TED Video: Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success

1 year 1 month ago

I like a lot of the videos on TED.Com. Though they are condensed into concise speeches, they're a great way to listen to the ideals of writers, scientists, and professionals that raise key issues based on informative topics. If you agree with [or are interested in] the discussion points that these speech presenters raise on Ted.Com, it is then easy to look further into the links to their own sites, books, narratives, and writings.

Today's pick for a key speech could be no more relevant to our site theme:

Alain de Botton: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success


Should the news media be a money making operation?

1 year 1 month ago

As I was listening to WTOP news [a DC news/talk radio station] in my car today, a funny thing happened.

In pretext, the TV "meltdown" award of this week goes to this emphatic Congressman, Partick Kennedy (D) from Rhode Island, for citing that the media/press is paying more attention to controversy than the highly important laws being passed through Congress and the billions of dollars being spent on wars. Here's a CNN video of his words:


Music and Social Media that will survive...

1 year 1 month ago

Technology has revolutionized the world. Its no surprise that people who vowed to never use a cell phone now can't manage to live without one. I am amazed when I can create a musical composition and then within minutes of its creation, I can upload it to one site, http://www.soundcloud.com/winterman, to get immediate feedback on the composition from friends in my music community.


The Corporation-Wide Web: Your Internets are shrinking like a cheap linen shirt.

6 years 4 months ago

Yes, I understand the title to this post is bad grammar, but its full of "Truthiness"...

Years ago, the Internet was a wild mass of pages with no central location, no source for finding anything, and it was lovely. You never knew what you'd encounter online, and you had to be part of a community to find a resource for specialized knowledge. Business went wild in the quest for inventing the next "one stop shop" for information and entertainment. In many ways, having a modem to connect you to the web was better than high-speed networks now; there were less ads, less harmful viruses, and we were spyware free. Our biggest problem was waiting 4 minutes for a large JPEG image to download.

In today's world, the web is much less complex... As predicted, companies have embraced the www and made iconic brands of places where the majority of people both on & off of the Internet go to find information. The concept of a single web site dedicated to a business is old school, now you also have to maintain a FaceBook page, a LinkedIn profile, do SEO to get ranked on Google and Bing, and you've also got Twitter and tons of sites you need to monitor and keep current just to gain a solid competitive edge and to quell PR incidents.

The changing landscape of the Internet requires many entities to carefully groom their image, some companies are paying other companies just to quell, if not delete negative comments from their customer bases online. There is also a sudden rise in the level of attention Government is paying to Internet regulation, as presented by an explosion of SOPA/PIPA discussions and protests online.

The Internet is shrinking, in the 90s we had a wide variety of sites that let you preview art, music, and video (media) on a massive scale. It was indexed by Yahoo, Lycos, AltaVista, Google, GeoCities, and on many other services. Now we have Google, YouTube, and FaceBook pretty much...

Google, YouTube, and FaceBook present an "Internet bubble" that serves as the main sources for information distribution on the web. Yes, sites like Reddit are coming into their own, but for the most part, the Top 3 sites on the web are
Google, YouTube, and FaceBook (not necessarily in that order). Each of these sites have characteristics that are similar to each other, and many different than each other, but they are all linked to the concept of sharing and displaying information that is not owned by the resources who are hosting them, this leads us to SOPA, legislation launched in the US to kill piracy and copyright infringement of digital content online.

SOPA emerged as an initiative to quell Copyright Infringement online launched by Congress in the United States. If you traced its origins, its not hard to determine that it came about by lobbies for media companies pressuring congressional seats to enact rules to protect the profits of these large media interests. There's nothing wrong with protecting your profits as a company, the usual way is to provide services and products that cannot be easily duplicated, and to position your price at a better (lower) point than your competitors. The main problem in this competition is that large-scale media retailers are competing with small (low overhead) independent media retailers, and they're beginning to lose money to these independent sellers. The way they decided to win the war against independent sellers is to cut out their channels for distribution by bundling harmful regulation into a bill under the guise of enforcing copyright protection for intellectual property.

The Internet has presented a great (possibly the best of all time) venue for selling, promoting, and distributing music and film. These media companies (that produce big-budget music and films) see their market share shrinking due to the conversion from hard copy media (CDs, Records, DVDs, etc. that only they could produce on a wide scale) to fully digital formats (which anyone can produce on a large scale). As computers and mobile devices proliferate, digital distribution will be king in terms of revenue and promotion for media artists from musicians to film makers, this we know.

One of the biggest media companies attached to SOPA support is UMG (Universal Music Group). UMG is one of the largest for-profit media groups on the scene right now, with lots of annual revenue on legal music sales from iTunes, and physical stores despite a declining rate of physical media sales. UMG was recently entangled in a public battle with a file sharing service called MegaUpload, a start-up company focused on ad revenue and digital sales. MegaUpload was intent on cornering the digital file sharing business, as well as ending iTunes'es reign on digital distribution. MegaUpload was a wide-reaching entity on the web, hosting vast amounts of files both legal and illegal (as alleged by authorities). This battle ended recently in UMG's favor, with MegaUpload being pulled off of the web entirely based on UMG's petition to their Internet Service Providers, and the founders/execs of MegaUpload currently face both criminal and civil suits in court.

This action occurred before any implementation of SOPA, not even a vote to adopt the policy had taken place, reaffirming that the US government has the rightful authority to shut down web sites found to be in violation of laws based on distribution of unauthorized digital content. One of the biggest reason an uproar from Internet communities occurred after this happened was that many law-abiding users were also affected by the take-down of MegaUpload. People who paid for hosting services, as well as people who depended on backed-up files they had on the service were instantly wiped out. What's scary to many, is that if SOPA was passed, a much larger scale of users would encounter the same problems with much more critical sites like YouTube, Google, and even Facebook. All of these sites currently link to content hosted on official sites in ways and means that SOPA prohibits. The legislation could turn the Internet back into a wild assortment of non-indexed sites, as we had in the dark ages, and it would also encourage a "seedy underbelly" to develop where users go to get bootleg material (we all know that piracy occurs regardless of steps taken to counter it).

On the flip-side, law enforcement agencies are paying attention to user communities and social media sites more than ever to assist them in solving and preventing crime... This practice would get much more complex, and probably harder if a sub-net grew to spread illegal digital material. Its modern-day prohibition on digital files in a way; In the 1920s when alcohol was illegal, organized trade created violence and organized crime groups that imported and traded alcohol. Perhaps the same can be said about what will happen if the Internet becomes more closed to restrict piracy, where groups will form based on selling unauthorized material for money in digital format, and they will be funded by hacked credit accounts, viruses, and malware on an increasing scale.

