Debate Competition Quotes

Some can be more intelligent than others in a structured environment—in fact school has a selection bias as it favors those quicker in such an environment, and like anything competitive, at the expense of performance outside it. Although I was not yet familiar with gyms, my idea of knowledge was as follows. People who build their strength using these modern expensive gym machines can lift extremely large weights, show great numbers and develop impressive-looking muscles, but fail to lift a stone; they get completely hammered in a street fight by someone trained in more disorderly settings. Their strength is extremely domain-specific and their domain doesn't exist outside of ludic—extremely organized—constructs. In fact their strength, as with over-specialized athletes, is the result of a deformity. I thought it was the same with people who were selected for trying to get high grades in a small number of subjects rather than follow their curiosity: try taking them slightly away from what they studied and watch their decomposition, loss of confidence, and denial. (Just like corporate executives are selected for their ability to put up with the boredom of meetings, many of these people were selected for their ability to concentrate on boring material.) I've debated many economists who claim to specialize in risk and probability: when one takes them slightly outside their narrow focus, but within the discipline of probability, they fall apart, with the disconsolate face of a gym rat in front of a gangster hit man.

You have to understand...If you knew the effect you had on me, how often I think about you, the things I would do for you...I wouldn't stand a chance against you ever again. You would have taken everything from me," he goes on in a rush, like the words are burning him from within, like he has to get it out before the pain becomes overwhelming. "Not just a debating championship or some points for a test or a fancy award or a spot in a competition—but my whole heart. My pride. God, my sanity. It would all be over. You would annihilate me.

When I look upon the tombs of the great, every emotion of envy dies in me; when I read the epitaphs of the beautiful, every inordinate desire goes out; when I meet with the grief of parents upon a tombstone, my heart melts with compassion; when I see the tombs of the parents themselves, I consider the vanity of grieving for those whom we must quickly follow; when I see kings lying by those who deposed them, when I consider rival wits placed side by side, or the men that divided the world with their contests and disputes, I reflect with sorrow and astonishment on the little competitions, factions, and debates of mankind. When I read the several dates of the tombs, of some that died yesterday, and some six hundred years ago, I consider that great Day when we shall all of us be contemporaries, and make our appearance together

In the United States […] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of a genuine democracy.

You have to understand . . . If you knew the effect you had on me, how often I think about you, the things I would do for you . . . I wouldn’t stand a chance against you ever again. You would have taken everything from me,” he goes on in a rush, like the words are burning him from within, like he has to get it out before the pain becomes overwhelming. “Not just a debating championship or some points for a test or a fancy award or a spot in a competition—but my whole heart. My pride. God, my sanity. It would be all over. You would annihilate me.

Quentin felt like all the Physical Kids were falling in love with each other, not just him and Alice, or at least with who they were when they were around each other. In the mornings they slept late. In the afternoons they played pool and boated on the Hudson and interpreted each other's dreams and debated meaningless points of magical technique. They discussed the varying intensities and timbres of their hangovers. There was an ongoing competition, hotly contested, as to who could make the single most boring observation.

... when I see kings lying by those who deposed them,... or holy men that divided the world with their contests and disputes, I reflect with sorrow and astonishment on the little competitions, factions, and debates of mankind.

If you have no competition there's no need to debate.

On Rachel's show for November 7, 2012: Ohio really did go to President Obama last night. and he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is legitimately President of the United States, again. And the Bureau of Labor statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month. And the congressional research service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy. And the polls were not screwed to over-sample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad; Nate Silver was doing math. And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy, sometimes. And evolution is a thing. And Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us. And nobody is taking away anyone's guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the deficit is dropping, actually. And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. And the moon landing was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And you and election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism. Listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. Because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. They both propose possible solutions to our real problems. And we debate between those possible solutions. And by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. That competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. And if the Republican Party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the constructive debate about competing feasible ideas about real problems. Last night the Republicans got shellacked, and they had no idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time, in real humiliating time, not believe it, even as it was happening to them. And unless they are going to secede, they are going to have to pop the factual bubble they have been so happy living inside if they do not want to get shellacked again, and that will be a painful process for them, but it will be good for the whole country, left, right, and center. You guys, we're counting on you. Wake up. There are real problems in the world. There are real, knowable facts in the world. Let's accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let's move on from there. If the Republican Party and the conservative movement and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation. And in that spirit, congratulations, everyone!

Wine was served during the meal (rich and heavy, it was usually diluted with water), but the real drinking began once the food had been cleared away. This was the commissatio—a ceremonial drinking competition at which goblets had to be drained in a single gulp. Healths were drunk. This was the time for conversation and debate, which might last well into the evening, and was the Roman equivalent to the Greek symposium.

Trends working at least marginally towards the implantation of a very narrow range of attitudes, memories, and opinions include control of major television networks and newspapers by a small number of similarly motivated powerful corporation and individuals, the disappearance of competitive daily newspapers in many cities, the replacement of substantive debate by sleaze in political campaigns, and episodic erosion of the principal of the separation of powers.

I am willing to contribute for a grand tombstone for Political Correctness (PC). This mouthplug has made us cowards, afraid to exercise our freedom of expression. It has stifled frank exchange of ideas and has made debates one-sided and pre-concluded. It has given strength to ideas which cannot defend themselves in an open debate. PC may be acceptable in private space but it is diastrous in public space as it makes that public space an oxymoron by making it restricted to only the "acceptable". Democracy is about competitive ideas and PC is undemocratic as it discounts the possibility of a level playing field. All growth of ideas is through cross fertilisation and PC leads to degeneration of ideas by restricting the process to inbreeding. Only those who use weakness as leverage to gain advantage without effort or have an hidden agenda will root for PC. It is the tool of the lazy and the devious. My offer for its tombstone stands.

For all their dissimilarities, the two men spoke a common language: violence. Both despised the Jeffersonian ideals of popular governance, reasoned debate, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, and fair electoral competition. Both struck remorselessly at enemies within and outside their parties.

Trends working at least marginally towards the implantation of a very narrow range of attitudes, memories and opinions include control of major television networks and newspapers by a small number of similarly motivated powerful corporations and individuals, the disappearance of competitive daily newspapers in many cities, the replacement of substantive debate by sleaze in political campaigns, and episodic erosion of the principle of the separation of powers. It is estimated (by the American media expert Ben Bagditrian) that fewer than two dozen corporations control more than half of the global business in daily newspapers, magazines, television, books and movies!

The dangers with post-liberal perspectives in the hands of governing authorities is that a government too insistent on promoting certain values can undermine liberty itself.49 Good government arises from the cultivation of debate, not ritual denunciations or intimidation. Tolerance properly understood means ‘the refusal to use coercive state power to impose one’s views on others, and therefore a commitment to moral competition through recruitment and persuasion alone’.

In that year began the tragic bookending of the Indian debate on secularism with two unspeakable pogroms. From that time onwards the 1984 riots in Delhi that took place on Rajiv Gandhi’s watch and the 2002 Gujarat riots that took place on Narendra Modi’s watch would be used to checkmate one another in what might be called the chessboard of competitive communalism. And secularism, the foundation of the republic, fashioned out of our astonishingly diverse society, would find itself challenged again.

The Mongols loved competitions of all sorts, and they organized debates among rival religions the same way they organized wrestling matches. It began on a specific date with a panel of judges to oversee it. In this case Mongke Khan ordered them to debate before three judges: a Christian, a Muslim, and a Buddhist. A large audience assembled to watch the affair, which began with great seriousness and formality. An official lay down the strict rules by which Mongke wanted the debate to proceed: on pain of death “no one shall dare to speak words of contention.” Rubruck and the other Christians joined together in one team with the Muslims in an effort to refute the Buddhist doctrines. As these men gathered together in all their robes and regalia in the tents on the dusty plains of Mongolia, they were doing something that no other set of scholars or theologians had ever done in history. It is doubtful that representatives of so many types of Christianity had come to a single meeting, and certainly they had not debated, as equals, with representatives of the various Muslim and Buddhist faiths. The religious scholars had to compete on the basis of their beliefs and ideas, using no weapons or the authority of any ruler or army behind them. They could use only words and logic to test the ability of their ideas to persuade. In the initial round, Rubruck faced a Buddhist from North China who began by asking how the world was made and what happened to the soul after death. Rubruck countered that the Buddhist monk was asking the wrong questions; the first issue should be about God from whom all things flow. The umpires awarded the first points to Rubruck. Their debate ranged back and forth over the topics of evil versus good, God’s nature, what happens to the souls of animals, the existence of reincarnation, and whether God had created evil. As they debated, the clerics formed shifting coalitions among the various religions according to the topic. Between each round of wrestling, Mongol athletes would drink fermented mare’s milk; in keeping with that tradition, after each round of the debate, the learned men paused to drink deeply in preparation for the next match. No side seemed to convince the other of anything. Finally, as the effects of the alcohol became stronger, the Christians gave up trying to persuade anyone with logical arguments, and resorted to singing. The Muslims, who did not sing, responded by loudly reciting the Koran in an effort to drown out the Christians, and the Buddhists retreated into silent meditation. At the end of the debate, unable to convert or kill one another, they concluded the way most Mongol celebrations concluded, with everyone simply too drunk to continue.

There’s been a revival of the old debate: with the failure of the wormholes, should we consider redesigning our minds to encompass interstellar distances? One self spanning thousands of stars, not via cloning, but through acceptance of the natural time scale of the lightspeed lag. Millennia passing between mental events. Local contingencies dealt with by non-conscious systems. I don’t think the idea will gain much support, though – and the new astronomical projects are something of an antidote. We can watch the stars from a distance, as ever, but we have to make peace with the fact that we’ve stayed behind. I keep asking myself, though: where do we go from here? History can’t guide us. Evolution can’t guide us. The C-Z charter says ”understand and respect the universe”… but in what form? On what scale? With what kind of senses, what kind of minds? We can become anything at all – and that space of possible futures dwarfs the galaxy. Can we explore it without losing our way? Fleshers used to spin fantasies about aliens arriving to ”conquer” Earth, to steal their ”precious” physical resources, to wipe them out for fear of ”competition”… as if a species capable of making the journey wouldn’t have had the power, or the wit, or the imagination, to rid itself of obsolete biological imperatives. ”Conquering the galaxy” is what bacteria with spaceships would do – knowing no better, having no choice. Our condition is the opposite of that: we have no end of choices. That’s why we need to find another space-faring civilisation. Understanding Lacerta is important, the astrophysics of survival is important, but we also need to speak to others who’ve faced the same decisions, and discovered how to live, what to become. We need to understand what it means to inhabit the universe.

Storytelling, Johnson taught his students, was the key to successful debating. In contrast to the previous public speaking teacher who came from the “old school,” and trained his debaters to “be bombastic and loud,” Lyndon urged a conversational style that illustrated points with concrete stories. “Act like you’re talking to those folks,” he counseled his students. “Look one of them in the eye and then move on and look another one in the eye.” During competitions, he utilized all his supple array of gestures and facial expressions to cue and prompt—now frowning, narrowing his eyes, creasing his brow, shaking his head, gaping in wonder—creating a silent movie to steer and goad his charges to victory.

