 |
|
|
|
Friday, November 5, 2010 - 04:14 pm  With the elections over in the US and the political turmoil that has existed in France and other countries, I thought i might be interesting to look at the purpose of politics. Aristotle had some interesting things to say about the polis and how we live together. "For Aristotle, politics is about something higher (than what we've recently experienced). It's about learning how to live a good life. The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive capabilities and virtues--to deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgment, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole." "Any polis which is truly so called, must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness. Otherwise, a political association sinks into a mere alliance..otherwise, too, law becomes mere covenant...a grantor of men's (women's) rights against one another--instead of being, as it should be, a rule of life such as will make the members of a polis good and just." so, what do you think of Aristotle's idea and what do you think politics should be about?
| |
| Friday, November 5, 2010 - 06:41 pm This would be assuming that politics in our day are real. I'm in a different perspective, it's just different colored puppets with 2 arms of the same man up each of their backsides.
| |
| Friday, November 5, 2010 - 07:16 pm SG--it certainly seems that way, doesn't it? so, how can we change that? young people in particular don't seem to vote for exactly the reason you mention. do we just let the big money on K street (us) take over or can we bring a certain amount of civility to the conversation?
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 05:17 am We need to dispense with this nonsense about "common" good, "public" good. There only exists individual good. "The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive capabilities and virtues . . ." Ignore the rest.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 05:58 am It use to be in American politics that the new world order creeps would move in and corrupt the leaders, the movers & shakers and 'help' them get elected, give them a fortune and bring them into the order. Now for the first time (as far as I know) we have a president created from scratch, literally from childhood. I'd bet that man has better programming than my quad-core. How do you change something like that back when they have the media, the guns, the prisons and the minds of most of the people here? We don't.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 06:04 am Psst... That's why they don't care if I tell you, that was only a problem while they were setting this up. We're beyond that.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:15 am New World Order is a load of bull. The problem is that the Ds are statist socialists and the Rs are statist socialists.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:18 am I hope you're right Scarlet.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:57 am I don't hope. I know he is wrong. If he wants to ignore it, let him. It doesn't matter.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 09:18 am Okay, I may have been unfair. Most Rs are statist corporatists which is just as bad. In any case, the whole business of NWO politics stinks of an evasive unwillingness to admit that statism is fundamentally wrong.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 12:42 pm for you Brits or other informed/opinionated lol. how do you think your system is working? it seems that having a short election cycle would be better than what we've got.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 03:31 pm Scarlet--i would admit that we are all motivated by self-interest, but in a complex, non frontier world where neighbors don't live a long distance away, how do we live together. we're not an island unto ourselves. society doesn't work that way. we can't live "every man/woman for themselves". do we all drill our own well, burn our own garbage, plant our own food, all protect our own abode? and who decides when we go to war and who will defend us and what are we defending.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 04:18 pm Scarlet, I agree with you if you are talking about Democrats or the Progressive wing of the Rep's.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 06:07 pm I like to leave a little breathing space for the folks still suffering from symptoms of denial. I mean when I found it, it took about six weeks asking myself questions like: "Okay if my country isn't real, when was it real? Tyrants don't make up things like God given rights- life, liberty, freedom of speech... so when was it real and at what point was it lost." ...and yes there was a bit of mild depression nothing serious but evil is depressing. So, it is extremely negative and sometimes downright frightening so I believe that I am probably already shoving it into people's ears more than I should. So some initial denial is cool... just please do take steps in the areas that will protect your children. Here, check this out, It really is important.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 06:15 pm Wait Danny, the GOP has a "Progressive Wing"? Fooled me because on every single "Progressive" measure put up for debate or vote, we barely had more than 1 Republican support the measure in each instance. Unless you count that Lieberman fellow, I count him as a "Party Of One" and definitely NOT a Progressive by any means. Let me know who the Progressives are in the GOP so I can email them a line or two. We've got some work to do.
| |
Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 07:57 pm
We aren't an island. We need the government to provide police, military, and courts. There can only be one justice system and one diplomatic system. We need only grant government the ability to act as keeper of the peace internally and abroad. What more is there? Everything else is robbery at the point of a gun. Public education is robbery. Public healthcare is extortion. Public transportation is thievery. All economic regulation is crime. Who was it that said that government's role was ever to rob some for the sake of others? All entitlements are wrong. A man should receive exactly what he has earned... no more and no less. If a man starves, it is his fault and the fault of no other. If I starve, it is my fault and the fault of no other. Everyone is capable of taking care of their own damn selves. I believe laissez faire capitalism is the ONLY way. We can buy and sell for everything we need; there is no need for government in resource distribution and wealth redistribution. If we need oil, we buy it. If we need food, we buy it. If we need our garbage taken out, we pay for it to be. If we need electricity and running water, we buy it. If we can't buy it, we build it and sell it and profit. Government's role is only to ensure law & order at home and protection from enemies abroad. If you argue that the good of society is more important than the good of the individual, you must realize that society is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
| |
Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:33 pm
In the past, these people have supported progressive policies. Admittedly, they have been less likely to do so in the past two years. Here are a few that come to mind: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snow, Collins, C Powell, Chuck Hagel, Murkowski, Specter until he switched, Castle, Arnold S, Bush family, etc Well said Scarlet!
| |
Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:47 pm
This is not consistant with the US Constitution which prohibits American troops from internal law enforcement. So no, it is not NEEDED or wanted. That's a local thing and they need to keep their hands off. If I'm policed it should be by someone of my choosing and someone local. Thanks anyway though 
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 08:51 pm Scarlet--so you'll build your own roads, outhouse, garbage dump, school,med school, etc. When in history has libertarianism worked? and if you put your money (who makes that?) in the bank and the bank goes under, that was your fault for not putting it under your matress, right? So, we're reduced to barter since hard assets are the only thing that can be trusted. and as for oil, we would need to eliminate the subsidies for fast depreciation, and eliminate farm subsidies and gov't flood insurance, just to name a few. And if you're a student, what about your Pell grant or student loan? Are you going to eliminate those? It all sounds third world to me. SG-- today big money controls politics (maybe it always has). In the past in other countries only revolutions tended to rebalance the equation (Russia, China, Cuba, Venuzuela). But that didn't work too well, took away personal incentives and ended up just putting the power in a different group of oligarhs. In the US those with the money power more and more control all aspects of life. Even with our form of socialism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets screwed. everyone now is talking about creating jobs. Think about this--when a corp like HP merges or buys out another company, the first thing the new entity does is eliminate jobs (for efficiency purposes) and we talk about creating jobs. Who's going to do that? And if you're the little guy, how will you deal with that? Recently it's been the gov't--local, state, and feds. but that's even changing. the Tea Party is/was a response to these inequities. but they have no real focus and no real plan for "cutting taxes" and "spending". Would you be willing to take your chances on not having any retirement or health care? it's easy to say each person needs to be responsible and we should be responsible, but what about people who of no fault of their own are laid off from their job, are unemployed for 12 months, have their profession disappear, have to take bankruptcy, find a new job, get laid off again, run up credit cards, take bankruptcy, and at 50 are unemployable? it's easy to say that you're the captain of your own ship, but it's another to have to deal with the realities of a complex society. and maybe you've experienced some of these things, and if you have, then i can understand why you would be angry and why you would look for a scapegoat. none of us really wants to deal with sacrifice for the greater good. i want mine and i want it now, is the current theme. real responsibility is about getting into the nitty gritty of life, organize for power that benefits society, and not buy into the American dream myth. the only time in modern American history where that theme existed was from 1946-about 1970. since then, it's been down hill.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 09:00 pm "Big Money" is not a person and controls nothing. I think it's high time we start holding PEOPLE responsible and stop refuring to 'corporation control' because people control corporations. People are responsible, corporations are tools. I do not believe it was ever the intention of the founding fathers for it to be the responsibility of the government to provide people jobs. Only after the government decided to get involved did jobs ever become a problem. Left alone we prosper.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 09:20 pm Not so sure, Solomon at your very last 2 sentences. If we subtracted the amount of jobs that the Govt artificially created from the jobs available. What would the unemployment picture have looked like months ago? Likewise if we empowered Obama to move forward with all the public infrastructure and transportation Jobs, how many people would not be added to the current unemployment rolls? The Government has been largely absent from the Jobs situation, the Private Sector is shipping Jobs overseas on a 50-50 chance of saving a dime or two. At this point, The way Obama is being Slammed on Jobs, you'd think they want him to take taxpayer dollars and create National corporations to employ the unemployed. How else is he supposed to "create" jobs? Left Alone we have the biggest Real Estate bubble and ensuing employment gaps in modern history. What leg do the Anti - Government folks have left to stand on. You cannot persecute a man for Jobs , yet tie his hand on creating them. You have one half of the GOP yelling Obama isn't doing anything for jobs, while the other half of the GOP(Tea Party - YES they ARE the GOP)screams Government is doing too much. Which is it? The current economic situation is %100 attributable to an absence of Government, in regulation, oversight, and job creation. I have a hard time dealing with the Goverment not doing something LITERAL to create jobs. I Outlined a REAL problem with Jobs in America on my blog, and why the Government has to step in before there are none left. Follow if you dare. Where all the jobs went!
| |
Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 10:31 pm
I think you missed his point, police are part of the government. Wendy, I don't think we need a bunch of government run corporations to solve the employment problem. Government can encourage employment with sound policies that restore confidence in the direction of the country.
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 11:05 pm Politics does not exist to serve the common person but to maintain the power of the few. My view as a non economic educated brit..is the banks cause the problems the country pays for it, whilst the bankers continue to make more money. I think the entire economic system needs to be recreated. How I dont know... but surely the current system that promotes the greed of the few over the good of the many is morally wrong. We need a system that promotes the individual to try hard to improve their lot whilst retaining a responsibility to society as a whole. As a brit I am glad that if I were to fall on hard times I have a government that will support me. We should as a society care for one another. There are of course people who abuse the system and live off the backs of others. I get the impression the American system is quite heartless and leaves you to your own devices. Idealy I see government as a safety net to catch you when you stumble and help you back onto your feet. Not a distint impersonnel beast or an over interfering nanny. In a perfect world you would not even notice there was a government or even a need for one. In our imperfect world however I think we can find a good government somewhere in between our British nanny state and your heartless American system
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 11:11 pm SG- i agree that corps. are not people even though the supremes have said they are. You're right they are controlled by people. But who is to blame for bad decisions and what control do we have over them. My 50 shares of Goldman Sachs doesn't have any weight over the actions of management or anyone else at GS. But my self interest dictates that i want my few dollars of profit even though GS may not be working for the greater good and may not add value to the American economy, only to those who receive exorbinate bonuses, etc. And who is to judge them? Not me, i want my stock to go up. Screw everyone else, right? As to the founding fathers, I don't think they ever envisioned what America would become. Many of them only had their personal self interest in mind. It was people like Jefferson, Washington and Adams and a few others that looked to the greater good of all that created the greatest experiment in freedom and justice the human race has ever seen. But I believe that we all can be a part of what those founding fathers invisioned; that we have the greater good in mind and that the world we live in is not the world they lived in but that in order to maintain those freedoms we all have to be involved in the process of working together for the common good. In creating the Constitution they created it with the future in mind and not just something for their own immediate financial and power benefit. It's about building community where people care about their neighbor and his/her welfare. We may disagree about how that will look but those founding fathers gave us a template for freedom but also called us to personal responsibility for the "other".
