Hey, don't be knocking Chevy because they don't make what you want, or what you have decided everyone else should drive whether they like it or not.:p

Great innovators are not driven by greed. Yes, they want to be justly compensated later. But when working with those driven to innovative, greed is obviously a least significant factor. Accomplishment is the driving force.

Use Einstein as an example. Or Bill Gates. Or Bill and Dave (Hewlett and Packard). In every case, challenge and accomplishment was the overriding objective.

In studies, what was the number one reason for working? Satisfaction. Income was number three. World's greatest innovators are driven first and foremost by the challenge and resulting accomplishment.

Why are the most successful major companies lead by some of the lower paid executives? How to find a company most likely to be in trouble? Its executives are the highest paid. They are greedy rather than accomplished. Therefore they neither do nor promote innovation. Those most driven by greed tend to be the greatest enemies of innovation.

A Chevy costs more to build than a comparable Mercedes. Chevy's higher manufacturing costs are directly traceable to crappy MBA designs. But then we who first demand numbers knew this even more than 10 years ago. One has to be completely ignorant to want a Chevy - for a long list of reasons including reliabilty, costs, and a desire to be unpatriotic.

Chevy even advertised itself: The heartattack of America. Then some spin doctor liar changed it to heartbeat.

Oh horseshit.:headshake

No. Horsepower. Liters of it.

Yes. And a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves is responsible for creating the advertising culture.

or maybe not. Because maybe America isn't a nation of self-absorbed, insecure, seriously fucked-up people who can't think for themselves. My God you have a bleak view of your society. Or perhaps you are apart from them? Do you not include yourself in that? Is it just everybody else who is fucked up and unable to think?

Sorry. That came across more aggressively than was my intent. But really, society is more than just a purchasing public.



@ Redux: I didn't argue against restraints ion advertising. I am all for advertising standards and governmental control in order to prevent people being conned outright. I just disagree with the idea that advertising is either the devil, or responsible for society's ills. It is indicative of many societal problems and concerns. It may well contribute to some very unsavoury aspects of our cultrure (such as gender constructions which sexualise girls at younger and younger ages). But that isn't advertising per se, it is how we use that tool, the desires which it draws on and propogates that contain the darkness.

Dana, there is a LOT that I don't like right now about my country. These are things that I have noticed getting worse for many years. I really do believe that advertising is partly responsible for some of the fucked up things I talk about. Is advertising the devil? Of course not, and I don't have a problem with companies advertising their products. But I am not blind to the problems that are caused by it either. And yes, I do think a majority of the people are as I described. Really though, it isn't their fault. They are asleep.

The thing is, we were warned about it back in the 60s, but we have allowed capitalism to morph into this nasty thing that we have today.

Advertising is, by its very nature, engaged in a kind of arms race with consumers. At first adverts were simple and bold (and freely able to lie, but that's besides the point) but we (the consumers) became more sophisticated. Adverts had to be creative and find new ways to reach us because we were too sophisticated for the old style of ads. We watched the sophisticated flashy new ads and we got more sophisticated. They ramped up their game and we learned about their new tricks. We became more active in our consumption: making demands, being difficult customers. We openly engaged in the advertising dialogue. We chose to interact with it at a much deeper level. It has grown ever more sophisticated, but so have we.


There is something a little elitist about your assumptions regarding the majority of your compatriots.

Elitist? Moi? Wow. Well, I am a liberal, so I suppose it isn't surprising that someone would call me that.

I observe, and then I make deductions based on those observations. I mean really, look at what sells- which magazines, which TV shows. Turn on the TV and watch some reality programming. Those are real people, even though the shows are scripted. Geez. Jerry Springer. The Bachelor. Britney Spears. Paris Hilton. Ann Coulter et al. Even the news media is not a serious entity anymore. I am surrounded by this culture, and the older I get, the more I hate it and the less hope I have for future generations. I know I am cynical, like, extremely cynical. But that cynicism is there for a reason. My observations have been proven right over and over and over.

In all fairness I will say this, the American people, while self-absorbed and insecure, really are a great people. We pull together when times are hard. I know a lot of people who would give me the shirt off their back, even if it was their last one. So while I believe the things I said are true, I also believe we are very giving and sincere as a people. I want to believe the best about people, I want to see the best IN people, and I try to do that, but I also see all the greed, and corruption, and I get angry, and when I get angry, I become very judgemental. Really, on an individual basis, I am not nearly so judgemental as I am about society as a whole. And ftr, I am guilty of those things as well. And I hate it when I catch myself being that way. I will say, when I don't watch TV or look at magazines, I become a lot less judgemental. When I'm not bombarded by advertising, I feel a lot less stressed.

Dante Hicks: You hate people!
Randal Graves: But, I love gatherings, isn't it ironic?

:eyebrow:

Not at all aggressive. Quite honest because you express it in a tone that makes your statement more honest.

Society did not change. Percentage of people who blindly believe only what they are told has been (should be) constant. What changed? We never had extremists inspiring the naive to believe half truths and sound bytes using the same techniques that Hitler used. We never had so many Rush Limbaughs promoting outright lies and myths. American radio now sounds similar to the Radio Moscow broadcasts I once listened to in the 1960s.

What has changed? America always had profitable companies such as Geritol, Luden's cough drops, and cigarettes promoted for health. What we now have are extremists (people who work for a political agenda) telling the naive that sound bytes alone make one a political and economic expert. That is what has changed. Look at how many still are so ignorant as to believe tax cuts create long term economic growth.

Once upon a time, Democrats and Republicans argued by day and drank together by night. Today, America has too many extremists and a shortage of centrists (the intelligent people). Difficult is for centrists (ie Specter of PA, Snow of Maine, etc) to have the influence that once dominated American politics. Made so difficult because so many so hate American as to listen to and believe the Rush Limbaugh types.

Once upon a time, those who did not learn before having an opinion need not aggressively express opinions. Today, soundbytes make the lesser educated Americans into experts. After all, Rush Limbaught told them; so it must be true. That is what has changed.

Cough/singlebullet theory/cough

Interesting concept

Funny how you are now a centrist, since when? I notice that you constantly call out one right wing wacko and NEVER mention those on the far left who do exactly the same thing. Why is that?

AIG's annuity and life insurance just got bumped out of the single largest distribution network they've had for more than a decade. Two years ago that distributor produced $.70 of every dollar in annuity sales AIG produced. Tell me that won't leave a mark.

Because the left wing wackos don't post in the Cellar.;)

Everything I've seen says AIG's insurance arm is still sound and profitable. Only their excursion into securities was/is fucked up. But the headlines have people afraid of the name. Maybe that's why AIG insurance is now 21st Century.

Bullshit.