These are the proceedings of the Society of the Second of September, a coalition of independent scientists, engineers, philosophers, and others who meet to discuss issues of economic continuity.

With some debate and allegory, online and over breakfast at Denny’s, we refined a list of the personal attributes of wealth makers. These are not just tasty sponges. They are the people who provide things of use and value to others. They are people of steel and coal, oil, transportation and manufacturing. Where they are at work, everyone gets rich, not just themselves. In general, and with room for much more debate, we perceive that:

• Producers tend not to have hobbies. His work is his hobby.

• They tend to avoid social occasions because they don’t work for most who don’t. One can experiment with ways to soften this statement, to embrace family gatherings, for example, but the intentional behavior of producers is almost always productive. They may seem like slaves, which does not mean that they lack a sense of humor.

• Some aspect of a producer’s character must be focused on family. However, they don’t breed mindlessly, and would probably agree that it’s crazy to breed on this planet. In their defense, people who shy away from parenting today might become enthusiastic about it in hands-and-minds-hungry conditions.

• Their values ​​do not allow them to live at the expense of others. In fact, they would prefer to do the opposite.

• They don’t ask for help, although they can suggest sharing.

• They enjoy making changes and responding to challenges, being explorers. This means growers don’t back down from a calculated risk.

• They don’t play sports or run marathons. Producers “play” at building bridges and boats.

• If they appear in the news it is as creators of something, or as the object of criticism. Right now, producers are under attack by non-producers, including those in labor unions, governments, the media, university humanities departments, and religious and charitable organizations as greedy and uncaring (unsympathetic) capitalists. If you see a glowing article about a business person in a magazine, the subject is probably not a producer.

• They have multiple related skills. If they run an organization, they can do most of the jobs in it.

• In school, if they weren’t homeschooled, producers probably weren’t good students, because they tend to do things their own way.

• They are rational in their approach to problem solving.

• They never abandon their own judgment.

• They recognize their mistakes and learn from them. They never deny reality, they never confuse what should be with what is.

• Producers tend to be financially successful (but not necessarily, and perhaps not obviously).

• They don’t work in universities, at least not for long.

The producers are an endangered species, hence the interest in their identification.

Laura Betzig is not a member of September Two, but she has something to say about the producers and the environment in which they thrive. She is an ethologist (one who studies the biological bases of human behavior) at the University of Michigan. She calls her work “evolutionary psychology” when she blogs for Psychology Today on “The Political Animal” (You Say You Want a Revolution? On Obvious Truths, published July 18, 2010). I once asked him what he thought Thomas Jefferson meant when he said during his inaugural address on March 4, 1801, that the nation had “enough room for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation…” Was Jefferson being An idiot? Probably not.

She this way: “I know Jefferson’s First Inauguration: good stuff. ‘Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating ravages of a quarter of the world; too magnanimous to bear the degradations of others.’ To me , that’s a key lesson of history: those two go together. Many of the founders, for example, in the Madison Notes on the Constitutional Convention, were explicit about that connection. Like Charles Pinckney, who pointed out that we had in the United States United States ‘a greater equality’ than anywhere else, which was likely to last. ‘I say that this equality is likely to continue, because in a new country, possessing vast expanses of wasteland, where all temptations to emigration and where industry must be rewarded with competition (“competition” here means an income large enough to live on), there will be few poor and few d pending'”.

“…few poor and few dependents.” What happened? You know what happened. The Great Frontier (terrestrial) was lost and not renewed with an alien when the opportunity presented itself in the late 1950s and early 1970s. bitter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *