I can't stand the american "dream".

[NordArcher]

Anyways, i'm off. Good night everyone.

 

[gamerwiz09]

Anyways, i'm off.

Do us all a favor and stay that way.

 

[RalliX]

On-topic, I think the main problem with the 'American dream' is that of constantly needing to consume more instead of being content with what you have. What kind of dream or goal has you striving to expand unceasingly even after accomplishing your original goal.

Anyways, what people choose to want long-term should not be something Nationalistic.

Government is supposed to be for the people, not the people for the government.

 

[CJ1145]

To paraphrase, America is the only nation to have a dream. That's because the rest of us are awake.

They make europeans dream too. If you saw current teenager's oppinions about America and consummerism you wouldn't say we're awake.

Okay, two problems with this post. First of all, if you're getting your facts from America's teenagers it's time to re-think your stance on life.

Second, if America and Europe aren't good enough for you, where are you getting this stuff? El Salvador?

I was speaking about european teens. What stuff?

Wait wait wait wait, he's getting his opinion on America from EUROPEAN TEENAGERS? The ****?

 

[kiarj]

On-topic, I think the main problem with the 'American dream' is that of constantly needing to consume more instead of being content with what you have. What kind of dream or goal has you striving to expand unceasingly even after accomplishing your original goal.

I agree completely. I've plans to have everything I need, and then somethings I don't, but running after more than I can use is laughable.

 

[gamerwiz09]

On-topic, I think the main problem with the 'American dream' is that of constantly needing to consume more instead of being content with what you have. What kind of dream or goal has you striving to expand unceasingly even after accomplishing your original goal.

I agree completely. I've plans to have everything I need, and then somethings I don't, but running after more than I can use is laughable.

Well I've plans to get rich and then begin engaging in philanthropy. Dunno see how your idea is any better.

 

[Regendur]

They see him trollin...

 

[kiarj]

Well I've plans to get rich and then begin engaging in philanthropy. Dunno see how your idea is any better.

Eh? The **** you babblin' about? I never said my idea was better than anything 

 

[Archonsod]

They make europeans dream too. If you saw current teenager's oppinions about America and consummerism you wouldn't say we're awake.

To quote, "There's nothing stupid some foreigner won't try somewhere"

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Cool. When i get mad i do this kind of stuff instead of punching doors. I broke the fifth metacarp once for punching a door.

I wonder what he will hit when he settles down with someone...

I felt like i could ragequit from human society at that moment.

There's an old phrase around these parts about ejecting oneself from the human race by means of a bullet with many people rejoicing afterward.

On-topic, I think the main problem with the 'American dream' is that of constantly needing to consume more instead of being content with what you have. What kind of dream or goal has you striving to expand unceasingly even after accomplishing your original goal.

I think the artificially produced need to keep consuming more and more in an effort to prop up a global economy geared towards indefinite growth is a bigger problem. Even states like China with a "somewhat" responsible population growth policy is taking part in this.

 

[tyrannicide]

I felt like i could ragequit from human society at that moment.

There's an old phrase around these parts about ejecting oneself from the human race by means of a bullet with many people rejoicing afterwards.

That's as may be, and snark retorts the like of which this thread is filled with may be fun and all.

But setting the matter of what consequences one draws at a personal level (biting the bullet, boxing walls or making little changes) aside, isn't the gist of his statements regarding the world sound? I think it is.

Sure, one can accommodate to it, more or less, but compared to how great a place the world could be to live in, what with all the knowledge we possess and the potential for pleasure our bodies hold, the world as it is is a ****hole. Relatively speaking. Dontch'all think?

 

[Swadius 2.0]

That's as may be, and snark retorts the like of which this thread is filled with may be fun and all.

But setting the matter of what consequences one draws at a personal level (biting the bullet, boxing walls or making little changes) aside, isn't the gist of his statements regarding the world sound? I think it is.