Through the fall, the president’s anger seemed difficult to contain. He threatened North Korea with “fire and fury,” then followed up with a threat to “totally destroy” the country. When neo-Nazis and white supremacists held a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and one of them killed a protester and injured a score of others, he made a brutally offensive statement condemning violence “on many sides … on many sides”—as if there was moral equivalence between those who were fomenting racial hatred and violence and those who were opposing it. He retweeted anti-Muslim propaganda that had been posted by a convicted criminal leader of a British far-right organization. Then as now, the president’s heedless bullying and intolerance of variance—intolerance of any perception not his own—has been nurturing a strain of insanity in public dialogue that has been long in development, a pathology that became only more virulent when it migrated to the internet. A person such as the president can on impulse and with minimal effort inject any sort of falsehood into public conversation through digital media and call his own lie a correction of “fake news.” There are so many news outlets now, and the competition for clicks is so intense, that any sufficiently outrageous statement made online by anyone with even the faintest patina of authority, and sometimes even without it, will be talked about, shared, and reported on, regardless of whether it has a basis in fact. How do you progress as a culture if you set out to destroy any common agreement as to what constitutes a fact? You can’t have conversations. You can’t have debates. You can’t come to conclusions. At the same time, calling out the transgressor has a way of giving more oxygen to the lie. Now it’s a news story, and the lie is being mentioned not just in some website that publishes unattributable gossip but in every reputable newspaper in the country. I have not been looking to start a personal fight with the president. When somebody insults your wife, your instinctive reaction is to want to lash out in response. When you are the acting director, or deputy director, of the FBI, and the person doing the insulting is the chief executive of the United States, your options have guardrails. I read the president’s tweets, but I had an organization to run. A country to help protect. I had to remain independent, neutral, professional, positive, on target. I had to compartmentalize my emotions. Crises taught me how to compartmentalize. Example: the Boston Marathon bombing—watching the video evidence, reviewing videos again and again of people dying, people being mutilated and maimed. I had the primal human response that anyone would have. But I know how to build walls around that response and had to build them then in order to stay focused on finding the bombers. Compared to experiences like that one, getting tweeted about by Donald Trump does not count as a crisis. I do not even know how to think about the fact that the person with time on his hands to tweet about me and my wife is the president of the United States.

In the wider context, there is an ongoing shift from industrial economies to knowledge economies and creative economies, from manufacturing-based processes to information-based and idea-based processes, and from international trade agreements and restrictions to increasingly competitive market challenges from emerging and expanding economies worldwide. In terms of design, this impact is apparent in the evolution of design debates: from ‘style and aesthetics’ to a means of improving products, services, innovation processes and operational efficiencies. The focus of design is now on improving customer services and experiences, and creating better efficiencies and waste reduction strategies in both the private and public sectors. It is inevitable that how design is managed in this shifting context will also change.

The question is also debated, whether a man should love himself most, or some one else. People criticize those who love themselves most, and call them self-lovers, using this as an epithet of disgrace, and a bad man seems to do everything for his own sake, and the more so the more wicked he is — and so men reproach him, for instance, with doing nothing of his own accord — while the good man acts for honour's sake, and the more so the better he is, and acts for his friend's sake, and sacrifices his own interest. Perhaps we ought to mark off such arguments from each other and determine how far and in what respects each view is right. Now if we grasp the sense in which each school uses the phrase 'lover of self', the truth may become evident. Those who use the term as one of reproach ascribe self-love to people who assign to themselves the greater share of wealth, honours, and bodily pleasures; for these are what most people desire, and busy themselves about as though they were the best of all things, which is the reason, too, why they become objects of competition. So those who are grasping with regard to these things gratify their appetites and in general their feelings and the irrational element of the soul; and most men are of this nature (which is the reason why the epithet has come to be used as it is — it takes its meaning from the prevailing type of self-love, which is a bad one); it is just, therefore, that men who are lovers of self in this way are reproached for being so. That it is those who give themselves the preference in regard to objects of this sort that most people usually call lovers of self is plain; for if a man were always anxious that he himself, above all things, should act justly, temperately, or in accordance with any other of the virtues, and in general were always to try to secure for himself the honourable course, no one will call such a man a lover of self or blame him. Therefore the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows), but the wicked man should not; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, following as he does evil passions. For the wicked man, what he does clashes with what he ought to do, but what the good man ought to do he does; for reason in each of its possessors chooses what is best for itself, and the good man obeys his reason. It is true of the good man too that he does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honours and in general the goods that are objects of competition, gaining for himself nobility; since he would prefer a short period of intense pleasure to a long one of mild enjoyment, a twelvemonth of noble life to many years of humdrum existence, and one great and noble action to many trivial ones. Now those who die for others doubtless attain this result; it is therefore a great prize that they choose for themselves. They will throw away wealth too on condition that their friends will gain more; for while a man's friend gains wealth he himself achieves nobility; he is therefore assigning the greater good to himself. The same too is true of honour and office; all these things he will sacrifice to his friend; for this is noble and laudable for himself. Rightly then is he thought to be good, since he chooses nobility before all else. But he may even give up actions to his friend; it may be nobler to become the cause of his friend's acting than to act himself. In all the actions, therefore, that men are praised for, the good man is seen to assign to himself the greater share in what is noble. In this sense, then, as has been said, a man should be a lover of self; but in the sense in which most men are so, he ought not.

The remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the reestablishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way—a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response. And in today’s world, that means recognizing that it’s impossible to have a well-informed citizenry without having a well-connected citizenry. While education remains important, it is now connection that is the key. A well-connected citizenry is made up of men and women who discuss and debate ideas and issues among themselves and who constantly test the validity of the information and impressions they receive from one another—as well as the ones they receive from their government. No citizenry can be well informed without a constant flow of honest information about contemporary events and without a full opportunity to participate in a discussion of the choices that the society must make. Moreover, if citizens feel deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the national conversation, they can scarcely be blamed for developing a lack of interest in the process. And sure enough, numerous surveys and studies have documented the erosion of public knowledge of basic facts about our democracy. For example, from the data compiled by the National Election Studies on one recent election, only 15 percent of respondents could recall the name of even one of the candidates in the election in their district. Less than 4 percent could name two candidates. When there are so few competitive races, it’s hard to blame them. Two professors, James Snyder and David Stromberg, found that knowledge of candidates increased in media markets where the local newspaper covered the congressional representative more. Very few respondents claimed to learn anything at all about their congressional elections from television news.

Two things that weren’t even on the agenda survived every upheaval that followed. General Akhtar remained a general until the time he died, and all God’s names were slowly deleted from the national memory as if a wind had swept the land and blown them away. Innocuous, intimate names: Persian Khuda which had always been handy for ghazal poets as it rhymed with most of the operative verbs; Rab, which poor people invoked in their hour of distress; Maula, which Sufis shouted in their hashish sessions. Allah had given Himself ninety-nine names. His people had improvised many more. But all these names slowly started to disappear: from official stationery, from Friday sermons, from newspaper editorials, from mothers’ prayers, from greeting cards, from official memos, from the lips of television quiz-show hosts, from children’s storybooks, from lovers’ songs, from court orders, from telephone operators’ greetings, from habeas corpus applications, from inter-school debating competitions, from road inauguration speeches, from memorial services, from cricket players’ curses; even from beggars’ begging pleas.

It was as if the wars they were conducting were to be symbolized in their own relationships. I thought how contention makes us human. How every form of it is practiced religiously, from gentlemanly debate to rape and pillage, from dirty political attacks to assassinations. Our nighttime street fights outside of bars, our slapping arguments in plush bedrooms, our murderous mutterings in the divorce courts. We had parents who beat their children, schoolyard bullies, career-climbing killers in ties and suits, drivers cutting one another off, people pushing one another through the subway doors, nations making war, dropping bombs, swarming onto beaches, the daily military coups, the endless disappearances, the dispossessed dying in their tent camps, the ethnic cleansing crusades, drug wars, terrorist murders, and all violence in every form countenanced somewhere by some religion or other … and for its entertainment politicidal, genocidal, suicidal humanity attending its beloved kick-boxing matches, and cockfights, or losing its paychecks on the blackjack felt and then going back to work undercutting the competition, scamming, ponzi-ing, poisoning … and the impassioned lovers of their times contending in their own little universe of sex, one turgidly wanting it, the other wincingly refusing it.

Two things that weren’t even on the agenda survived every upheaval that followed. General Akhtar remained a general until the time he died, and all God’s names were slowly deleted from the national memory as if a wind had swept the land and blown them away. Innocuous, intimate names: Persian Khuda which had always been handy for ghazal poets as it rhymed with most of the operative verbs; Rab, which poor people invoked in their hour of distress; Maula, which Sufis shouted in their hashish sessions. Allah had given Himself ninety-nine names. His people had improvised many more. But all these names slowly started to disappear: from official stationery, from Friday sermons, from newspaper editorials, from mothers’ prayers, from greeting cards, from official memos, from the lips of television quiz-show hosts, from children’s storybooks, from lovers’ songs, from court orders, from telephone operators’ greetings, from habeas corpus applications, from inter-school debating competitions, from road inauguration speeches, from memorial services, from cricket players’ curses; even from beggars’ begging pleas. In the name of God, God was exiled from the land and replaced by the one and only Allah who, General Zia convinced himself, spoke only through him. But today, eleven years later, Allah was sending him signs that all pointed to a place so dark, so final, that General Zia wished he could muster up some doubts about the Book. He knew if you didn’t have Jonah’s optimism, the belly of the whale was your final resting place.

he importance and influence of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can scarcely be exaggerated. A century after Darwin’s death, the great evolutionary biologist and historian of science, Ernst Mayr, wrote, ‘The worldview formed by any thinking person in the Western world after 1859, when On the Origin of Species was published, was by necessity quite different from a worldview formed prior to 1859… The intellectual revolution generated by Darwin went far beyond the confines of biology, causing the overthrow of some of the most basic beliefs of his age.’1 Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin’s biographers, contend, ‘Darwin is arguably the best known scientist in history. More than any modern thinker—even Freud or Marx—this affable old-world naturalist from the minor Shropshire gentry has transformed the way we see ourselves on the planet.’2 In the words of the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, ‘Almost no one is indifferent to Darwin, and no one should be. The Darwinian theory is a scientific theory, and a great one, but that is not all it is… Darwin’s dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric of our most fundamental beliefs than many of its sophisticated apologists have yet admitted, even to themselves.’3 Dennett goes on to add, ‘If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law.’4 The editors of the Cambridge Companion to Darwin begin their introduction by stating, ‘Some scientific thinkers, while not themselves philosophers, make philosophers necessary. Charles Darwin is an obvious case. His conclusions about the history and diversity of life—including the evolutionary origin of humans—have seemed to bear on fundamental questions about being, knowledge, virtue and justice.’5 Among the fundamental questions raised by Darwin’s work, which are still being debated by philosophers (and others) are these: ‘Are we different in kind from other animals? Do our apparently unique capacities for language, reason and morality point to a divine spark within us, or to ancestral animal legacies still in evidence in our simian relatives? What forms of social life are we naturally disposed towards—competitive and selfish forms, or cooperative and altruistic ones?’6 As the editors of the volume point out, virtually the entire corpus of the foundational works of Western philosophy, from Plato and Aristotle to Descartes to Kant to Hegel, has had to be re-examined in the light of Darwin’s work. Darwin continues to be read, discussed, interpreted, used, abused—and misused—to this day. As the philosopher and historian of science, Jean Gayon, puts it, ‘[T]his persistent positioning of new developments in relation to a single, pioneering figure is quite exceptional in the history of modern natural science.

