

As in money. The reason a lot of people don't have money is because they don't really know what it is... A lot of people couldn't even define a yeild or it's relation to a P/E...

I can define a yield and I know it's relation to the P/E.

It's this kind of ignorance to the rules that gets people smashed. .

That's the unfortunate truth my friend and many people think that if they just ignore it long enough it will go away. They they wonder why they aren't going to Aruba like so and so on TV.

[Velociryx]

Nope. I have never to any of the statements you outlined. I want to ask a girl out....I ask her out? What's she gonna do? Say no? Claw my eyes out? So why get worked up about it?

As to anger, I have been truly *angry* (enraged) all of three times in my whole life, and in those moments, I was perhaps more in control of myself, and felt a greater clarity of thought than at many (if any) other points in my life. In short, I knew exactly what I was doing.

Fear is a controlled response. I used to be scared of the dark. I'm not any more. I used to be scared of the water. That changed. Why? Because I MADE it change. I chose, using my spiffy lil' ol' free will to simply not be afraid anymore.

Pride getting in the way? Choice....pure and simple. A relationship over some nebulous sense of "personal pride."

Paralyzed with fear? Nope. Surprised on occassion by an unexpected event? Yep....but the moment the initial surprise wore off (a matter of seconds usually, and often less), the brain kicks into high gear and begins shouting orders to the body.

Nothing to envy about it. Anyone can make that happen.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
Also, at least in Capitalism the needs and demands (which, by the way, are not one in the same) are actually met... Unlike in real world Communism...

Nonsense.

[DAVOUT]

Many people complains that an average person in a wealthy family has more opportunities that a brilliant person in a poor family.

If this was true all the top positions in the society would be held by heirs.

the 11 richest persons in the US are :

1. Gates, William H III
2. Buffett, Warren Edward
3. Allen, Paul Gardner
4. Walton, Helen R
5. Walton, S Robson
6. Walton, John T
7. Walton, Jim C
8. Walton, Alice L
9. Ellison, Lawrence Joseph
10. Ballmer, Steven Anthony
11. Michael Dell

All these fortunes were build after WWII by people whose parent were not billionnaires. If this is true for the very top, can it be wrong below?

But we have to accept that opportunity does not mean success.

[Velociryx]

Here's the part where they tell you that those are exceptionally rare individuals, and because you're not talking about the "whole group" the list you provided is absolutely invalid.....betcha money....*sigh*

-=Vel=-

(EXCELLENT point, by the way! )

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
But we have to accept that opportunity does not mean success.

If opportunity doesn't mean success what good is it?

[Japher]

But Oerdin, we have decided to 'play the game' instead of trying double jump a rook and knight to king our bishop...

While we have learned how to identify and interpret market indicators we would be hard pressed to apply these to the real estate market, say. We will have to learn what a debt/equity ratio is or debt/earnings ration is, what the differences between mortgages are, how to write a perspective or offer, how to make buisness contacts, etc... Things we don't need to know to play on the stock market, it is a completely different world...

This, all just in the investment world?! There is so much to learn so much fun to be had in the 'games' already set before us, that if one would just play it, win or lose, you would be a lot better off than you are now.

"I don't want to play Capitalism I want to play Communism," people whine. I say they are lazy, mainly because the only thing you have to do in 'Communism' is decide if you want to be the thimble or the race car, then sit back as you run the predetermined course set to you by the guy in the top hat. I would rather play 'Capitalism' because at least I get to role the dice...



Also, Templar, Free Will does exist, it is just much easier to give in to others influences...

If we really belive in innovation and the best and brightest rising to the top, why not build a system that has these as specific goals instead of hoping that the market accomplishes these things tangentally?

Care to give an example of such a system?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Now you decide what a 'good' communist is? I can decide that for myself.

I decide? Nope. Marx, Engles, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin have already decided what a good communist is and a good commie doesn't buy into religion. It is "the opium of the masses" remember? A foul lie used by the aristocracy to oppress the proletariat.

Of course if you actually bothered to read any major communist manifesto then you'd know this. If you don’t believe me as Chegitz or any of the former Soviet posters here at poly who are old enough to remember Soviet school doctrine.

You really need to pick up a copy of the little red book.

[Velociryx]

Kid....I started to laugh when I read your reply, but then it occurred to me that it was asked in seriousness, so I will give you a serious answer.

Opportunity does not....does not equal success.

Opportunity is....exactly that....the chance of success.

In order to turn an opportunity INTO a success, requires personal effort.

Until then, it is simply an unrealized ambition. A desire.

That would be like saying: If dreams do not equal reality, then what good are they?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I decide? Nope. Marx, Engles, Mao, Lenin, and Stalin have already decided what a good communist is and a good commie doesn't buy into religion. It is "the opium of the masses" remember? A foul lie used by the aristocracy to oppress the proletariat.

All of these people disagreed on different points. Communists do that as well you know.

[Japher]

I wouldn't even think of laughing at Kid's question, I think it is a very good question.

If opportunity doesn't mean success what good is it?

It means you get to play the game. You get to try and do what ever it is you want to do, and not have to follow some predetermined path set to you by your forefathers or your government, or even your education.

Opportunity has made the world of difference in this country, not only because of those who have succeed, but because of those who have failed, learned from it, and tried again.

Success is being able to get up one more time than you have fallen...