Wow this is a scary point to bring up, but I'm glad someone finally has. I've read numerous articles on this issue but no one has had the nerve to say that the US is a has-been economy. That the days of bountiful growth that followed WWII are unique. The growth curve experienced in that time is not going to be reproducible in the future.
The US was the dominant economy in the 20th century only because, I would argue, it was the only one running in the race who wasn't flat on the track with a sprained ankle. Now that Europe is long done rebuilding itself, and Asian countries have found some post-colonial stability, now that everyone is healthy and ready to race, America finds itself falling behind because it was used to running in a race of one. So how competitive were we ever in the past? We'll never know since a race of one really isn't a race, much less does it count as competition...
Wow that's a very interesting spin on the morality of hacking. Maybe the priest should resign and become the PR person for the hacking community? ;p
I can understand the point made by the priest, but I wonder if he'd say the same about anarchists? Since just about all governments these days are corrupt and unsympathetic towards the plight of their constituency, then you would think the priest would also congratulate those who are philosophically and actively opposed to these un-Godly governments? Except...
All is fine and "Godly" until hackers or anarchists engage in destructive behavior, which is not in line with the teachings of Jesus. This Robin Hood idea of stealing from the rich, or even destroying property because it's owned by "evil", is wrong because both are forms of violence, which Jesus was against for obvious reasons - both acts violate individuals. Whether or not these individuals deserved it or are "evil" is inconsequential: two wrongs don't make a right. So I'm kind of disappointed that this disclaimer wasn't brought up by the priest, if at least towards the end of his comment. There exist more positive ways to combat negative forms of competition or scarcity issues created by ownership of property; violation of individuals doesn't need to be the answer. Although seeing the sketchy and hypocritical history of Catholics, I shouldn't be too disappointed by the omission...
The only reason I agree with this idea is because it'll finally give me access to someone in Microsoft to complain about how much their products suck. I'd call instead if it were only possible to find a phone number and get to speak to someone even though none of my MS gear is under warranty. I know, it's not fair to gripe to a lowly sales person or a customer service rep, and I normally wouldn't be "that person", but their products, in my opinion, have hit a new low of "unacceptable crap" rating.
I recently went to my local mall and saw one of their new stores. It's sad to see how Microsoft has become a phantom of a company. Their store, predictably, was two doors down from the Apple store. It was twice the space as if to show them up and it was laid out in the same way. Like Apple they also used a brand new picture logo, which unlike Apple's, failed to depict anything unique about the identity of Windows.
Microsoft has become a Tully's to the Starbucks: copying instead of contributing to the market something new and revolutionary. It's just sad. I think it's clear due to the diminishing quality of their products and their lack of real creative leadership when it comes to new products, that they really are just a ghost of their former selves. Eastsiders (the folk who live in Microsoft country) consistently seem to prefer Apple stores to the Window's store at a mall just 6 miles down from MS headquarters. That has to be a bad sign. I guess if they can't make it in technology-savvy markets, there's always the technology-backward markets that Microsoft can rely on...
I agree with the points you try to make about the importance of a work/life balance.
I don't come from any kind of start-up background, but I've found that even in regular jobs there is a noticeable productivity cycle that I experience mentally, making the argument for balancing work / life (ie rest).
What I experience is like a life cycle but for my attention span/productivity. I start off fresh, become very creative, critical and able to function at my optimum and then my interest starts to decline. Whenever I would find myself crashing I'd follow my natural instincts and take a break. I'd chat with coworkers or surf the net for something that interested me until I found my interest in these leisure activities start to decline. Then I'd come back to work, refreshed and re-interested. Needless to say that in my department I held the highest amount of workload, I was the most productive and I had by far the best attitude, which was the most important thing of all since those with a bad attitude dragged down everyone else around then, decreasing others' productivity potential, thereby creating compounded productivity problems.
I think this kind of attention-span or mental focus cycle is normal and healthy. It's like our mental microchips over-heat if we dwell on a certain thought train too long. I only wish someone with so-called credentials would "discover" this and bring it to the attention of the human resources corporate-culture gate keepers.
I understand productivity is key in capitalism, but if we're going to make productivity the most important thing, while putting our own human needs aside, then we might as well live in a communist economic system. Whether it's about the "masses" or the "economy" it still all boils down to the same thing: the entity who holds onto the net benefit winds up being the afore mentioned curtains "the masses" or "the economy", not human beings. This inability to enjoy the net benefit is supposedly the reason why we oppose communism as an economic system. And no, stuff is not a net benefit; stuff becomes burdensome due to maintenance needs, gets old and thrown out, and only provides momentary satisfaction anyway. People should ask themselves why China has proven to be the most successful economic power since the birth of capitalism (discounting euro nations & US since they grew only because they siphoned other nation's resources). It's because China fused together two effective resource-allocation systems that are mirror images, complimentary and thus an explosively productive combination: communism and capitalism.
The US was the dominant economy in the 20th century only because, I would argue, it was the only one running in the race who wasn't flat on the track with a sprained ankle. Now that Europe is long done rebuilding itself, and Asian countries have found some post-colonial stability, now that everyone is healthy and ready to race, America finds itself falling behind because it was used to running in a race of one. So how competitive were we ever in the past? We'll never know since a race of one really isn't a race, much less does it count as competition...
We'll see how this race turns out...