Gadzooks. Since when has that word been used in context? It's time for change.

I looked through my Facebook friends, and guess what? It holds. That's really trippy.

Found this one while searching for a piece of video game music. I am not disappointed in the slightest. It's an electroswing piece called "Diamonds" by Parov Stelar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Vtnf7rr1Q

I hope to have a doctorate in medical bacteriology or similar field and doing research at a university. Optimally, I would also teach classes on microbiology/molecular biology. In addition, I would like to have a cozy suburban home with a wife and at least one child. By then, I also would have liked to spend time studying in Germany for a bit; I think I am close to fluent and would like to see that be put to the ultimate test possible.

Would you mind defining capitalism? I am still unclear about what you mean. Are you talking about our current economic system? The world's? Complete economic freedom?

But I will respond to your post anyhow.

Have we controlled the rich, or have we been controlled by the rich? Let's take a tour of American history. The Founding Fathers whom we worship so much were primarily rich, white, slave-owning planters. In the United States' early days, only those who owned property could vote for fear that the masses would skew the voting system. In the 1800s, the South seceded in favor of the rich through the argument that taking away slavery would "destroy the economy" (or plantation farming for valuable products such as cotton) and be a major loss of investment--and even afterward, the Southern governments found ways to subjugate poor blacks. The United States made some gains during the late 1800s and early 1900s for labor, but only after absolutely horrendous working conditions as a result of industrialization were exposed by muckrakers. Into the 1920s, some of the richest investors and bankers fought for deregulation of the financial market, allowing unhealthy purchases on margin to occur and eventually helping to create the worst financial crisis in the history of the world and leading to the Great Depression. Starting in the 1980s, the rich have fought for similar deregulation and lower tax rates. "Deregulation" and "no tax raises" remain shorthand for "strong economy" among many voters. And whom do both of those policies benefit? Business owners and those with high incomes, both of which are, unsurprisingly, quite moneyed. Yet, we are left with an ever-rising national debt and a sub-par economic situation. And speaking on a global scale, the world's rich continue to exploit labor resources in developing nations. Note that they too are capitalist, but they have had remarkably different results.

Your gut reaction may be, "But 12AngryHens, it makes sense that developing nations are poorer--they have had a lower initial endowment!" Correct. Indeed they have. But hasn't the same been true for other nations you call communist? (And that word is very broad to begin with--it fails to encompass all of the variations between Maoism, Leninism, and Marxism, for example) Imagine a state like China. Prior to the 1900s, the Qing dynasty had been hurtling toward collapse, in part at the hands of the West. In the early 1900s, it did. For years, it remained in a state of perpetual civil war, then faced horrifying destruction during the Second World War, and then faced renewed civil war until 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan. It was after more than half a century of human disasters when the Maoist regime took power. Can you imagine the issues they had to resolve?

And now, let's take a peek at capitalist nations across the globe. Many third world nations are capitalist, yet where are their riches? The answer is that they're mainly in the hands of the West. I wrote a paper on the neocolonial legacy in Nigeria, a nation which is capitalist by our standards. In fact, the nation is lucky in that it is sitting on some of the best oil in the world. It could very easily be a bastion of wealth in a continent of impoverished states. Yet, it isn't. Why is this? Much of the oil is not drilled by the Nigerian government or Nigerian oil companies (which are generally nonexistent). Instead, the Nigerian government sells contracts to Western oil companies such as Shell which inevitably end up with all of the profits. While Shell and other companies must also pay for such contracts, does the money end up constructing schools, roads, and sanitation systems in the Niger River delta? No, it does not. Instead, it ends up in the hands of the Nigerian wealthy--also the ones holding the highest positions in the Nigerian government. Meanwhile, the rural poor continue to be exploited for their labor value and the people enjoying the oil are not ready to care. So nothing gets done.

What do we conclude from this? The economic health of a state is not dependent on the economic system that state has, but what its initial endowment is. In a capitalist nation, this means that those with the greatest amount of capital will continue to be prosperous because they place themselves at the head of the economic system. In a world where every nation is now interconnected in the vast economic system run by a few, the states which possess the greatest amount of resources will continue to be that way at the expense of nations without capital. What does this mean? It means that the world's rich must be more closely regulated. Until that happens, don't expect much change.

