yeah.. i mean that..
choosing "growth" by manipulating the factors which will result in that direction while ignoring the consequences of pushing the factors to achieve a certain number (KPI) and thus telling their minions that they have achieved success..
much like the banks pushed for maximisation of profits while hiding the risks, creating a pile of uncomprehensible instruments which got repackaged, traded and bandied around until everything went to hell.. those who profited ran off while the people had to pick up the pieces..
much like the US is still wagging the dog by trying to increase consumption.. and PRC is heading the same way... the thought that a "successful economy" is one which can produce and consume as much and as quickly as possible to generate "growth" and increase GDP is scary as all hell as it is a pillager's view of the world..
and like you said, there is a limit to growth.. and by forcing it through trying to get people to increase consumption, to me it's just wagging the dog
Karl Marx had long ago espoused his disgust with the capitalist system.
Yet he also begrudgingly accepted that capitalism had also created much innovation that we take for granted today and also lifted countless people out of poverty and opened options that nobody prior to his time had thought possible.
He reckoned there would "social tension" and "revolution".
The former most certainly was true and very intuitive and hugely applicable. But the latter failed to materialise. One reason was that he did not forsee the shitty lobbyist and the growth of labour parties in counteracting each other in such "glorious" fashion as we see today.
poverty is also.. i don't even know how to describe it...
this tribesman had no idea what money was... he had his wives, his children, his compound, his goats and cows... he lived a simple life where he went out and cultivated yam, his wives and children looked after his animals and cultivated cassava and other types of minor vegetable... they had enough to eat, occasionally they had celebrations in the tribe, they were happy...
they were considered living below the poverty line...
what happened after is repeated again and again in many "poor countries"
so i wonder, are we inflicting "poverty" on them or were they "poor" in the first place?
I agree.
That.
Is the big flaw of the "SG is emotionless society" study.
1. What makes us happy cannot be the same as others.
2. Even the word "emotion" is not automatically understood in the same way as other people! Consider the chinese words "gan qing", "gan jue", "xin qing". They approximate to "emotions" but are not the same. And languages colour how we see the world, which therefore implies further differences in what we term as "emotions" worldwide.
Intuitively can we really believe such slipshod studies that put us at the top, or bottom?
It doesnt mean that we do not have room to "improve", but what exactly should its direction be?
To just label "expression of emotion", "feeling" without consideration of the biological, and contextual aspects takes away the very essence that emotion is not just something that can be defined. Our body does not just react to emotion. Our emotions too do not just react to the body. They are in fact one and all!
That study is rubbish in short.
Our society is really too obsessed with quantifying this and that, structuring arguments, defining every donkey we see.
The world is surely more complex than we can imagine with our finite brain cells.
For fudge:
sea tpt hub...?
LNG thru Russia started last week or last last week I think...
If it does go thru, our sea trading hub will be seriously affected unless Russia goes out of commisson >__>
morning guys
shake leg day in the office
Originally posted by cassie:shake leg day in the office
Lucky you. I can't wait for the day when I say, "F*** this s***."
Shake leg at home
Many things to do during work and after work, cannot rest >___>
From a forum letter in a Malaysian newspaper:
Let's see if I can summarize the writer's points.
Singapore has an ageing population ==> this leads to an increase in ghey men in Singapore ==> Singapore is also emotionless lot ==> so why the heck did we lose to Singapore in football? ==> maybe it's because we didn't choose our players properly.
Uhhh...... dafug was the writer talking about?
straits times tryign to showcase the level of intellect in Singapore?
Originally posted by hisoka:Shake leg at home
dem!
until the end of the year?
Originally posted by cassie:
dem!until the end of the year?
No lah, just for today. Resting up from my US trip
Originally posted by hisoka:straits times tryign to showcase the level of intellect in Singapore?
not ST...
tat's malaysian newspaper...
when you see it..
Naughty image.
3 down 1 to go.
Now I am having the last paper syndrome, made worse by the people shaking leg here.
gonna head off in 15, catch up in nightowls