What about the suggestion made by someone in this thread that his outrage at consumerism/government is merely a guise for his actual outrage at what human nature gravitates towards? I think he might be on to something when he says that a majority of people seek material wealth, but his reasoning for this being bad is lacking.

Sure, one can accommodate to it, more or less, but compared to how great a place the world could be to live in, what with all the knowledge we possess and the potential for pleasure our bodies hold, the world as it is is a ****hole. Relatively speaking. Dontch'all think?

I think human beings can do a lot of things well, and that treating each other like **** is one of our cardinal trademarks.

 

[DameGreyWulf]

There's a specific standard dream? I must have missed it while dreaming.

 

[tyrannicide]

That's as may be, and snark retorts the like of which this thread is filled with may be fun and all.

But setting the matter of what consequences one draws at a personal level (biting the bullet, boxing walls or making little changes) aside, isn't the gist of his statements regarding the world sound? I think it is.

What about the suggestion made by someone in this thread that his outrage at consumerism/government is merely a guise for his actual outrage at what human nature gravitates towards? I think he might be on to something when he says that a majority of people seek material wealth, but his reasoning for this being bad is lacking.

I don't agree with his bashing consumerism, but I certainly know where it comes from. I've seen and heard it many times; it is disturbingly prevalent among many social circles in Europe (especially, as I said before, among the Leftist youth).

That the majority of people, yea, everyone should seek wealth seems to me so evident that it doesn't need further proof. And inasmuch as it represents a fundamental desire to be happy, I don't see anything wrong with it, either.

But I'd like to separate two aspects of this consumerism thing. On one hand the premise (that something's amiss with the world) and on the other the explanation it presents (that it's due to people seeking material wealth). IMO the former is correct -- the latter too, actually, but the link between both isn't.

As for the question how it comes an invalid reasoning would be as widespread as this one happens to be, I believe it's because it gets a lot of support from "above". As an illustration, during the brief time I lived in Germany, I remember a public controversy over gas prices during an election. IIRC the Green party at that time put it in their political program to make gas prices... I believe it was something like five times what it was then, citing pollution and scarcity of resources as their argument. It made quite a row. I don't quite remember what became of it (overall gas prices surged without their direct intervention, nearly to the level they proposed). But the point is: if I were producing gas and I heard some political party trying to convince people they should pay five times as much for it as they're already paying, although my production costs would remain constant, hell yeah! I'd finance that party! (in this case it would rather be the government, actually, as the greatest part of gas prices are taxes).

But once again: I think the premise is valid, and that the conclusion is merely deviated, by ideological pressure, from a reasonable solution to one that serves the establishment.

Sure, one can accommodate to it, more or less, but compared to how great a place the world could be to live in, what with all the knowledge we possess and the potential for pleasure our bodies hold, the world as it is is a ****hole. Relatively speaking. Dontch'all think?

I think human beings can do a lot of things well, and that treating each other like **** is one of our cardinal trademarks.

It may certainly seem so, but then again methinks one can find just as many examples to the contrary.

 

[Noddin]

The fact that they go for a comfortable life is exactly what makes me angry.

Gotta admit you sound like someone who hasn't lived through any real periods of discomfort. I see what you're saying, but don't at all agree with your perspective.

Tyrannicide pointed out the benefits your line of reasoning has for the truly rich.

I think the problem with America, at the least, is the corporate environment created by greed. Consumerism is fine so long as it doesn't produce a stagnated economy that eventually creates a multitude of issues, some of which you have expressed. The pollution and energy issues caused by overpopulation, for example, can be solved by moving on to a new technology. However, the oligarchies we have in place can not allow this. Oil is an easy example of corporations cornering a market and ******** over the world. This same issue covers nearly every aspect of life. From Wal-Marts to BP, it is a bit out of hand.

