It’s always puzzled me that greed and hatred can lead to “success.”

[Cyrano]

Perhaps most of what we were taught as kids turned out to be bullshit. Work hard -- Be honest -- Treat others with respect --Help those in need … well, you get the idea.

How many people who played by the “rules” are today, out of a job and worried about losing, or have lost their homes?

One could conclude that the road to success is paved with greed, hatred, and me, me, me.

Perhaps it was always this way and I just didn’t notice it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there was an era in this country when “playing by the rules” actually worked. Or perhaps I was just a blind fool who didn’t notice “reality.”

I know I’m not alone in feeling this way. What’s your opinion?

[niyad]

1. read "a people's history of the US', watch "slavery by another name" on pbs, for starters.

we were sold a myth to keep us from noticing what was really going on, and who really benefitted.

[rurallib]

2. As long as we measure success with money

the greedy will most likely be the ones who get noticed.
"success" is also measured by notoriety - those who get noticed, which is usually have some money.
As for me, my heroes have always been those who stood up to power.

[limpyhobbler]

3. Yes there was such a time, but it is sadly gone.

There was a time when our country had a shared consensus around a set of social democratic values. That included the idea that people who work hard and play by the rules should have a decent life and be able to raise a family. People generally understood that this meant there would have to be some limits on extreme wealth, so millionaires couldn't horde all the money.

The time was basically 1932 to 1980. Even Republicans during that era shared the same basic values. This led to the greatest era of prosperity the world has ever seen from roughly 1950-1985.

Then in the late 1970s and early 1980s corporations and millionaires figured out that they could buy the government with their money as long as they wrapped up their bullshit ideology in the flag and a new Christian fundamentalism. Right wing propagandists undermined the left by attacking the pillars of progressive society: Labor unions, the "liberal" media, universities, and science.

The values of most people haven't really changed. What has changed is who controls the government. Corporations run things now and the elected government is just a front.

In other words things are back to normal, back to the way it was before 1932.

[Cyrano]

6. Response to limpyhobbler and HughBeaumont

Both of you have pretty well outlined the theft of America. The question now is "How do we get our country back?" (And I'm not using that quote in the idiotic sense that Tea baggers use it.)

I've thought about this a lot and it's hard to see how we can fight back against overwhelming wealth and power.

However, it's just possible that the Republicans have made a fatal mistake with the war they're trying to whip up against Planned Parenthood. Millions of women are up in arms and pissed off beyond belief. If this can be turned into an electorial victory from the very top to the local level this year, perhaps that's the key to finally overthrowing the oligarchy.

Perhaps this is just the issue we've needed. It's obvious that the PTB are clueless about it.

[Hosnon]

9. I'm sorry but I find this hard to believe.

As I do with most "Golden Age" mindsets.

Ask any of the eventual losers in the marketplace about the winners during that time period and you'd probably get a pretty bleak picture of humanity (e.g., Henry Ford's competitors).

[limpyhobbler]

23. There is a lot of data that shows average people did better in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

It's not a philosophical argument, it's just a chapter in a history book.

That's not to say everything was awesome.
But there was a consensus that hard work should be rewarded.
This was reflected in the governments we elected, and enacted into law.

Don't have to take anybody's word for it.
Inequality can be measured over time. In my view extreme inequality is indicative of a failure to reward work.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

Compare inequality over time in the US vs. France:


Who gets paid:


US wages as a percentage of GDP (How much money goes to workers as opposed to corporations):


It took me a couple minutes to find these graphs on the internet.
I'm sure somebody else could make a better case if they had more facts, but this is my best shot.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-15/news/30282827_1_global-economy-corporate-profits-charts

Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. In other words, corporate profits are at an all-time high, in part, because corporations are paying less of their revenue to employees than they ever have. There are lots of reasons for this, many of which are not the fault of the corporations. (It's a global economy now, and 2-3 billion new low-cost employees in China, India, et al, have recently entered the global workforce. This is putting pressure on wages the world over.)

The top earners are capturing a higher share of the national income than they have anytime since the 1920s:

CEO pay and corporate profits have skyrocketed in the past 20 years, "production worker" pay has risen 4%.

After adjusting for inflation, average earnings haven't increased in 50 years.