As a Congressional member, one should carefully weigh the consequences of legislation, and educate themselves on the issues involved. Now more than ever, public sentiment is that Congress does not understand the Internet. This is one of the main reasons why so many people are mobilized against The Stop Online Piracy Act. There are so many rights we stand to lose by just one bill passing through Congress.

The larger scale threat in SOPA is the restrictions it will place on small business, namely entertainment, software development, and other web-dependent ventures...

Tons of companies are in the business of creating patents that are stifling creativity world wide. These individuals, known as Patent Trolls register patents on a wild assortment of ideas without even having to submit a working proof of concept. The process of creating new software becomes daunting because of the potential that an individual or company has already patented your idea. The idea of being a full-time musician has become distant because of the huge costs of marketing that will get you to be noticed enough to grow a fan base. The idea of creating an independent film has become harder because of the rising cost of placing your movie in theaters, getting press, and even finding key talent...

Internet legislation that restricts the web deeply threatens the future of social media sites and web searches like Google and Microsoft's Bing. Policies of clearing content hurts individual producers because of the huge time and expense that will be required to get attention for your projects online. You won't be able to be featured along with films from large-scale media companies if YouTube is taken offline, you won't be able to sample any other artists, much less playing their music in a bar as a DJ, unless you pay for it all. Our existence becomes much, much, more expensive with this legislation looming over our heads, and we may not even get a chance to find out about great indie producers because they won't have the means to reach us if legislation of this kind passes.

Lets not confuse legislation with competitive pricing, positive marketing, and quality artists, products, and services that companies should be providing. Things that threaten competition should never be supported, because fair competition (without strategic price fixing and other similar tactics) is what fuels better pricing. Large corporations "sitting back" and using proceeds to enforce their copyrights and other restrictions against consumers/their user base without having to improve the services and products they provide is not a healthy business model for the future.

The other, more positive outcome for this debate is to consider the benefits of lowering the price of digital downloads (and selling more volume as a result of the lower cost). Its no surprise that the cost of downloading a digital album on iTunes is not far off from the price of buying it on CD, and sometimes you've got to ask yourself why? Why are digital downloads so expensive when manufacturing costs are taken out of the equation? Even marketing costs are reduced now that media companies don't have to set up displays in 20,000 record and video stores... But why hasn't cost reflected those savings? Perhaps this hints at the ideal that pirates aren't the only "crooks" on the ship?

This is why I fear today's Internet is shrinking like a cheap linen shirt; These large media conglomerates want to prevent individual distribution because it poses a threat to their structure and profits... These companies want to ensure that their partner outlets (such as iTunes) are the only sources for digital sales so that pricing can remain high. And on top of preserving market shares, they want to ensure that there are few places you can go to preview digital content that they can't control. With legislation of this kind, we may be forced back into the dark ages. The era in which we only had broadcast radio would be tough to go back to after years of being able to find you own personalized and favorite music, and listening to whatever you wanted to (whenever you wanted to listen to it). Regulations of this kind, and digital rights management place the devices we buy (computers, TVs, and mobile devices) on "wires" restricted from the open web. Soon it may be hard to choose your media if regulations of this kind are ignored and permitted to become the norm, and many fear that SOPA's failure will only lead to re-submission of the same policies with a new name... Lookout World, be careful what you buy, you might be supporting those that seek to limit your options!


Integrity cannot be swept under a rug...

6 years 6 months ago

If you watch the news like I do, Washington DC is "scandal city" these days. If an actor or actress leads a shady life, many talk, but amid lies that tabloids tell, and a limited exposure to their real lives most of the speculation that haunts actors rarely ends their careers. In politics the game is quite different. Entire presidencies can be wound up in a nutshell over just once incident of indiscretion. The way a President or High-Level Post Holder carries themselves in public serves as their legacy. For example, if I mention Bill Clinton, many only remember his (alleged) affair with Monica Lewinsky. If I mention the name "Kennedy", for many it evokes images of John F's assassination and his association with Marylin Monroe.

The thing this tells us about life is that a person's legacy can easily be marred by negativity or put in a nutshell way too easily. To many people, how they're remembered doesn't matter. To many people who don't live in the public spotlight, the only impressions that matter to them are the way that they're perceived by friends and family. What I can't seem to grasp about our modern-day society is how many people forget about indiscretion and negative events in their past before running for public office... There is a high rate of public meltdowns over scandal these days that poses a threat to human integrity.

I believe morality and integrity came about way before any religion. Its a basis of how a person transcends their normal human classification and becomes a legend. We can all think of someone cut from a different mold, who in the face of opposition came out smelling like roses... This is the way most people in life want to be remembered deep down inside.

One's past should be a paramount consideration before running for public office... Too often, the decision to run is based on a trend of brief popularity without a thorough background check (Also referred to as vetting). This turns the elections cycle into a media circus that only seeks to single out people and create news based on comedic errors committed by public figures.

When you fail in the public spotlight these days, not only will your accusers perk up at the opportunity to call you out, so will the news media. Herman Cain is the latest example of this seemingly massive oversight. The public loves to throw stones from glass houses, but when it comes to the Office Of The President, there are few less scrutinized positions of power in the US. A person in the process of making a decision to run needs to consider their past, and the things that can come up to haunt them. Doing so cautiously, along with maintaining a solid reputation (in my opinion) are key factors in determining the intelligence of a candidate. This important intelligence measure should weigh heavily in electing people to positions of power because the secrets and policy they handle will require the same level of dignity if not more.

Integrity and honesty and candidacy are key attributes that people seek in a president. When a candidate faces scandal in the course of running for office, it can more often than not kill their hopes for winning. We counter scandal by how we live our daily lives, no-one is perfect though we may try, and accusations can also be falsely levied against us. The way we carry ourselves in the midst of controversy is also an important factor in overcoming a tough situation, and also a great measure of a good personality for positions of power.

Arrogance often negates the characteristics mentioned here that save candidates from meltdown over scandal. If a candidate attacks their accusers with arrogance the resulting public perception can skew to believe that the candidate is a strong personality that can overcome weak accusers, or it may skew the opposite way to indicate that the candidate is a total bully. I propose a more level method of maintaining a reputation -- Being factual. One must practice integrity daily, one must make amends for wrongdoings with those they've hurt or offended, one must also work to be a better person with every day. None of us are perfect, nor eve without scandal, but if you don't take the time out to balance your actions, they very well may end up consuming your career, whether its Politics or otherwise...

