Slippery Slope - The Definition of Ambition
 

A few days ago I read Federalist Paper #46 and was struck by the way it used the word "ambition". Basically it couched ambitious men as those that don't know when enough is enough.

Today we use the word "ambition" as if it's always a good thing.

This change in definition seems to have an effect on our body politic. For example we, on average, are afraid to tell CEOs and their politician friends, dude, you have enough. Temper your ambition. Saying something like that would quickly be derided as asking the CEO to be lazy.

I wonder how the Tea Party would deal with a leader like Hitler if they were holding their guns, listening to him talk about his ambitions, and hating those moocher Jews. A second amendment would have stopped Hitler my ass.

"Greed is Good!" my friend. Many in my generation, that went off to college during the Reagan years firmly believe that. That if you get in the way of any "ambitious" person you are "punishing success"..................

No, we're just trying to keep the handful who don't know when enough is enough from pigging up the entire nations wealth for themselves.

Once you realize just how much misery has been caused by insatiable people in this world..................

Some would point to the unions as an example. Believe it, or not, I do see that point to some degree. However, I cannot bring myself to absolve those for whom six and seven figure salaries, multiple homes across the globe and a corporate jet at their beckoned call was never enough. And, just who is it that makes the decision to layoff, shutdown and outsource?

Last time I checked it WASN'T the guy on the assembly line.

Regards,
Dave

Depending upon context, I think the word "ambitious" today has both positive and negative connotations. In today's workaday world, it can mean a willingness to stab anybody in the back to advance one's career/standing. OTOH, when used to describe students and younger professionals, it often has a positive connotation of willing to work hard and sacrifice in order to advance.

I was the latter type of ambitious until I hit ~35, got married and had kids. After that, I started to run into a bunch of the former type and wanted nothing to do with that action.

As long as I was a Craftsman in Bell I was quite content, figured that I might make it to Wire Chief someday.

Then they promoted me into the Data Processing Dept. New job greater challenge, I started to see a path ahead. That pissed off my first wife, eventually ended the marriage. Well that and her insane jealousy, an emotion I just don't understand. The problem was that the view was in those days if you had not reached a certain level by your early thirties you were not going anywhere and I was already 32 when the move to Data Processing came so I only got to 2nd level management.

Then Florence and I met so I took early retirement to cover my alimony costs. When the word got out that I was available th first offer of a position and H1B visa came from Virginia so here I am. My current ambition is to enjoy life and keep my wife happy.

My recliner is well aware of where my ambition lies.

Mine too. And a small fleet of well worn remotes are evidence of my efforts towards success.:)

Dave

Here's a book that looks like it touches on the topic. It is written by John C. Bogle, billionaire founder of the 2 trillion dollar Vanguard group. It is simply titled, "Enough."

I have not read it.

http://www.amazon.com/Enough-True-Me...ref=pd_sim_b_5

Lately, I've read an interesting comparison between college graduates in the early 1960s as opposed to those of today. According to this author, it seems more students in the early '60s were more interested in contributions they could make in their fields. Especially in Science and Engineering. Making their mark, so to speak. Of course making money is what people have always wanted, but then it was considered more important to gain a solid reputation in your profession----first.

Today, it would seem, the emphasis is on choosing the most lucrative career path---whatever that might be, regardless of whether there is any real passion for the work or not.

And, we wonder why we have problems?

Regards,
Dave

Gotta pay off those student loans ya know.;)

With the current cost of a college education, it makes sense to me to select a major that will ultimately earn enough to offset the cost. I'll admit to wondering why bright kids go to expensive schools and pay $200,000 for a major that doesn't increase their job outlook any more than their high school diploma would have.

There's something to be said for having kids who choose to use their strengths in math and science to major in something that will result in good, lucrative jobs upon graduation instead of having them move back home after college and find a job flipping burgers.

That shows that there are advantages to dropping out of school.:)

There is also nothing wrong with flipping burgers for a living. The historic root of the McDonald's chain shows that. The founders loved making burgers. The difference between then and now is who makes the money.

When the highest income tax bracket was punitive, as it should be, the richest people were those that loved their work. Let's face it, if a person bumped against the $10 million/year ceiling (or whatever it was) by running fast food restaurants, then he loved fast food restaurants. At the same time the fast food market was big enough that there could be many players in it.

Today the market structure has changed. Since the tax rate is basicly flat it does not matter how much money a person makes or how he makes it. There is no limit. The net result is that there are very few players in the fast food market (McDonald's, Yum!, and one or two others). Their executives make extraordinary money, probably couldn't cook their way out of a family picnic, and at the same time are rewarded by investors for reducing costs by cutting employee pay and benefits. Those investors, by the way, have nothing to do with the restaurant industry -- they just want to mooch off of it.

