4 ms·

"The American Dream", self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier" are all good things IMHO. However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly c

"The American Dream", self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier" are all good things IMHO. However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly capitalistic" and "pre-occupied with monetary success". I'm not going to address the rest of your America bashing because the response requires a nuanced answer that I don't have the time to write today. I'll leave that to others.

tunap 13y ago
[quote]"The American Dream", self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier" are all good things IMHO.[/quote] Everything in moderation. Here in the US, however, moderation has no place. It's all or nothing mentality, like a fricking casino bet. Fair compensation for effort is dead when everybody is taking risks for maximum rewards and training their work-force to pander the lowest common denominator... the hard sell. Everywhere I go retail workers are badgering me to upsell, banks & home improvement chains are the worst, IMO. That's what happens when there are 100's of candidates for every job opening and all the competition has been killed off by the oligops. Everywhere you go in the US, if it's a large enough customer base, it's oligops all the way down.
mjburgess 13y ago
> However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly capitalistic" and "pre-occupied with monetary success". They have become inextricably linked. Maybe early in the 19th C. you'd be right. After the rise of american industry and maufacture and its corresponding propaganda (edison, etc.) AND after the cold war, "capitalism", "democracy", "patriotism" all became intertwined. Such that today The American Dream is almost purely capitalist and pragmatic. The American Dream has, to my eyes, for a long time been directed towards individuals - it is their dream. A person achieves their dream. Once, perhaps, The American Dream was a dream for Americans - a common enterprise, with common goals, something achieved for everyone or no one, etc. The author of this article did not explain why ONO was part of a common enterpise, which its activity was making all our lives better and helping us achieve our ideals. He said, "built originally by Eugenio Galdon and mostly by my friend Richard Alden between 2001 and 2011, is in the process of being sold to Vodafone for around $9.5bn, and nobody cares." If that's doesnt read hollow and pathetic to you I dont know what could. It's complete mythologising of two people "building" a company, it's display of hurt feeling over the fact that $10bn doesnt impress people enough, its utter pre-occupation with self-aggrandizement and money. The rhetoric in this article is almost suffocating its message and very few can tell - because this rhetoric has become the language in which we phrase our dreams today.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  The extent to which you have littered your own biases throughout this thread, and then expected everyone to regard them as the true interpretation, is absurd and childish. If that's doesnt read hollow and pathetic to you I dont know what could. It's complete mythologising of two people "building" a company, it's display of hurt feeling over the fact that $10bn doesnt impress people enough, its utter pre-occupation with self-aggrandizement and money. For example, this. I'm amazed you can't find one positive interpretation to agree with. The $10bn price tag is a reflection of the company's commercial success -- a reflection of the hard work, smart decisions, luck, timing and scale involved in that success. To an American it's obvious that two people didn't personally build the company, but it's also respectable that they undertook a massive risk to create opportunities for others to join in their effort and partake in the rewards. The fact that you can only arrive at an extremely cynical interpretation really says more about you, and goes a long way to confirm the assertion of the article.
  - mjburgess 13y ago
    We'll I've commented three times thus far to direct replies.. I wouldnt say that was "littering". > To an American it's obvious that two people didn't personally build the company Yes, but it's also obvious who gets the credit (, and who doesnt). > I'm amazed you can't find one positive interpretation to agree with Sorry I dont find the acquistion of wealth anything to celebrate in itself and that's the point of the article.. so no, obviously i dont think there's a positive interpretation here and it isnt "cynicsm": it's reading it without buying into its assumptions. > But we should not blame Americans for this. Americans do the right thing, they recognize and celebrate success. The blame is exclusively with Europeans who are still uncomfortable and envious with big exits Yes Americans do the right thing and "celebrate success", they try not to tax "job creators" and make sure "hard working risk takers" get the "credit they deserve". Ideological, all of it.
- colevscode 13y ago
  I don't think it's a two way link. That a pre-occupation with monetary success implies self motivation and entrepreneurship doesn't mean that the reverse is also true. Also I think it's OK that the American Dream is about individual economic mobility. But I don't think it's about the individual, rather it's about the idea that any individual can achieve their dream. Or perhaps that there aren't a set of people who can and others who cannot. Whether or not American politics have been faithful to the American Dream is a separate discussion.