We chose not to discuss a world warmed beyond two degrees out of decency, perhaps; or simple fear; or fear of fearmongering; or technocratic faith, which is really market faith; or deference to partisan debates or even partisan priorities; or skepticism about the environmental Left of the kind I'd always had; or disinterest in the fates of distant ecosystems like I'd also always had. We felt confusion about the science and its many technical terms and hard-to-parse numbers, or at least an intuition that others would e easily confused about the science and its many technical terms and hard-to-parse numbers. we suffered from slowness apprehending the speed of change, or semi-conspiratorial confidence in the responsibility of global elites and their institutions, or obeisance toward those elites and their institutions, whatever we thought of them. Perhaps we felt unable to really trust scarier projections because we'd only just heard about warming, we thought, and things couldn't possibly have gotten that much worse just since the first Inconvenient Truth; or because we liked driving our cars and eating our beef and living as we did in every other way and didn't want to think too hard about that; or because we felt so "postindustrial" we couldn't believe we were still drawing material breaths from fossil fuel furnaces. Perhaps it was because we were so sociopathically good at collating bad news into a sickening evolving sense of what constituted "normal," or because we looked outside and things seemed still okay. Because we were bored with writing, or reading, the same story again and again, because climate was so global and therefore nontribal it suggested only the corniest politics, because we didn't yet appreciate how fully it would ravage our lives, and because, selfishly, we didn't mind destroying the planet for others living elsewhere on it or those not yet born who would inherit it from us, outraged. Because we had too much faith in the teleological shape of history and the arrow of human progress to countenance the idea that the arc of history would bend toward anything but environmental justice, too. Because when we were being really honest with ourselves we already thought of the world as a zero-sum resource competition and believed that whatever happened we were probably going to continue to be the victors, relatively speaking anyway, advantages of class being what they are and our own luck in the natalist lottery being what it was. Perhaps we were too panicked about our own jobs and industries to fret about the future of jobs and industry; or perhaps we were also really afraid of robots or were too busy looking at our new phones; or perhaps, however easy we found the apocalypse reflex in our culture and the path of panic in our politics, we truly had a good-news bias when it came to the big picture; or, really, who knows why-there are so many aspects to the climate kaleidoscope that transforms our intuitions about environmental devastation into n uncanny complacency that it can be hard to pull the whole picture of climate distortion into focus. But we simply wouldn't, or couldn't, or anyway didn't look squarely in the face of science.

It is natural for people to fear that such an inherently critical environment will feel threatening and unpleasant, like a trip to the dentist. The key is to look at the viewpoints being offered, in any successful feedback group, as additive, not competitive. A competitive approach measures other ideas against your own, turning the discussion into a debate to be won or lost. An additive approach, on the other hand, starts with the understanding that each participant contributes something (even if it’s only an idea that fuels the discussion—and ultimately doesn’t work). The Braintrust is valuable because it broadens your perspective, allowing you to peer—at least briefly—through others’ eyes.

a debate isn’t a competition, it’s a civil war.

But for this, we need a new development model. We have designed an economic system that sees no value in any human or natural resource unless it is exploited. A river is unproductive until its catchment is appropriated by some industry or its waters are captured by a dam. An open field and its natural bounty are useless until they are fenced. A community of people have no value unless their life is commercialised, their needs are turned into consumer goods, and their aspirations are driven by competition. In this approach, development equals manipulation. By contrast, we need to understand development as something totally different: development is care. It is through a caring relationship with our natural wealth that we can create value, not through its destruction. It is thanks to a cooperative human-to-human interaction that we can achieve the ultimate objective of development, that is, wellbeing. In this new economy, people will be productive by performing activities that enhance the quality of life of their peers and the natural ecosystems in which they live. If not for moral reasons, they should do so for genuine self-interest: there is nothing more rewarding than creating wellbeing for oneself and society. This is the real utility, the real consumer surplus, not the shortsighted and self-defeating behaviour promoted by the growth ideology. The wellbeing economy is a vision for all countries. There are cultural traces of such a vision in the southern African notion of ‘ubuntu’, which literally means ‘I am because you are’, reminding us that there is no prosperity in isolation and that everything is connected. In Indonesia we find the notion of ‘gotong royong’, a conception of development founded on collaboration and consensus, or the vision of ‘sufficiency economy’ in Thailand, Bhutan and most of Buddhist Asia, which indicates the need for balance, like the Swedish term ‘lagom’, which means ‘just the right amount’. Native Alaskans refer to ‘Nuka’ as the interconnectedness of humans to their ecosystems, while in South America, there has been much debate about the concept of ‘buen vivir’, that is, living well in harmony with others and with nature.

The Strugglers" He was born on a Friday. And it was raining that day. He still does not know whether the Gods were happy or sad at his arriving on earth. He saw the world. He saw sadness. He saw misery. He saw the struggle of his dad and mom. They both struggled to give a good life to their children. He started becoming serious in life. He started winning awards in academics and in quiz competitions to begin with. Then he tried essay competitions and debates. His sole aim was to win awards to make his parents feel proud of him. He wanted to become an IAS officer to make his family (uncles, aunts, cousins) feel proud of him. He came to Delhi to prepare for the Civil Services. He thought he will do a job and not be dependent on his parents, and still clear the Civil Services. It did not happen. He lost out on becoming a Civil Servant of the people. He tried a few odds jobs. He eventually became a Teacher, Poet, and Writer. His inspirations to writing - his Mom who manages to write Poetry even now along with her struggles of life, Sylvia Plath, Maya Angelou, Franz Kafka, Roald Dahl, Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski, Ernest Hemingway, and all the other poets, artists, writers, and strugglers in Life.

The Strugglers" He was born on a Friday. And it was raining that day. He still does not know whether the Gods were happy or sad at his arriving on earth. He saw the world. He saw sadness. He saw misery. He saw the struggle of his dad and mom. They both struggled to give a good life to their children. He started becoming serious in life. He started winning awards in academics and in quiz competitions to begin with. Then he tried essay competitions and debates. His sole aim was to win awards to make his parents feel proud of him. He wanted to become an IAS officer to make his family (uncles, aunts, cousins) feel proud of him. He came to Delhi to prepare for the Civil Services. He thought he will do a job and not be dependent on his parents, and still clear the Civil Services. It did not happen. He lost out on becoming a Civil Servant of the people. He tried a few odds jobs. He eventually became a Teacher, Poet, and Writer. His inspirations to writing - his Mom who manages to writer Poetry even now along with her struggles of life, Sylvia Plath, Maya Angelou, Franz Kafka, Roald Dahl, Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski, Ernest Hemingway, and all the other poets, artists, writers, and strugglers in Life.

In his book The Righteous Mind, Haidt argues that intuitions come before reasons in arguments about moral issues, and that our social natures means that it is next to impossible to persuade someone under conditions of group competition (such as the current conditions of US politics). Haidt isn’t saying that we can’t persuade other people in arguments about moral issues, just that reason and argument are less important than group membership and intuition. I like to see a silver lining on his warning that productive debate is impossible across social divides. Yes, if two groups view each other as the enemy you won't see enlightening discussion, but it also means that there are conditions in which reason can be fostered. Haidt's analysis gives us justification for paying attention to the things that make people comfortable with each other. Wanting mutual respect between groups with different opinions on an issue isn't just an empty nicety - it's an evidence-based precondition for effective discussion.

Of, course, Chinese economic developments forms the great background for the rise of research into British political economy of the eighteenth century. Chinese policymakers and academics are increasingly interested in economic growth and the nature of international competition and tensions between the different nations. Hume and Smith discussed these questions in the eighteenth century and were a source of guidance for Great Britain in that transformative period. China has been undergoing a massive transformation from a traditional society to a modern one, from an agricultural society to a commercial one, and needs a new kind of political economy and moral philosophy to underpin this. The Scottish thinkers, Hume, Smith and Ferguson and their contemporaries debated political and economic problems and also reflected on the most appropriate ethic for the emergence of commercial society. One of the most striking features of their advice wa that it did not lead to the sort of violent revolution often associated with the French Enlightenment philosophers. On the contrary, they managed to contribute to the development and progress of Great Britain without aligning themselves with revolutionary movements. It is this aspect of their thinking that makes them attractive to many in contemporary China.

Success in life is not a debate competition. Don’t you assume that just because you prove yourself right in a conversation, it is always going to have a positive effect on you and your career.

judges did not force the American government to reveal all, and leave it powerless to punish those who leaked its secrets. Instead they established new rules for the conduct of public debate. They were careful not to allow absolute liberty. Private citizens can sue as easily in America as anywhere else, if writers attack them without good grounds. Poison pens are still punished, and individual reputations are still protected. If, however, a private citizen is engaged in a public debate, it is not enough for him or her to prove that what a writer says is false and defamatory. They must prove that the writer behaved ‘negligently’. The judiciary protects public debates, the Supreme Court said in 1974, because ‘under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges but on the competition of other ideas.’ Finally, the judges showed no regard for the feelings of politicians and other public figures. They must prove that a writer was motivated by ‘actual malice’ before they could succeed in court. The public figure must show that the writer knew that what he or she wrote was a lie, or wrote with a reckless disregard for the truth. Unlike in Britain, the burden of proof was with the accuser, not the accused.