After the great depression and the failing of many banks we gained the FDIC. This was a move to placate and extend a corrupt system that was already in place. A government bank would have been way more preferable. Only two years ago we had issues in America with banks failing in nearly every state. A small one that I used to use was bought by a larger bank, as were hundreds of others. The benefits to the large banks (truly rich I mentioned) is obvious here, so long as it is not allowed to go far enough to effect them. One of the last things Bush did was bail out the banks matching the unpaid debt without clearing it. Didn't solve any problems, merely allowed some to stay afloat a little longer. The branches that Obama has set up to strengthen the FDIC do just as little. Before the great depression we had a cyclical period of depressions. The policies passed with The New Deal and since have only succeeded in creating a cyclical period of recessions.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/useconomytimeline/index.html Just one example from google. Most should know this already.

The benefits for the truly rich here should be obvious. An example is the housing market. Buy all the cheap houses that have been foreclosed on, wait for the economy to improve, and make millions. Add the thirty year mortgages that rose out of the latter half of the twentieth century (much longer in Europe), the outrageous inflation on the price of automobiles, and the credit cards that have caused so many people problems and we have some real issues.

Capitalism is founded on competition. When we lose competition in favor of Oligarchies, then we no longer have capitalism. It's easy to see how this exists, and I can start an argument against the stock market at this point. It's not so much a tool for investment as it is for the truly rich to own whichever companies they need to in order to protect their interests. The fact that companies are allowed to compete with themselves (own two brands of the same product) is indicative of such a system.


Consumerism is not the problem, the fact that people allow greed to control every product they buy is. It's ruining the economy, the world, and the average worker. Any problems presented, such as pollution, can be fixed if competition is encouraged. There is a demand for a clean fuel, but there is no affordable automobile on the market.

 

[QuailLover]

I find it funny that he thinks the average person in the US drives over 37 miles to get to work. Most people do live near where they work.

 

[FrisianDude]

Oh god not one of these again, you do realize that most Americans dont give a **** about the "dream" anymore....we realized it was stupid a long time ago..

You should be shot. 'The American Dream' is a wonderful concept. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[ProjectAngel]

The American Dream

 

[NordArcher]

I find it funny that he thinks the average person in the US drives over 37 miles to get to work. Most people do live near where they work.

I said people who abide by the american dream of living in suburbia (which is more of an exo-american dream).

My problem with consummerism is that it seems completely pointless. People are forced to believe that having a flatscreen and buying clothes every month will certainly make them happy. Well, it does get them happy. But what kind of happiness is that? Happiness for buying new objects constantly? There must be a huge flaw in our organization if we need this for the society to live. Why shouldn't we let it die and form something new? I personnaly try to buy as few things as possible. Sure, food has to be bought.

As if this wasn't enough, it also requires a large quantity of resources to work. I honnestly think that consummerism will be over one day or another, maybe not so soon, but i'm sure it won't last forever, and i hope humans from the future will be smarter and less driven by will of power than what we (generally speaking) have been. I find it quite obscene to talk of "non-merchant" and "merchant" companies in economy class, the latter one being a company that works for profit, that means they do stuff that seems nice for you but in reality they just want to fill their pockets, as if it was a normal thing. It makes me wanna do a living human body recycling company.

So, it's not sustainable and it translates a lack of organization in our society, that needs their members to buy objects all the time to live.

 

[tyrannicide]

Capitalism is founded on competition. When we lose competition in favor of Oligarchies, then we no longer have capitalism.

Spot on and a realisation of the utmost importance; one which it pains me how precious few people, especially among the Left, make, pointlessly going on instead with pestering against "liberalism" and "free market", when what's in place is anything but liberal, but rather a monopolistic moloch.

On that note, I would rather use the term "monopolistic" than "oligarchic", as the latter has a broader meaning ("domination of the rich").

My problem with consummerism is that it seems completely pointless. People are forced to believe that having a flatscreen and buying clothes every month will certainly make them happy. Well, it does get them happy. But what kind of happiness is that?

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree, what makes them happy is neither mine nor yours to decide. A step towards telling people how they should be happy is a step in the wrong direction, no matter how pure your intentions may be.