tunap 13y ago

[quote]"The American Dream", self-motivation, entrepreneurship and "pushing the frontier" are all good things IMHO.[/quote] Everything in moderation. Here in the US, however, moderation has no place. It's all or nothing mentality, like a fricking casino bet. Fair compensation for effort is dead when everybody is taking risks for maximum rewards and training their work-force to pander the lowest common denominator... the hard sell. Everywhere I go retail workers are badgering me to upsell, banks & home improvement chains are the worst, IMO. That's what happens when there are 100's of candidates for every job opening and all the competition has been killed off by the oligops. Everywhere you go in the US, if it's a large enough customer base, it's oligops all the way down.

mjburgess 13y ago

> However, they aren't the same as "unreflectingly capitalistic" and "pre-occupied with monetary success". They have become inextricably linked. Maybe early in the 19th C. you'd be right. After the rise of american industry and maufacture and its corresponding propaganda (edison, etc.) AND after the cold war, "capitalism", "democracy", "patriotism" all became intertwined. Such that today The American Dream is almost purely capitalist and pragmatic. The American Dream has, to my eyes, for a long time been directed towards individuals - it is their dream. A person achieves their dream. Once, perhaps, The American Dream was a dream for Americans - a common enterprise, with common goals, something achieved for everyone or no one, etc. The author of this article did not explain why ONO was part of a common enterpise, which its activity was making all our lives better and helping us achieve our ideals. He said, "built originally by Eugenio Galdon and mostly by my friend Richard Alden between 2001 and 2011, is in the process of being sold to Vodafone for around $9.5bn, and nobody cares." If that's doesnt read hollow and pathetic to you I dont know what could. It's complete mythologising of two people "building" a company, it's display of hurt feeling over the fact that $10bn doesnt impress people enough, its utter pre-occupation with self-aggrandizement and money. The rhetoric in this article is almost suffocating its message and very few can tell - because this rhetoric has become the language in which we phrase our dreams today.

jessedhillon 13y ago
The extent to which you have littered your own biases throughout this thread, and then expected everyone to regard them as the true interpretation, is absurd and childish. If that's doesnt read hollow and pathetic to you I dont know what could. It's complete mythologising of two people "building" a company, it's display of hurt feeling over the fact that $10bn doesnt impress people enough, its utter pre-occupation with self-aggrandizement and money. For example, this. I'm amazed you can't find one positive interpretation to agree with. The $10bn price tag is a reflection of the company's commercial success -- a reflection of the hard work, smart decisions, luck, timing and scale involved in that success. To an American it's obvious that two people didn't personally build the company, but it's also respectable that they undertook a massive risk to create opportunities for others to join in their effort and partake in the rewards. The fact that you can only arrive at an extremely cynical interpretation really says more about you, and goes a long way to confirm the assertion of the article.
- mjburgess 13y ago
  We'll I've commented three times thus far to direct replies.. I wouldnt say that was "littering". > To an American it's obvious that two people didn't personally build the company Yes, but it's also obvious who gets the credit (, and who doesnt). > I'm amazed you can't find one positive interpretation to agree with Sorry I dont find the acquistion of wealth anything to celebrate in itself and that's the point of the article.. so no, obviously i dont think there's a positive interpretation here and it isnt "cynicsm": it's reading it without buying into its assumptions. > But we should not blame Americans for this. Americans do the right thing, they recognize and celebrate success. The blame is exclusively with Europeans who are still uncomfortable and envious with big exits Yes Americans do the right thing and "celebrate success", they try not to tax "job creators" and make sure "hard working risk takers" get the "credit they deserve". Ideological, all of it.
colevscode 13y ago
I don't think it's a two way link. That a pre-occupation with monetary success implies self motivation and entrepreneurship doesn't mean that the reverse is also true. Also I think it's OK that the American Dream is about individual economic mobility. But I don't think it's about the individual, rather it's about the idea that any individual can achieve their dream. Or perhaps that there aren't a set of people who can and others who cannot. Whether or not American politics have been faithful to the American Dream is a separate discussion.