| |
| Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 11:21 pm Danny. Regardless of what policies come out... even if the most job creation friendly legislation were passed tonight, million of jobs are not going to fall out of the Private Sectors hindquarters. That is just a fact. It is against logic to say that we don't need the government to create jobs when we have not dropped below 9% national unemployment in Goawds know how long. I don't see how employing people and ending the tsunami of of unemployed and social service benefits weighing on the budget becomes a bad thing. That is the Equivalent of the Tea Party saying we need to end SS while it has a 2.5Trillion USD surplus. If there are this many people unemployed there is a real problem that isn't going to fix itself overnight. 600B in stimulus put towards creating Jobs for Americans at least until the Private sector gets it together is not a bad idea at all. These could be temp jobs, although I see no reason we should not keep them permanently. We are witnessing how unreliable the private sector can be. So, what makes everyone so afraid of against TAXPAYER's money going towards employing WOULD BE TAXPAYERS? Greed. No 'One' person at the top of the pyramid gets a red cent of any proceeds from said enterprise. Who benefits? In the scenario I presented, Taxpayers, The Budget Deficit, and Our under-stimulated economy. Look at how that would trickle down to Consumer Spending, Curbing Foreclosures(Or providing a pool of employed folks to stimulate a dying housing market with Rock bottom once a Century Prices), eases the liability of Federal, State and Local Governments that pass out Unemployment and Cash and Food Stamp Benefits, all while having a 2 fold injection back into the Social Security Fund. Who loses, Wall Street. Big Business, and the Greedy little bastids that shipped our American Jobs overseas in the first place. If that idea sounds crazy, you must be doing too well in life. I beg you to think of your brother.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 12:55 am Regulations and the lack of being able to get loans for small businesses is a definite problem. I deal with small businesses every day and it's not just a problem of Washington regs. I live in Houston, one of the most business friendly environments in the US. And yet small businesses get "fee'd" to death. There are fees for having a safe in your business, for having a sign, for having a dumpster, which you don't own but rent. You can't even open a street vending taco stand without jumping through hoops. I could go on and on. This doesn't include all the forms a business has to fill out for local, state, and fed stuff. And as yet, there's not real new demand, so businesses aren't in need of loans. And yet the banks that caused a lot of our current problems are making record profits. Go figure. And finreg is turning out to be a joke. I heard that the derivitive markets that were going to be regulated by finreg, may not have any more regs than before. Because the little guy doesn't have lobbyists like the big guys, the little guy continues get screwed over.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 01:41 am Well spoken Parsifal
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 01:50 am "Tax payers money going towards employing tax payers..." But, are you suggesting government works? Adding to the public sector payrolls through more public employees? Here is what kills that. Greed.(of the individual most likely on the left side of the isle by the way. No side of the political spectrum holds the monopoly on greed. Not the bankers, nor the city janitors) ready.... pension spiking. Im a registered nurse who has done OK(thankfully) through this entire debacle. Oh dear lord thank you for that blessing. The other day, I was curious to see how my state employed brethren were doing. I looked through public records which show local UC(University of California) employee's income. Public workers in California have their income publicized on the web. Just have to find it. Its out there. There is more then one RN getting paid between 140,000 and 160,000 dollars per year. These are mere staff nurses. Not Nurse practitioners or nurse Anesthetists. They are like me. Generalists. They make about twice what I make. Can you guess how/why these nurses are making this much? Simple, in the last year or two they plan to work, they kill them selves with overtime. This makes their retirement much higher. The calc is based off of those last quarters. Say their base salary was 80,000. If they spike that salary with overtime they can increase their pensions by 50-100%. Double time is nice, no? If They worked for 20 years they will get around 50% of 160,000. Yup, 80,000. Instead of a 40000 pension, they get 80,000. Now, expand that to every state and city worker. yes it can be nearly that bad. Federal is not so easy to game the system anymore, poor feds. Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to pay higher taxes so my neighbor, who is a public nurse, can retire 10 years before me while I continue to subsidize his retirement. This is a time bomb which gets little press. Some city general funds have a 90% liability for payroll and pension payments. 90 cents of every budget dollar goes to city payroll and city pensions. Is this sustainable? LOL, no..... Ummmm, look at bell California. If pension liabilities weight to heavy on a company, say GM, the company fails. If pension liabilities weight to heavy on the City of LA, they raise taxes. Im no lawyer nor an economist, but I do absolutely see many city bankruptcies coming in the next couple of decades. Will these liabilities be wiped out, reduced, or transferred to some government pension guarantee entity? I hope they will be reduced, but I believe these liabilities are written into law. this is not a business after all, but government. no matter the outcome, rest assured it will be Bad, Bad, or bad. And, if you think nurses are bad. you should see what some cops are making. North of 200,000. Not chiefs, or captains. Lower level guys.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 01:55 am so, how do you change anything, short of revolution? There is an old saying, "all politics is local". And I don't mean party politics, even though that should be reformed. But organize in your neighborhood or apartment complex or work place. Start with something small. I've seen immigrant families work to get a stop sign in their neighborhood so that their children would be safer. Then they lobbied the local school for a crossing guard and volunteered to help watch their kids going to and from school. Then they got a vacant piece of land cleaned up that was all grown up and infested with all sorts of human vermin. then they got a Cantina closed that harbored prostitutes, drunks, and drug dealers. But none of them could have done it by themselves. They worked together for the common good. That's the way you get your neighborhood changed for the better. And where do you find these neighbors? Have a meeting of a few friends in your neighborhood and ask them to tell stories of the difficulties they encounter in their neighborhood. Then get them to find like minded people to come and tell their stories. Then decide what issue is winnable and then seek out the power people (polititions, school administrators, etc.) and tell them what you want. In the beginning it should be small. This is so you can begin to build a power base of like minded people. If they don't respond or won't see you, sit in their waiting room until they will see you. And get the press there. It may take a while to get action, but if you keep working at it and don't wimp out, you'll get action. And how would it make you feel to get something done to improve your neighborhood. I know how it makes me feel--powerful knowing that there is something me and my neighbors can do. Even though I don't agree with everything the Tea Partyers have done or stand for, they organized themselves and were/are a force to be contended with. And the powers that be are scared sh..tless.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 02:04 am There is no changing California. Only the pacific and the San Andreas fault can solve these fiscal issues. Cali will continue to fatten the public sector till the state slides into oblivion.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 03:12 am Elect me president TuCulo and I'll send Mexico the bill for baby sitting their population ;)
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 04:34 am Barney, you should have read my post on the subject on my Blog. What you did was describe what people assume anything that is govt driven is meant to be. I laid out specific guidelines for introduction of the corps/enterprise, how they would be funded, the union wages for workers, how to pay back the borrowed taxpayer funds, and how to add to the SS fund in the process. I am not suggesting that Govt works... I am suggesting that I WISH IT WOULD. If it followed the basic model I laid out it shouldn't be that difficult to implement. I am suggesting that Government do something that is the equivalent of Murder to the Financial/Private Sector of this country and create Enterprise outright. What needs to be said is that we need to stop branding this as GOVT. It should be referred to as "TAXPAYERS" or "CITIZEN ENTERPRISE" You politely injected partisan fear-mongering This would NOT be a "federal" Payroll. This would be an independent NOT FOR PROFIT TAXPAYER OWNED INDEPENDENT ENTITY that would create/recreate jobs that are being shipped or outsourced overseas specifically. These would be Small businesses OWNED by US instead of Wallstreet or any corporate Profiteering Structure. The only difference is these Entities would borrow direct from the Taxpayer/Govt and be liable for repayment in the same way all the Bailed out Banks were. With no greedy CEO and Shareholders looking to skin every cent for profit, the sole objective would be to employ American workers at Union Wages and Repay the Taxpayers, and possibly continue to function after full repayment. The only benefactor would be the Employee, and the Taxpayers, The Economy, and Relief to our federal liability to welfare, social services etc. I find it hard for anyone to rebut this idea with any solid objections. If we only used 600B, which is equal the latest round of Throwing money to the banking System that will never be loaned to small business or STIMULUS with the hope of it "trickling down" to the rest of our economy, I bet a CBO feasibility of my proposal or something close would shatter the effects of that crap stimulus by more than 10 to 1. Don't even mention that the "Trickle down" effect of proposed stimulus is "hypothetical" at best. We have absolutely NO GUARENTEES that The Private Sector or the Economy at large will ever see a cent of that money. It is more likely that The funds will be held on the books collecting interest and shoring up Corporate Balance Sheets to Manipulate Upcoming 4th and 1st QTR earnings and guidance Reports. We have been graced with clear examples of how we gave that money to the Banking system before and they won't lend out Jack! My proposal is form of direct Stimulus, Stimulus that would work better and faster and would actually outperform the combined first and second payoffs of the incompetent banks that litter Wallstreet. We all know about that Public fed payrolls and pensions drain the deficit and blah blah. You took my whole example without fully understanding the proposal I made and began naming off all the no brainer issues to the problem, without ever reading the post or responding to what I was suggesting in the first place. Here it is again. A Solution to the Jobs/Outsourcing Dilema I actually had a Twitter Conversation with a gentleman that started almost something like this. Needless to say, once he figured out what I was talking about, he stopped talking. I hope you read the post Barney, I would be very interested in your response after you have read it.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 05:05 am Ill read it soon. I just had to post my observations about what I see as one of this states leading issues going into the future. When the baby boomers begin to really test the pension systems in California, and I don't mean SS, we may have some very tough decisions to make on the city and state level. My position on immigration is probably more liberal then my above post would likely indicate. Migrants will come to work. Is this good or bad? There presence will result In downward pressure on wages, I think. Bad for you if your competing with them. Will we all be competing with them someday? Perhaps. I do believe that as we native born folks(descendants of immigrants of yesteryear)continue to age, we will need some people to pay taxes and what not to support us. Those very kids of undocumented parents may well be supporting us as we enter our golden years. No wouldn't that be funny. We have a liberal system in California which lends towards people pushing out kids and collecting more in the way of subsidies. I see this every day on the street. Momma bear with her flock of ducklings bringing up the rear. I always believed the best way to prevent this is to top out subsidies at no more than 2 children. This will remove a major incentive for nefarious parasites. I know people personally who scam this way, not all are Latino. I know Latinos personally who "went north" had a child and paid 100% of all expenses and never took a dime of subsidy. This included hospitals costs as well. truly remarkable people. I know Latina's who will hold down 2 or 3 jobs while raising their children. Amazing. I choose to consider the good with the bad and not generalize an entire country or race.
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 05:19 am I agree on Pensions. Maybe Corporate Structureless Enterprises will alleviate that problem.
| |
Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 08:01 am
I'm refering to police in "keeper of the peace internally."
When in history has libertarianism existed? Although to be clear, I don't consider myself a libertarian since I'm not hot on the whole anarchy aspect... I just believe in separation of economy and state. I see a specific role where the government is needed (as mentioned previously). In any case, did the government build the railroads? Does the government fund private schools? A garbage service can be easily privately run (if they aren't already), the real cost is for the company to purchase the property and transport the garbage. Is there any reason the government is needed? If the bank goes under, then I made a poor choice of bank, didn't I? Do banks randomly go under for no reason at all? I think I'll just need to be careful in choosing a bank. We would not be reduced to a barter system, ever heard of gold, silver, or platinum? These are hard assets and currency both. All that is needed is for the currency to be backed by these and we're good. For sanitation, there is something called a septic tank. When that won't do as in high-density population areas, the high-density makes the setup of sewer systems cost-effective. Why do you think it would be impossible for someone to set up a sewer system and charge people for it's use? Also, private insurance companies exist. If someone can't afford flood insurance (or it isn't offered), maybe they shouldn't be living in a flood prone area? My credit union offers student loans among other types. Yes, eliminate ALL subsidies. They all involve robbing money from some and giving it to others. The role of government should not be institutionalized robbery. You're imagining that everything will automatically fail when the government is taken out of the equation. This is plainly false.
Who pays for these jobs? At the core of the issue is: in order for the government to fund one dime of anything, it takes that dime from somebody that earned it.
| |
Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 08:06 am
Objection: It wouldn't make enough money to pay off its government loan because it would be staffed by the least employable 10% of labor (because if they weren't, they'd get a real job) and run by someone who couldn't turn a profit if they wanted to (because if they could, they'd be doing it).
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 06:50 pm Government corps frighten me. Fannie, freddie...ooops. Politics----Improper lending. Big losses and debt. GM----Government motors. I believe we are trying to get out of this "investment" now. Post Office----oops---loss after loss after loss. "Sound" Politics may guide operations rather than a sound profit motive. Whenever I wonder about profit motive, and the evils of outsourcing, I look at my crotch. know what I see? My $10 American eagle jeans and beneath that my lovely boxers created with loving care by our friends in Pakistan. Total cost....$15. Now, if I were noble, or rich, I would buy jeans made in America. Total Cost $100-$150. This is a $85-%135 difference. Even in the best of times its hard to argue with that equation. What makes the American jeans more expensive? How come the Pakistan jeans are so much cheaper? The corporation passed the cost of production through to us, in both cases. Living in the developed world has indeed become more difficult over the past few decades. We have to work harder, and become more educated just to stay even. Gone are the days of being a welder in a ship yard etc, etc, etc. I don't know what the future is but i don't think government corps or more govt jobs is the answer. Who will decide what these entities will produce?