I say "otherwise" because I am constantly reminded of the case of Bishop Eddie Long -- Accused by young men of abuse, Mr. long served as a top level pastor at an Atlanta Mega-Church. Funds donated to the church in good faith were funneled into supporting a lavish lifestyle. People were mislead, all by a man who took a "higher oath of office" than the President. It shows a personal lack of faith in the very morals the church operates on. Not because Bishop Long was a gay man, but because he emerged as a liar, manipulating his pulpit to fuel his underground obsession that contradicted everything he told others to uphold. It is not for me to judge, but to me hypocrisy of this kind seems to be one of the worst offenses to integrity. A growing number of Americans are turning towards atheism possibly because this type of hypocrisy has been occurring at an alarming rate. On the other hand, this year, Jerry Sandusky's career was ended, along with Joe Paterno's career over Sandusky's actions. Now both face a legacy marred by scandal. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's formal doctor has suffered from scandal as well, and He's a doctor, now facing 2 (maybe more) years in jail and loss of his license to practice.

Its easy to say things of this nature will never impact you. We live in a modern world where people document epic failures of hubris and arrogance of man. In order to succeed in this life, you must also be a sponge for emotions, sucking your feelings up and turning the other cheek. We all carry heavy burdens in life that can all too easily turn us into people that commit bad actions. The key to long-term success here is preventing ourselves form going too far. As a world citizen, we have to continually make sure we aren't creating victims from our actions, and that we're balancing out everything we do by being considerate, thoughtful, cautious, and calm. My intent is not to scare you over the things you've done wrong in the past, more-so to remind you that its probably best to come to grips with your actions and that its probably best to not run for positions of power, spotlight, and influence if you've made a habit of forgetting and ignoring the negative things you've done in the past.


Why Reddit.Com will become Twitter and FaceBook's biggest competitor...

6 years 7 months ago

The beginning of a "post social media" society is happening before us. The masses on Facebook are becoming frustrated with the services that were meant to make their lives easier. Yes, they are mostly free services, but people expect them to be run as if we pay for them because we inadvertently do. We actually DO pay for these services every time we click, because we fuel hits on these sites, which drives advertising revenue. We also sign up for these sites which expands their user base. We also enter information about ourselves which is bought and sold under that table, many times over without us knowing. And lastly, we click on links on these social media sites and buy goods and services they advertise, from which, money goes back to social media sites in the form of ad revenue.

Is it insane to expect a certain level of service, privacy, security and commitment? No - The way we as human users inhabit these sites and make them massive and dynamic social circles makes them money, we are paying for the services we use. We also add the largest percentage of interesting content to these sites, we spend lots of time promoting their sites to new users. Ask yourself - When was the last time that FaceBook or Twitter had to run a commercial to let people know it existed? In that you can see the work that users have done, and that its not unusual to expect a certain amount of respect and courtesy by the company for its success.

Lately, I've been spending a lot of time on Reddit.Com, its a useful and fairly dynamic site based on content which is posted by anonymous users. In fact, I have spent more time in the last year on Reddit.com than on FaceBook and Twitter. When I realized this, it drove me to consider why that's happening...

Reddit's user base is anonymous, the user account you create does not care about your birthday, who your friends are, or your favorite color. You can make any post you want on Reddit (based on a few simple rules currently) from posting an image to posting links to pages on other sites, or your own written content. Content is moderated by users who earn a certain rank, but users seem to conform in terms of what they post. Its basically the same kind of content you'd find in a Twitter post or in a FaceBook status update, it allows for much more of that content by not limiting characters or requiring you to use a share tool to make your content conform to a certain style. Reddit.com allows for threaded discussion of the posts by all users on the site. Once you make a post on Reddit, everyone has the potential to see it, however, all content posted is moderated by the user base first... Reddit.Com allows its community to "upvote" and "downvote" posts, though it can turn extremely political what gets voted up and what gets voted down.

The community on Reddit.Com seems to have avoided the politics of popularity by taking away the prominence of identity (user names) in posts. The user names are not prominent in posts because all accounts are anonymous. A user can post information about their private lives if they choose to do so, but after years using FaceBook and filtering what you want to say for political correctness because (for example) your mom has befriended you (and can see all of your posts), it would be nice to be able to post your opinion and let a group of people tell you if its favorable solely by clicking on an "upvote" button.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that FaceBook and Twitter are useful, I have a fair amounts of friends and followers on my accounts but it often seems unfulfilling to make continual posts to an audience of just my peers - They get accustomed to my posts, they know what to expect, they've seen it all before, and a lot of the time they're not even logged in. I am not fond of the fact that I have to put hours into "grouping" and adding new friends on these social media sites. FaceBook and Twitter rely on me to be engaged every waking minute to drive my own user base with notifications from mobile apps popping up every minute just to tell me about something that is really not engaging to me, it feels a little bit like social media slavery having to work to make my page popular, on a site where I'm buried into a group of "friends" and "followers". There is no filter for what's relevant or important to me on FaceBook beyond content that has been "liked" which is often a political game focused on the popularity of who posted the content.

Reddit.Com is on its way towards being a major competitor to these sites because it takes the focus off of the people posting content and makes it about whats rated highest by its user base... This ideal makes things interesting to me again. Post are funnier, I don't have to do any work to cultivate a popular profile, I don't have to worry about my privacy being compromised as much, and I don't have to be logged in every day to clear notifications. This has proven to be the easiest way of using social media. When i create new music, I post it to Reddit and then forget it. The upvotes and comments I come back to tell me whether its at hit or not usually, driving feedback for my art, which is one of the primary reasons I got onto social media sites to begin with.

Without praising Reddit.Com too much, there are many innovations that can be made to make the site better, namely design and post categories, but managing large user base as it has, and being so unstructured presents challenges which require a different way of thinking about what a social media site should be. Take a look at all of the new features that FaceBook and Twitter have added since their inception and you'll see that they've been playing a cautious game. The sites have introduced new features, but still remain essentially the same. One of the biggest areas they need to improve in is promoting their individual users. Its getting harder each day for artists to join FaceBook and Twitter and to subsequently develop subscribers. People want feedback and active participation in their own content, as much as they want to see interesting posts from others they like. Unless FaceBook and Twitter begin to open their communities beyond people who follow each other and people who are logged in, they will miss out on the changing tides of their user's expectations.