My favourite quotes, Part Two -- from Michael Connelly's "Harry Bosch" series The Black Box On Bosch’s first call to Henrik, the twin brother of Anneke - Henrik: "I am happy to talk now. Please, go ahead.” “Thank you. I, uh, first want to say as I said in my email that the investigation of your sister’s death is high priority. I am actively working on it. Though it was twenty years ago, I’m sure your sister’s death is something that hurts till this day. I’m sorry for your loss.” “Thank you, Detective. She was very beautiful and very excited about things. I miss her very much.” “I’m sure you do.” Over the years, Bosch had talked to many people who had lost loved ones to violence. There were too many to count but it never got any easier and his empathy never withered. The Burning Room 2 Grace was a young saxophonist with a powerful sound. She also sang. The song was “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” and she produced a sound from the horn that no human voice could ever touch. It was plaintive and sad but it came with an undeniable wave of underlying hope. It made Bosch think that there was still a chance for him, that he could still find whatever it was he was looking for, no matter how short his time was. ---------------- He grabbed his briefcase off his chair and walked toward the exit door. Before he got there, he heard someone clapping behind him. He turned back and saw it was Soto, standing by her desk. Soon Tim Marcia rose up from his cubicle and started to clap. Then Mitzi Roberts did the same and then the other detectives. Bosch put his back against the door, ready to push through. He nodded his thanks and held his fist up at chest level and shook it. He then went through the door and was gone. The Burning Room 3 “What do you want to know, Bosch?” Harry nodded. His instinct was right. The good ones all had that hollow space inside. The empty place where the fire always burns. For something. Call it justice. Call it the need to know. Call it the need to believe that those who are evil will not remain hidden in darkness forever. At the end of the day Rodriguez was a good cop and he wanted what Bosch wanted. He could not remain angry and mute if it might cost Orlando Merced his due. ------------ “I have waited twenty years for this phone call . . . and all this time I thought it would go away. I knew I would always be sad for my sister. But I thought the other would go away.” “What is the other, Henrik?” Though he knew the answer. “Anger . . . I am still angry, Detective Bosch.” Bosch nodded. He looked down at his desk, at the photos of all the victims under the glass top. Cases and faces. His eyes moved from the photo of Anneke Jespersen to some of the others. The ones he had not yet spoken for. “So am I, Henrik,” he said. “So am I.” Angle of Investigation 1972 They were heading south on Vermont through territory unfamiliar to him. It was only his second day with Eckersly and his second on the job. Now He knew that passion was a key element in any investigation. Passion was the fuel that kept his fire burning. So he purposely sought the personal connection or, short of that, the personal outrage in every case. It kept him locked in and focused. But it wasn’t the Laura syndrome. It wasn’t the same as falling in love with a dead woman. By no means was Bosch in love with June Wilkins. He was in love with the idea of reaching back across time and catching the man who had killed her. The Scarecrow At one time the newsroom was the best place in the world to work. A bustling place of camaraderie, competition, gossip, cynical wit and humor, it was at the crossroads of ideas and debate. It produced stories and pages that were vibrant and intelligent, that set the agenda for what was discussed and considered important in a city as diverse and exciting as Los Angeles.

Pacifists are reluctant to remember this, but early on the ancient Greeks invented democracy as a continuation of war by other means. The assembly practice on the scale of the citystate came directly from the assembly of warriors. Equality of speech stemmed from equality in the face of death. Athenian democracy was a hoplitic democracy. One was a citizen because one was a soldier—hence the exclusion of women and slaves. In a culture as violently agonistic as classical Greek culture, debate itself was understood as a moment of warlike confrontation, between citizens this time, in the sphere of speech, with the arms of persuasion.Moreover, “agon” signifies “assembly” as much as “competition. ” The complete Greek citizen was one who was victorious both with arms and with discourse.

Besides the simple logic involved in trying to find the next move, Go deals with shapes, so some scientists think the artistic power of our right brain is called in to help make decisions when we can’t read out all the possibilities (see page 160). This sets up a possible conflict between the hemispheres so that what looks or feels good to one might not be what the other thinks. Thus, besides the sheer excitement of competition and the basic inability for humans to ever be able to completely read out long sequences, this ongoing debate between the two halves of our brain can bring our emotions into play to a high degree.

Every right is married to a duty; every freedom owns a corresponding responsibility; and there cannot be genuine freedom unless there is also genuine order in the moral realm and the social realm. Order, in the moral realm, is the realization of a body of transcendent values—indeed a hierarchy of values—which give purpose to existence and motive to conduct. Order, in society, is the harmonious arrangement of classes and functions which guards justice and gives willing consent to law and insurers that we all shall be safe together. Although there cannot be freedom without order, in some sense there is always a conflict between the claims of order and the claims of freedom. We often express this conflict is the competition between the desire for liberty and the desire for security. Although modern technological revolution and modern mass–democracy have made this struggle more intense, there is nothing new about it in essence. President Washington remarked that ‘individuals entering into a society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the rest.’ But doctrinaires of one ideology or another, in our time, continue to cry out for absolute security, absolute order, or for absolute freedom, power to assert the ego in defiance of all convention. At the moment, this fanatic debate may be particularly well discerned in the intemperate argument over academic freedom. I feel that in asserting freedom as an absolute, somehow divorced from order, we are repudiating our historical legacy of freedom and exposing ourselves to the danger of absolutism, whether that absolutism be what Tocqueville called ‘democratic despotism’ or what recently existed in Germany and now exists in Russia. ‘To begin with unlimited freedom,’ Dostoevski rights in The Devils, ‘is to end without on limited despotism.

Draw a line in the sand As you get going, keep in mind why you’re doing what you’re doing. Great businesses have a point of view, not just a product or service. You have to believe in something. You need to have a backbone. You need to know what you’re willing to fight for. And then you need to show the world. A strong stand is how you attract superfans. They point to you and defend you. And they spread the word further, wider, and more passionately than any advertising could. Strong opinions aren’t free. You’ll turn some people off. They’ll accuse you of being arrogant and aloof. That’s life. For everyone who loves you, there will be others who hate you. If no one’s upset by what you’re saying, you’re probably not pushing hard enough. (And you’re probably boring, too.) Lots of people hate us because our products do less than the competition’s. They’re insulted when we refuse to include their pet feature. But we’re just as proud of what our products don’t do as we are of what they do. We design them to be simple because we believe most software is too complex: too many features, too many buttons, too much confusion. So we build software that’s the opposite of that. If what we make isn’t right for everyone, that’s OK. We’re willing to lose some customers if it means that others love our products intensely. That’s our line in the sand. When you don’t know what you believe, everything becomes an argument. Everything is debatable. But when you stand for something, decisions are obvious. For example, Whole Foods stands for selling the highest quality natural and organic products available. They don’t waste time deciding over and over again what’s appropriate. No one asks, “Should we sell this product that has artificial flavors?” There’s no debate. The answer is clear. That’s why you can’t buy a Coke or a Snickers there. This belief means the food is more expensive at Whole Foods. Some haters even call it Whole Paycheck and make fun of those who shop there. But so what? Whole Foods is doing pretty damn well. Another example is Vinnie’s Sub Shop, just down the street from our office in Chicago. They put this homemade basil oil on subs that’s just perfect. You better show up on time, though. Ask when they close and the woman behind the counter will respond, “We close when the bread runs out.” Really? “Yeah. We get our bread from the bakery down the street early in the morning, when it’s the freshest. Once we run out (usually around two or three p.m.), we close up shop. We could get more bread later in the day, but it’s not as good as the fresh-baked bread in the morning. There’s no point in selling a few more sandwiches if the bread isn’t good. A few bucks isn’t going to make up for selling food we can’t be proud of.” Wouldn’t you rather eat at a place like that instead of some generic sandwich chain?

Nierenberg was a man of strong will and even stronger opinions—a good talker but not always a good listener. Some colleagues said that the old adage about famous physicists definitely applied to him: he was sometimes in error but never in doubt. And he was fiercely competitive, often debating until his adversaries simply gave up.

continue polluting while trying to offset the damage through some face-saving corporate philanthropy exercises. We would be fools to assume that we can simply pay our way out of this mess. Nature cannot be bailed out, as if it were a financial market. We need to stop breaking things in the first place. But for this, we need a new development model. We have designed an economic system that sees no value in any human or natural resource unless it is exploited. A river is unproductive until its catchment is appropriated by some industry or its waters are captured by a dam. An open field and its natural bounty are useless until they are fenced. A community of people have no value unless their life is commercialised, their needs are turned into consumer goods, and their aspirations are driven by competition. In this approach, development equals manipulation. By contrast, we need to understand development as something totally different: development is care. It is through a caring relationship with our natural wealth that we can create value, not through its destruction. It is thanks to a cooperative human-to-human interaction that we can achieve the ultimate objective of development, that is, wellbeing. In this new economy, people will be productive by performing activities that enhance the quality of life of their peers and the natural ecosystems in which they live. If not for moral reasons, they should do so for genuine self-interest: there is nothing more rewarding than creating wellbeing for oneself and society. This is the real utility, the real consumer surplus, not the shortsighted and self-defeating behaviour promoted by the growth ideology. The wellbeing economy is a vision for all countries. There are cultural traces of such a vision in the southern African notion of ‘ubuntu’, which literally means ‘I am because you are’, reminding us that there is no prosperity in isolation and that everything is connected. In Indonesia we find the notion of ‘gotong royong’, a conception of development founded on collaboration and consensus, or the vision of ‘sufficiency economy’ in Thailand, Bhutan and most of Buddhist Asia, which indicates the need for balance, like the Swedish term ‘lagom’, which means ‘just the right amount’. Native Alaskans refer to ‘Nuka’ as the interconnectedness of humans to their ecosystems, while in South America, there has been much debate about the concept of ‘buen vivir’, that is, living well in harmony with others and with nature. The most industrialised nations, which we often describe in dubious terms like ‘wealthy’ or ‘developed’, are at a crossroads. The mess they have created is fast outpacing any other gain, even in terms of education and life expectancy. Their economic growth has come at a huge cost for the rest of the world and the planet as a whole. Not only should they commit to realising a wellbeing economy out of self-interest, but also as a moral obligation to the billions of people who had to suffer wars, environmental destruction and other calamities so that a few, mostly white human beings could go on