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 07:16 pm "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" ~Benito Mussolini
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 08:52 pm "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~George Santayana
| |
| Sunday, November 7, 2010 - 09:11 pm "Dude, where's my car?" -Jesse Montgomery III
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 01:53 am Scarlet. It Would make money the same way any other corporation makes money in the United States. I don't see %100 every product in our country imported. The profits would not be sucked up by a corporate structure that maximizes profit by way of slashing thousands of jobs. Without a corporate greed structure, money would indeed be made to pay back loans. The same way all the failed corporations have nearly payed back the loans given in the first stimulus. So far, Fannie/Freddie and the rest of the entire housing are in need of added extra money, analyst project in the area of 160B industry wide and 80B for Fannie/Freddie itself. Solomon, not sure if you were thinking that this is a merger of state and corporate power. Actually, my idea is absent the forces that drive Wall street and usual corporate structures that dominate business. There is no figure-head, CEO, or share holder to make the sheer function of a corporation max profit and then fleecing the corporation and closing it not soon after. Again, Barney, you keep making a "Government" and not a taxpayer issue. Gm... we maybe "Trying" to get repaid, obviously we will. Or not this would be a major issue brought up in the discussion regarding QE2. You fail to mention FORD, and the entire host of other corporations that made money, repaid their loans, and that the government actually gained a return on most of those stimulus loans. Now lets talk about the result of those loans and the part of stimulus that went to these private corps. What is the greater good that resulted from these loans. It kept American workers employed. That is the point here. Our model for taxation and Government revenue, and our economy working is totally dependent on America Workers becoming Taxpaying Consumer Driven Citizens. With huge unemployment, sharp drops in consumer spending, and a failing housing market, our economy doesn't work. This hit the retail sector pretty bad, and this is why we have a stagnation in unemployment numbers. They cannot hire because they are not selling enough goods to turn a profit in order to expand employment and labor. This is also killing the housing market because people cannot stay in their homes because they either lost their jobs, or can't find one. Everything else has been attempted to combat our recession. Throwing money here and there and everywhere. But what has worked. At the very least we know that the first stimulus that went to irresponsible and sometimes undeserving corporations actually repaid most of their loans off if not all of them. There are a FEW minor exceptions. But they don't overrule the trend that companies repaid or are capable of repaying their loans. I also don't see any viable alternative being presented other than sitting on our hands and praying the private sector falls out of the sky and creates millions of jobs on whim. But let's be realistic and understand that the private sector will never come back any time soon becuase the banks won't lend to anyone. Even in the housing market, the government has mandated money for potential homeowners BUT, the big banks that do the bulk of mortgae transactions are underwriting their own set of credit guidelines that are more strict than the government requirements making it near impossible to obtain credit. Currently the Legislators are working to find a solution to the banks doing this. Things like this are holding up every part of our economy that needs to work. Small business loans, housing loans, consumer credit. No jobs, no new mortgages, no new customers. What will you do. I provided a simple program that will get at the heart of some very tough issue facing America right now. Unemployment and our growing liability to entitlements against money we have to borrow to cover them. At present 42 cents of every single dollar we borrow goes directly to entitlements like social security, welfare, unemployment, and food stamp programs. At the very least, we can offer the unemployed jobs, boost consumer spending, and begin reducing the liability for all the benefits we currently give to the unemployed and the unemployed. Solomon, building on what you said.. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We have seen what works and what does not. We have repeated more and more of the same. We have to take a new approach to things. Over and over we have seen capitalism fail on smaller scales now and throughout recent history. The way our banking system is setup is doomed to fail, better yet, designed to fail. This scheme has been going on for more than a century now. So, yes, why not stand with me and remember all the things we have tried repeatedly and failed over and over. We are a carbon copy of the Roman Empire, a, Republic, which we have witnessed throughout history rise and fall miserably. This is why our government doesn't work, our financial system is failing us, and our Society and Status in the world is declining. It is time to embrace new things, new solutions and ways to tackle the problems facing our country today. I still hear no alternative that makes sense. Don't be cynical in your responses. move the conversation forward with an alternative, not provocative criticism for lack of a reasonable rebuttal.
| |
Monday, November 8, 2010 - 02:34 am
In your plan, I foresee that the whatever you call it will attempt and fail to make money. I'm not saying that it's impossible in theory to make money; I'm saying that in practice it will fail to make money. Why? 1. You're staffing with the people having the most difficult time finding jobs. Don't you suppose there is some good reason why they're out of work? Either they were bad employees (but ignore this for the time being) or the company that employed them is making cheaper products by not paying union wages. In effect, you wouldn't be able to compete unless you banned private industry. 2. You will not find an entrepreneur to lead this. If it were hypothetically possible to produce a competitively priced product paying union wages at a net gain, they would be able to make even more money by not paying union wages. There would be no need of your system. If they were civic minded enough to run a company and pay union wages when they could pay less than that, they still wouldn't opt for your plan because they'd need to sacrifice their profit. You fail to realize that not just anyone can run an effective business. However, you'd have no problem finding someone to run this at a net loss.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 02:37 am This is straight from the progressive playbook, Cloward and Piven. Overwhelm the capitalist system with excessive taxes and regulations, and at the same time force banks to make risky mortgages while having a government entity ( Fannie Mae ) agree to buy them. Then, when the crap hits the fan, blame capitalism for the mess. Pass even more regulations on everyone but the real culprit, rinse and repeat. Spend billions on a so called stimulus, and increase debt to unsustainable levels. Pass a health care bill that will increase health care costs, but hide that by delaying benefits for 4 years and require employers to provide coverage or face fines which increase business costs. Propose carbon taxes that will greatly increase energy costs and implement through the EPA when congress rejects it. Paralyze private sector job creation by creating the most uncertain business environment possible. Throw in some irresponsible monetary policy from the fed (QE2), and cause a financial meltdown. The goal here is to replace our current system with a socialist new world order. Oh BTW, your govt corps would lose money unless they do what the private corps do. Welcome to reality.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 03:26 am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gCwSSzFAp4 Thats all i gotta say ;)
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 03:30 am Scarlet--Ok, so you lean towards a separation of the economy and state. Many of us would agree that gov’t is too involved with our lives. But lets look at some of the areas that you and I might disagree. Railroads—no the gov’t didn’t build the railroads but they were instrumental in the financing and the giving of rights of way with many politicians receiving pay offs which enabled rail barrens to become wealthy at the expense of the people. But they could not have been built otherwise. Schools—public schools are the cornerstone of economic development in America. Private schools are the purview of the rich and not the common person. And there was and is a great debate over whether the gov’t should fund private sectarian schools. Garbage service—In Houston all businesses/apts have to use private services. Only homeowners get free garbage pickup. However, there are strict laws on what you can put in your garbage and where it can be dumped. Should that be at the discretion of the dumper. We have areas of town where illegal dumpers dump on vacant property. And what about toxic waste? Is it okay to dump that at your back door. Also, in Houston, if it were legal, because the water table is about 8’ down and the soil is not very permeable you would need at least one acre for a septic tank. For a city of four million that’s not very practical. And as for flooding, Houston has about a third of its area in the flood plain. You can have a heavy dew and you’ll have flooding. I know we’re stupid to live so close to the coast and in the flood plain, but we’re not alone. Subsidies—I agree that there are too many subsidies. Things like child subsidies, home loan subsidies, and on and on. But as you point out, if we didn’t have taxes we wouldn’t need subsidies. And if the farmers had a bad crop one year, too bad for us. Bread might go to $20. a loaf but that’s okay too. We could go on forever on this subject, but I’ve used up my allotment of space for this message.lol My major point is this. In a complex society and global economy, we can’t go back to the nineteenth century and live as they did. What you describe is a third world economy, where there is little capital creation, immense poverty, which leads to lack of education, healthcare, and incentive to make things better. If that’s so good, why are people breaking down the doors of developing countries trying to get in. They are migrating to developed countries, because in spite of their faults, they see developed countries as a better alternative to what they’ve got.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 03:46 am There have been numerous successful gov't and private/gov't projects in American history. Two in particular were the Erie Canal and the Houston Ship Channel. in the case of the Erie Canal, it was set up by the state of New York and in the case of the Houston Ship Channel it was a public/private endeavor. In both cases the effect of creating them was to enhance the economies of the areas around those population centers. in the case of Houston, the ship channel took the city from a being a mosquito infested swamp to being the second largest port in the US. with the expansion of the Panama Canal in a few years, Houston will again be the beneficiary of public/ private development. The point being that public works or public/private partnerships have a long history of sucess for the greater good. In the process a lot of people got rich and not just because of the canals.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 06:09 am 1. "But they could not have been built otherwise." Was this truly at the expense of the people then? I'm sure you don't think that America was better off before the railroads were built. As far as politicians receiving pay offs, this is predicated on a system where the government is entitled to dispense favors. 2. The private school I went to cost ~$4000 for the year. Contrast that with the ~$9000 per student per year the public schools receive (in my state at least). We weren't wealthy by any standard (being roughly lower middle class). 3. Toxic waste is an exception as it presents a clear danger to the lives of others. The ideal behind the whole system is to prevent the infringement of both government and individuals on the rights of others. Dumping a toxic substance in the middle of a populated area infringes on the lives of others. I'm not against basic zoning restrictions that protect the lives of individuals. Dumping garbage in the middle of a populated area or toxic waste in a water source infringe on the rights of others. The three things the government ought to protect are life, liberty, or property. 4. As far as government flood insurance, the number of people making the same decision does not change anything. If everyone decided having twenty kids was a good idea, does this make government-funded children's health insurance necessary? 5. Bread may cost that much for a season if at all. In fact, a bad harvest wouldn't necessarily lead to such spikes in price. Is there any reason to imagine a 2000% increase in price? Especially since, as you mentioned, we live in a global economy. All crops around the world will fail at the same time? 6. This won't produce a third-world economy. No third-world economy that exists has been created by capitalism. In fact, the developed world as it stands was created by capitalism, albeit not by a pure form. In any case, you point to people migrating into the developed world? I'll point to businesses moving out. What do you think the end result of this exchange will be? Do you think the wealth of the developed world was achieved through state-run economies, welfare-states, and entitlements?
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 02:32 pm Scarlet 1. The railroad barrens not only controlled the railroads, a number of them controlled the means of production to build those roads. they sold bogus stock because they could say what they wanted too, to entice envestors (like Bernie Madoff) and paid and kept politicians in power who would give them what they wanted. And they built the roads, etc. on the backs of the poor and the uneducated. as to the system being predicated on giving favors, what system does not have some of that? All systems have some who have power and some without. Who do you want to have the power? Personally, as an investor, i want to be reasonably assured that the information i'm given on my investment is reasonably accurate and that i'm not being fleeced. 2.Schools-again, public schools are the cornerstone of American success. How many schools could we build where the teachers don't get a salary (many sectarian schools use people who are called). After WWII the GI bill allowed hundreds of thousands of men and women to college. This was the source of our success in capitalism with technology and knowledge. In the past private schools were the pervue of the rich (not in your case, it sounds) but it was not about getting a job and making a contribution to society. It's tragic that many young people don't take advantage of "free" education. 3. I'm glad we agree in principle about toxic waste. There are many other issues that are in the same catagory. The issue is how much regulation is too much. 4.I'm not sure I understand your argument. The gov't backs private flood insurance. Otherwise, the cost would be prohibitive. BTW, on the Gulf Coast there are homes that still have blue roofs from Katrina,Rita, and Ike because private insurers won't pay what they owe. 5Those kinds of spikes occur all the time. This is particularly true in underdeveloped countries where roads are poor/non-existent and farmers can't get produce to market where it's needed most. Good roads would be helpful. Who will build them? Toll roads? And how will they be financed? 6. Most third world countries were created by colonial enterprises from Europe. In many cases they did little to create infrastructure or education for indigenous persons. They took but gave little back. The English seemed to do a better job of creating something but they still left little when they were finally kicked out. The result was that there was no social and economic structure and if the country didn't have a natural resource like oil, etc. they were out of luck. Even then there are few examples of where social structures and economic structures were created for the good of all. Again, i'm not sure what your argument is in the last two sentences. please elaborate. The point from the beginning of this thread was that participation in the process of governing ourselves has to be a part of all our responsibility. I am a capitalist. But I know that gov't has to play a role in my succuss as a capitalist. And that as a responsible person, I believe that I am responsible for ensuring your rights as long as you don't obstrust my ability to function with a certain amount of freedom. I think, in principle we both would agree on that. The problem comes when we try to discern the degree of involvement between individual rights, the economic system, and gov't. It's for us to be a part of the conversation and active in learning from history and learn what did and didn't happen. BTW--did you vote?