Reddit.Com is growing at a rapid pace because of the current frustration people have with social media sites, its also growing because of its ease of use, and its growing because its based on anonymity. In the coming months, I predict that Reddit will prove to be a major competitor to the most prominent social media sites because of its focus on content rather than users. People don't want a new mobile app to get notifications about event invites, they want engaging content and a place to post ideas and content of their own that they deem engaging. People don't want a site based on algorithms that tailor marketing towards them based on their deemed personality and preferences into a closed Internet bubble, they're beginning to realize that they want all the information up front and then to vote on what they like.


Your quarrel is not just with Wall Street.

6 years 8 months ago

Citing the protests going on for over a month in the US against Wall Street, its important to not overlook important facts in the matter; Big Business is undermining your right to competitive pricing, to choice, and to keeping money in your wallet.

These days, competition is an illusion; manufacturers and retailers have grown into large international companies with interests and plants overseas. It should come as no surprise that iPhones and BlackBerries are made in the same factories, or more often than not, by the same companies. A report by Gizmodo cites the cost of a traditional iPhone as 250$ (per unit) here: http://gizmodo.com/229664/iphone-only-costs-250-to-make-rest-of-price-is... The newer iPhone (reportedly) even costs less to make: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1719652/iphone-cost-usd18751

So with a lowered cost of business in producing mobile devices, along with streamlined materials and processes, why are iPhones selling for 400 dollars? Because of CAPITALISM. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about free markets, but citing the current state of the US economy, its not hard to see how the rich (Who are at the helm of some of the largest and most profitable companies ever) keep getting richer and cornering the physical wealth in the current US economy.

I'm not just citing the iPhone, but it is quite an easy target citing that the company that makes it (Apple) at the time of this article holds more money than the US treasury. SOURCE: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/30/apple-now-has-more-ca...

We can cite many other cases of high price margins in fuel refining prices, which are determined by OPEC, driven to historic highs, quadrupling in a mere matter of a few years. We can also cite the price of milk, produce, and grains, which are dramatically increasing at an unprecedented case despite revolutionary cost cutting methods that were instituted years ago. "Organic" is now synonymous with "more expensive" when it comes to the modern grocery shopping experience. When it comes to food and basic necessities, price fixing and artificial inflation impacts the second and third world countries on our planet in a devastating manner. The current cost of consumer goods are contributing to a rise in poverty in the US greatly, ensuring that lower income families go hungry, and without basic needs, on a greater scale each day. Health care has become a luxury, for the wealthy and a huge unexpected expense for lower and middle class residents in the US that can totally devastate a person while they're already crippled with unemployment. For a perfect-paying homeowner in the midst of a mortgage, a single bout with unemployment can provide a lifetime setback which cannot be comprehended by anyone who can offer them any sort of real help.

Its horrible when the classes are so far apart financially that they can't realistically envision the suffering that the poor class faces. Now a lot of the problems poorer classes had in the 90s are problems of the middle class today. We have gated communities that put up walls to keep the negative impressions that suffering creates out. Now in the age of the super rich, the idea of a person with 100 million dollars in their bank account ever seeing a genuinely homeless person in their lifetime, much less helping a homeless person is really slim. Television is often the only thing that gives impressions to us about people we don't know.

Television paints pretty pictures of life, and they're often outside of the constraints that most people live in life. A person can only get a true idea of the bleak reality that lower income groups face by seeking out information about it. With the change in the current economic dynamic of the US as a country, middle and lower income families and individuals are not at the forefront of politicians minds. They no longer represent the primary contributors to political campaigns. Though they have power to vote, its money that drives winning, so we're all seeing an increasing spin on candidates based on "tax cuts for the wealthy" and new legislation to de-regulate or bend rules for big business operations. When it comes to laws that impact lives of the majority, they often get mired in arguments until they fizzle out, or they are repealed into oblivion. This is the case with the 2011 Jobs Bill and Health Care Reform. The majority is taking a back seat in this society, and its been going on ever since wealth shifted. I'm about to tell you my philosophy on the "cause" of the wealth shift, then I'll elaborate on how balance can be restored.

I have a theory, and yes its possibly controversial. I believe that the world, through buying high priced fuel, has been funding the building of Dubai... For those that don't know, Dubai is an all modern city deemed part of the United Arab Emirates. The revolutionary city is indeed impressive, with a lot of development funded by Saudi Arabia and Dutch investors though the primary resource fueling its growth has been oil exports. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai . In order to build a country of this magnitude quickly, great wealth is required, but also a continual cash flow; There is nothing better to "fuel" this growth than oil.

It wasn't until after the Gulf War of 1990 that Dubai began to surge as an impressive all new infrastructure city, isolated by vast stretches of desert, a plan emerged to build some of the worlds largest, most opulent, and tallest buildings for the wealthy elite to live in. Saudi princes, already rich on years of oil trade invested tons of money they had made into building this new isolated city as a haven for business and pleasure in the region, governed by the U.A.E. Some rules are strict by Western standards, but it was no coincidence that just after 1990 that gas prices began to rise in countries they exported to, with a huge surge occurring in the more recent years to now. The days of dollar-per-gallon gas disappeared in the late 90s and then soared into the oblivion of $4.50 per gallon in 2009, which was mysteriously in sync with the beginning of THE WORST ECONOMY EVER (since the Great Depression) in the US.

If you ask a member of OPEC why the global price of fuel skyrocketed, they'd possibly tell you about market speculators driving the price, but the people who pocket the money will tell you all of their production costs have gone up. On the other hand, paper records will show that gas companies are having their most profitable years ever in a bad economy, even despite a major Gulf Oil Spill "suffered" by BP. This alone is de-facto evidence that capitalism has been turned on its head. You may have Exxon, Shell, Hess, BP, and as many other gasoline retailers as you want, which creates a sense of free-market competition, but their suppliers are the same source, and that source is fixed at a high price by oil exporting countries, your highly dependent model of Capitalism fails, and you're hiding and harboring a veiled Monopoly, which goes against the core principles of true Capitalism. In order for Capitalism to thrive, you must foster true competition, to drive innovation, and cost-cutting measures that add positively to good reputation and sales for all companies involved.

The reason why pretty much every consumer good that requires transport (at any point) has skyrocketed is first because this rising cost of fuel. This we already know but, in order to make a car, parts need to be shipped to a plant, then they are assembled into a car, then the car is shipped to a sales point. In that equation, there are at least 2 points where fuel impacts the cost of doing business. I know, big deal right?!? The fact is that even for employees to get to work, for the food they eat, for fuel to bring coal or supplies to the power plant that drives the factory you work in, fuel prices increase almost all costs of doing business dramatically.