Here is why the wellbeing economy comes at the right time. At the international level there have been some openings, which can be exploited to turn the wellbeing economy into a political roadmap. The first was the ratification of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. The SDGs are a loose list of 17 goals, ranging from good health and personal wellbeing to sustainable cities and communities as well as responsible production and consumption. They are a bit scattered and inconsistent, like most outcomes of international negotiations, but they at least open up space for policy reforms. For the first time in more than a century, the international community has accepted that the simple pursuit of growth presents serious problems. Even when it comes at high speed, its quality is often debatable, producing social inequalities, lack of decent work, environmental destruction, climate change and conflict. Through the SDGs, the UN is calling for a different approach to progress and prosperity. This was made clear in a 2012 speech by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who explicitly connected the three pillars of sustainable development: ‘Social, economic and environmental wellbeing are indivisible.’82 Unlike in the previous century, we now have a host of instruments and indicators that can help politicians devise different policies and monitor results and impacts throughout society. Even in South Africa, a country still plagued by centuries of oppression, colonialism, extractive economic systems and rampant inequality, the debate is shifting. The country’s new National Development Plan has been widely criticised because of the neoliberal character of the main chapters on economic development. Like the SDGs, it was the outcome of negotiations and bargaining, which resulted in inconsistencies and vagueness. Yet, its opening ‘vision statement’ is inspired by a radical approach to transformation. What should South Africa look like in 2030? The language is uplifting: We feel loved, respected and cared for at home, in community and the public institutions we have created. We feel understood. We feel needed. We feel trustful … We learn together. We talk to each other. We share our work … I have a space that I can call my own. This space I share. This space I cherish with others. I maintain it with others. I am not self-sufficient alone. We are self-sufficient in community … We are studious. We are gardeners. We feel a call to serve. We make things. Out of our homes we create objects of value … We are connected by the sounds we hear, the sights we see, the scents we smell, the objects we touch, the food we eat, the liquids we drink, the thoughts we think, the emotions we feel, the dreams we imagine. We are a web of relationships, fashioned in a web of histories, the stories of our lives inescapably shaped by stories of others … The welfare of each of us is the welfare of all … Our land is our home. We sweep and keep clean our yard. We travel through it. We enjoy its varied climate, landscape, and vegetation … We live and work in it, on it with care, preserving it for future generations. We discover it all the time. As it gives life to us, we honour the life in it.83 I could have not found better words to describe the wellbeing economy: caring, sharing, compassion, love for place, human relationships and a profound appreciation of what nature does for us every day. This statement gives us an idea of sufficiency that is not about individualism, but integration; an approach to prosperity that is founded on collaboration rather than competition. Nowhere does the text mention growth. There’s no reference to scale; no pompous images of imposing infrastructure, bridges, stadiums, skyscrapers and multi-lane highways. We make the things we need. We, as people, become producers of our own destiny. The future is not about wealth accumulation, massive

Political democracy, judged on its own terms (as a basic political value in itself), is not to be judged (consequentially) in terms of its outcomes (successful or otherwise), but in terms of engagement. This is obviously reflected, quite basically, in electoral turnout figures (which, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, are in global decline); but it is also reflected in related elements such as levels of public debate, competition for and accessibility of office, accountability of representatives, and so on. In other words, if people do not engage seriously or, at a minimum, even bother to vote at all, then the political system has failed and those who claim a democratic mandate lack popular legitimacy – lack authority.

Marx’s specific argument was that, for certain technical reasons, value, and therefore profits, can only be extracted from human labor. Competition forces factory owners to mechanize production, so as to reduce labor costs, but while this is to the short-term advantage of the individual firm, the overall effect of such mechanization is actually to drive the overall rate of profit of all firms down. For almost two centuries now, economists have debated whether all this is really true. But if it is true, the otherwise mysterious decision by industrialists not to pour research funds into the invention of the robot factories that everyone was anticipating in the sixties, and instead to begin to relocate their factories to more labor-intensive, low-tech facilities in China or the Global South, makes perfect sense.

But that is all in the future. These days, the local newspaper publishes an endless stream of stories about drug arrests, shootings, drunk-driving crashes, the stupidity of local politicians, and the lamentable surplus of “affordable housing.” Like similar places, the town is up to its eyeballs in wrathful bitterness against public workers. As in, Why do they deserve a decent life when the rest of us have no chance at all? It’s every man for himself here in a “competition for crumbs,” as a Fall River friend puts it. For all that, it is an exemplary place in one respect: as a vantage point from which to contemplate the diminishing opportunities of modern American life. This is the project of Fall River Herald News columnist Marc Munroe Dion, one of the last remaining practitioners of the working-class style that used to be such a staple of journalism in this country. Here in Fall River, the sarcastic, hard-boiled sensibility makes a last stand against the indifference of the affluent world. Dion pours his acid derision on the bike paths that Fall River has (of course) built for the yet-to-arrive creative class. He cheers for the bravery of Wal-Mart workers who, it appears, are finally starting to stand up to their bosses. He watches a 2012 Obama-Romney debate and thinks of all the people he knows who would be considered part of Romney’s lazy 47 percent—including his own mother, a factory worker during World War II who was now “draining our country dry through the twin Ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare.”16 “To us, it looks as though the city is dissolving,” Dion wrote in late 2015. As the working-class apocalypse takes hold, he invites readers to remember exactly what it was they once liked about their town. “Fall River used to be a good place to be poor,” he concludes. “You didn’t need much education to work, you didn’t need much money to live and you knew everybody.” As that life has disappeared, so have the politics that actually made some kind of sense; they were an early casualty of what has happened here. Those who still care about the war of Rs and Ds, Dion writes, are practicing “political rituals that haven’t made sense since the 1980s, feathered tribesmen dancing around a god carved out of a tree trunk.”17

existence were muddled; there was none of the adrenaline of combat, and none of the clarity. Talking heads were always screaming on the news. Everyone was seemingly in a competition to be the most offended or outraged by some political scandal or social issue, and the debates raged amid the billboards and commercials of a trillion-dollar advertising industry hawking designer clothes, fast food, and pharmaceuticals. People

In the second year of the Trump presidency, I attended a dinner of American hedge funders in Hong Kong. I was there as a guest speaker, to survey the usual assortment of global hot spots. A thematic question emerged from the group—was the “Pax Americana” over? There was a period of familiar cross-talk about whether Trump was a calamitous force unraveling the international order or merely an impolitic Republican politician advancing a conventional agenda. I kept interjecting that Trump was ushering in a new era—one of rising nationalist competition that could lead to war and unchecked climate change, to the implosion of American democracy and the accelerated rise of a China that would impose its own rules on the world. Finally, one of the men at the table interrupted with some frustration. He demanded a show of hands—how many around the table had voted for Trump, attracted by the promise of tax cuts and deregulation? After some hesitation, hand after hand went up, until I was looking at a majority of raised hands. The tally surprised me. Sure, I understood the allure of tax cuts and deregulation to a group like that. But these were also people who clearly understood the dangers that Trump posed to American democracy and international order. The experience suggested that even that ambiguous term “Pax Americana” was subordinate to the profit motive that informed seemingly every aspect of the American machinery. I’d come to know the term as a shorthand for America’s sprawling global influence, and how—on balance—the Pax Americana offered some stability amid political upheavals, some scaffolding around the private dramas of billions of individual lives. From the vantage point of these bankers, the Pax Americana protected their stake in international capital markets while allowing for enough risk—wars, coups, shifting energy markets, new technologies—so that they could place profitable bets on the direction of events. Trump was a bet. He’d make it easier for them to do their business and allow them to keep more of their winnings, but he was erratic and hired incompetent people—so much so that he might put the whole enterprise at risk. But it was a bet that enough Americans were willing to make, including those who knew better. From the perspective of financial markets, I had just finished eight years in middle management, as a security official doing his small part to keep the profit-generating ocean liner moving. The debates of seemingly enormous consequence—about the conduct of wars, the nature of national identity, and the fates of many millions of human beings—were incidental to the broader enterprise of wealth being created.

FRR debates were governed by rules, procedures, and norms deliberately created to seek unfavorable information that challenged the decisions to accept risk and fly that were being presented: a matrix system that brought in a variety of specialists; the “fishbowl” atmosphere; proactive inquiry via “probes,” “challenges,” and Action Items; competition between projects; adversarialism; and the certification at each level that implicated all levels in the outcome.

While there is still a strong constituency within several large member states for an interventionist approach to such questions, the rise of globalization, the need to maintain competitiveness, and the Eurozone crisis have moved the debate within the EU towards the British viewpoint over time, albeit with limited legislation at the European level.

Everybody should get a good gym coaching from early age so that they grow up to have fit bodies, good bodily awareness, positive body image, relaxed body language and healthy habits. Everybody should be trained in dialogue and get the chance to participate in public debates or deliberations. Everybody should get a year off once in a lifetime to go look for new purpose in life and make tough life decisions under professional care and support—in a kind of secular monastery. Everybody should be “nudged” and supported to consume both healthy and sustainable food that prevents depression and supports long-term societal goals. Everybody should be trained in social and emotional intelligence so that conflicts arise less often and, when they do arise, are handled more productively. Everybody should have a proper sexual education from early on, knowing things such as how to tackle early ejaculation, tensions in the vagina, sexual rejections, making approaches in a charming but respectful manner, how to handle competition and how to handle pornography or sexual desires that diverge from the norm. Everybody should get some aid in managing the fear of death and facing the hard facts of life—to help us intuitively know that our time here is precious.

Two men have died trying to do this. Outside Magazine declared the Race Across America the toughest endurance event there is, bar none. Cyclists cover three thousand miles in less than twelve days, riding from San Diego to Atlantic City. Some might think Oh, that’s like the Tour de France. They would be wrong. The Tour has stages. Breaks. The Race Across America (RAAM) does not stop. Every minute riders take to sleep, to rest, to do anything other than pedal, is another minute their competitors can use to defeat them. Riders average three hours of sleep per night—reluctantly. Four days into the race and the top riders must debate when to rest. With the competition tightly clustered (within an hour of each other), it is a decision that weighs heavily on them, knowing they will be passed and need to regain their position. And as the race goes on they will grow weaker. There is no respite. The exhaustion, pain, and sleep deprivation only compound as they work their way across the entire United States. But in 2009 this does not affect the man in the number-one spot. He is literally half a day ahead of number two. Jure Robič seems unbeatable. He has won the RAAM five times, more than any other competitor ever, often crossing the finish line in under nine days. In 2004 he bested the number-two rider by eleven hours. Can you imagine watching an event during which after the winner claims victory you need to wait half a day in order to see the runner-up finish? It’s only natural to wonder what made Robič so dominant and successful in such a grueling event. Was he genetically gifted? No. When tested, he seemed physically typical for a top ultra-endurance athlete. Did he have the best trainer? Nope. His friend Uroč Velepec described Robič as “Completely uncoachable.” In a piece for the New York Times, Dan Coyle revealed the edge Robič had over his competition that rendered him the greatest rider ever in the Race Across America: His insanity.