The model repeats in every traditional business, be it office supplies, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. etc. Basicly all the low fruit has been picked. That's where people like Flacaltenn come in. They want something to mooch off of but are ont he outside looking in. So they have to try to cling onto an unsuspecting inventor, use him for all he's worth, and then spit him out. Rinse, repeat. That racket is called venture capital. Every once in a while it hits home run such as Google but that is exceedingly rare. Most of the money ends up being spent on equipment that ends up on eBay when the clusterf*cking relationship goes south.

People that have traveled abroad know what a real economy looks like. People live in smaller houses, they make less money, but they do what they have a natural tendency to do, whether it is making burgers or making heart valves.

The system breaks down when it tries to force every young person to pay for an education that qualifies him to make heart valves, when in fact the society could use more burger flippers and farmers to reach full employment. Now, again, that assumes the economy is somewhat self-sufficient. If it allows using slave labor abroad then things get messy and self-government becomes challenging. The richest will be the ones using the most slaves. On top of that the richest will also be the ones paying the politicians no matter what party they belong to.

It's a nasty situation and it's perpetuated by greed and flat taxes. That's why the greedy need the Tea Party platform. It provides sympathetic votes from the group that believes the crap that everyone can be in the one percent.

All I know is some rich people have gone mad. One of them built a sailboat that is so big it can't fit under the Golden Gate Bridge FFS. Now he wants to sell it and build a different one. I have one word for that dude -- you have enough. Let someone else have a little.

I don't recall how he made his money. I think it was in some stupid consumer crap that he has made by slaves. Let Americans make that stuff and pay them. Yeah, he might have to live with the humility of only having a 100' yacht but I say fuck him.

Fascinating.

I just found this video on the internet. It is made by a zoologist that applies game theory to model animal behavior. He wrote a book about selfishness in the zoological context and political parties latched onto it as scientific justification for their political philosophies.

The video is about an hour long. I guarantee it is worth it. You will not want your hour back.

http://hitchensism.tumblr.com/post/8...part-1-richard

Holy Cow, that is about the best post I have ever read in my life.

Awesome.

Dave

I believe JF influence the former.....Ask not...:D

I believe JFK influenced the former.....Ask not...:D

Holy shit.

I agree.

Great post indeed, thanks for putting the time into it.

The Winchester Mystery House in San Jose is another good one story,somewhat similar to the sailboat story.
It did put people to work I'll admit though in all my years I have never bothered with that freak show. :p
http://www.winchestermysteryhouse.co...winchester.cfm



Carl

Thanks guys. It's hard to draw a line between different flavors of capitalism. I've been trying for about four years and each time I got shouted down as being a so*ialist. Each time I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and tried to learn more. Solving the problem has been a big onion to peel, but I think this morning I finally got to the center when I stumbled on that vid. All it took was typing the right words into Google. The magic combination was "Ayn Rand game theory". Bingo.

In previous intellectual debates wih Ayn Rand supporters I dug deeper and always hit a brick wall. They had scientific proof in the book "The Selfish Gene".

I can't express how relieved I was to finally see a video from the author and he had a simple explanation -- they are using the book wrong.

Whew.

Second to that experience was the time I called a Soviet sociologist and told him that I think Ayn Rand is a Soviet agent. He immediately told me, almost reflexually, that I was a conspiracy theorist. Being called a conspiracy theorist by a Soviet sociologist is kind of an honor. :D

This thread is dedicated to Paul Wilmott, Mike Osinski, and all scientists that have the patience and oratory skill to show and explain the boundary between theory and reality. I am an indebted student and thank you for not charging me for bits of your knowledge.

I'll watch it later tonite, gotta finish some trim work at the in laws place.

Here's zoological funny, courtesy of the National Zoo. When I was there many years ago, I walked into the monkey exhibit and stood in the back and watched the monkeys throwing turds through the bars at the astonished and horrified audience of assholes who were throwing peanuts at the monkeys.

Too bad the zoo saw fit to install plexiglass on the monkey's side of the bars. I'll bet they have to hose down the wall of plexiglass on a daily basis but the monkeys probably have a better diet for it. I guess the peanut vendor didn't have a good enough lobbyist.;)

Sorry for the threadcrap, Ed. ;^)

It's all good.

I'm feeling clean now. As if I just showered all the Ayn Rand stink out of my hair.

Ahhhh.