First of all, I think it's important to define capitalism. What is capitalism to you? That word is thrown around so much that I don't think there's any one strict definition. If it is the idea that people are free to make whatever economic transactions they want, then I am not surprised that we find the world in the state that it is in. In such a system, whoever has the money also has the power since it is the only variable that truly counts. Once there's a particularly moneyed segment of the population, they will go to whatever ends to ensure that people will not care that they have the most power--be it through advertisement, policy action on Capitol Hill, or whatever other means necessary. And as a result, we currently have a system that greatly benefits the West but leaves Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia for dead. You are exactly right when you say that people do not care for Thailand or Bangladesh--but has anyone in the West ever truly cared? Did the West have human welfare in mind when it colonized the globe? As painful as it is, we still live in the same neocolonial system where economic benefit is reserved for the people with the money.

I understand that and Wong's statement is perfectly valid if self-value is to be derived from successful marketing of oneself. However, I disagree with the basic premise that one's interaction with others determines one's self-value. The dirt, in my argument, is self-value since it is the purest expression of an individual. In other words, because how a person outwardly expresses himself or herself is guided by the goal of servicing other people, it will not be the most honest portrayal of who that individual truly is. The most pure form of self-value comes with accepting and being content with who you are internally, not your position in a social system.

Oh boy. This. I found this on my Facebook feed as well and was not very pleased when I read it. I did react negatively to it but our author was very clever with the last paragraph and tied in criticism of the article with being unfaithful to the self. So I found this very circular--if you disagree with this article, you are just fulfilling one of the harsh truths I mentioned, thus proving that the harsh truths exist. And I'm not even going to begin to try to get into the "They don't like you because you're a creator" comment; that's overly simplistic.

But instead of whining about the last paragraph, I will acknowledge my chief point of disagreement with the article. Despite its title, it really should be called "How to make yourself marketable." Wong starts with the premise that your quality as a person is only a function of your quality to other people which I do not find true at all. While one's social atmosphere will undoubtedly inform how one feels as a person, the idea that self value is derived exclusively from the ability to have a skill that other people enjoy is arguable at best. For example, I write prose on occasion. I know that it's not very good and I've never actually shown anybody what I've written, but it means something to me and it contributes to how I feel as a person. Am I more marketable as a result? Certainly not. But that does not mean that my self-value is somehow diminished.

In fact, I would argue that how one feels as a person is more accurately a function of what one does that is not marketable. In other words, the greatest amount of self-value is derived from that which is anonymous and not driven by foreseeable profit. To apply these thoughts to the issue of love, I find that love is not a product of one's ability to market himself or herself as a person with unique qualities A, B, and C, but more of a jigsaw puzzle idea. Love is more accurately found not as a result of public advertisement but placing oneself in the proper community at the start. In this instance, the metaphorical "dirt" of Wong's argument truly is what matters.

Well, that's my two cents and a little more. Thoughts?

NOOOOOOO I searched but couldn't find anything. Shucks. I'll delete this.

1. The Hobbit - J.R.R. Tolkien 2. Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut 3. A Thousand Splendid Suns - Khaled Hosseini 4. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy - Eric Metaxas 5. The Plague - Albert Camus

My babies.

http://imgur.com/gk9Cs

I also dabble in classical music composition; I have a couple of uploads here. (The sound quality is pretty bad because I'm using a free composition program)

https://soundcloud.com/komischerweise

I hope to major in biology with a concentration in microbiology, possibly a German or physics minor. If I end up at Cornell, then I'll probably feel my way into a minor. (May be completely unexpected and out there)

Ah, I assumed that you had come from some other non-snowy land where everything is warm and there is scarcely a snow plow nearby. So winter is just routine business for you. Regardless of where I go, it will be interesting to see how people react to the local weather.

Nice, I am a high school senior and have applied (Arts and Sciences, though) regular decision! How are you liking the weather so far? I feel obliged to ask since I live near Syracuse.

This is the joy of Hubski--you can tag stuff as you will. Others may follow.

An online video game player has a moment of inspiration. This always makes me feel a little better about whatever I am doing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCzWX8DdzAg

Aaaahhhh, you got me. Just signed up about 5 minutes ago. This place looks really clean.