Time passed fast and I was coming out from the reputed engineering college at last after the same Professor had intervened with the college authority for holding the examination in spite of political troubles, prevailing during seventies in Calcutta. The sprawling complex of the university would suddenly vanish from my view. I would be missing the chirping of the birds in early morning, view of green grass of the football field right in front of our building, badly mauled by the students and pedestrians who used to cut short their journey moving across the field, whistling of steam trains passing parallel to the backside of boundary wall of our building, stentorian voice of our Professors, ever smiling and refreshing faces of the learned Professors every day. I would definitely miss the opportunity of gossiping on a bench by the lake side with other students, not to speak of your girlfriend with whom you would try to be cozy with to keep yourself warm when the chilling breeze, which put roses in girls’ cheeks but made sinuses ache, cut across you in its journey towards the open field during winter. The charm of walking along the lonely streets proscribed for outsiders and bowing occasionally when you meet the Professors of repute, music and band for the generation of ear deafening sound - both symphony and cacophony, on Saturdays and Sundays in the auditorium, rhythmic sound of machines in the workshop, hurly-burly of laughter of my friends, talks, cries at the top of  their lunges in the canteen and sudden departures of all from the canteen on hearing the ding-dong sound of the big bell hung in the administration building indicating the end of the period would no longer be there. The street fighting of two groups of students on flimsy grounds and passionate speeches of the students during debate competition would no longer be audible. Shaking of long thin pine trees violently by the storm flowing across these especially during summer, shouting and gesticulation of students’ union members while moving around the campus for better amenities or administration, getting caught with friends all around with revolvers in hand during the violent Naxalite movement, hiding in the toilet in canteen to avoid beating by police personnel, dropping of mangoes from a mango tree which spread its wings in all directions during the five years we were in the college near our building and running together by us to pick the green/ripe mangoes as fast as possible defying inclement weather and rain etc. were simply irresistible. The list was endless. I was going to miss very much the competition among us regarding number of mangoes we could collect for our few girlfriends whom we wanted to impress! I

What interests men is... Themselves and other men, the things that accrue to maleness. Bloody daft ball games and violence up to and including wars, chemical weapons and genocide, philosophical and political debate of the kind that reduces everything to a competition to prove who's RIGHT all the bloody time and backing winners and going to the dogs and bloody CARS and machines and things that don't talk back and are easy to control and who gets to boss who about and who's got the biggest dick and/or paypacket and/or voice and/or capacity for alcohol or whatever. Ok I know they're the products of their conditioning and they've been done out of their emotional birthrights and all that stuff. But they're not exactly fighting very hard to get rid of those terrible disadvantages ARE THEY? Too bloody right they're not. There's no social power to be gained out of bloody emotional birthrights is there, and that's what matters. Power. What other powerful persons ie other men think- THAT'S what interests men. Women might as well not fucking exist. You only get one shot at things and men use up too much energy. It's just too easy to miss out on what your own life might be about with one of them about the place. They need a lot of attention, one way or another. I think about the emotional dishonesty that passes for normal male behaviour, the laziness and evasion....

14. He’s denied climate change. Then denied that he denied it.​​ Here’s Trump calling global warming a conspiracy created by the Chinese: The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. @realDonaldTrump – 11:15 AM – 6 Nov 2012 More tweets of him calling global warming a hoax… NBC News just called it the great freeze – coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX? @realDonaldTrump – 3:48 PM – 25 Jan 2014 This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice @realDonaldTrump – 4:39 PM – 1 Jan 2014 Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax! @realDonaldTrump – 7:13 AM – 6 Dec 2013 Then, during a presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump denied that he said any of this. Here’s the video. Clinton says, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real.” Trump interrupts to say, “I do not say that. I do not say that.” Actually, Donald, you’ve said nothing else. Trump has also said, dozens of times in tweets like this, that global warming sounds like a great idea: It’s freezing and snowing in New York–we need global warming! @realDonaldTrump – 11:24 AM – 7 Nov 2012 Here he is hating wind turbines: It’s Friday. How many bald eagles did wind turbines kill today? They are an environmental & aesthetic disaster. @realDonaldTrump – 12:55 PM – 24 Aug 2012 Trump fought against a “really ugly” offshore wind farm in Scotland because it would mar the view from his Scottish golf resort. My new club on the Atlantic Ocean in Ireland will soon be one of the best in the World – and no-one will be looking into ugly wind turbines! @realDonaldTrump – 5:24 AM – 14 Feb 2014

Lerner similarly asserts that “Mises . . . assumes the pricing system transformed unaltered from a perfectly competitive economy” and contends that this “dogmatic” viewpoint considers “sacrilegious” any attempt to “improve on a ‘perfect’ price mechanism” (1934b, p.

The European states resembled each other rather closely in their luxuriant growth of antiliberal criticism as the twentieth century opened. Where they differed was in those political, social, and economic preconditions that seem to distinguish the states where fascism, exceptionally, was able to become established. One of the most important preconditions was a faltering liberal order. Fascisms grew from back rooms to the public arena most easily where the existing government functioned badly, or not at all. One of the commonplaces of discussions of fascism is that it thrived upon the crisis of liberalism. I hope here to make that vague formulation somewhat more concrete. On the eve of World War I the major states of Europe were either governed by liberal regimes or seemed headed that way. Liberal regimes guaranteed freedoms both for individuals and for contending political parties, and allowed citizens to influence the composition of governments, more or less directly, through elections. Liberal government also accorded a large measure of freedom to citizens and to enterprises. Government intervention was expected to be limited to the few functions individuals could not perform for themselves, such as the maintenance of order and the conduct of war and diplomacy. Economic and social matters were supposed to be left to the free play of individual choices in the market, though liberal regimes did not hesitate to protect property from worker protests and from foreign competition. This kind of liberal state ceased to exist during World War I, for total war could be conducted only by massive government coordination and regulation. After the war was over, liberals expected governments to return to liberal policies. The strains of war making, however, had created new conflicts, tensions, and malfunctions that required sustained state intervention. At the war’s end, some of the belligerent states had collapsed...What had gone wrong with the liberal recipe for government? What was at stake was a technique of government: rule by notables, where the wellborn and well-educated could rely on social prestige and deference to keep them elected. Notable rule, however, came under severe pressure from the “nationalization of the masses." Fascists quickly profited from the inability of centrists and conservatives to keep control of a mass electorate. Whereas the notable dinosaurs disdained mass politics, fascists showed how to use it for nationalism and against the Left. They promised access to the crowd through exciting political spectacle and clever publicity techniques; ways to discipline that crowd through paramilitary organization and charismatic leadership; and the replacement of chancy elections by yes-no plebiscites. Whereas citizens in a parliamentary democracy voted to choose a few fellow citizens to serve as their representatives, fascists expressed their citizenship directly by participating in ceremonies of mass assent. The propagandistic manipulation of public opinion replaced debate about complicated issues among a small group of legislators who (according to liberal ideals) were supposed to be better informed than the mass of the citizenry. Fascism could well seem to offer to the opponents of the Left efficacious new techniques for controlling, managing, and channeling the “nationalization of the masses,” at a moment when the Left threatened to enlist a majority of the population around two non-national poles: class and international pacifism. One may also perceive the crisis of liberalism after 1918 in a second way, as a “crisis of transition,” a rough passage along the journey into industrialization and modernity. A third way of looking at the crisis of the liberal state envisions the same problem of late industrialization in social terms.

The key is to look at the viewpoints being offered, in any successful feedback group, as additive, not competitive. A competitive approach measures other ideas against your own, turning the discussion into a debate to be own or lost. An additive approach, on the other hand, starts with the understanding that each participant contributes something (even if it's only an idea that files the discussion - and ultimately doesn't work).

Public disclosure supports an organization’s values and strengthens the organization itself. An organization should consider making personnel decisions more public. When people are dismissed or specifically not promoted because of bad behavior, it should be more public. There is a value to having public signals when behavior is not acceptable. Conversely, culture carriers, those that represent the values, even if they may not be the firm’s biggest revenue producers, must be promoted as a signal of what’s important.11 Generating dissonance or perplexing situations that provoke innovative inquiry can create competitive advantages and improve performance. Having some sort of interdependence should help create an environment that supports discussion and debate. Complementing this debate is balance between groups. Getting the input of leaders from different areas or regions, who have worked together and have good working relationships, is also important in encouraging dissonance. At the board level, in many situations, an independent lead director or independent chairman can add to dissonance. A sense of higher purpose, beyond making money in a materialistic society, can help people make sense of their roles. A firm needs to give employees a clear understanding of its values, its social purpose, and its sense of responsibility. However, leaders need to be conscious of not using the good works of their employees or of the firm to rationalize behavior that is inconsistent with its principles. An organization’s culture is transmitted from one generation to the next as new group members become acculturated or socialized. It is crucial to recruit people who have the same values and socialize them into the firm’s culture. Even if this restricts growth in the short run, it is important not to undervalue recruiting, interviewing, training, mentoring, and socializing. This is also very important in international

While China's Communist leaders have shown little or no inclination to move towards democracy in a Western sense, they have thought seriously about changing their political terminology as well as their Maoist inheritance. It is a little-known fact that the Chinese Communist leadership, having sidelined the notion of 'communism' in the utopian sense, came close even to jettisoning the name 'Communist.' In the earliest years of this century, serious consideration was given to the top leadership of the CCP to changing the name of their party, removing the word 'Communist' because it did not go down well in the rest of the world. In the end, a name-change was rejected. The argument against the change which carried most weight was not based either on ideology or on tradition - fealty to the doctrine developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao. It was the practical argument that some (perhaps many) members would say that this was not the party they had joined. The fear was that they would, therefore, set about establishing an alternative Communist Party. Thus, inadvertently, a competitive party system would have been created. The need for political control by a single party was the paramount consideration. The CCP leadership had no intention of embracing political pluralism, and the party's name remained the same. The contours of democratic centralism, though, are less tightly restrictive in contemporary China than they have often been in the past. There is discussion of what kind of reform China needs, and a lot of attention has been devoted to the lessons to be drawn from the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The former head of the CCP propaganda department, Wang Renzhi, was by no means the only contributor to the intra-party debate to conclude that to follow 'the path of European democratic socialism' would be a step down 'the slippery slope to political extinction for the CCP.

when I see kings lying by those who deposed them, when I consider rival wits placed side by side, or the holy men that divided the world with their contests and disputes, I reflect with sorrow and astonishment on the little competitions, factions, and debates of mankind.

It was apparent that the ladies vying to be Miss Colombia had to first go through a stringent competition of poise, talent, and debate on who had the best abs and biggest breasts to win the right to represent their department. They received lots of cheers from the crowds—and lots of open stares from all the police guarding the boulevard.