(bold added)

[Snake Alchemist]

24. Yes, after Europe and Asia wer in shambles after the wars and the rest of the world was undeveloped.

The US was the only game in town back then.

The Golden Age is a myth.

[limpyhobbler]

29. But US productivity and income are at an all time high. We are having a crisis of distribution.

Did you look at those numbers?

You have expressed the idea that America's unique military and economic power during the post World War II period enabled an era of prosperity which has now ended because we are no longer "the only game in town".

Yet the graphs I posted clearly show that the prosperity has in fact continued, for some.

Corporate profits are at an all time high, increasing decade after decade.

GDP and worker productivity are at an all time high, increasing through the whole era.

America has more money and is richer than ever.

What has changed is the way we choose to distribute that money.
It's being horded at the top and real work is not rewarded.

And numbers clearly show it didn't used to be that way, or at least it was not as bad.

[Snake Alchemist]

30. Yes, but it's not being produced for US consumption.

The rest of the world has more wealth now.

America is running a huge budget deficit and national debt. The days where we ruled the world are over.

[limpyhobbler]

31. The wealth generated by US workers is being horded by the wealthiest owners of wealth.

I was responding to the OP regarding the question of whether it seems like hard work used to pay off but it doesn't anymore.

It is clearly true that for American workers, they used to get paid more, a few decades ago.
(see graphs upthread)

It is also clearly true that despite increased productivity, workers now get paid less because corporations are absorbing the surplus value into their profits and from there it is distributed mainly to the wealthiest Americans. (see graphs upthread)

I am not able to comprehend what you are taking about or how it relates to the subject of the thread.

It's probably some lack of background understanding on my part.

If you wish, maybe try rephrasing what you mean a different way to help me understand what you are talking about.

[Hosnon]

26. I don't disagree that the average American worker was better off decades ago.

But it wasn't because capitalism was Christ-like then and isn't now.

[HughBeaumont]

4. It's the common misgiving . . .

. . . the Right lauds the extremely wealthy as the ideal for "hard work" and "success", yet the reason we're in the mess we're in right now is due to the taking over by a great deal of powerful and wealthy men who did their goddamnednest to not play by the rules at the expense of everyone who did.

When they got into power, they did everything humanly possible to make things easier for themselves while shifting an enormous burden on the workers. They demanded lowered taxes and serious deregulations on their businesses. They blew up the social contract between themselves and the workers (and, in some cases, capitalism itself). They made the workers' tax monies their personal mints: to borrow for their criminal financial schemes and folly wars and to pay for the mess when they inevitably crash/fail. There's never any risk or competition among the rich - both, again, are shifted to the workers while the profits are privatized.

Anyone who brushes what I just said off as "sour grapes from an economic loser" needs a Clue-By-Four upside the head. The wealthy, aided and abetted by their purchased media and politicians, run this country like a rogue state where every law passed considers them first and often times, only. They never pay for their crimes, financially or literally.

Some attest that capitalism was always this way and the mid 40s-70s were an anomaly that depended more on cheap energy and no overseas competitors. Except there were wealthy people back then that could have easily took over (just like they tried to in the 20s-30s) and installed the rogue state, but didn't.

[Hosnon]

15. +1. When it comes to money, humans get real nasty, real fast.

Ask any attorney who does probate.

[DCKit]

5. There used to be enough to go around.

Those who don't play 'nice' (by the rules we were all taught), always end up ruining the game for everyone else.

[Hosnon]

7. I don't find it too puzzling.

We don't live in a world with some sort of omniscient regulator/policeman. Therefore, corners can be cut without any negative consequences.

And if your competitor cuts those corners and you do not, you are at a disadvantage. Extrapolate that out to the entire economy and it's almost as if Darwinism takes over: those who play by the rules will get weeded out.

The best example today is the construction industry. It's a fact of life in 2012 that home construction companies cannot compete if they don't hire undocumented aliens. The "good guys" complain about it but end up following suit.

And I think the belief that there was some Golden Age where humans didn't act human is just wishful thinking. It's always been this way. Today's super-wealthy are yesterday's scoundrels. The family has simply had time to launder the money and distance themselves from the original source of wealth.

[Romulox]

10. It's not "Darwinian" at all--it's CRONYISM.

Our government backstops corporations that take the most reckless risks. In a "Darwinian" economy, Bank of America, AIG, and Goldman Sachs would've been out of business long ago.