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 04:49 pm +999,999 points to Parsifal for starting the most productive flame-retardant thread possibly in SC history. A step up in forum evolution. LoL.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 08:15 pm thank you PH. There is a saying, "the world as it should be and the world that is". We can condemn our gov't, or corporations, oursleves or others for the way things are. My question to Scarlet about voting is one addressed to us all. If we don't vote, what reason were the sacrifices made by those who have died in wars since the revolution. I suppose one could say it was to give us the right to bitch and not vote. But i'm concerned that in the last election only 50% of those over 50 voted and less than 25% of those under 30 voted. We may not think that our vote counts, and maybe the big money has all the power. But if we don't vote, if we don't work in our communities, our churches, our schools, our unions, in the political process, etc. we've abdicated our right to gripe. I can't fix the big problems of the world, but I can mentor a young man who has no father in the picture, I can teach Sunday school in my church, I can encourage my neighbor to vote and learn the issues and history of those things affecting all our lives. The internet has opened the world as it's never been opened, but we still remain isolated in our own little world. We can't just blame the "other". The issues we face don't have simply solutions and most of them can't be fixed in a short length of time. My religious faith tells me that along with free will I have been given certain intellectual and spiritual gifts and that if I do not use them for the good of community, then they have been wasted. May the force be with you.
| |
| Monday, November 8, 2010 - 09:33 pm I agree that if you do not vote you really cant complain about any particular politician. On the other hand, if you do vote for them, are you not to 'some' degree responsible for what they do? Good or bad?
| |
| Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - 05:25 am 1. I'm not saying that fraud would start being legal. Nobody has the right to lie. When I say that there needs to be no regulation and the government needs to exist to provide a system of justice. I understand that the two ideas will sometimes conflict, but I'm also saying that seeking the least regulation conceivably possible is the best idea. 2. I'll admit that perhaps the time for the elimination of public schools may not be here yet. I'm not a radical that wants immediate change. I'm an incrementalist that will postpone certain changes until such time as they become feasible. I imagine this would be one of the last government programs to be eliminated, but inevitably, it can and should be eliminated. 4. I'm saying that the number of people dependent on government backed flood insurance doesn't make it right... I couldn't figure out the words the first time for some reason. As far as Katrina, failure to abide by contractual obligations should still be a crime. 5. I imagine farmers can pool their resources to build roads. As far as roads and the aforementioned canals, I'll admit that I don't have any well-thought out argument regarding large projects and only a generally view of the goal. The goal being that the project is only paid for by those that use it. If the government is needed as the prime organizer of such efforts (I'm doubtful, but I'll assume this is the case), government involvement is fine so long as the cost of the road is passed on to those that benefit from it and not to those that do not. This is the reason I oppose subsidies and the like; the cost is spread among everyone for the benefit of less than everyone. 6. My argument is essentially that the tendency of things like immigration to the developed world and outsourcing to the developing world by businesses will eventually lead to the movement of wealth to those business-friendly countries (although some are only business friendly by virtue of their poverty). The nation with the most business-friendly environment will eventually acquire the wealth... my intent being to make the point that people are migrating to the developed world essentially a non-point. People migrate here because the wealth is here, but things like subsidies, entitlements, etc. etc. are liable to lead to the wealth moving out. As an example, look at the American auto industry. It wasn't specifically government regulation that put it where it is, but the dangers of the people biting off more than the company could ultimately afford through unions. Social programs are predicated on previous success of the economic system and simultaneously damage competitiveness of the system. Yes, of course I voted, and actually most of the people I know voted... maybe 3/4. Everyone I voted for lost, minus one. 2/3 of the measures I voted for also lost. *shrugs* I can only laugh at the idea that big money has all the power, the history of Marxism stands in contradiction. It's not money, but rather a small group of committed people that acquire power. In a democracy, this small group must cater to voters. All the money in the world can't buy you the heart and mind of a man. Principles, good or bad, will do that. Good principles will succeed, bad principles will fail. Too bad it takes several lifetimes for some principles to reveal themselves.
| |
| Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - 08:34 am Capitalism Serves Corporations. Socialism Serves People. This is Why You've Been Told Socialism is a Bad Thing All Your Life
| |
| Tuesday, November 9, 2010 - 02:11 pm Scarlet--My church over the past few years has done work in underdeveloped countries. One of those countries is Kenya. We fly thousands of miles at great expense, travel roads that are impassable parts of the year to work in a children's AID's hospital, a private school and in the farming community around the area. The locals may have to walk a day to the clinic, children die not only from AIDs but also malaria that could be prevented by simply using a mosquito net at night. Children are lucky if they get a third grade education. In the past three years the community has suffered a drought that has created an epidemic of disease and malnutrition. The school can only accommodate a few students (those who are able to travel) and the water wells have gone dry. Last year we took it upon ourselves to feed the village for a year. But it's only a drop in the bucket. The Church in the hundreds of years that it has been in Africa has done little to improve the lives of native Africans. And the political climate in most African countries is either toxic or virtually non-existent. Capitalism cannot take root because of the lack of capital, infrastructure and stability. When the education level is so low and people are living on a dollar a day there aren't many markets available. In some countries in Africa we're seeing foreign investment taking hold, so it will be interesting to see whether this results in real economic growth or just more explotation of resources and cheap labor. Gov't is neither good or bad in of itself, just as capitalism is not inherently good or bad. It is we humans that determine whether we treat one another with dignity and concern and whether we act morally and ethically. In my years on this earth I have concluded that there are no easy solutions to the issues we human have created/face. In order to be a part of the solution there are at least three things we must do. 1. study the problem/issue;not just one side but several sides. 2. realize that humanity's problems have basically been created by us and that in order to solve those problems we have to work together and respect one another. 3. that we then need to put our faith/beliefs into action with others and be willing to change when we see we're wrong. PH-Corporations and political systems are not inherently bad or good. Most American corporations are ethical in their dealings. Socialistic systems in theory have the greater good of all as a goal. But none of us can see the unintended consequences of our actions. We need the community to hold us all accountable for our actions and hear the many voices that make up that community. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. Be a part of the conversation with respect and realism. Grace and peace,
| |
Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 08:31 pm
I beg to differ with you PH. I would say that Capitalism serves people, and Socialism serves government leaders and the elite. After humans stopped living in caves and became farmers, people have lived under oppressive government rule for most of human history. Kings owned the land and had control of all the wealth, and most people had no rights and just enough resources to survive. This system was maintained until several hundred years ago, when the idea that ordinary people should have rights including the right to property and the right to life. These ideas started to be recognized by governments in such documents as Magna Carta and our own Declaration of Independence. These freedoms enabled people to voluntarily exchange good and services. People or groups of people ( corporations ) own and control the means of production, and they trade their products and services in a free market which is governed by the laws of supply and demand instead of government fiat. This is the essence of capitalism. This new system created an explosion of economic growth and innovation that the world had never experienced. From 1800-1900, this system was in place in almost all of the current industrial powers in Europe and North America. Starting in 1900 was the progressive era, which we are in currently. Progressives have gradually chipped away at our economic rights, and have rehashed the old system of state control into new terms such as Socialism, Marxism, or Communism. They promote these systems saying they will restore fairness, equality, or help the poor. The real aim here is more power for government leaders and protecting the big corporations owned by elite's from the competition that the free market allows. If Capitalism is eradicated, the masses of people are on the road back to serfdom.
| |
| Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 09:19 pm Nick--your argument would lead us to believe that big gov't and big corporations collude with one another. Don't forget to add big labor in the mix. The question then is how do you dismantle the mess. One result of gov't intervention in the early 20th century was anti-trust legislation. Many of the provisions of anti-trust have been eliminated. In this last melt down, we've seen big business, through mergers and acquisition, gobble up other companies. The first thing they do is lay off workers. In some cases as much as 15% of the work force. Then, as in the case of Mark Hurd with HP, he raised his salary about 100million and then went over to Oracle. This happens over and over again, with big business contributing 100s of millions of dollars to political campaigns. Big labor, including gov't employee unions aren't much better. And who suffers? The little guy who may own his own shop/business and can't pay his employees more than $10. per hour. So, Nick, how do we break the hold that big money and big gov't has over us? BTW, most big corporations today shouldn't be considered as US corporations. They're multinational and we have less control over them. So, don't complain when they outsource workers to India, etc. That's part of free markets.