A company that manufacturers goods, a store, or distributor; all of these entities need to make a profit or they cannot thrive. I acknowledge and respect an individuals right to make a profit in a Capitalist system its fundamentally fair; Where I have a problem is when companies, realizing that they are a sole source for a good or service, seek to capitalize on profiteering by creating large profit margins. Yes, markets and investors drive this hunger, its currently out of control, and it needs to be brought to a sustainable level in order to bring the US economy back into stability.

There is a balance between making a profit and adding value to the lives of consumers. Consumers can be considered as a limited resource in any business, just like oil or money, if companies tap their pool of eligible consumers for all of their money, and deplete their ability to earn and spend, companies also suffer as a result. This concept is "Environmental Preservation" for 2011. Understanding the impacts of cornering financial markets, and earning large amounts of wealth without accountability creates a void in the natural flow of the US economy, which fosters all of us. Being "Eco Friendly" from a business perspective shouldn't just involve installing smelly waterless urinals and low-impact fluorescent lights. The concept should involve profit sharing. A company should never seek to be a monopoly because this kind of behavior is destructive to the very principles that Capitalism relies on, as part of a working economic environment. As an individual or company Investors and C.E.O.s need to take deep stock in reducing overall profit expectations to new (more reasonable) levels that allow consumers to be a continual resource for years to come. Wall street needs to reconstruct its expectations and to stop reaching for goals beyond normal means, and "get rich quick" schemes.

When companies evaluate expenditures, costs, and losses, executives need to consider costs and benefits of their products and services to their consumers, and then pass savings and value to customers along with appeasing shareholders. As an executive, providing high value goods and services at a reasonably chosen price, you ensure that your company will survive into the future, and you'll gain success and wealth over time, along with a solid reputation. Don't forget your customers in lieu of investors. This is a key point in making the ideal of capitalism work. A large problem with the now, is the amount of traders and investors that seek immediate earnings, immediate reward, and immediate success, with these expectations, its no wonder why the cost of goods and necessities in the US are spiking. This is also the same reason that tax payer funded services are declining and why social programs are shrinking. Companies that are wealthy and individuals that have money to invest are not spending, even to improve their own companies or to make laws and business better for everyone.

Its important in the formation of the "Occupy" movement that we also acknowledge the rising cost of consumer goods, and how its reducing our ability to make ends meet. We've managed to achieve great feats of innovation which were sold to us based on the benefits and costs savings they'd bring to our lives, but many companies have forgot the "cost saving" component and are passing every increase in cost on directly to consumers along with the cost of heavy profit margins for goods they sell.

So how do we get to a point where an iPhone costs 420 dollars and a gallon of gasoline costs 4 dollars? Lets look deeply at how much goods and services cost to produce, then look at the people who profit massively from it being overpriced. Lets stop feeding those who gain large amounts of wealth by not buying over priced goods and legislating fairness and sharpening consumer protection. Lets stop supporting and lauding businesses and people who don't operate in accountable and reasonable manner to contribute to a healthy economy. Lets remove our personal expectations and admiration of "being the richest person ever", and replace it with being financially comfortable, coexisting, and allowing everyone the same opportunities that we had.


Bank of America advises you to "save your money" by charging your account more...

6 years 8 months ago

I'm trying to get into the habit of writing timely editorials; things "right before they hit the news networks". I also want to make sure to write about things that impact us all. If you have any suggestions, or editorials of your own, submit them to us here: http://www.circuitbored.com/content/share-your-ideas

Today, all over the news, is the story of a new pilot program Bank of America is instituting; Charging all of their customers who use their debit cards for transactions 5$ per month. Not a big fee for many, 5$ can't even buy a pizza anymore (after tax) but this means a heck of a lot of money when you consider that this one bank holds 12.2% of all US deposits, covering about 80% of the US banking population. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America .

Some of the largest companies that reside in the US set trends for others, Bank of America has grown to be the largest holding company in the US so its not a stretch to say that they influence the industry heavily. If they create a policy change, other banks listen in on their opportunity moves. This means that the institution of a 5$ fee on every account they hold will be likely to permeate many other banks, if not all, soon as a common industry practice.

No why should anyone be up in arms over new banking fees? Its simple; Banks were created originally to ensure a safe place to keep money, they generated interest on accounts as encouragement for customers to use them. They carefully loaned money to those same clients to finance purchases of land, cattle, business ventures, and personal property which earned them more interest than they paid out to account holders. These types of banking fees turn the traditional model of banking upside down. Now middle and lower income customers are likely paying to keep their money in banks, and getting loaned the same money at increasing rates.

If you asked anyone from 20 to 30 years ago if they expected banking to get to a point where you'd be charged more interest than your account paid just to gain access to your money, they'd probably laugh at you. Now a sense of apathy is common when large companies completely change the terms of their contracts with us as consumers. Contracts are the foundation of ethical business, they are what secures business agreements, and ensures successful completion of projects when money is involved. The concept of contracts that secure business seems to be lost on individual consumers when doing business with big business. Companies frequently use binding and well defined contracts in dealing with each other, and they sue each other when those agreements are broken. Why then, is it increasingly so, that contracts between individuals and companies are often written vaguely, and in disappearing ink? How can a company dramatically change their terms with a client whenever they feel like doing so? Because they retain lawyers well versed in "escape clauses".

If I run a grass cutting business, charging 60$ per yard with the right to change pricing at any time, and for any reason, why should I even require contracts as a basis of doing business? They prevent my price from going to 180$ before your bill comes in, that's why! This way, a client can choose when they want their grass cut and when they don't want to spend the money, possibly in winter, when grass does not tend to grow. But Banking is a little different. You cannot decide exactly when and when not to pay fees for doing business, because you have to physically move your money to change banks, and notifying a customer, and giving them a chance to "opt in" is also an essential right to unscheduled cost increases.

Years ago, my original bank was a small bank called "Equitable", long before the days of Wal-Mart and Bank of America, I actually earned .03% interest on that account back then, around 1989. This was before ATM cards, people wrote on these things made out of paper called checks. My bank was bought out by a company called Nations Bank later on. I thought nothing of it because they assured me that all of the rules and benefits that my prior bank account promised me would be carried over, and nothing would change, except my bank's name. The truth is, I had a contract with Equitable, and not Nations Bank. Rules on my account DID change, and many of them behind the scenes. I thought nothing of this, because even though the interest they paid me was shrinking rapidly, to the point of a meaningless trickle, I always held out thinking that "At least they'd never charge me to hold my money!". Boy, was I wrong! This all changed dramatically when Nations Bank became Bank of America. All bets for not paying to deposit my money were off, and worse yet, from starting my original bank account with Equitable, where I was promised a "charge free" and "interest-bearing" bank account, those contractual obligations have been arbitrarily changed, and I never signed a single document authorizing these changes to happen. They have been bending the rules. I shouldn't have to call a company to complain over something so rudimentary and intuitive, there are government agencies to prevent these types of transgressions, but nothing is being done.

