nice post fred.

I must admit that I don't really get the "game" aspect to which you refer. I'm really not trying to be dense (I don't have to try).

I've long noticed that our economy is layered in such a manner that many (if not close to a majority) are shielded from the view of how their wealth/income/subsistence (whatever you want to call it) is tied to their productivity.

In a way I think that goes a long way toward explaining the close tie between acedemia and a more liberal viewpoint -- that those in acedemia don't exactly do "piece-work". There is a sort of disconnect between productivity and income. Those who have most "arrived" at the pinnacle(sp) of tenure are notoriously/anecdotally the least "productive" in the business of education.

Add to that masking, the fact that teaching (as a profession) has long had its income level regulated (not "regulated" in the sense of legally, but regulated as one might refer to a "regulator" on a natural gas line -- it evens out the flow) so that the best/most productive among teachers sacrifice much of their natural market value to "protect" the value of the less capable, less productive.

Further, that most in industrial, 1st world countries go to school on a manditory basis -- and therefore often do not make the psychological jump from personal achievement (school's goal) to produtivity (market's goal).

Add to this that in the industrial world a very large number of people don't do what they choose or value for a living -- here, even if they do understand the productivity issue, they care little about the product. I notice this factor because it stands in sharp contrast to my personal experience (I work for myself, I produce a product for which I care deeply, I produce almost the entire value (market considerations aside) myself -- that is, my raw materials are an uncommonly small proportion of the end market price, I also happen to be highly in demand (I have been in the top 3 in sales at 5 of the biggest art fairs in the country for about 8 years now, and I am regularly sold out).

I also understand that the market is unpredictable, fickle, and often less than moral about what it values (again we get back to the "ethical" issue which, by the way, I appreciate your correction on. I did indeed mean it as you said -- I wasn't avoiding the words "ethical" or "immoral" --I just didn't proof-read)......

......I have to go help my wife with Christmas cookies so I can't complete my thought!! (and keep on living).

What I think would be a more valuable exercise than that done here is to choose one "conservative" poster and one "liberal" poster and have each best describe the other side -- then have people judge from that who understands the other's position better -- and perhaps cut through the miscoceptions we allow aurselves to take comfort in.