| |
| Thursday, November 11, 2010 - 09:58 pm You would beg to differ while we see a fractional amount of examples of Capitalism working for Government leaders and 'elites' while the masses suffer the failures of the system? Do you wear glasses? Very few people benefit from capitalism. The world economic crash was a result the core value of Capitalism. Profit driven by greed. Many hard working people who believed in capitalism and would give your speech and ear a few years ago have been severely hurt by the greed of a few small players who scalped the markets, watched it all crumble, then walked away with almost no harm done to them. The greed of a few men, who completed millions of mortgage transactions to people they knew would eventually default, in their infinite greed led the world into the largest economic disaster of our times. Meanwhile here are some fun facts for you Mr. Capitalist. Here is Capitalism at work. The global financial crisis, brewing for a while, really started to show its effects in the middle of 2007 and into 2008. Around the world stock markets have fallen, large financial institutions have collapsed or been bought out, and governments in even the wealthiest nations have had to come up with rescue packages to bail out their financial systems. On the one hand many people are concerned that those responsible for the financial problems are the ones being bailed out, while on the other hand, a global financial meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost everyone in an increasingly inter-connected world. The problem could have been avoided, if ideologues supporting the current economics models weren’t so vocal, influential and inconsiderate of others' viewpoints and concerns. Because of the critical role banks play in the current market system, when the larger banks show signs of crisis, it is not just the wealthy that suffer, but potentially everyone. With a globalized system, a credit crunch can ripple through the entire (real) economy very quickly turning a global financial crisis into a global economic crisis. For example, an entire banking system that lacks confidence in lending as it faces massive losses will try to shore up reserves and may reduce access to credit, or make it more difficult and expensive to obtain. In the wider economy, this “credit crunch†and higher costs of borrowing will affect many sectors, leading to job cuts. People may find their mortgages harder to pay, or remortgaging could become expensive. For any recent home buyers, the value of their homes are likely to fall in value leaving them in negative equity. As people cut back on consumption to try and weather this economic storm, more businesses will struggle to survive leading to further further job losses. As the above has played out, the situation has been bad enough that the International Labor Organization (ILO) has described this crisis as a global job crisis. And so, many nations, whether wealthy and industrialized, or poor and developing, are sliding into recession if they are not already there. While the media’s attention is on the global financial crisis (which predominantly affects the wealthy and middle classes), the effects of the global food crisis (which predominantly affects the poorer and working classes) seems to have fallen off the radar. Some have been writing for many years that while the current economic ideology is flawed, it only needs minor tweaking to correct it and make it work for everyone; a more compassionate capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. What is hoped is that fruitful debate will increase in the mainstream. This will also attract ideologues of different shades, leading to both wider discussion but also more entrenched views. Those with power and money are less likely to agree to a radical change in economics where their power and influence are going to diminish, and will be able to lobby governments, produce compelling ads and do whatever it takes to maintain options that ensure they benefit. And now a word from our sane sponsors: Column: Capitalism a dead end for humanity. Posted on27 October 2010. By Dan Bullman The Daily Campus, U. Connecticut via UWIRE We are amidst an economic crisis that is two years-old. Unemployment, which is worst in black and Latino communities, is nearly 10 percent nationally. Working peoples’ homes continue to foreclose at record rates, raids and deportations of immigrant workers continue to escalate and poverty is on the rise. Today, one in seven Americans live below the poverty line. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $2.50 a day. Not everyone is suffering, though. There is one sector of the population that has been doing just fine in this recession – the capitalist upper class. While the government hasn’t lifted a single finger to help out working people, it has given trillions of dollars to Wall Street bankers and other capitalists in the form of government bailouts and tax credits. The war industry is also booming. More than half of our federal tax dollars go to funding the military. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have already killed millions of people for the sake of corporate profits, rage on with no end in sight. This happens whether Democrats or Republicans are in office. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is capitalism, a system where war, racism, homophobia, exploitation and sexism are all acceptable to the people who profit from it. Under capitalism, the chief means of production (i.e. the banks, factories, businesses, etc.) are all privately owned and the economy is driven by the profit motive. Everything the capitalist ruling class does is for the sake of extending or protecting profits. It doesn’t have to be this way. In this time of crisis we need to look past capitalism, a system that produces nothing but poverty and misery for a majority of the world, to a system that will meet everyone’s needs. It is my belief that socialism is the solution to the economic and political crisis we are currently in. Socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the working class. The economy is run by working class people according to a democratic plan aimed at meeting the needs of everyone. Society would be governed by workers through workplace councils. Elected representatives would be workers who would be accountable to their workplace constituency and subject to immediate recall if they did not represent the interests of their co-workers. The former Soviet Union was not a socialist society. Neither are the Western European countries nor China. Barack Obama and all his reforms have nothing to do with socialism either. Socialism requires direct democratic control of the economy and society by working class people. The Soviet Union initially had workers’ control of the government and the economy, but this was destroyed in the face of economic embargo, civil war and foreign military intervention. The bureaucracy that took control of government instilled a planned economy and near full employment, but in an undemocratic and non-collective fashion. Even so, the Soviet economy grew from one of the least developed in Europe to the second strongest economy in the world in only a few decades. One can only imagine how prosperous it could have been if workers were planning the economy collectively and democratically in the interests of the whole society instead of in the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. Capitalism has nothing left to offer humanity except poverty, wealth inequality and endless war. The only way to get out of this endless boom and bust cycle of capitalism and imperialism is to take control of industry out of the hands of individual capitalists and put it under the control of working people. Workers create all of the wealth in society, so they should be the ones who decide how it’s used. This is what socialism is all about. Read more here: http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/capitalism-a-dead-end-for-humanity-1.1726834 Copyright 2010 The Daily Campus ***********************************************88 Forgive me, but I don't need a lesson on Cavemen, the Ice Age, or anything else. I only need to look at the last decade to see there is more than something inherently flawed about the way our world is operating. What is personally concerning to me, is that The World's Poorest and Working Class people are being stripped of some of the only remaining entitlements even you capitalists know Humans should never be deprived of. Social Security, Pensions, HealthCare. I am afraid with the latest talks of balancing our budget, the things that are seriously being debated about SS and more are threatening to throw the US into the same boat as Europe with riots and protests, becuase I mean comon, you can't take everything away from good people and watch as these greedy scumbag mutha&^%&4s walk away with token fines and they systematically f^&%$d everyone good and not out of everything they have worked for and expected out of their lives. It's BS and it is coming. Scenes like that from Spain/Portugal, Greece and France are coming to the US too, all because of these greedy muddaf^@#$^rs. I think you need to look past your own good graces with clean eyes, and be humble about what you have and realize what capitalism is costing everyone who doesn't have as much as you do, NICK.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 01:06 am PH- You make some good points. However, i'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water. SC is a socialistic system in action. it supposedly is for the good of the players but it results in a very lethargic and uninteresting system, which is still controlled by the gm. i realize this isn't completely analygous but in a capitalistic society creativity and vibrancy tend to be more evident. And whether it's capitalism or socialism, etc. they're still systems created by humans. Not all corporations are evil and not all gov't actions are either. Doing away with one or the other won't necessarily make things better. We have gotten ourselves into the fix we're in now, mainly because of our greed and desire to have it all now, even though what we get only may cover the necessities. And that goes for both corps and gov't. Most corporations are responsible. But we have to ask oursleves, what is their purpose. It's not just to amass more and more money or power. It's multi-faceted. 1.The shareholders--we hear that corps. are working for the benefit of shareholders, but my hundred shares of GE won't get my phone calls answered by the president. But my shares do count. 2. Labor--corps. create jobs and have responsibility to treat employees with respect and concern for health, safety, security, etc. But labor can't be the primary mover or you end up like GM. 3. Management--you need good management or the whole system fails. But some managers are only looking out for themselves and their cronies. 4. The community--a corporations franchise is linked to the community and they have a responsibility for helping the community to prosper and be safe. 5. Government--if it were not for the creation of a secure nation,banking system, and other infrastructure, corps could not exist. Where corps go wrong is the balance between all these areas gets out of kilter. One or two dominates. And a power inbalance is created that makes the other functions suffer.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 08:36 am I know Parsifal, I just figured I'd throw a silly rant after what Nick got on. I truly feel that Capitalism, applied in accordance with profit, but NOT greed is what most Capitalists think they are defending. Profit, and the ability for anyone to go out, start a company and make money is not bad at all. It is in fact good. But how many of Americans actually have a real opportunity to do that? Not many, and certainly not enough. I've listened to my husband tell his friends over and over, if you cannot find a job, you need to make your own, and become self employed in some way shape or form. This is what is good about Capitalism. What is bad is that there are some big money people that are really out to suck the markets dry and that will come at whatever cost, because GREED outweighs all consequence, especially when it doesn't affect those instigators. Socialism, in the most extreme and cynical definition is bad, but in a simplistic form it maybe the only real hope of helping the masses that capitalism, and the pursuit of capitalism, will no doubt leave out to dry. I think what should be happening here is a literal fusion, meaning we have to take what works from these two system of governing/society and meet somewhere in the middle and come up with something called "Common Sense" I stand by my statement about the ripples in Europe coming to the USA. It is basically inevitable. I thought the Republicans would be the one to press all this cutting after the changing of the guard in Jan. But Gawds help us if Obama is the one to push this through his economic council. I can see the fallout now. What is even more scary is that what happened in Europe is nothing to what will happen in the USA, and the response will be an eye-shocker for sure as well. If you think our government isn't prepared for the kind of scenes from Europe, I think there will be a lot of folks out there sadly mistaken. FEMA could not respond to hurricane Katrina because they aren't in the disaster relief business. FEMA is here to counter citizen uprising or any threat of major civil unrest. There is a reason that FEMA sent a General to handle Katrina after National Guard from L.A. was overwhelmed and the outpost in N.O. were trapped themselves. FEMA is about crowd control, they went in, declared martial law, stripped everyone of their weapons among other things, and basically did a dry run of what a response to civil unrest and enforcing of marshal law will look like. We need to come together and "Think" about what to do, moving the conversations FORWARD and abstain from the nonsense like "Socialism, Marxism, Communism" that only leads to arguing against a sea of die hard "feelings" for whatever POV we may have. The only way to accomplish this is to move past the mechanisms that divide us and engage one another as one nation, undivided so we can all begin to see each others needs and concerns. Then can we listen to one another start leaving the old way of debating behind. We could argue about Capitalism being good or bad, it won't get us anywhere or solve any problems. We need to be able to think out of these boxes we have been trained to defend at the cost of actually listening to one another and never accomplishing anything. Leaving things to the joke of a government we have, and end up worse off than we started. Because now we have problems, and when the nonsense begins, we have problems and add no dialogue to try and solve anything. Leading to wasted time - time we don't have. And if there is anything in this world that I detest with a true passion, is wastefulness. Especially that of time, the most invaluable resource other than life itself. How much more time do we want to waste? Can we come up with any really really practical solutions to help out in the extreme near term? Can We?
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 09:29 am We do absolutly nothing. Sheep to the slaughter. We let Jesus whack 'em. Wine press of God's wrath baby! Nations destroyed in such a fasion that: "and they will know that I am the Lord". good stuff -gotta love the REAL 'gamemaster'. They're openly creating chimeras for crying out loud and that's mainstream news. That's splicing animal to animal, human to animal and animal to human DNA. Creating abominations. They're getting whacked this time. OH yeah and FEMA couldn't handle Katrina because FEMA didn't DO Katrina. That's how they respond when it's real, chaos, can't make decisions.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 10:18 am Swine Flu propaganda Swine Flu truth. Take the time to watch these, they're good Vaccine results
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 03:06 pm PH the problems that we have had during the past 10 years are a result of too much worldwide government debt, and excess government intervention in the markets. However, progressives always blame capitalism even though we have had a mixed economy ever since the 30's. I do agree that the European riots are coming here, and Obama will use them as an excuse to grab more power. He can't let a crisis go to waste.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 04:54 pm Danny, how did you draw that conclusion? The current Global Economic Crisis a result of the Housing Bubble caused in the United States that threw us, the leader of the world economy, into a recession and economic downturn. The snowball effects of this crisis led to a Global Credit Crunch. There has always been too much Global Government Debt, our world economic system is built upon debt, without debt, and lots of it, the World Central Banks and the IMF would have no reason or capacity to function. Global Debt didn't cause what is happening now. The ensuing Credit crunch resulting from the RE bubble in the US has now made refinancing and or carrying Outstanding Debt near impossible. You need to read up some more. And please leave the progressives\capitalist type accusations out of the conversation. We need to move forward. You all seem only interested in pointing a finger where the blame is already clearly obvious. So we don't need to point fingers, use your brainpower to figure out some kind of way to approach the problems facing the world, but our country in particular. Are you capable of doing that? All the fault finding is getting old and clearly unproductive, and a nonsensical waste of time. I detest wastefulness. Please. lets not waste each others' time. Start talking about solutions. Solutions that don't strip the already needy of the few things they have left to live on.
| |
Friday, November 12, 2010 - 04:56 pm
Haha, that's funny stuff there PH. Your obviously an intelligent person who writes well, but some of your positions are not well thought out.
So, it was just a few greedy wall street bankers who created this problem, right? Is that what you really believe? Isn't the Federal Reserve supposed to tighten monetary policy when they see a speculative bubble forming? They certainly failed to see the real estate bubble forming and react to it. What about the community reinvestment act? Did it not mandate that banks make more risky loans? Did Fannie Mae lower its standards, so it could buy these risky loans from the banks? Do you remember in 2005, when the Republicans tried to strengthen the regulations for Fannie Mae? Didn't Barney Frank say in 2005 that he saw no crisis? Then, in 2010 he denied saying that. Barney Frank's own words
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 05:58 pm They didn't 'fail' anything, the whole farce was planned. Nick, please wake up. Take the veil off and look at what is staring you in the face. If you are in denial, it is obvious we can't get anywhere arguing who is at fault. My positions are well thought out. I don't repeat what the media pours into our heads everyday. I think independently, so of course my view is not well thought out. It would appear your response is not well thought out. The conversation is moving(or at least should be by now) past the mumbo jumbo arguments. You feel how you feel, and so do I. Nothing will move us from our positions. Now can we get to what you think would help fix what is already done?