In 1999 I mortgaged a house with Bank of America, and started a credit card based on the stellar account history I had with them. They gladly signed me up for interest loans ranging from 6 to 10%, earning my bank well over 14,000$ per year (in interest) on loans they made to me. Meanwhile I made a grand total of 3$ (probably less) in year-to-date interest on both my savings and checking accounts during the same year; I was far from being rich at the time; but 3$ earned in one year on my bank account!? That can't even buy a wallet. I could have made more money with scratch-off lottery tickets... What does this mean? It doesn't mean that I got "shafted", my investments were sound, but it meant that the bank was making KILLER profit on my money, and not passing any of the profit back to depositors, who are giving them the very money they lent out, and for years. This used to be the number one "business balance factor" for the banking industry; To only lend based on their tendered deposits. That kept interest rates on loans low, and made banks value individual customer service more. It also kept banks from alienating customers with bogus fees. This 5$ monthly fee on debit card use is a bogus fee. Its emerged out of a bank that is so big, it knows that customers have little choice in the matter, and instead of providing real value for its depositors, this shows a move of Bank of America to turn its depositors into paying customers. One could maybe infer that this change of attitude for banking and investments led to the housing meltdown, and led to widening financial division class-wise. Its obvious who is most impacted by the difference in interest payouts and interest lending; the poor and middle classes, your grandparents, and people who don't know any better.

The main ideal I have a problem with is that a company can start an agreement with a customer, making all kinds of contractual promises about benefits and features, and then subtly change this agreement for their sole benefit over time through escape clauses. This is something that undermines the very fabric of trustworthiness in business. We see open-ended contracts on the rise with everything from Cell Phone Carriers to Social Media Sites. With open ended contracts, companies can change terms thereby invalidating any statement they make to sell a product. Of course people don't read contracts, but why read them if they're subject to change at any time? Where will we be in 20 more years? Will we have to pay 500$ before using a credit card with 50$ on it? Will we be paying higher taxes and then a credit card swipe fee for every purchase at the supermarket? In cases of this, a customer loses, while the company is so large, they fail to see any significance in their customers as an individual. This is why I generally favor small business. Its much more accountable, because they need their customer base to survive. Greed only works on a large or monopolistic scale, by making sure you support smaller businesses, you ensure your rights won't get trampled (at least until big-business buys your small bank out!).

Lets hope bank transaction charges like this don't continue to "catch on" as a common practice. Fostering honest competition without PRICE FIXING is one of the best ways to ensure that this doesn't happen. Otherwise, I'm going back to keeping money under my mattress, at least there it won't generate any fees and it will generate lots of "lint-erest"! (sorry for that one).


Embracing "The Friend Zone": Dating "without actually dating" in the year 201X...

6 years 8 months ago

I came across this video on Reddit.Com today and it reminded me that there's a wider variety of subjects to speak on besides technology:


Here's the thread with all the comments. (I like to cite my sources whenever possible): http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ku0l0/louis_ck_at_his_best_its_a...

So why did I post this? Because many people, including myself have gone through a case of heartbreak similar to the one shown in this video... Especially when we were younger. I am single at this particular point (as a disclaimer) but happily so, and I enjoy NOT DATING, yet working on a basis of friendship that usually evolves into the best outcome for me even if my friendships don't work out! You may ask me why I don't date... I don't ever care to "date" again to be honest; I see "going out on a date" as a key assumption that you're being evaluated for marriage or mating potential, which can prove to be a big nervous interview sandwiched between your expectations of each other. Usually on dates, one person becomes more attracted when the other person is not, then this turns into resentment or heartbreak. No sir, I'm done with the process of "dating".

After spending an enormous amount of time in a relationship, or spending time with someone as a friend, people find out that their partner may not be fully invested in the relationship. This is demonstrated by divorce, broken leases, keyed cars, black eyes, and much worse. Many people turn angry, many people become suicidal, and many suck it up an move on in these cases. A rare few in these cases handle the situation the right way, and succeed at creating a spark that can last a lifetime...

The first thing we have to acknowledge before starting in relationships is that each person is an individual, responsible for their actions, and free to make whatever choice they desire. You cannot "make" a person love or even understand you. You can, however, make yourself more attractive, suitable, or emotionally appealing to them by changing your usual approach, which will be detailed later. We have to understand that we don't always have answers for why we and others "feel a certain way". We also have to acknowledge the way we feel today may likely not be the way we feel days, months, and years into the future. The things we like, and are attracted to are constantly changing; partially because of our environment, mostly because we are changing ourselves, and being exposed to new influences. Understanding how to deal with rejection and change, and how to put a positive spin on them is the key to staying afloat in today's world.

Starting out, in finding the right person for you, is usually based around both people having common interests; whether it may be religion, art, music, places you like to go, etc... If you find someone with radically different interests than you, you may have a bumpy road ahead of you, but if you're willing to change yourself to meet 90% of the way, it might work, for at least a while, until you get tired of being who you aren't... This is exactly why you should never have to change yourself dramatically, or subvert your goals desires, and ways of living to gain a mate. If your family matters to you, never give up on them in order to have a relationship, work out a means of keeping them in your life (Provided that your family members are not the ones doing harm to your relationship).

Personal appearance is a huge industry, this we know. We spend billions of dollars on clothes, cars, jewelry, houses, makeup, shoes, and tattoos. In terms of life, Its my belief that most people do this to stand out, its a way of showing the peacock we wish we were... Though we were given the traits of logical reasoning and verbal communication, we humans also still have not lost some of our animal instincts. Cologne and perfume, for example, can appeal to subconscious animal instincts through the use of scents, which trigger emotions, memories, and desires within us. Cologne and Perfume can often be polarizing as well, some scents put people off from you, and the neutral ones have little to no effect on potential mates, its not a precise science, but it can work. Pick a scent you like, and it will help you to find someone who is similar to you in that aspect. Its that simple, yet people often pick colognes that others like, and this can lead to finding the WRONG mate for you!

