Been looking back in forth with your comment and that member and I don't honestly know where you're going with the comment. Even though it's none of my business as well.
Might be a good idea to ask for another frontal lobotomy while they are at it.
"Might be a good idea to ask for another frontal lobotomy while they are at it. The world will make more sense then."
Just, could ask - Another? Or have we in a sense been subjected to a sort of lifelong lobotomy.
The strange and curious history of lobotomy Published 8 November 2011 [...] Mr Marsh, who is now one of Britain's most eminent neurosurgeons, says the operation was simply bad science. "It reflected very bad medicine, bad science, because it was clear the patients who were subjected to this procedure were never followed up properly. P - "If you saw the patient after the operation they'd seem alright, they'd walk and talk and say thank you doctor," he observes. "The fact they were totally ruined as social human beings probably didn't count." https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15629160
It isn't an outsized leap of imagination from there to
At each stage of life, Americans are being stunted as human beings We have adopted policies and practices that thwart us and cultivate antisocial behavior, anxiety and loneliness By Lynn Stuart Parramore You would think that by the 21st century, we would know something about what it takes for humans to live fulfilling lives. After all, we’ve witnessed enormous advances in science, psychology, sociology, and related fields over the past couple of centuries. The great mystery is that we seem to be doing worse, not better. https://www.salon.com/2018/12/03/here-are-5-ways-american-policies-and-attitudes-make-us-lonely-anxious-and-antisocial_partner/
Of course the trip hasn't been all bad. Capitalism has raised many from a more abject poverty. Yet as years past inequality has increased and many too are being left even further behind. So where are we:
Rethinking the future of American capitalism November 12, 2020 | Article By James Manyika, Gary Pinkus, and Monique Tuin Rethinking the future of American capitalism Capitalism has contributed to significant gains in economic growth and prosperity throughout its history. But at a time of growing public discontent about rising inequality, heightened competition from economies with different models, and existential threats including from climate change, capitalism in its current form—and American capitalism in particular—may face its most serious test. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/long-term-capitalism/rethinking-the-future-of-american-capitalism
Which leads to multi considerations, one of:
Yep. And under American capitalism women have always suffered the most. Also put to the 'reds under the bed' phobics, there are other ways Is Capitalism Built on Greed? [...] When we are asking whether capitalists act as they do out of greed or if they are compelled by some kind of systemic force, one way to test the proposition is to think about what would happen if we substituted an altruist in the capitalist’s role. We can see that certain things would not change. If you made the CEO of a company an altruist, but the CEO was under a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value, then if they exploited their workers less the board of directors might replace them. The altruistic CEO alone may have few options to improve the company. But the owner of a company, the person who puts up the capital, can make a huge difference depending on whether they are pursuing gain or the public good. Pursuing gain means that workers have to be more exploited than market pressures alone require so that a sum of profit can go to the owner. If public good is the goal, no such sum need be generated. Nor does the owner need to relentlessly expand the business in order to pursue larger profits. The business can stay the same size, if doing so serves the public good. P - Since it is obviously wrong to say that capitalists aren’t greedy, why would socialists make this argument? One reason is that Marxism, often presented as a kind of “scientific socialism .. https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest17.htm ,” developed as a way of trying to understand the economy as a machine that operated according to certain principles. Engels,... https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170842150
Then there is the other position:
The Driving Force Of Capitalism Is Empathy, Not Greed Rainer ZitelmannFormer Contributor The psychology of success and wealth and the power of capitalism. Sep 2, 2019,07:00am EDT [...] Even scientists who take a more nuanced view are guilty of repeatedly claiming that certain manifestations of capitalism need to be curbed in order to prevent the system itself from becoming a victim of rampant greed. In his book, The Future of Capitalism, the British economist Paul Collier makes a number of suggestions for reforming capitalism. He criticizes the “moral deficit” of “modern capitalism.” He also claims that the maxim of modern capitalism is “greed is good,” Gordon Gecko’s famous line from the film Wall Street, and that the system therefore urgently needs an ethical course correction. He glorifies the post-war heydays between 1945 and 1970, when the world benefited from capitalism’s positive effects on the one hand, but also managed to rein in capitalism’s worst excesses with high taxes and state regulations.