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 05:58 pm In order to prescribe solutions, one must examine what factors created the problem in the first place. That is key to fixing any issue. If you don't address the right things, then you want make any real progress. The 1st item would be to restore confidence in the economy, which would require a quick resolution to the wreckage of the real estate bubble. People who aren't currently paying their mortgages need to be removed from their homes, but helped by the government to find other places to live. Then, once the homes are resold to people who can pay the monthly payments, the real estate market can recover. Every post ww2 recovery has been led by real estate, and that's part of the reason this one is so anemic. The whole real estate financing system needs to be overhauled, and it needs more rigorous over-site and regulation. Second, Obamacare and the financial regulation bill need repeal ( especially the bailout provisions ). Tax rates should be maintained at current rates until growth rates start increasing and real estate prices stabilize. Government spending needs to return to pre tarp levels, except for the extra spending to resolve the foreclosure mess. Cap and Trade needs to be permanently withdrawn from consideration, and the EPA needs to halt its efforts to sneak it in without congressional approval. The Fed needs to return to more sound monetary policy, the current QE2 risks causing a worldwide meltdown. Third, once the economy is stabilized, we need tax reform, budgetary reform and entitlement reform. I will write more about this later, gotta go do some RL stuff. Feel free to comment.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 06:00 pm This history has peat and repeated more than once Nick, please wake up. If you don't think this wasn't a planned fleecing of the worlds wealth I can offer you some educational materials that might give you some insight.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 06:14 pm Right on Hon! Wait... history is in a peat bog? (the love of money REALLY IS the root of all evil)
| |
Friday, November 12, 2010 - 06:22 pm
You aint gettin' it. They don't work for you.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 06:22 pm I agree Danny. Obamacare should be repealed and we should replace it with a single payer system like that of Canada and the UK. This would simplify the entire process and move the debate towards making this healthcare model sustainable like it is in our the two mentioned nations. Taxes. Interesting. Again, simplification is needed. The mere debate is wasteful in itself. Raise taxes, lower taxes, yada yada. Install the "Fair Tax" proposal we all win and see a lot more money on our paychecks. A change to the "Fair Tax" is better for individuals of all wage classes and is probably the quickest and easiest route to a budget surplus, and easy financing of a single - payer healthcare system as well. Day in and day out I watch CNBC and Bloomberg. The schemes we see played out in the financial world and the lack of anyone in either party to combat corruption, restoring confidence in the Markets is going to be near impossible. Moving backwards and removing the new finreg bill will only deepen negative market sentiment, which is the reason it was first conceived. What do you think should replace it? Do you think free(er) markets will not lead us down the path we have already traveled? QE2 is debatable, but will get us nowhere, even opponents of quantitative easing are now in agreement that this was necessary. The risk of of a worldwide meltdown is already upon us, I fail to see how the "perceived' risk is not equally justified the other way around. Therefore both concerns cancel each other out. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. What I do wholeheartedly agree on is how the 600B was used. It was basically thrown in the black hole that is our current financial system where the money will be absorbed and be lucky to ever see or affect the average person who is going to end up footing the bill for it. I would rather see some 600B worth of state/taxpayer sponsored corporation to produce jobs and spruce up our lagging economy, retail and unemployment epidemic.
| |
| Friday, November 12, 2010 - 06:39 pm We have to listen to what they say. Wisdom dictates that whenever someone delivers a false accusation that they themselves are guilty of what they are accusing. Actually the word of God says that and I've found it's 100%, it always works. Try it out for yourself. Lets look at what our friends in Washington falsely accuse others of thereby exposing their own guilt. 1. They hate you for your freedoms. 2. They will stop at nothing to harm America. 3. They possess WMD and the will to use them. 4. They never stop thinking of new ways to harm America. 5. (just a second, let me pull ANY 'war drum' bush speech. How about the State of the Union where he's all coked up... brb) good short and to the point
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 12:07 am PH--well, we all have to rant occasionally.lol I like your husbands response to unemployment. Start your own business. My family has had its own business for 88 years. My sons, when they got out of school worked for others for a while but decided after a couple of years they didn't like that, so they started their own business and later came into the family business. they were fortunate that the business was there and much of my life has been devoted to teaching them how to look at like differently in terms of "jobs". Most Americans, when they think about work, think only about working for someone. And most have to do that. But more people ought to conside the alternative. I also agree that we may be faced with similar social upheavals as Europe is experiencing now. But our form of socialism is not as entrenched/severe as theirs. After Katrina many survivors came to Houston and a group that i'm a part, were asked by the mayor to go into the Astro Dome and find out what the people needed. When we went there it was apparent that within a couple of days the Dome would have been in anarchy. young thugs were intimidating old people and girls. children had nothing to do and rumors were rampant. We were able to organize pastors, and community leaders to develop a community in the dome, thus averting the chaos that occurred in N.O. It made me realize that we can organize in our communities to ensure our safety and that we can help ourselves but it takes courage to go door to door, organizing people for change. Remember, "all politics is local". SG- i understand how frustrating it is. And that's why many young people don't vote. What difference does it make? I hesitate to bring my religious background into the conversation, but I feel that we need to reconsider our basic spiritual values. What's really important? Money, power, pleasure? To an extent those have a place. But what about family, friends, community and a feeling of connection with something eteral and beyond ourselves. I have a saying, "we run so fast that our shadow can't catch up to us" That's the American way. If we slow down we'll be depressed and have to face all the little internal demons (not literal demons). I believe in Karma too. There are universal laws that eventually catch up with us. If we don't act with compassion for one another there will be a negative outcome. All of our institutions, no matter how well intended and thought out, are imperfect because we conceived them and have to try and abide by them.
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 12:50 am You wanna learn more about FEMA watch jesse ventura conspiracy theory tonight at 10pm on the east coast Thats on truTV. No joke u must accept the truth no matter how horrible it is. Call me crazy after you see it with your own eyes. I leave you with this clip and a quote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etv8YEqaWgA "The indiviual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists" - J. Edgar Hoover
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 12:56 am A couple of books that you might be interested in are: Crisis Economics: A crash course in the future of finance by, Nouriel Roubini and The Big Shrot by, Michael Lewis. They deal with the jmelt down and where we're going from here. I couldn't put them down. Also, i have a blog entitled www.ethicalhouston.com that among other things, deals with business ethics. I haven't posted in a couple of months but you might be interested.
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 01:25 am Kewl, I'm, looking you up.
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 05:25 am Nice video smokes.
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 05:39 am Solomon, your country is ready. I'll put it on the market on the next update, bid the minimum.
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 06:02 am It's midnight on east coast and it's not there yet. I'll be around for a couple/3 hours or so and I'll keep my eyes peeled. Thanks again, you rock
| |
| Saturday, November 13, 2010 - 08:05 am No problem. It is there now. Send me a message to Inannas Temple when you have the chance.
| |
| Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 02:37 pm One more post and I'm done with this topic. 1) PH- Yes a single payer would be better than the current bill. A single payer could save money if care for the elderly was rationed, however I would like to see reforms based on a free market model. The current bill will not save money, but will take us to a single payer eventually. 2) I like the fair tax as well. We tax work and savings, but not consumption which I think is a mistake. A combo 11% income / consumption tax would be preferable to the current system as well. 3) SG - There are forces ( most of the political establishment ) that are purposely trying to weaken this country. 4) Parsifal - I disagree with your assertion that Gov't is neither good or bad in of itself, just as capitalism is not inherently good or bad. Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, and this force used by statist governments have murdered millions of people and created most of the misery and poverty in the world today. For that reason, government power, although necessary, must be strictly limited. In comparison, capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, and individual rights. The capacity to enslave or murder others is limited, and people have a choice in who they do business with. The problems with capitalism result from having an interventionist government, when people of means can influence policies to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
| |
| Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 09:00 pm Danny, As long as the demographics are changing as they are we will need all to be covered. And yes there will be rationing. (there is now). There are some things that could be done to streamline treatment, the primary one being having a national system of record keeping--would save about 15% However there are those who feel this would be an infringement on personal freedom. A consumption tax is regressive and would be more of a burden on the poor and middle class. Closing loopholes such as mortgage interest might be better. The political establishment are not just the politicians. It's primarily those who donate millions during elections and on important votes and then expect something in return. These include business organizations, unions, and other special interest groups, both right and left. Change won't take place until we have term limits where politicians can't vote in order to maintain their power. No real substantive change will occur until we remove their power incentive. I reiterate that gov't and corps are neither inherently good or bad. They are institutions created by humans and thus have certain inate flaws built in. But primarily it is the people who run these institutions that are responsible for making either decisions that are for the betterment of all or that are only concerned about their own power and greed. Capitalism is not always based on voluntary exchange and individual rights. You have to go back to my post on what is the purpose of the corp. Who does it serve?
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 04:19 am Single payer. Single payer! Can anyone give a coherent explanation as to why they think "single payer" would be good for our health care delivery system, yet would not also be good for our hair cutting and styling system, nor for our food delivery system, nor for the delivery system of a manufactured good like refrigerators? Or does anyone here think we in the US should have single payer hair care? Single payer hunger care? Single payer foodcooling care?
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 04:50 am Why exactly is single-payer a bad thing Jojo, opposed to what we have now, or before ObamaCare?
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 05:07 am No successful answers so far!
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 05:10 am No legitimate questions either. What did you expect?
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 05:18 am Only one question, to keep things simple!
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 05:32 am I just wanted to know why you think it won't be good for our health care delivery system. I understand if you feel opposed to it, it is a choice. But I don't see why you want to refuse a solution to a problem without presenting one of your own. Seems like wasteful conversation, we can argue all day what is good and bad about x,y, or z. But if we come to the conclusion that x,y, or z is bad, we need to start talking about solutions. So you oppose single payer. Okay we get it smart guy. Now you want to school everyone on why it is bad, and why anyone who wants it is insane and has no brain. But what do you propose in its place. We can all agree that our healthcare system is messed up, so offer a better solution to single payer(if you can), not just attack something that you have allowed the media to make you believe is a bad thing. If you can't provide a solution, talking and arguing a lose lose conversation is a waste of time. Who cares what is good and bad, what works or doesn't, what is coherent and what is not. I want to know what you think IS coherent and good for our healthcare delivery system. Can you do that, or are you interested in dancing in circles.
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 05:37 am But... ok smart guy, I'll do you one better. I actually coherently explain why I think Single payer is good for our healthcare delivery system. Then I'll ignore you while you jump up and down pulling your hair out trying to oppose a coherent response. Then I will check in from time to time to see if you can offer a better more inclusive solution than single payer. 1. Everybody in,nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period. The desire of 81% of all Californians, as reported in a January, 2007 Field Poll. 2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage goes with you. 3. Uniform benefits. No Cadillac plans for the wealthy and Pinto plans for everyone else, with high deductibles, limited services, caps on payments for care, and no protection in the event of a catastrophe. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet. 4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of communicable diseases. 5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured a fair reimbursement. 6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems. 7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare, a single-payer, universal system. 8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone, largely by using existing resources without the waste. Taiwan, shifting from a U.S. healthcare model, adopted a single-payer system in 1995, boosting health coverage from 57% to 97% with little if any increase in overall healthcare spending. 9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered, and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment. 10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation packages or stock wealth or company profits.
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 06:02 am And while we are on the subject, I don't know about single payer hair care, but single payer food cooling sounds promising. Actually, I've never really thought of it until now that you mention it. If we could power just one single super huge energy efficient freezer, imagine how that would positively impact the environment. Great thinking Jojo. With so many people starving and running low on food, so many freezers are running for absolutely no reason or they are grossly under-filled. Sharing cooling capacity would essentially turn off a bazillion unused freezers. Imagine how many people have empty freezers yet run them just to allow the fridge to keep the milk cool. If we could gain some traction emailing congress about this Nix would be proud.
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 06:10 am Tra La La La - Waiting...
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 08:08 am So much to comment on, so little time. 1. Parsifal, I don't see a lack of capital or infrastructure as roadblocks to economic development. They will be built as they are needed and if they are needed. Infrastructure does little to benefit people who are starving and even less if they are built as a precursor to economic development because they are built at the expense of a people, of individuals, that cannot support it. Capital benefits the nation, but an embrace of capitalism - in addition to political stability - would be the single most important step along this road. However, the main problem is the lack of political stability and I imagine the corruption of said government. Capitalism does not solve this problem. Nationalism - as in a respect for laws by citizens and officials - is necessary for the development of political stability, but there are no easy answers or simple solutions. The vicious circle does not lie in either the lack of capital or infrastructure, but in the lack of political stability. Markets of untapped cheap labor will lure in capital and lead to the development of infrastructure, but so long as there is a corrupt, unstable, interventionist government, there will be no improvement.
2. The corporation serves the individual(s) invested in it by earning money. That is the purpose. That is the only purpose. All other interests are secondary. The failure in the primary leads to a failure in all secondary purposes, but the primary purpose, profit for those invested, is first and foremost as it should be. 3. On the level of taxation, the fairest system as it would appear to be would be a proportional tax on income since this is by nature neither regressive nor progressive. This is, of course, only in regards to those services that cannot be said to benefit one person over another... the only three things government is necessary for: defense, police, and the courts. If the government is to involve itself in anything further, the cost - as much as is possible - should be distributed according to how much someone benefits. However, it shouldn't be. 4. Wendy, you're clearly advocating communism. It's worked so well in the past, right? In any case, that isn't even the fundamental problem. People who cannot afford healthcare should not receive it, why you might ask? Because in order to pay for it, you need to rob someone else to pay for it. If everyone is fine and dandy about paying for other people's healthcare - let them do it, VOLUNTARILY. If someone can afford the best care, you have NO RIGHT to rob them of it - and you speak of giving people autonomy.= I trust my insurance company to give me a fair shake more than the state. They lose business when they fail to satisfy their customers, government does not: it is the only game in town. Public oversight? Ahaha! The most successful public oversight will instill an oppressive system that regulates your day to day life. Why shouldn't the public tell their minorities that they can't smoke or drink or eat fat/salt/potatoes? These are all public health risks! The solution to the problem of healthcare is to do nothing. Actually, to do less than nothing, to eliminate all state healthcare entirely. People unable to afford healthcare is unfortunate. The deprivation of rights, freedom, and property to do it is downright evil.