In the same way cologne and perfume work, when you meet someone, you may have habits and traits about you that remind people of their parents, places they've been to, or past loved ones, and the memories may either be positive or negative.
As humans, we spend a lot of time wooing people that aren't initially attracted to us that we lose a sense of who we are. Defining your own personality puts you in better position to find the right potential mate.

Whenever a friend of mine encounters a breakup I tell them that there are 6,775,235,700 people in this world, if we were to assume that half were not the type of people we'd be attracted to (elderly, infirmed, opposite sex, related to us, etc.) that still leaves 3,387,617,850 people, while we're just one of them. If another half of that was removed, for reasons like proximity, or already being married or engaged, that still leaves 1,693,808,925 people. Take even a half of that of for incidentals and you've still got a pool of 846,904,462.5 potential, and eligible mates on this planet just for yourself (don't ask me how you'd date .5 of a person, but that's how the math worked out). Citing having 846,904,462.5 people to pick from, how could you possibly ever on this earth "cry" over one person not accepting your love? Because you're limiting yourself, that's why.

The way to get to a successful point in life is to find a way to let yourself "grow" on people and to allow them chances to "grow" on you. No, we are not trees but we can grow on each other through starting out in friendships. Friendships allow us the opportunity to see each other in a state outside of commitment or expectations placed on each other. They allow us to meet without secretly evaluating each other, and it also allows us to not get too deep into each others lives until you both decide to, and only "if" you both decide to. The idea of friendship instead of dating is the best option in my opinion. Being put in "The Friend Zone" is the mistake of making a move for a relationship too early, rather than just allowing someone to "grow" on you, and allowing yourself to "grow" on them.

First in the equation is allowing yourself to "grow" on someone. You should be dynamic, opinionated, knowledgeable, a great listener, you should also ask questions, and observe the mood of others as part of this exercise. You should develop these skills for your own self improvement, gaining knowledge of current events that interest you; learning the "ins and outs" of news, music, politics, entertainment, or even knitting, anything you'd be interested in knowing well. Work on as many areas of knowledge you can, so that you can talk about a wide variety of subjects in an educated manner, this will allow you grace in conversational circles. Be opinionated without being a jerk about it. don't be afraid to disagree with others on subjects, but avoid putting them off with your opinions and how you make your statements. Take time to find out what people you're attracted to tend to like that you may have in common. Work on your vocabulary and find subjects within what they like that you can identify with, pay attention to news and subjects you'll likely speak about when talking to individuals or groups about people. Once you master these skills, appearance is left.

Work on your appearance. Clean clothes, personal grooming, health, etc, are important things to work on to make yourself an eligible candidate for a solid friend. Do it for yourself, to a level you're comfortable with, and understand that it will determine the quality of people you'll regularly encounter as potential friends. This is not a dating guide, and I'm sure you already know what makes you look good by now so I'll spare you other advice about brushing your teeth and trimming your nose hairs...

Making your home comfortable (as a hangout spot) helps greatly in attracting quality friends, so does having money, but remember, friends should never be sponges that just absorb everything you give them without giving back, they should help you too. Reciprocating a good amount of things you do for them should be a standard measure of character. Support is a 2 way street, if its not, you're just being used. Never keep a friend who is completely emotionally or financially draining on you or else THERE WILL BE RESENTMENT. Long-term,grating, and haunting, resentment is one of the worst things to carry in any type of a relationship. let old things go. Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things. In order for yourself to be free, you've got to "free" others.

My relationship rule is "Hang on tightly, and let go lightly". This details that when someone is with you, show them you care, but if they want to go, let them go easily. This gives them the opportunity to remember how safe they feel when they're with you, and likely how it feels when you're not around. I feel a lot of people that hold on tight to their emotional interests all of the time, give their loved ones a craving for freedom that drives them away in many cases. By letting go, you may lose a few, but you've also got to believe that you're better off, because it wasn't meant to be, and there's still 846,904,461.5 other people, you have yet to meet.

Once you have a good grasp on your identity, personality, and appearance, you're now ready to make friends with people instead of dating them. Notice what I said there? You may ask, When does dating come? In my book, it doesn't. I like to think of friendship as the key basis of a relationship where you continue it despite the relationship cues that occur. This way you avoid the pressures of commitment and betrayal that arise in the course of "dating". For me, marriage is when commitment happens, and fidelity is the key feature of creating that commitment. By being a person who is well aware of my own personality, and cultivating and maintaining an interesting personality, I have no worries about keeping a person interested in me, it happens naturally. I also look for these "magnetic" social qualities in others and make friends with them. I am more committed to finding like minded people who have similar interests and everything else takes its course naturally, without social "pressure" that confines people into the dating scene, and with lots of "promise" to meet different people without expectations of relationships up-front. So the next time you think about being forever alone, just remember the number 846,904,462.5 and think of ALL of the possibilities, instead of just one.


How much is "enough" when it comes to personal wealth?: A look at accountability for the "wealthy" class.

6 years 8 months ago

You've heard it all over the news, the "wealth gap" in the US is growing. The margin of comfort between the lower and middle classes to the wealthy is growing at a really fast rate. The poorer class makes up the lion share of tax payers, yet the wealthy, a small percentage of our country are fighting dearly to hold on to the money they have. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senate candidate, speaking to a mixed audience during her recent "Talking Tour" raised a point that resonates deeply within the issue of personal wealth in the United States:


This video has become a cult sensation as one point of many in countering the views that people who are rich (but not currently investing in the US economy in caution or protest) seem to hold. This video makes a pretty bold statement about the concept that wealth and success are not truly earned on our own merits in the US.

Don't get me wrong here, we made it through the McCarthy Era and scary Communist inquiries by Congress, to see the wondrous glory that a Capitalistic society can bring; the middle class had thrived and fared well until recently, when we encountered the "Greatest Depression Since The Great Depression". A lot of individuals in poverty in the past could hold achievable dreams of making it to middle and higher class status in their life times as it provided comforts idolized by tons of movies from the 80s and 90s. Now, the "middle class dream" has slipped to a point well below desire by the standards of many and a growing majority seek to skip middle class status and hop straight to the "Bentley Zone". On the other hand, being middle class now often doesn't afford us proper health care, and life in a safe neighborhood, and it seems the middle class life is getting closer to being poor. The climb to success these days for the small few that make it too often entails and encourages ruthless business practices and hoarding of personal wealth. This also means forgetting about individual morality and social responsibility.

