Vishwanathan Anand:”in USA if you want to impress people with your sports, you have to show that you have a higher first prize”

All elite sportspersons earn a lot of money and, of course, they work hard for it. Recently I saw this movie called Pawns Sacrifice and Bobby Fischer has one dialogue that “Money is of extreme importance.”

dc-Cover-g92udb9d36l1mk7ncnvhea5u34-20171230060516.Medi

Vishwanathan Anand: Bobby Fischer really opened the door for chess and he was the first player who really saw that money in sports was not just about earning your next meal for living. He though money was a proxy for your worth in the society. He thought such probably because he was from the US, because in USA if you want to impress people with your sports, you have to show that you have a higher first prize. Their first question tends to be ‘What’s going to be the first prize?’ It’s the way they compare, because obviously you won’t know about every person’s walk of life, but you will know how much they earn. Bobby Fischer saw it very clear, so his initial demands were seen as very confrontational, but it was probably because nobody saw it that way till that time, because what he demanded became a routine for players like rest of us and that’s how many players recall him. He changed the sport for the better of others

Source :  https://www.news18.com/news/other-sports/interview-the-ever-dominating-viswanathan-anand-isnt-done-yet-1178799.html

Leo Babauta :”even in good times, people spend too much”

Q : Do you think [financial problems are] essential for people to finally realize the consequences of [materialism]?
59f09d196eb33e000175bb41_Leo-Babauta-Zen-habits-under30experiences-live-different-podcast
Leo Babauta : I think financial problems highlight the underlying problems of excessive consumerism, so yes, that does tend to help. But it’s not necessary — even in good times, people spend too much and then spend too much time working, to end up with a bunch of worthless possessions (and often too much fat as a result of consumerism). If they can see, by the shining example of minimalists, that by letting go of all of that you can work less, be happier, have time for what’s important, be healthier, reduce your impact on the environment … maybe they’ll join us. I definitely think that leading by example, and starting a community-wide discussion on these important issues, is the way to start this movement.
Leo babauta is the author of many books, which can be buy from the links given below.

 

Bill Forsyth: “people in authority making purely emotional decisions instead of interesting rational ones”

Q- Hollywood isn’t eager to finance your work?

15forsyth_CA1-articleLarge

Bill Forsyth– Financiers are suspicious because I work in low-budget. It’s easier for me to get three times the amount of money I really want. If you ask for relatively little money, they worry that you are going to get involved in something that is unwatchable or, worse, unmarketable. Unmarketable is a much more worrying term for them because if they can find an angle to make something unwatchable marketable, they’ll do it every week.

The studio system reminds me of the stock market. People think the stock market is a place of levelheadedness but it actually works in a totally emotional way: the President gets a pimple on his nose, and the thing plummets. The movie business is very much like that: people in authority making purely emotional decisions instead of interesting rational ones.

http://www.geraldpeary.com/interviews/def/forsyth.html

 

 

Noam Chomsky : capitalism is a tiny period of human society.

Q: One of the main arguments used against socialism is that human nature is by definition selfish and competitive, and hence is only conducive to capitalism. How would you respond?

maxresdefault

image source: internet

Chomsky : Bear in mind that capitalism is a tiny period of human society. We never really had capitalism, we always had one or another variant of state capitalism. The reason is capitalism would self-destruct in no time. So the business classes have always demanded strong state intervention to protect the society from the destructive effect of market forces. It’s often business that it’s in the lead, because they don’t want everything destroyed.

So we’ve had one or another form of state capitalism during an extremely brief period of human history, and it tells us essentially nothing about human nature. If you look at human societies and human interactions, you can find anything. You find selfishness, you find altruism, you find sympathy.

Let’s take Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism — what did he think? He thought the main human instinct was sympathy. In fact, take a look at the word “invisible hand.” Take a look at the actual way in which he used the phrase. Actually, it’s not hard to find out, because he only used it twice in any relevant sense, once in each of his two major books.

In his one major book, The Wealth of Nations, the phrase appears once, and it appears in what amounts to a critique of neoliberal globalization. What he says is that, if in England, the manufacturers and merchants invested abroad and imported from abroad, they might benefit, but it would be harmful to England. But their commitment to their home country is sufficient, so they are unlikely to do this and therefore, by an invisible hand, England will be saved from the impact of what we call neoliberal globalization. That’s one use.

The other use is in his other major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which people don’t read much, but for him it was the major book). Here he is an egalitarian, he believed in equality of outcome, not opportunity. He is an Enlightenment figure, pre-capitalist.

He says, suppose in England, one landowner got most of the land and other people would have nothing to live on. He says it wouldn’t matter much, because the rich landowner, by virtue of his sympathy for other people would distribute resources among them, so that by an invisible hand, we would end up with a pretty egalitarian society. That’s his conception of human nature.

That’s not the way “invisible hand” is used by the people who you took courses with or whose books you read. That shows a difference in doctrine, not in fact, about human nature. What we actually know about human nature is that it has all of these possibilities.

 

Source : https://chomsky.info/20161213-2/

 

Werner Herzog and movies as a corporate product

Q: So if someone gives you $150 million for a film, that’d become essentially a corporate product.

werner_herzog

image source : internet

Herzog: Not necessarily. If you give me $150 million and never show up again [laughs], I would deliver something big and beautiful. But when you have to deal with a corporate world and every single line of dialogue has have the approval of a boardroom decision, then you are probably having too many limitations. And it becomes lifeless very easily. This is why all of these films, many of the big films that the industry creates, are very predictable and very much in a format that is ironclad. It’s not a kind of filmmaking for me.

source : http://www.indiewire.com/2016/07/werner-herzog-interview-master-class-1201706508/