5. If we remove the power of the state to influence the economy, this problem goes away. There must be complete separation of economy and state! Everything else is robbery at the point of a gun; no matter how "noble" the ruse. Compulsory altruism and mandatory collectivism are the evils of this age. There is little I would fight for, but this is one of those things. I do NOT exist to serve others just as they do not exist to serve me.
| |
Monday, November 15, 2010 - 08:29 am
I am a laissez faire capitalist. All entitlements, even these, are wrong and should never have been given.
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 08:38 am Wonk Wonk Wonk...
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:47 am When an armed man approaches me and says, "Your money or your life," why should I be so quick to give my money?
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 11:09 am When Dawn approaches and the horizon brightens, should I ask, "Where is the moon?"
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 04:52 pm That's my thinkings at the moment: 1.Monetarism manage to make science diverting from his real purpose (to make communities grow) aiming to duplicate himself senseless. 2.Democracy has to consider commonwealth and relations, not economic standards (excepting efficiency) 3.We can walk ahead only, evolution is something to be conquered, using instinctual and feelings in the real 'Human' way. 4.Economy is coherence. Not capital. 5.We must be aware that the relations we carry (economical, social, sentimental, etc) are the result of the process begun in the time of philosophical birth of communities (polis stay for town-state as oikon stay for community, from that oikonomeia), that is civil state. Personally I would never trade This History of relations with some net gross growing. But evidently a lot do. And modern politicians and electors accept too easily this trade. Stating that the future is ahead is not so selfevident today.
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:13 pm Cold Rolling--what are you smoking dude. I thought i had my finger up my a..
| |
| Monday, November 15, 2010 - 09:37 pm Scarlet--infrastructure; to a degree you are right. Worldwide the IMF has lent great sums of money for building of infrastruture. Much of the money to build this infrastructure was contracted to American and European corps. When it came to pay the loans the countries couldn't pay. Thus they were sanctioned which created more hardship. However, as an investor I'm only willing to take a risk that I feel will pay off. The greater the risk, the more return i want. And I wouldn't invest in many parts of the world regardless of what they say on CNBC. Purpose of business--look at the mission statements of large corporations. it will give you an idea of what they think is important. It goes without saying that if a company can't make a profit, it can't stay in business. Notice that it is multifacited. And unless they're BS'ing us it's more than just maximizing profits. Mission •Caterpillar will be the leader in providing the best value in machines, engines and support services for customers dedicated to building the world's infrastructure and developing and transporting its resources. We provide the best value to customers. •Caterpillar people will increase shareholder value by aggressively pursuing growth and profit opportunities that leverage our engineering, manufacturing, distribution, information management and financial services expertise. We grow profitably. •Caterpillar will provide its worldwide workforce with an environment that stimulates diversity, innovation, teamwork, continuous learning and improvement and rewards individual performance. We develop and reward people. Here's Caterpillar mission statement. •Caterpillar is dedicated to improving the quality of life while sustaining the quality of our earth. We encourage social responsibility. Separation of gov't and economy--saying that, i guess you would agree to remove most of US military from around the world. Much of our military presence around the world is not due to a threat to our shores, but to our business interests. Why did we turn back Sadaam in Kuwait and not do anything in the Sudan or Rhowanda? (only two examples). I find your statement, "I I do NOT exist to serve others just as they do not exist to serve me", very sad. What you describe is not freedom, but the worst of all bondage. And that statement probably makes you very mad, since you don't think you need sympathy or help.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 01:55 am A huge super energy efficient freezer, to replace all the freezers in people's homes?
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 02:51 am Yeah I am looking into patents as we type in another tab.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 06:20 am Filed in the name of "the people", right? Otherwise you'll be the cornerstone of another corporate scam, and we'll have to rise up against your oppression of the hungering masses.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 02:34 pm Jojo--i'm sure we'd see legislation enacted to protect us from PH's scam. lol
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 04:35 pm Actually, they would take it over and change it into business as usual all the while praising PH for her amazing accomplishment. See here: They are not serving the country in which they rule, this has become obvious. They have an objective. Watch what they do. They say smaller government and double it's size. They say less tax we get more. Oh and war, war, war. What a dark time in history. A time in which nations retarded their own children... God help us. I'm tellin ya, these are things nations don't do to themselves. It's like someone has hacked America's SC account, got in there and started jacking the education index, financial index, nationalizing corporations instead of leaving them private, jacking taxes, poisoning the population and declaring war on a bunch of countries. Yeah, Americans wouldn't do this... We aren't like that... These aren't Americans, not like any Americans I've ever met anyway. Oops what topic is this? (checking) Oh good Aristotle. He'd agree with me.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 05:15 pm We are under attack. You would be wise to read and reread the following carefully It's a speech in it's entirety it's worth the time to patiently read. A word from the last REAL President of the United States. John F. Kennedy (Directly from the JFK Presidential Library website- I added '(laughter)' because I have the audio.) The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association President John F. Kennedy Waldorf-Astoria Hotel New York City, April 27, 1961 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession. You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating." But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly;(laughter) if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man. (laughter) I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration. (laughter) Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans.(laughter) Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents. Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.(laughter) On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors. I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity. This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy. I The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security. Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion. For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted. The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration. On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal. I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history. II It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it. III It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure. And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 06:07 pm so, who is the enemy/s? G20, UN, Rep/Dems, Big Business, Siros, Israel, Big Labor, Ivy League universities, Goldman Sachs, or all of the above and a few more.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 07:53 pm Parsifal, I'm not necessarily a pacifist, but ideally, we shouldn't be involving ourselves in wars that do little to protect the security of our nation - but from an honest, long-term perspective. It's not lightly that we should send people to fight and die overseas. Whether or not most of our military actually is being used to promote business interests over security interests would be beyond the scope of my knowledge and not something I'd want to get into right now. I'll just say that I still have some faith - or at least much hope - that when the President sends troops somewhere, he working with the current and future security of American citizens and troops as the prime consideration. As far as your last statement, I don't understand how it could be "the worst of all bondage" so the statement doesn't make me angry, just very curious on what precisely you mean - especially since it should make me angry. I'll bite: how is it the worst of all bondage? Solomon, I fail to see how the speech relates to conspiracy.
| |
| Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 10:10 pm Scarlet--my statement on bondage is a personal projection. to "me" living into your statement would be bondage. it's akin to being an agoraphobic who is afraid to go outside or to interact with others. For me the good life is about being relational, even when those relationships end in loss, which they all do. i've been very successful in my life and i have given myself to many and many have given themselves for me. i would not be who i am now, if it were not for those relationships. We humans are social creatures with all the frailties of our relationships. i've known numerous people who have been emotially hurt by others, who are bitter and angry and swear off relationships because of the pain they cause. They may keep a strong outer facade but inside they are hurting, angry and lost. on the other hand we have to realize that people as well as institutions are imperfect. in the face of that imperfection, it's easy to feel powerless and angry because they don't live up to our high expectation--so we reject them in total. maybe we are putting our faith in the wrong places.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 07:39 am Wow dude, did you read it?
This is NOT an internet conspiracy theorist... It's THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The intent is not to support, prove or disprove conspiracy theory or fact it is to demonstrate that yes, in fact, we are under attack.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 01:06 pm I assume Kennedy was talking about the Soviet Union and Communism. Is that what you're talking about. In Kennedy's day things like the UN, and all other international groups were considered by some as involved in the international communist conspriracy. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there's been a shift in conspiracy theories to everything from the IMF, the G20, God, Islamic extremeists, Obama, Ivy League schools, Goldman Sachs etc.,etc.,etc. No doubt that in Kennedy's time the Soviet Union was the main adversary. Today, is seems less focused. It seems to me that there are a lot of large/powerful groups that are seeking to consolidate in themselves, more power. Help me understand better what you mean.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 03:06 pm I went back to one of your earlier posts and it struck me that your image of the statue of the eagle as "lucifer" might be what/who you're talking about as the conspiracy. am i right? If so, that puts the conversation into a completely different realm.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 06:30 pm You did Parsifal? I realized that he's jokes about communism which the cold war has been going on for 15 years at this point. What's changed that there is such an emergency in 1961. No, you're missing it. He's joking about the soviet union and then says: "My topic tonight is a more sober one" It's obvious that it's not the communists. They use armies by day. You really have to stuggle to take it like that. This is, as I stated, about whether or not the USA is under attack. It looks to me like it is and by the same punks that JFK is talking about. Ok... Lets get another United States President's oppinion so that we all really have to force our heads into the sand, and see if we think he's talking about Russia too. Remember hindsight is 20/20. President Eisenhower I stumbled across this. I thought it was pretty good. More presidents and what they say. New World Order & World Leaders.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 07:14 pm Bottom line. Politics are weapons of subversion in many cases.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 11:06 pm Parsifal: Is it really service to others when you do something for somebody you care about? I would consider that I'm doing myself the real service! It's difficult to explain beyond that, but I think you'll agree that helping out a friend isn't the same thing as helping out a stranger. My answer is the reason one is completely natural and the other is not easy... also, the reason why I would do one and not the other.
| |
| Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 11:36 pm SG--now we're getting somewhere. I've been hearing about the New World Order and the Illuminati ever since my mother took me to John Birch Society meetings back in 1956. As the people who believe in this movement will tell you, the Illumnati goes back hundreds, maybe thousands of years. Even a significant number of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were FreeMasons. Did they conform to those tenets that are attributed to the Illuminati/New World Order? They certainly had there own self interest at heart. there is no doubt those in power pass that power on to their young (skull and bones). And there's no doubt that they network in the circles of power that you and I don't have access. As far as their influence on world events, you can even make an argument that the war in Afganistan is going on to ensure that the heroin trade is controlled by the powerful western forces of the New World Order to keep the rest of us in a drug fog. But if they've been around for centuries and are becoming more powerful what to do. Using the logic of the conspirator theorist, you could make the argument, and some have, that Hitler was the righteous one who was trying to eliminate the evil illuminati (Rothchild's, Zionists, Western Illuminati) That would be a real stretch. so, what to do? Most people lay back and enjoy it. Or they listen to commercials telling them what will make them happy as they're taking another toke to deaden the senses. So, the first thing we need to do is sober up, literally and figuratively. Get off the SOMA. But you can't attack the idea of a conspiracy because it's too amorphous. We know there's an enemy out there, we just can't put our finger on it. So, we attribute it to all sorts of things and then bind it together as the New World Order. In the Old Testament, the prophets continually berated the Kings and the poeple for worshiping false gods, sayint that the only answer was to worship Yahweh. When Jesus preached he basically said the same thing--"you are worshiping the wrong things and you will reap the whirlwind" (not an actual quote) But the bottom line of both the old and new testament was Love God and Love Neighbor. Those four simple words need a lot of unpacking, but bottom line is that we have a choice as to how we will live our lives and the way of Light is what all the great religions have said, that compassion, living the simple life and caring for neighbor, in honor to God is our salvation. religion has a lot of its own baggage but at its core it says that we're not God and that God's creation will continue whether we blow ourselves up or not. That's a very sobering thought. But,we make the choice. and it's both individual as well as collective. We can't live life in isolation.
| |
Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 06:22 am I have a feeling you know better than that. I would call it a result not a means. But that's more of a discussion for a private chat. Otherwise I really enjoyed the read. You make a lot of sense and I agree.
