Waiters in most fine restaurants cultivate that aura of hauteur that tells you you're going to have a coronary when you see the bill. At more moderate restaurants, they're a bit more laid back - "Hi! I'm Wendy, and I'll be taking care of you this evening! Next comes the Ritual of the Announcement of the Specials, in which the waiter reels off a list of the day's specials at high speed in a single breath: "Todaywehavethepureeofoctopuswithfenugreeksauceoverpastaforeighteenfifty.
Why does every passing waiter need to stop and ask whether everything is satisfactory? It's extra annoying because they all learn at Waiters' School to carefully observe you so that they can properly time their approach and ask the question when your mouth is full: Waiter: "Is everything delicious, sir? Enjoy your dinner! In the distant past, the waiter would automatically hand the bill to the man, on the expectation that he was treating the lady. Now, of course, many modern women would be gravely insulted to think that they were dependent on a lowly man to provide for their sustenence, and so the waiter carefully positions the bill on the table at a neutral spot midway between man and lady.
And then the man pays it, anyhow. At least, in my experience. Maybe I need to go out with richer women. And don't you just love it when the waiter sets the bill down and says something like, "I'll take care of this whenever you're ready. Tonight, I'm fixing dinner. Unless I can talk Agnes into doing it.
Enjoy your own dinner, whether you make it, order it, or go somewhere to have it.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
And see if my observations aren't right on the money. Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. View the discussion thread.
Subscribe to:. Benzinga Trading Daily. Get pre-market outlook, mid-day update and after-market roundup emails in your inbox.
Tomorrow is Friday (a collection of random thoughts)
Market in 5 Minutes. Daily Analyst Rating. Thank You. Trending Recent.
Benzinga is a fast-growing, dynamic and innovative financial media outlet that empowers investors with high-quality, unique content. Some still fail in spite of the help, some succeed moderately, and some become quite wealthy still in places like Norway or Japan just without as big a gap in social structure.
What they do do though is recognize that business left to it's own devices creates almost exactly the same kind of social structure we have had on and off for years because of human nature. Capitalism improves the means of production but does not solve the other issues. Your society is more advanced but the boot on your neck is just a nicer better constructed one than the Communist boot. Human nature and irrationality are at the core of why none of these social systems work.
images about :-)-random thoughts) on We Heart It | See more about quotes, life and reminder
I love what Capitalism does but I fear absolutely what unfettered capitalism will look like. Anyone with a clear understanding of humans would. In societies like the US that have a very rugged individualist nature a pure free market sounds good but just does not end up working that way because of human nature. We are not rational animals sorry Ayn Rand. Only in a rationalist utopia can either pure communist or capitalist ideas flourish. Give us about 10, more years of evolution and personal growth work as a society and we can maybe consider it.
I do feel that both Marxism and Capitalism, for them in order to work, must have some certain assumptions about human nature. And that's where those theorists came to a dead end and knowledge from other fields such as psychology and sociology would come into play. And I find it pretty strange that throughout history, on one side - nature science - maths, physics, chemistry, etc.
Perhaps back in the past, what hindered us humans the most were resources and technologies, and so nature science was the prominent force. Back to Marxism and capitalism, I dug around the comment section of another youtube video feel free to ignore the content of the video itself as the guy didn't know what he was talking about and found someone used an analogy to criticize Marxism as followed for the sake of convenience, the commenter is Frank Von Rassler, let's hope that he wouldn't change his username by the time you want to search for it :.
I use the grades analogy with my leftist Silicon Valley students. I teach at a upper middle class neighborhood high school. I say I will award a C to all, in the name of equality, to every student.
Subscribe to the mailing list
Those that try hardest will have their grades confiscated and their surplus will. Be given to less fortunate students.
- Finding Me:In This Castle Built For Me… finding the unknown is nothing but unexplored serenity!
- :-)-random thoughts-:-).
- The Wordless Travel Book: Point at These Pictures to Communicate with Anyone.
- Safety of Computer Architectures!
- Quay County Sun - Serving the High Plains;
They don't like that a bit. I ask. The answer is usually why even try.
So, I ask what will the people who never try do? They will work even less they answer. And those who usually care about their grades? They will stop at the c level or just completely. What will the overall product of the class be by the end of the year?
Items included in this bundle
A waste of time they respond. At first glance, its reasoning looks pretty good, right? Perhaps, but one thing that I learned from Scott Adams again is that while analogy is good for explaining stuff and persuading people, it can't be used as an argument. And as expected, another guy explained while the analogy fails the guy is Natanael Lizama, he replied to the guy I mentioned above :.
This analogy fails because we are built to work and find meaning in work and being productive NOT in getting grades. People get grades as an artificial part of a system where getting grades is the perceived TOOL for a better life not an actual component of a better life. Work itself is the component for a worthy life.
It's ironic to suggest that people work for money and to think that the most productive class of citizens are the wealthy because it's a contradiction: Wealthy people don't need the money, so why do they work? Because it gives purpose and meaning to them, because they can give to their society and because it's in-built in all cultures. Yet, if on the poor people you remove the need factor people will choose to work in what they are naturally good at and they perceive to be useful, even if it may not make much money because of cultural reasons for example writers have been historically the head of the spear in cultural changes, yet, historically they have also been very poor.
There are poor musicians who create better art than say marketing products of a manufactured consent. You also would then need to explain capitalism to the students and I won't think they would agree, because by definition the product of the work is given to another student. Tell them whether they would like for them to receive the education but the actual education or grades were to be given to another student.
Would they find that fair? The discussion went on for quite some length, Natanael Lizaman repeatedly and successfully countered all the arguments on the other side.
- Rags to Riches?
- Product description?
- We want to help you navigate life..
It was evident that this guy was no ordinary nerd. He understood well enough both Marxism and capitalism to clear all of my doubts. Well, at least that's what I thought, feel free to go see and make your own conclusion. This recalls me of the time when I was taught Marxism in university. I doubt my lecturers back then could even explain as well as that guy.
If only the education system had been better, perhaps I'd have enjoyed university more. And I bet very few people of authority in our country or even in China can actually understand Marxism.