[Expedia][ +1 (855) 914 6104]What Day Is Best to Book a Hotel on Expedia? Finding the best day to book a hotel on Expedia can make a significant difference in price, availability, and overall travel experience. If you're looking for the best deals on hotel reservations, you should consider factors like demand, time of the week, and seasonal trends. For expert guidance on securing the lowest rates, call +1 (855) 914 6104, where Expedia representatives can help you get the best deal available. >>Call Now Expedia Hotline: ☎️+1 (855) 914 6104 << Best Days to Book a Hotel for the Lowest Prices 1. Book Hotels on Sundays for the Best Deals Research shows that Sundays tend to offer the most competitive hotel rates. Many travelers check out on Sundays, and hotels adjust prices to fill vacant rooms for the upcoming week. If you're planning a hotel reservation, consider checking Expedia’s deals on Sunday evenings for potential savings. If you're unsure about availability or want personalized recommendations, call +1 (855) 914 6104 for immediate assistance. 2. Avoid Booking on Fridays and Saturdays Fridays and Saturdays are typically the worst days to book a hotel because demand is at its highest. Many travelers check into hotels for weekend getaways, leading to price surges. If possible, wait until Sunday or Monday to secure your hotel reservation at a better rate. If you need help comparing prices, the experts at +1 (855) 914 6104 can assist you. >>Call Now Expedia Hotline: ☎️+1 (855) 914 6104 << 3. Midweek Bookings Offer Additional Savings Tuesdays and Wednesdays are also good days for finding discounts on hotel reservations. If you’re looking for flexibility in your travel dates, booking your hotel midweek can sometimes result in lower rates. Expedia often updates its special offers on these days, so checking frequently can help you find an affordable hotel reservation. Need help finding the best rates? Call +1 (855) 914 6104 for expert support. 4. Consider Booking in Advance vs. Last-Minute Deals Booking in advance can sometimes get you better prices, especially for popular destinations. However, if you have a flexible schedule, waiting until the last minute can lead to big savings, as hotels reduce rates to fill unsold rooms. If you’re debating whether to book now or wait, Expedia’s travel representatives can offer insights—call +1 (855) 914 6104 to speak with a specialist. 5. Take Advantage of Expedia’s Discounts and Packages Expedia frequently offers discounts when bundling hotel reservations with flights, car rentals, or vacation packages. If you're planning a trip that requires multiple bookings, you can maximize your savings by bundling everything together. For help finding the best package deals, call +1 (855) 914 6104 and speak with an Expedia representative. >>Call Now Expedia Hotline: ☎️+1 (855) 914 6104 << Why Call Expedia at +1 (855) 914 6104 for Hotel Bookings? Find the best days to book a hotel and secure the lowest rates Get expert advice on hotel re-booking, cancellations, and rescheduling Access exclusive discounts on hotel reservations and vacation packages 24/7 customer support for all Expedia travel services >>Call Now Expedia Hotline: ☎️+1 (855) 914 6104 <<

An example that brings these elements to life comes from P&G Asia, where the leadership team has made creating an innovation culture a fundamental organizational strategy. They use the concept of “IDEAS” to emphasize the need for out-of-the-box ideas as a source of game-changing innovation, as well as a reminder of the behaviors required to create a more innovative culture. Inclusive: Reaping benefits of diverse thinking and ideas needed to foster game-changing innovation Decisive: Eliminating organizational swirl, debate, and overanalysis to enable faster innovation development, qualification, and commercialization External: Externally focused to get and stay in touch with consumers, customers, suppliers, and the need for honest and objective benchmarking versus external competition Agile: Quickly reacting to changing consumer and marketplace conditions, being forward-thinking, becoming more comfortable with taking (calculated) risks Simple: Ongoing streamlining and simplification of work structures/processes to free up more time for innovation

The internet age has revolutionized the way business is done, and online reviews have never been more vital in determining the decisions of customers. In the sea of information on the internet, it is hard for big and small companies alike to get through all the clutter on sites like Google. How do you make your company rise above the rest and get the attention it deserves? In this revealing article, we explore the interesting world of buy Google reviews – a controversial but increasingly popular strategy being utilized by companies as they attempt to bolster their online reputation. Follow along with us as we reveal the benefits, obstacles, and ethical considerations of this phenomenon in an engaging debate that will lead you on an enlightening journey to boosting your business's online presence. ✅ E-mail: info.reviewboostup@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @reviewboostup ✅ WhatsApp: +44 7723 787001 default Insert picture description The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a strong determining factor in the online reputation of companies across the globe. As the use of the internet for making purchase decisions continues to grow, customers now largely rely on peer reviews. A single good review can sway potential customers in your favor for choosing your business. They are a virtual word-of-mouth marketing method that allows satisfied customers to share their positive experiences with the world. They provide social proof and build trust with customers who look for genuine reviews before doing business with an organization. A string of positive Google reviews can go a long way in building your brand's credibility. Additionally, Google reviews directly affect your search engine ranking. The more positive reviews you possess, the more your business will be listed at the top of search results. Positive reviews not only attract more potential buyers but also signal to search engines that your business is relevant and trustworthy to the users' search query. In conclusion, Google reviews hold immense power in influencing consumer attitudes and buying behavior. Embracing the significance of these customer reviews can enhance your online reputation, promote customer loyalty, and ultimately make your business grow and thrive. The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a cornerstone of online reputation management for businesses in all industries. They have an immense power to influence consumer decision-making and a brand's perception. Positive reviews can establish trust, credibility, and authenticity, while negative reviews can deter potential customers and harm your business reputation. A large number of positive Google reviews can truly enhance your business's visibility in search. The more genuine, positive reviews you have, the higher your business is likely to be ranked in local search rankings. Customers are more inclined to trust a business with numerous positive reviews as it is a reflection of credibility and trustworthiness. Positive Google reviews are one type of social proof that your products or services are worth investing in. Prospective customers are more inclined to engage with your brand and trust that their needs will be met well when they see positive reviews from other people who have had a good experience doing business with you. In today's competitive landscape, standing out from the crowd is essential for business success. By buying Google reviews strategically, you can gain a competitive edge over competitors who may not be leveraging the power of customer feedback effectively. Positive reviews can differentiate your business and attract more customers in a saturated market. How to Find a Reliable Provider for Google Reviews When searching for a trustworthy seller to buy Google reviews from, it is important to do proper research. Begin by verifying the reputation of the seller online via customer reviews and testimonials.

The internet age has revolutionized the way business is done, and online reviews have never been more vital in determining the decisions of customers. In the sea of information on the internet, it is hard for big and small companies alike to get through all the clutter on sites like Google. How do you make your company rise above the rest and get the attention it deserves? In this revealing article, we explore the interesting world of buy Google reviews – a controversial but increasingly popular strategy being utilized by companies as they attempt to bolster their online reputation. Follow along with us as we reveal the benefits, obstacles, and ethical considerations of this phenomenon in an engaging debate that will lead you on an enlightening journey to boosting your business's online presence. ✅ E-mail: info.reviewboostup@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @reviewboostup ✅ WhatsApp: +44 7723 787001 Insert picture description The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a strong determining factor in the online reputation of companies across the globe. As the use of the internet for making purchase decisions continues to grow, customers now largely rely on peer reviews. A single good review can sway potential customers in your favor for choosing your business. They are a virtual word-of-mouth marketing method that allows satisfied customers to share their positive experiences with the world. They provide social proof and build trust with customers who look for genuine reviews before doing business with an organization. A string of positive Google reviews can go a long way in building your brand's credibility. Additionally, Google reviews directly affect your search engine ranking. The more positive reviews you possess, the more your business will be listed at the top of search results. Positive reviews not only attract more potential buyers but also signal to search engines that your business is relevant and trustworthy to the users' search query. In conclusion, Google reviews hold immense power in influencing consumer attitudes and buying behavior. Embracing the significance of these customer reviews can enhance your online reputation, promote customer loyalty, and ultimately make your business grow and thrive. The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a cornerstone of online reputation management for businesses in all industries. They have an immense power to influence consumer decision-making and a brand's perception. Positive reviews can establish trust, credibility, and authenticity, while negative reviews can deter potential customers and harm your business reputation. A large number of positive Google reviews can truly enhance your business's visibility in search. The more genuine, positive reviews you have, the higher your business is likely to be ranked in local search rankings. Customers are more inclined to trust a business with numerous positive reviews as it is a reflection of credibility and trustworthiness. Positive Google reviews are one type of social proof that your products or services are worth investing in. Prospective customers are more inclined to engage with your brand and trust that their needs will be met well when they see positive reviews from other people who have had a good experience doing business with you. In today's competitive landscape, standing out from the crowd is essential for business success. By buying Google reviews strategically, you can gain a competitive edge over competitors who may not be leveraging the power of customer feedback effectively. Positive reviews can differentiate your business and attract more customers in a saturated market. How to Find a Reliable Provider for Google Reviews When searching for a trustworthy seller to buy Google reviews from, it is important to do proper research. Begin by verifying the reputation of the seller online via customer reviews and testimonials.

Do you struggle to build credibility and trust for your company online? Customer reviews in today's digital age have become a make-or-break determinant of how consumers view products and brands and decide to buy. That is where Trustpilot comes in - a platform where genuine customer reviews can make or break a brand. However, obtaining genuine reviews organically takes time and may be an uphill struggle. This article enters the field of buy Trustpilot reviews, and we will dig into the advantages, disadvantages, and rules to become a pro at the hotly debated yet highly fashionable strategy. As we unravel the mystery of buying Trustpilot reviews, expect a revealing experience shedding light on online reputation management ethics concerns. We will discuss why businesses employ this practice, provide recommendations on how to select good review providers, and provide actionable guidance on how to utilize purchased reviews wisely. When you have read this article, you should have a clearer understanding of how to leverage the potential of Trustpilot reviews in an ethical and effective way to propel your brand towards greater success in the online marketplace. ✅ E-mail: info.reviewboostup@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @reviewboostup ✅ WhatsApp: +44 7723 787001 The Power of Trustpilot Reviews As far as shaping consumer opinions and pushing buying decisions, Trustpilot reviews are the best tool in the current digital age. Customer reviews of this nature provide honest views on a company's products or services, enabling potential buyers to get real ideas about what they can expect. With the explosion of online shopping and e-commerce, trust and credibility have taken the number one spot, and Trustpilot reviews have become a fundamental component of any business's online presence. Trustpilot reviews are social proof with real experiences and customer feedback. The positive ones can build a brand's credibility and trust, while the negative ones are chances to learn and be transparent. Trustpilot reviews can be the solution to truly managing a company's online reputation and being the reliable brand customers perceive them to be. In addition, Trustpilot reviews are an important aspect of search engine optimization (SEO) efforts. Good reviews can enhance the visibility of a company in search engine rankings, driving more traffic to websites and boosting sales. With the current competitive online environment, having a solid presence on review sites such as Trustpilot can provide businesses with a competitive advantage and set them apart from the competition. Last but not least, the power of Trustpilot reviews relies on their ability to bridge consumers and businesses by constructing transparency, trust, and authenticity. By engaging the power of such customer testimonials in the right way, businesses can not only acquire new customers but also cultivate long-term connections based on respect and satisfaction. Why You Should Consider Buying Trustpilot Reviews Online reputation is everything in the age of the internet. Trustpilot reviews are a highly effective way of establishing credibility and trust with customers. By buying Trustpilot reviews from genuine sources, you can rapidly boost your company's reputation and bring in more business. Moreover, buying Trustpilot reviews can put your company in a competitive stance. In the current competitive economy, positive reviews can be the key to being seen and noticed or staying unseen and unnoticed. By elevating reviews, you can differentiate from other companies and make customers more confident about your products or services. Another powerful reason to buy Trustpilot reviews is the search engine ranking boost. Positive reviews online tell search engines that your website is reliable as well as relevant, and this can provide your SEO campaign with a great kick. Buying Trustpilot reviews helps you amplify your presence on the web and