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 06:54 am Here is what I think about the New World Order. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I don't think it's secret. I don't think it's organized. I think everything that happens that appears to be a step toward the NWO is the result of misguided activists and opportunistic power-seekers. The activists sincerely promote policy that leads to an authoritarian society believing that they'll create a better world. The power-seekers are smart enough to see the trend toward authoritarianism and do what they need to do to be sure they're on top and others are beneath them. I think drugs, nepotism, extremism, gun control, censorship, corruption, socialism, racism, elitism, corporatism, statism, etc. are what they are. They aren't tools of a vast conspiracy. They are the result of "will to power," of wealth equalization, of ALL ideologies opposed to freedom. Collectively, they are the combination of short-sighted ignorance and basic power-mongering. I don't think it's a vast, organized conspiracy. I think it's a trend. I think it's a dreadful trend caused by the destruction of the individual in favor of "the greater good." It's the slow, steady death of a free society that has lost it's faith in the free market, in private property, and in the sovereignty of the individual. It's not perpetuated in elitist circles. It's perpetuated in the words - "the greater good." It's perpetuated in anything and everything that says one should submit before the good of society, the greatest good for the greatest number... because behind that you have a question: Who determines the greatest good? Who decides who is part of the greatest number? Somebody must decide who to sacrifice for the sake of everyone. Will it be Big Business, Big Government, or Big Labor that gets to decide? Take your pick, but it certainly won't be the individual. Watch democracy slowly turn to mobocracy. Watch the rise of demogogues whose sole ambition is power at the price of catering to the mob. What is happening is that we are sacrificing just a little bit of liberty at a time to get just a little security... Social Security, Job Security, Homeland Security, Economic Security. We do it under the name of freedom: Freedom from Fear, Freedom from Want. We do it to protect "freedom," only we're giving up freedom to do it. Freedom from Want and from Fear, these are the modern form of bread and circuses. The creation of a complacent mob is not accomplished by deviousness... it's accomplished by the most noble goals imaginable.
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 07:06 am Scarlet, a man who made it all the way to President of United States and walked in the same circles of power that we're discussing says the exact opposite as your first 4 sentences. Literally. I can copy and paste him saying the exact opposite. Sorry dude, you're cool and all but his words carry more weight. _________________________________________________________ Wow, the more I go over what you've written the more f***ed up it gets.
Now THAT's crazy!
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 07:12 am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQv-sdMCClQ&feature=pyv&ad=5953390594&kw=alex%20jones JUST WATCH IT!!!
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 07:17 am To Parsifal --- Not a good feeling i think... :D Just trying to have a look ahead. Talking about taxation or whatever without having a general look about where societies are evolving to is quite senseless. Corporations and capitalism fail to interact with the growing powers of extraeconomical forces. Above all on the field of economical externalities. Have you guys ever heard about biopolitics? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/biopolitical-capitalism/ http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2010/03/biopolitics-as-event-commonwealth.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopower Maybe I am OT, if someb is interested we can start a trend about
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 08:59 am Good video Sir. I've liked Gerald Celente since I first listened to him. I find it interesting and a bit disturbing that the NIA is naive enough to use a pyramid image in their logo. They should know better.
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 09:44 am Here's a little one that pissed me off. The 1 year annivisary of 911. It's a short clip It's the eye of horus out of ancient Egypt. Or the all seeing eye of the mason if you believe the later deception. Goes back farther than the Pharos though, the Pharos only adopted the power derived from the service to that demon from the cultures before them. (note the CBS logo in the lower right, almost creepy)
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 04:00 pm Scarlet-- i have difficulty judging motive. i don't think any act is totally altruistic. yes, it's probably easier to help a friend than a stranger. with strangers, we generally don't get very close to them. with friends it might be different. thanks though for the explanation.
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 10:33 pm SG/Scarlet/SSA My problem with conspiracy theories is that in most cases they only tell you the problem and not a solution. At least NIA suggest buying gold. short of lining up all those "we" think are to blame, up against the wall and shooting them, there aren't many alternatives given. those kind of solutions are usually like moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic. we just rearrange the players a bit. That's what's probably what's going to happen with Tea Party efforts. Historically, there are some ways of fundamentally bringing systemic change that doesn't just move chairs. Ghandi, MLK, Vietnam protestors, have used mass protest to bring change. the reason that it worked is that enough people decided not to play the game in the old manner. "i'm not going to ride your buses, or buy your products, or fight your war until you change what you're doing." "i'm going to sit in the president of the university's office until we students have a voice." 80% of all people with recent mortgages are upside down on those mortgages and are facing eventual foreclosure. what would happen if everyone decided not to pay anymore. do you think, meaningful changes in mortgage terms might occur? or would everyone be forcably evicted? currently, wall street is very concerned that the "retail investor" (that's all us snooks) are not investing in the market. Can you blame people, considering all that's gone on on wall street and Washington in the past three years. People have made the decision not to buy stocks. But we have short memories and we'll eventually go back to investing. would there be any meaningful change in wall street if we all said "hell no, i not going to invest until you clean things up". on an individual basis, we all have the choice of not buying into the call of the "dominant culture" to buy,buy,buy. we can make choices to live a life based on a different set of values than what we've heard from the media. we can buy or invest in companies that are ethical and fair (as you see it). it may not change things but at least you've made a statement. and who knows, if enough people make different choices on the way they live their lives, something might happen.
| |
| Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 10:57 pm Cold Rolling-- The authors of a couple of your cites refer to Michael Foucault. He's a bit opaque in his writing but I think I get his gist. He deals a lot with how power systems work in a civilized society. He contemplates "a dual conception of power: power over life (the administration and production of life associated with government of populations) and then another, power of life, that strives for an alternative existence." As I understand it, the first "power over life" has to do more with how those who have the power manipulate the system to control things. One way is to aggregate people into categories like, male, female, white, black, Christian, Jew, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. This immediately separates us from each other and these catagories become important in defining who we are. It's nice and tidy but while it creates order of sorts, also creates separation that impedes conversation and association. On the other hand "power of life" implies freedom and that we are subjects and not objects. We then are "I's" and not "It's". Much of our conversation on this thread is a reaction to living in a system where we feel like "It's". Most of us want to be seen as having value and freedom and not being catagorized in the many ways that this happens resulting in the diminishing of our humanity. this is a very brief and limited explanation of some of what I understand Foucault's thinking to be. I stand to be corrected and welcome comments.
| |
| Friday, November 19, 2010 - 02:43 am Solomon, I'm pretty sure that he was referencing the covert actions of the KGB. Just a thought. Cold Rolling, neat little theory. It explains a world in which society is literally an organism. If only we lived in one...
| |
| Friday, November 19, 2010 - 03:00 am i agree with you Scarlet. Kennedy was often labeled as being part of the New World Order.
| |
| Saturday, November 20, 2010 - 03:25 pm Cold Rolling--why don't you start a thread?
| |
| Saturday, November 20, 2010 - 06:14 pm There really can be only ONE truth I'm not saying that I know it just that I'm closer than most.
| |
| Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 02:24 am I'm still waiting on a coherent response from Jojo. LOL!
| |
| Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 06:59 pm You guys all know Alex right?
| |
| Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 07:45 pm SG--same old, same old. No solutions offered.
| |
| Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 08:14 pm LOL I'm almost sorry I don't watch mainstream news any more! (It's full of solution Parsifal~ Speak out! Step 1: Identify the problem.)
| |
| Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 10:41 pm But they've been informing for over sixty years. They keep saying that armageddon is at hand and the world is coming to an end or that we're losing our freedom. They lose their credibility. Information without action is useless. From the TV evangelist who says to send them money to send the message that the end times are at hand to LaRouche with his convuluted message, to those who say alien spacecraft land in 1948, to Kennedy being assassinated by a conspiracy, it's all the same. It's true that there are bad people out there and we should put criminals behind bars. But let's not take away our freedom in the process. Freedom is a state of mind and you can be held hostage by your own thoughts and addictions or you can see yourself as not being in bondage to the "dominate culture". Most of them are false prophets.
| |
| Monday, November 22, 2010 - 02:20 am We are living in the same solar system right? I would expect you to say something like that if it was evident that it was business as usual rather than being obvious that we are being ushered into a police state. You're coming from the perspective that nobody's been proven right over the last sixty years, erroneous assumption. The evidence is overwhelming.
How is anyone losing credibility if this is what's happening? The problem is that we don't see a clear cut solution, but the answer to this is not to deny the problem. ...but I'm up for a subject change
| |
| Monday, November 22, 2010 - 06:12 am Parsifal, I agree. There isn't any dire emergency. I might not have been clear earlier, but I don't think anything is happening quickly... because I don't think anyone is behind the gradual loss of freedom. If someone were behind it with some dark agenda, we would already have been led into the police state before I was born. I don't think there is any clear end, just that a slow, gradual slide toward state property and autocracy is occurring is the tiniest steps. One person in the right place at the right time could probably turn it around, but right place and right time would probably so coincidental and obscure as to not be known. Maybe the 52nd president gets the idea in his head at a young age that if he isn't entitled to anything he didn't earn, then nobody is. Maybe someone who'll be remembered as a history-maker winds up being introduced to Emerson instead of Sartre, Rand instead of Marx, Dostoevsky instead of Ellis. Maybe somebody decides to become a businessman rather than a politician or the other way around. Maybe the right tax fails. Maybe the wrong law passes. When I said several times that the greater good needs to be forgotten, it's because the only reason anyone would willingly give up their freedom is to achieve some kind of good that supercedes themselves or to fight some sort of evil that supercedes themselves. In my mind, the threat IS the gradual loss of freedom for any cause. My solution is to oppose any loss of any freedom whatsoever, no matter how noble the cause may be; to oppose everything that professes to improve the public good at individual expense. At the current rate, I'll probably be dead before the US becomes a police state, if it even does. However, it seems that China has begun a similar gradual slide toward a free society. This should help explain the nature of the change I think is occurring. We are becoming unfree at the rate China is becoming free... the speed at which glass flows (it's a liquid you know). As far as changing the subject, it'll change when everyone quits talking about it. I'm not sure that I would like to just yet.
| |
Monday, November 22, 2010 - 08:14 am
The vast majority of people would agree with you.
| |
| Monday, November 22, 2010 - 08:17 pm Universal Health Care Message to Americans From Canadian Doctors & Health Care Experts
| |
| Monday, November 22, 2010 - 10:29 pm even in "free" societies there is control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zPVa0_6gxc
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 04:41 am A coherent response to an incoherent response to my question will not be forthcoming.
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 04:53 am You have successfully responded to a coherent response and subsequent request for a coherent response incoherently. Congratulations and "check" and "mate"!
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 05:51 am I once witnessed a checkmate without either player taking any pieces. It was the single greatest game I ever witnessed.
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 08:24 am The two Koreas have exchanged fire and South Korea is scrambling fighter jets. Looks like it is ON and POPPIN on the Korean Peninsula. I wonder how this will suck the US into another war. GoodNight, I hope to not be at war with North Korea by the time we wake up. LOL
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 09:15 am We'll know who to blame
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 02:47 pm Weighing in on Dutch healthcare system. So, how does the Dutch system work? Their system is fairly simple, everyone is required to purchase insurance from highly-regulated private providers. They describe it as "private health insurance with social conditions". Insurers are tightly regulated for quality, provision of basic services, and to prevent discrimination, as they are required to accept everyone in their coverage area at a flat rate, no matter what their health status. To prevent loss of profitability from chronically-ill patients, they have a risk equalization system so that rather than losing profits from recruiting sicker patients, insurance companies are compensated for providing service to those patients who need it most. And if a citizen wants to change companies, or buy additional insurance they are free to. It's a system that encourages competition, but is regulated to prevent the companies from selecting only healthy patients, or otherwise abusing the system to prevent health care provision to sick people. The incentives are designed to provide excellent care to as many people as possible, cheaply and efficiently no matter what their health status, rather than the perverse US system in which the incentives are to deny care and only sign on the healthy. The government even runs a website allowing patients to comparison shop among the different insurance companies and hospitals based upon their ratings for quality, outcomes and performance indicators. A survey of health satisfaction comparing the US and several other countries, including the Netherlands, showed that the Netherlands led the pack in most measures of patient satisfaction and provision of care. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUje1Fc2ajc
| |
| Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 02:48 pm SG- yes it's all Canada's fault. lol
| |
| Monday, November 29, 2010 - 04:38 pm It aint over 'til the fat lady sings Korea
|
