olite71
02-22-2007, 10:23 AM
{for purposes of following argument "success" means
material success and/or money}.
Have you ever heard of the "70-30?" Of course not.
This is a construct of my own.
Basically, my theory is, that in a society, those that
are more able reap the benefits by exploiting those
that are less able. This is a fact. You arm yourself
with education, accidents of birth, etc... to compete
against others. I know that we like to say "the
market" to dehumanize the whole experience. But at
back of almost any endeavor, enterprise, venture, or
business are human beings....and the better man (or
woman) wins the "one-on-one" at the negotiation table
of life.
So...to my theory. For every winner there has to be a
loser. In a perfect world the ratio would be "50-50"
and not "70-30." But that isn't how it is. Due to
racism, governmental interference, luck...etc...the
"50-50" zero sum game is nothing more than a pipe
dream.
Instead a minorty gains an advantage over the
majority.... But still, removing all of the market
"interruptors" such as government and racism, you
arrive at the fact that to "fulfill the dream" the 30%
needs the 70% to exist.
As the Iowa grads among us know, Prof. Matsumoto used
to say "90% of you are here so that 10% of you can get
jobs."
Very funny quote, but I don't know that at the time we
realized that along with being funny, this
pronouncement was profound... For if any measure of
success in society were to be made graphic it would
looks like a cross section of sedemantary rock...the
rock on the top being on the top but only being on the
"top" relative to the fact that there is rock below...
Without the rock below, there is no "top."
[God Bless Matsumoto.]
In the same way, without the subjugation of those
below there is no "achievement." Because all
"achievement" in our society is measured in the
relative sense--i.e. he/she that wins wins because
they are adjudged to be "above" those that are
"below."
You may say at this point, "duh!"...And please excuse
my beating about the bush, but what I'm getting at is
a criticism at all those preachers, do-gooders and
what not who want our "community" to "excel" ONE AND
ALL when the very definition of "excellence" depends
on a large majority of failures.....
So when the hawkers looks at an audience of 100 and
spurs them toward excellence, the only way that some
of them will achieve excellence is if some of them are
failures.
This is a problematic construct of mine.... When you
raise your own kids you want them to be successful,
but the only way they can be successful is if other
kids are failures...(in the grand scheme). Maybe you
don't think about that, the same way you don't think
about how the pig was slaughtered when you eat a pork
chop--and that's fine..we need to cope.
But the fact of the matter is, there is no way around
it...to achieve grand success in life you need
failures around you......If everybody were a
success...well there's no such thing, unless you know
of a company where everybody from janitor to CEO earns
the same compensation.
Now to reiterate, I find nothing wrong with what I
think is a law as true as the law of gravity...what I
find wrong is the preaching to ALL people of the idea
that we can "ALL" be successful. Not possible--unless
we start defining "success" as something other than
rank, income, and prestige. (And that's how I've been
defining success for the purpose of this essay).
As for the ramifications of this construct, I say
"70-30" because I belive that is a perfect ratio to
keep a given civilization running....In places like
Venzuela, it's probably more like 90-10 or worse... In
the end what any humanist would strive for is
"equality" but the fact is some people are just more
clever than others and they will take their advantages
as they see them.
The genius of the United States in my book is that its
laws, its customs, its way of being lends itself to
accomadating a ratio of 70-30 or better.... But the
fact remains you cannot be successful unless you can
maximize your return by exploiting (and this is not a
bad word--in my sense it means extracting a yield)
returns from another.
70-30 in my mind is a tolerable equilibrium for a
modern society... But please....no "chicken in every
pot" rhetoric. Behind every success is two or three
failures, and that's the law of the land, so long as
money is our god---which it was, is, and ever shall be
from the way I see things.
material success and/or money}.
Have you ever heard of the "70-30?" Of course not.
This is a construct of my own.
Basically, my theory is, that in a society, those that
are more able reap the benefits by exploiting those
that are less able. This is a fact. You arm yourself
with education, accidents of birth, etc... to compete
against others. I know that we like to say "the
market" to dehumanize the whole experience. But at
back of almost any endeavor, enterprise, venture, or
business are human beings....and the better man (or
woman) wins the "one-on-one" at the negotiation table
of life.
So...to my theory. For every winner there has to be a
loser. In a perfect world the ratio would be "50-50"
and not "70-30." But that isn't how it is. Due to
racism, governmental interference, luck...etc...the
"50-50" zero sum game is nothing more than a pipe
dream.
Instead a minorty gains an advantage over the
majority.... But still, removing all of the market
"interruptors" such as government and racism, you
arrive at the fact that to "fulfill the dream" the 30%
needs the 70% to exist.
As the Iowa grads among us know, Prof. Matsumoto used
to say "90% of you are here so that 10% of you can get
jobs."
Very funny quote, but I don't know that at the time we
realized that along with being funny, this
pronouncement was profound... For if any measure of
success in society were to be made graphic it would
looks like a cross section of sedemantary rock...the
rock on the top being on the top but only being on the
"top" relative to the fact that there is rock below...
Without the rock below, there is no "top."
[God Bless Matsumoto.]
In the same way, without the subjugation of those
below there is no "achievement." Because all
"achievement" in our society is measured in the
relative sense--i.e. he/she that wins wins because
they are adjudged to be "above" those that are
"below."
You may say at this point, "duh!"...And please excuse
my beating about the bush, but what I'm getting at is
a criticism at all those preachers, do-gooders and
what not who want our "community" to "excel" ONE AND
ALL when the very definition of "excellence" depends
on a large majority of failures.....
So when the hawkers looks at an audience of 100 and
spurs them toward excellence, the only way that some
of them will achieve excellence is if some of them are
failures.
This is a problematic construct of mine.... When you
raise your own kids you want them to be successful,
but the only way they can be successful is if other
kids are failures...(in the grand scheme). Maybe you
don't think about that, the same way you don't think
about how the pig was slaughtered when you eat a pork
chop--and that's fine..we need to cope.
But the fact of the matter is, there is no way around
it...to achieve grand success in life you need
failures around you......If everybody were a
success...well there's no such thing, unless you know
of a company where everybody from janitor to CEO earns
the same compensation.
Now to reiterate, I find nothing wrong with what I
think is a law as true as the law of gravity...what I
find wrong is the preaching to ALL people of the idea
that we can "ALL" be successful. Not possible--unless
we start defining "success" as something other than
rank, income, and prestige. (And that's how I've been
defining success for the purpose of this essay).
As for the ramifications of this construct, I say
"70-30" because I belive that is a perfect ratio to
keep a given civilization running....In places like
Venzuela, it's probably more like 90-10 or worse... In
the end what any humanist would strive for is
"equality" but the fact is some people are just more
clever than others and they will take their advantages
as they see them.
The genius of the United States in my book is that its
laws, its customs, its way of being lends itself to
accomadating a ratio of 70-30 or better.... But the
fact remains you cannot be successful unless you can
maximize your return by exploiting (and this is not a
bad word--in my sense it means extracting a yield)
returns from another.
70-30 in my mind is a tolerable equilibrium for a
modern society... But please....no "chicken in every
pot" rhetoric. Behind every success is two or three
failures, and that's the law of the land, so long as
money is our god---which it was, is, and ever shall be
from the way I see things.