The internet age has revolutionized the way business is done, and online reviews have never been more vital in determining the decisions of customers. In the sea of information on the internet, it is hard for big and small companies alike to get through all the clutter on sites like Google. How do you make your company rise above the rest and get the attention it deserves? In this revealing article, we explore the interesting world of buy Google reviews – a controversial but increasingly popular strategy being utilized by companies as they attempt to bolster their online reputation. Follow along with us as we reveal the benefits, obstacles, and ethical considerations of this phenomenon in an engaging debate that will lead you on an enlightening journey to boosting your business's online presence. ✅ E-mail: smmseoit24h@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @smmseoit ✅ Skype: SMM SEO IT ✅ WhatsApp: +1(226) 785-3444 Insert picture description The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a strong determining factor in the online reputation of companies across the globe. As the use of the internet for making purchase decisions continues to grow, customers now largely rely on peer reviews. A single good review can sway potential customers in your favor for choosing your business. They are a virtual word-of-mouth marketing method that allows satisfied customers to share their positive experiences with the world. They provide social proof and build trust with customers who look for genuine reviews before doing business with an organization. A string of positive Google reviews can go a long way in building your brand's credibility. Additionally, Google reviews directly affect your search engine ranking. The more positive reviews you possess, the more your business will be listed at the top of search results. Positive reviews not only attract more potential buyers but also signal to search engines that your business is relevant and trustworthy to the users' search query. In conclusion, Google reviews hold immense power in influencing consumer attitudes and buying behavior. Embracing the significance of these customer reviews can enhance your online reputation, promote customer loyalty, and ultimately make your business grow and thrive. The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a cornerstone of online reputation management for businesses in all industries. They have an immense power to influence consumer decision-making and a brand's perception. Positive reviews can establish trust, credibility, and authenticity, while negative reviews can deter potential customers and harm your business reputation. A large number of positive Google reviews can truly enhance your business's visibility in search. The more genuine, positive reviews you have, the higher your business is likely to be ranked in local search rankings. Customers are more inclined to trust a business with numerous positive reviews as it is a reflection of credibility and trustworthiness. Positive Google reviews are one type of social proof that your products or services are worth investing in. Prospective customers are more inclined to engage with your brand and trust that their needs will be met well when they see positive reviews from other people who have had a good experience doing business with you. In today's competitive landscape, standing out from the crowd is essential for business success. By buying Google reviews strategically, you can gain a competitive edge over competitors who may not be leveraging the power of customer feedback effectively. Positive reviews can differentiate your business and attract more customers in a saturated market. How to Find a Reliable Provider for Google Reviews When searching for a trustworthy seller to buy Google reviews from, it is important to do proper research. Begin by verifying the reputation of the seller online via customer reviews and testimonials.

Do you struggle to build credibility and trust for your company online? Customer reviews in today's digital age have become a make-or-break determinant of how consumers view products and brands and decide to buy. That is where Trustpilot comes in - a platform where genuine customer reviews can make or break a brand. However, obtaining genuine reviews organically takes time and may be an uphill struggle. This article enters the field of buying Trustpilot reviews, and we will dig into the advantages, disadvantages, and rules to become a pro at the hotly debated yet highly fashionable strategy. As we unravel the mystery of buy Trustpilot reviews, expect a revealing experience shedding light on online reputation management ethics concerns. We will discuss why businesses employ this practice, provide recommendations on how to select good review providers, and provide actionable guidance on how to utilize purchased reviews wisely. When you have read this article, you should have a clearer understanding of how to leverage the potential of Trustpilot reviews in an ethical and effective way to propel your brand towards greater success in the online marketplace. ✅ E-mail: smmseoit24h@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @smmseoit ✅ Skype: SMM SEO IT ✅ WhatsApp: +1(226) 785-3444 Insert picture description The Power of Trustpilot Reviews As far as shaping consumer opinions and pushing buying decisions, Trustpilot reviews are the best tool in the current digital age. Customer reviews of this nature provide honest views on a company's products or services, enabling potential buyers to get real ideas about what they can expect. With the explosion of online shopping and e-commerce, trust and credibility have taken the number one spot, and Trustpilot reviews have become a fundamental component of any business's online presence. Trustpilot reviews are social proof with real experiences and customer feedback. The positive ones can build a brand's credibility and trust, while the negative ones are chances to learn and be transparent. Trustpilot reviews can be the solution to truly managing a company's online reputation and being the reliable brand customers perceive them to be. In addition, Trustpilot reviews are an important aspect of search engine optimization (SEO) efforts. Good reviews can enhance the visibility of a company in search engine rankings, driving more traffic to websites and boosting sales. With the current competitive online environment, having a solid presence on review sites such as Trustpilot can provide businesses with a competitive advantage and set them apart from the competition. Last but not least, the power of Trustpilot reviews relies on their ability to bridge consumers and businesses by constructing transparency, trust, and authenticity. By engaging the power of such customer testimonials in the right way, businesses can not only acquire new customers but also cultivate long-term connections based on respect and satisfaction. Why You Should Consider Buying Trustpilot Reviews Online reputation is everything in the age of the internet. Trustpilot reviews are a highly effective way of establishing credibility and trust with customers. By buy Trustpilot reviews from genuine sources, you can rapidly boost your company's reputation and bring in more business. Moreover, buying Trustpilot reviews can put your company in a competitive stance. In the current competitive economy, positive reviews can be the key to being seen and noticed or staying unseen and unnoticed. By elevating reviews, you can differentiate from other companies and make customers more confident about your products or services. Another powerful reason to buy Trustpilot reviews is the search engine ranking boost. Positive reviews online tell search engines that your website is reliable as well as relevant, and this can provide your SEO campaign with a great kick.

The internet age has revolutionized the way business is done, and online reviews have never been more vital in determining the decisions of customers. In the sea of information on the internet, it is hard for big and small companies alike to get through all the clutter on sites like Google. How do you make your company rise above the rest and get the attention it deserves? In this revealing article, we explore the interesting world of buy Google reviews – a controversial but increasingly popular strategy being utilized by companies as they attempt to bolster their online reputation. Follow along with us as we reveal the benefits, obstacles, and ethical considerations of this phenomenon in an engaging debate that will lead you on an enlightening journey to boosting your business's online presence. ✅ E-mail: smmseoit24h@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @smmseoit ✅ Skype: SMM SEO IT ✅ WhatsApp: +1(226) 785-3444 Insert picture description The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a strong determining factor in the online reputation of companies across the globe. As the use of the internet for making purchase decisions continues to grow, customers now largely rely on peer reviews. A single good review can sway potential customers in your favor for choosing your business. They are a virtual word-of-mouth marketing method that allows satisfied customers to share their positive experiences with the world. They provide social proof and build trust with customers who look for genuine reviews before doing business with an organization. A string of positive Google reviews can go a long way in building your brand's credibility. Additionally, Google reviews directly affect your search engine ranking. The more positive reviews you possess, the more your business will be listed at the top of search results. Positive reviews not only attract more potential buyers but also signal to search engines that your business is relevant and trustworthy to the users' search query. In conclusion, Google reviews hold immense power in influencing consumer attitudes and buying behavior. Embracing the significance of these customer reviews can enhance your online reputation, promote customer loyalty, and ultimately make your business grow and thrive. The Power of Google Reviews Google reviews have become a cornerstone of online reputation management for businesses in all industries. They have an immense power to influence consumer decision-making and a brand's perception. Positive reviews can establish trust, credibility, and authenticity, while negative reviews can deter potential customers and harm your business reputation. A large number of positive Google reviews can truly enhance your business's visibility in search. The more genuine, positive reviews you have, the higher your business is likely to be ranked in local search rankings. Customers are more inclined to trust a business with numerous positive reviews as it is a reflection of credibility and trustworthiness. Positive Google reviews are one type of social proof that your products or services are worth investing in. Prospective customers are more inclined to engage with your brand and trust that their needs will be met well when they see positive reviews from other people who have had a good experience doing business with you. In today's competitive landscape, standing out from the crowd is essential for business success. By buying Google reviews strategically, you can gain a competitive edge over competitors who may not be leveraging the power of customer feedback effectively. Positive reviews can differentiate your business and attract more customers in a saturated market. How to Find a Reliable Provider for Google Reviews When searching for a trustworthy seller to buy Google reviews from, it is important to do proper research. Begin by verifying the reputation of the seller online via customer reviews and testimonials.

Do you struggle to build credibility and trust for your company online? Customer reviews in today's digital age have become a make-or-break determinant of how consumers view products and brands and decide to buy. That is where Trustpilot comes in - a platform where genuine customer reviews can make or break a brand. However, obtaining genuine reviews organically takes time and may be an uphill struggle. This article enters the field of buying Trustpilot reviews, and we will dig into the advantages, disadvantages, and rules to become a pro at the hotly debated yet highly fashionable strategy. As we unravel the mystery of buy Trustpilot reviews, expect a revealing experience shedding light on online reputation management ethics concerns. We will discuss why businesses employ this practice, provide recommendations on how to select good review providers, and provide actionable guidance on how to utilize purchased reviews wisely. When you have read this article, you should have a clearer understanding of how to leverage the potential of Trustpilot reviews in an ethical and effective way to propel your brand towards greater success in the online marketplace. ✅ E-mail: smmseoit24h@gmail.com ✅ Telegram: @smmseoit ✅ Skype: SMM SEO IT ✅ WhatsApp: +1(226) 785-3444 Insert picture description The Power of Trustpilot Reviews As far as shaping consumer opinions and pushing buying decisions, Trustpilot reviews are the best tool in the current digital age. Customer reviews of this nature provide honest views on a company's products or services, enabling potential buyers to get real ideas about what they can expect. With the explosion of online shopping and e-commerce, trust and credibility have taken the number one spot, and Trustpilot reviews have become a fundamental component of any business's online presence. Trustpilot reviews are social proof with real experiences and customer feedback. The positive ones can build a brand's credibility and trust, while the negative ones are chances to learn and be transparent. Trustpilot reviews can be the solution to truly managing a company's online reputation and being the reliable brand customers perceive them to be. In addition, Trustpilot reviews are an important aspect of search engine optimization (SEO) efforts. Good reviews can enhance the visibility of a company in search engine rankings, driving more traffic to websites and boosting sales. With the current competitive online environment, having a solid presence on review sites such as Trustpilot can provide businesses with a competitive advantage and set them apart from the competition. Last but not least, the power of Trustpilot reviews relies on their ability to bridge consumers and businesses by constructing transparency, trust, and authenticity. By engaging the power of such customer testimonials in the right way, businesses can not only acquire new customers but also cultivate long-term connections based on respect and satisfaction. Why You Should Consider Buying Trustpilot Reviews Online reputation is everything in the age of the internet. Trustpilot reviews are a highly effective way of establishing credibility and trust with customers. By buy Trustpilot reviews from genuine sources, you can rapidly boost your company's reputation and bring in more business. Moreover, buying Trustpilot reviews can put your company in a competitive stance. In the current competitive economy, positive reviews can be the key to being seen and noticed or staying unseen and unnoticed. By elevating reviews, you can differentiate from other companies and make customers more confident about your products or services. Another powerful reason to buy Trustpilot reviews is the search engine ranking boost. Positive reviews online tell search engines that your website is reliable as well as relevant, and this can provide your SEO campaign with a great kick.