Archive for the 'Ideology' Category
Many of those in developed countries fear that emerging economies like India and China would take over the leadership in the world economy in foreseeable future. You can spend hours, days, weeks or even months discussing why this can possibly happen, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people in emerging economies work hard and honestly and they try to get something out of their hard work. I have been in India for the last couple of months and I have seen how people work. It is a bit of exaggeration to say that most people in developed countries do not work hard or honestly, but too many people work in such a way that they do not exactly contribute to the development of their economies.
First, too many people in developed countries do nothing; they do not work. I am personally for social programs such as tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded education, but the simple fact is that too many people rely on those social programs and do not work; furthermore, social programs in some countries are too generous. For example, UK has some of the most generous social programs and its government just hands out cash to too many people; the government does not hand out just enough cash for people to survive but it hands out more than enough to them so that they can even entertain themselves.
Second, too many people in developed countries force them to feel content while they work for good hours. Not everyone has to have ambition to become a billionaire, nor does becoming a billionaire automatically contribute to the development of the society. However, when people work for good hours, they ought to understand that they deserve certain results financially. It is true that money is not everything. It is also true that being able to find meaning and value in life is very important. However, it is almost a trend to speak of such meaning and value in developed countries today; they focus too much on finding meaning and value, and they start neglecting the fact that they ought to get financial and materialistic results. There ought to be a good balance. Philosophy is very important, but that alone does not contribute to the development of their economies.
Third, too many people in developed countries essentially achieve their financial gain by stealing from others. One of examples is corporate executives’ terminating employee pensions, liquidating what employees already contributed and telling analysts and shareholders that they increased profit. This is not wealth creation; this is wealth extraction. Another example is that those who run businesses while they destroy the environment; this is also not wealth creation, but it is wealth extraction. These practices do not contribute to the development of their economies ultimately, but they only stifle their economies in the long run.
I exaggerated a little bit and wrote that too many people in developed countries either do nothing, force them to feel content while they actually live unfulfilled life or steal from others, but this is not entirely false. The way in which people in developed countries go to work is different from the way in which people in emerging economies go to work. The former go to work to wait for tomorrow while the latter go to work to create something; they go to work to improve their life. There is a tremendous difference between the two, and one obviously does not lead to prosperity, while the other leads to prosperity and creation of wealth.
Edit: The article is written by J. Watanabe.
Ideology, Politics, India, Business (India) | 19.02.2007 8:44 | No Comments
Some historians claim that John D. Rockefeller was the (financially) richest man ever lived. Others claim that one of Rothschild family members was the richest. Perhaps one of kings who lived in the medieval Europe was the richest man ever lived.
No matter who was (or is) the (financially) richest man ever lived, I wouldn’t call him/her the greatest human being ever lived. When I ask “Who was/is the greatest human being ever lived?”, I think of people like Gandhi and Mandela. Yet, honestly speaking, I often think about how much money I make, how much money I want to make and how much money other people make. I also measure “success” by the amount of money one accumulates, while I understand that “success” is not the result of “success”, but it is about the process in which one obtains “success”, which certainly cannot be measured monetarily. However, I cannot help measuring success, accomplishment, progress, etc. monetarily. After all, “money” is just a piece of paper, but I feel like it defines one’s life often. Why do I think like this? Did I take the blue pill?
This is one of many questions I ask occasionally to myself and to others. Generally speaking, many people respond in such a way that they believe in intrinsic value that cannot be measured monetarily. However, some respond and say that one’s financial wealth actually measures one’s intrinsic value. Also they appear to believe that
1. (Financial) Wealth is accumulated fairly; more specifically, (financial) wealth is created.
2. (Financial) Wealth is created in processes which valuable properties, assets and services are provided to many people by those who accumulate enormous (financial) wealth.
3. (Financial) Wealth is distributed fairly.
Amusing.
Ideology | 11.11.2006 6:36 | 1 Comment
The word “communism” pretty much means Satanism, fascism, totalitarianism or all of the above in US today, but isn’t this a silly way to use the word “communism”? Even the word “socialism” has a similar meaning. It is true that the world history more or less proves that “communism” is a failed social theory; it’s dysfunctional. It’s also true that “communism” evolved into totalitarianism in most cases; the former Soviet Union is a great example. Russian revolution never aimed to create a totalitarianism state (at least in the minds of ordinary Russians), but the Soviet Union evolved into a totalitarianism state. However, I think it’s inaccurate to take a social theory that did not function well in history and equate it to Satanism, fascism or totalitarianism. Doing this really eliminates any opportunity to discuss the social theory. Similar thing can be said about socialism. Furthermore, this eliminates any chance of extracting a good idea or an interesting idea from communism or socialism.
But why is this happening? Why isn’t there any intelligent and civil discussion about communism or socialism? I think this is the legacy of McCarthyism.
Corporate media, in particular, has the tendency to simply dismiss communism as a variation of Satanism, fascism or totalitarianism, and it is not very surprising. Corporate media generally lack depth, and it tends to be affected by policies such as McCarthyism and also government propagandas. Unfortunately I also find that alternative media sources such as Alex Jones’ Prison Planet and Daryl Bradford Smith’s The French Connection dismiss the social theory itself. I actually appreciate the fact that people like Alex Jones and Daryl Bradford Smith have different views on communism and present those views (i.e., communism is an instrument of globalists), but I do not appreciate that they essentially become gate keepers of having discussions about the social theory “communism”.
Ideology | 19.10.2006 4:35 | No Comments