We have the OPPOSITE of a "Darwinian" economy; we have CRONY capitalism.

[Hosnon]

14. That's not what I'm referring to.

And I don't think the OP was referencing what took place with the bailout. I took the OP to be much more general.

For small businesses, competition creates a Darwinian atmosphere where the successful (i.e., profitable) companies survive and the unsuccessful do not.

Cutting corners without paying any cost makes a company more successful and therefore more likely to survive (particularly compared to companies that do not cut such corners).

[Romulox]

20. The banks swindled us, took the cash to a casino, rolled snakeyes, and were bailed out by the gov't.

If that doesn't have anything to do with why "playing by the rules" doesn't pay, then what does?

[Hosnon]

25. Because most companies are not bailed out by the federal government.

It's not really representative of the system as a whole.

[Romulox]

8. About 1/10 of the population are psychopaths; they hold the rest of us hostage.

80-90% of us would much prefer living our lives in an honest and humble manner. The machinations of our society's psychopaths (many of them politicians and heads of corporations) force us all on the defensive.

[sibelian]

12. +1. nt

[sibelian]

11. The principles you mention: "Work hard - Be honest - Treat others with respect - Help those in need"

are common the world over, but not particularly linked to the idea of success, I'd say that these principles are regarded as ordinary requirements of being human. I'm not saying that's not how the majority of US citizens see them, but I do think there seems to be an extra assumption that these ideas will lead to success, it seems there's an extra "end goal" attached to make them seem more, I don't know, "palatable", I guess. Material success isn't portrayed overseas the way it's portrayed in the US. It's often seen as a very ambiguous thing.

I don't know if I've made a particularly valuable or meaningful obseveration, here, however...

[Javaman]

13. maybe, but more likely it's being a sociopath

that leads to "success".

when you don't give a damn about people, fleesing them is never a problem.

[just1voice]

16. Our culture took a huge turn towards predatory capitalism in 1980

Since then, American culture has been dominated by propaganda and crime fueled by "deregulated" criminals on every scale of life. The only way to turn it around is to start holding white collar criminals accountable or in other words, regulation.

It's that easy but there are so many people dedicated to the status quo of fraud they've lived in for 30 years that it's going to take some serious, long-term efforts to make America a good place to live.

[wiggs]

17. Especially troublesome that we allow it in primary health care. nt

[JSnuffy]

18. Starts young...

[randr]

19. It has always troubled me

that one psychopath in one action can change the course of history for the entire planet while the good actions of millions of peoples every day go mostly unnoticed.

[Kellerfeller]

27. That is a negative attitude

The actions of one good person can also change the course of a planet in a positive direction as well.

[randr]

32. I forgot--Buddha

Although their have been wars due to his influence such as is happening in China today, his influence has been mostly positive for sure.

[joeglow3]

21. I would say a decent part is luck as well

As in, being in the right place at the right time. I have worked for bosses who I know I could perform better then, but they happened to be in my shoes when the position above them opened up. I have seen ex-coworkers, who I am much better at our job than, get promoted because they place they moved on to had an opening.

I have just learned to be happy with what I have and to continue doing my best.

[Taitertots]

22. I'm puzzled by the idea that everyone being selfish and greedy will lead to a better society

I can't envision it leading to anything but bedlam. Looking back at the last decade that seems like bedlam is exactly what we got.

I guess it really depends on a person's definition of "success". "Perhaps most of what we were taught as kids turned out to be bullshit. Work hard -- Be honest -- Treat others with respect --Help those in need … well, you get the idea.". I'm not the wealthiest person, but I'd like to think it has been a "success" in the ways I want it to be.

The bullshit is that the vast majority of people are unable to make themselves wealthier, playing by the rules or not. Just as many assholes as nice people lost their jobs and homes. A tiny fraction of the population takes the vast majority of the benefits of the labor of the masses.

[Avalux]

28. Success defined as material gain, not interpersonal relationships.....

which is exactly what's wrong with how we live. Our society's definition of success is material gain and with limited resources, the most unscrupulous get ahead.

Reminds me of this:

People were made to be loved and things were made to be used
The reason the world is in chaos is because people are used and things are loved.

[libtodeath]

33. We need

a society that beleives compassion and looking out for your fellow person is what gets rewarded as a success.