Which begs the question: Are greed and unbridled selfishness really the driving forces of modern capitalism? Human self-interest is one—not the only—driving force of all human action. But this has nothing to do with a particular economic system. Rather, it is an anthropological constant. In capitalism, however, this self-interest is curbed by the fact that only the entrepreneur who prioritizes other people’s needs can be successful.
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that empathy rather than greed is the true driving force of capitalism. Empathy is the ability to recognize and understand another person’s feelings and motives. And this is the most important characteristic of successful entrepreneurs. Take Steve Jobs as an example. He came up with the iPhone and other products because he understood modern consumers’ needs and desires better than anyone else. The same applies to Mark Zuckerberg, today one of the world’s richest people. He created Facebook because he knew better than other entrepreneurs what people wanted. Like all successful entrepreneurs, it was consumers who made Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg so rich.
For many years, the Albrecht brothers were the richest people in Germany. They earned their fortunes from the food discounter Aldi, which was founded on the principle of offering good quality products at very reasonable prices. This was the same recipe for success followed by Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, who was consistently one of the richest people in the United States. Consumers’ purchasing decisions confirm that Jobs, Zuckerberg, the Albrecht brothers and Sam Walton had correctly understood their customers’ desires, needs and emotions.
The Market Punishes Self-Centered Entrepreneurs
Of course, under the capitalist system, there are also examples of companies that have acted selfishly and lost sight of the wants and needs of consumers. One example is Deutsche Bank, which has faced thousands of lawsuits. Such companies are punished under capitalism—not only by the law, but far more so by the market. Deutsche Bank lost its position as one of the world’s leading banks because it put the interests of its investment bankers above those of its customers and shareholders. A company’s most important asset is its image—and companies that behave like Deutsche Bank end up incurring massive damage to their image and reputation; their customers lose confidence and flock to their competitors.
In socialist systems, on the other hand, consumers are powerless and at the mercy of state-owned companies. If a state enterprise acts with no regard to the needs of consumers, they have no alternative under socialism, because there is no competition. Under capitalism, consumers can (and do) punish companies that behave selfishly and lose sight of the needs of their customers. Every day, customers vote on the company with their wallets—by buying its products or not.
What About Monopolies?
Monopolies under capitalism are a temporary phenomenon. Even companies that appear omnipotent will eventually be ousted by new competitors as soon as they overreach their power and lose sight of their customers’ needs. Ever since capitalism has existed, anti-capitalists have criticized the system’s inherent tendency to create monopolies. Lenin wrote over 100 years ago that imperialism and monopoly capitalism are the last stages of capitalism. But the monopolies he criticized at the time no longer exist. Even companies that appear omnipotent today, such as Google or Facebook, will not retain their power forever. Other companies and ambitious young entrepreneurs will seize the opportunity as soon as Google or Facebook start to act too selfishly. What is strange is that socialists who criticize capitalism for its tendency to form monopolies are in favor of state-owned companies. After all, the state is the most powerful monopolist of all, with the ability to brutally trample on the needs and wishes of its citizens through its means of coercion and because there are no alternatives for the customer.
In summary: The fact that people and companies pursue their own interests is the same in every society. This is not a specific feature of capitalism. Under capitalism though, only those entrepreneurs and companies who prioritize their customers’ interests, rather than their own self-interest, will achieve success in the long term. Companies that fail to understand and respect what consumers want will lose market share and may even disappear entirely as they are driven out by other companies that better meet their customers’ needs. Empathy, the ability to recognize the desires and needs of others, is the true basis of capitalism—not unbridled greed and selfishness. Check out my website.
"Might be a good idea to ask for another frontal lobotomy while they are at it. The world will make more sense then."
Yep, your point is well made. Just you could have said might, instead of will. Then, lol, we could agree it might, even as we know it wouldn't.
So what do we do. Maybe lean more to:
The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,[3][4] and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy[5] — with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
What else? Was going to say soldier on. But we don't need the war frame. What else should we do but keep on keeping on. Each as best as we can. ;-)
Thanks for the pm, that's what I was thinking as well. The paraphrasing got me. Plus it didn't read like you. Which is why I didn't knee jerk and claim you were a bloody asshole troll or something. Whew.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