Today, we have lots of tech gurus, investors, developers and the like that came from middle class backgrounds into serious money. Bill Gates Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are perfect examples of this "new money" era. Many new millionaires and billionaires with money, (not held or passed down) by/from their prior generations, operate quite differently than prior generations with their wealth in today's world. Does this mean there's a place in time where we lost perspective on what being truly and ethically wealthy means? Are the current economic conditions sustained by completely new factors in the US today?

Elizabeth Warren's video (above) details, in a few ways, how people who become wealthy have benefited from tax payers, from opportunities that our socio-economic system created in order for them to succeed. I also like to think that success details and requires a good dose of opportunity and even "random luck" provided by others and circumstances in life. Luck and opportunity of this kind should be available to everyone at points in their lives, but they're both becoming shrinking commodities, in the United States of America, according to recent economic reports.

Based on my assumption, would it be unreasonable to think that a lot of the extremely rich people in today's world have forgotten about the weight of opportunity, luck, and understanding about the contribution others have made in creating their success? Possibly so; We live in a society that helps us to forget our personal accountability, morality, and debts... Credit cards often don't get paid off, money we borrow doesn't get repaid, houses are foreclosed upon every day, so why should anyone repay implied societal debts?!? Because they ensure long-term survival and growth, not just for you, but for the system that supports you, that's why...

We are supported by roads whether we drive or not, they are used to ship food, furniture, and even cars and houses into communities that we live in, if we don't pay for roads, the cost of goods skyrocket because someone else has to pay for infrastructure that you use, as Warren stated. We are supported by tax payers even if we send our kids to private schools, because many private schools rely on taxpayer built and maintained roads, subsidized electricity, safety codes developed by State and Federal Governments and many more services all paid for by people who may not even know the school existed. I know that I paid a lot of taxes relative to my personal income last year, and every time I hear an F-16 fly over my house, i'm reminded that I've helped to pay for some of the fuel its burning.

Citing all of this, when a single human being has personal wealth over 1 billion dollars, should they pay the same rate (relatively) tax-wise as me, more, or a flat (percentage) tax? One thing's for sure, a billion dollars is a lot of money:

Source: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

The current median household income in the US is $49,445. Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A...

Based on this fact, I think its safe to say that the average US family will never see a billion dollars over the course of their lives unless they manage to generate 10 million dollars a year AND live to be 100 years old. Source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=one+billion+dollars+divided+by+100+... . so why is it that anyone on this earth needs to hold onto more than one billion dollars in personal wealth?

Forbes top earner, Bill Gates is estimated to be in the range of $46.6... BILLION... dollars. (Net Worth) Source: http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/24/cz_bill04_top20.html?thisSpeed=20000 . And Steve Jobs, over 7 BILLION dollars in personal wealth Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/steve-jobs/ . There are many individuals listed as top earners on Forbes survey, but yet still, the top earners in the US is comprised of somewhere near to 1% of the entire US population. In a society of 309 million people, this becomes an unbelievable economic divide. With the money the most wealthy individuals hold, they outpace all other American earners at a staggering rate, and we're not even talking about the wealth held by corporations. If the wealthy decide to stop spending their money, the could easily cripple an economy, and organize to shape and influence a government.

Yes, I know, Bill Gates has signed a pledge along with many other top earners in the US to give away the majority of their wealth; and he also has contributed to many charities, including the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation that works diligently to eradicate disease and illness. Based on Gates's philanthropy alone not many can rightfully say anything bad about his net worth, but the sad and undeniable truth about a few people becoming extremely rich in a society with limited resources is that it likely kills opportunities for others by reducing resources for growth. I am not talking about millionaires here, we're talking about a case much larger than a million, or even one hundred million dollars. This makes a person with one million dollars in their account look like a soup kitchen candidate...

If the prior statement offends you, just look at the current state of our economy, jobs are the number one issue. John Boehner, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, during contentious media talks with the US White House, stated that the current job crisis in the us is attributed to a protest of wealthy Americans that do not want their individual and corporate (currently reduced since the Bush Administration) tax rates changed. This protest seems to defy logic to anyone reasonable, because, if they're willing to let the US economy fail to prevent further taxes for individuals, the very financial system that sustains their personal and business wealth will collapse, directly leading to a loss of their secured wealth. We experienced this same jobs shortage prior to tax payer bailouts with Lehman Brothers and AIG. Despite those tax rate cuts not having been changed for those making $250,000 and above annually, jobs have NOT increased over time since our first encounter of recession-like conditions. Furthermore, if the wealthy in America seek to invest in other countries, the very foundation of our economy, the US Dollar will continue in a steep decline, which is part of the equation that is heavily driving the division gap in income classes in the US and downward turns in our markets. Another compelling video on the current state of the economy can be found in this report by Al Jazeera TV, where they detail the income divide and how it can be a driving force behind socio-economic rebellion and eventual economic collapse of a society:


If current economic conditions persist in the US, they are almost guaranteed to lead to a rise in crime, starvation, desolation, gentrification, and many other grave issues like these as we progress through time. US history, as well as in many other empires of the past and current have faced uprising by poorer classes and economic revolt when economic conditions see a vast divide between the rich and poor classes. As stated earlier, this gap is growing in the US. A revolution most always includes a forceful redistribution of wealth and private assets, so preventing uneasiness in our economy should not only be a concern of a few individuals, it should be a concern for us all.

How much is enough for an individual to earn and hold in life?; $10 million, $100million, $1 billion?

What constitutes, drives, and entitles an individual to obtain and hold excessive amounts of personal wealth? Can capitalism survive and/or be sustained at this pace? As an individual, should anyone ever feel entitled to hold onto billions of dollars in amounts of personal wealth? Do they deny opportunity for others by keeping money out of the economy, or only in certain segments? Would bailouts work better if money was given to tax payers to spend?

Is there a moral compass to guide the wealthy on how much reinvestment is enough to repay their debts to society? Is there a balance that can be reached for capitalism to ensure fair amount opportunity for more people, if not everyone? I have personal opinions on all of these matters of course; but perhaps THIS is what the news media, the White House, Corporations, and people in these positions should be talking about now publicly in this point in time instead of "tax payer bailouts" and "tax cuts for the wealthy"? Feel free to comment below...

I understand; the answers to these questions aren't exactly cut and dry. But I'm pretty sure we know that beyond ensuring survival for ourselves and our families, there's a universal good in sharing with others. Knowing physical limits when it comes to your personal wealth may be a key measure of good morals and coexistence within a well-balanced and sustained society. Lets hope the wealthy realize this before we encounter another Government Shutdown Threat, Stock Market Crash or Worse.

11 hours 51 minutes ago
Subscribe to CircuitBored feed