New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Source:
Forbes
URL Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhan ... humanity-by-2050/#7bc8a19e4a36
Published: Feb 16, 2016
Author: Drew Hansen
Post Date: 2016-02-16 17:54:41 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 25049
Comments: 163
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale. • Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School). • Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN). • Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census). • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections). Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form. How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain? Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. “Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.” Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health. We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management. The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives. On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company. According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership: The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards. This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees. REI is a consumer cooperative that drew attention this past year when it opted out of Black Friday sales, encouraging its employees and customers to spend the day outside instead of shopping. I suspect that the most successful companies under this emerging form of capitalism will have less concentrated, more egalitarian ownership structures. They will benefit not only financially but also communally. Joint Ownership Will Lead To Collaborative Management The hierarchical organization of modern corporations will give way to networks or communities that make collaboration paramount. Many options for more fluid, agile management structures could take hold. For instance, newer companies are experimenting with alternative management models that seek to empower employees more than a traditional hierarchy typically does. Of these newer approaches, holacracy is the most widely known. It promises to bring structure and discipline to a peer-to-peer workplace. Holacracy “is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss.” Companies like Zappos and Medium are in varying stages of implementing the management system. Valve Software in Seattle goes even further, allowing employees to select which projects they want to work on. Employees then move their desks to the most conducive office area for collaborating with the project team. These are small steps toward a system that values the employee more than what the employee can produce. By giving employees a greater say in decision-making, corporations will make choices that ensure the future of the planet and its inhabitants. 
(Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-85) not displayed.
.
.
.
#86. To: A Pole, TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#60)
Yo, A Pole, you there? All I hear from you is CRICKETS. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
If YOU want to see the effects of socialism, visit Scandanavia... it's really quite nice there and a helluva lot better than the banana republic fascism that the GOP is importing from our southern border. Wrong! You could have fooled me. I've been married to a Russian lady for 15 years. We have a second home in Volgograd, Russia. Russia is socialist. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I. Wouldn't have my dog operated on in Russia. That's one reason why I haven't visited there recently. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I've invested. Heavily in stocks over the years and lost more than I've gained. The risk was mine and I lost. You would deny me the chance to redeem what. I lost. Good CEOs are rare, and are often worth what the market will bear. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
As I noted earlier: --- TooConservative advocated " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework". I agreed, it's a workable system... 'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else. Of course it has. And we're long overdue to stop the 'cash' type of welfare, and concentrate on a voucher/card type system that can eliminate most fraud... I doubt I've missed much, dealing with a lot of very clever part time employees over the years. I've seen every kind of scam you can imagine to get 'benefits'.
In "ALL" you include American government or you don't? Do you really believe that you can just go there?
History is not your strong side.
I would love to see some examples. What freedoms do you have that Italians, or Brazilians, or Irish, or Indians do not?
Reread carefully what you and me wrote. I have no energy to untangle your confusion.
Those of us who have done this have come to know a good thing when we see it. Before you talk about sorry ass forms of government you really should think for a while, if you really had a choice would you live where you do? You have drunk the koolaid and want to believe anything you are told, but I have seen failed nations, I have seen places where you scratch your head and wonder what's going on. I've been to places when you are told not to go there and what I know is not everything is what you think it is and certainly not what you have been told it is
In a home country or a country that you know well and have friends there? Politics is not so important while moving and adjusting to another place and culture is a very difficult thing.
The only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism Silly question, seeing there are no other countries with our freedoms. I'm free to live in the United States. Many Italians, or Brazilians, or Irish, or Indians want to, but cannot. That's a continuing historical fact. But being our resident pest, you don't let facts interfere with your juvenile trolling. ---- So please, get lost..
If I really had the choice, I would live on my own cherry orchard and experimental dairy, with experimental sturgeon ponds, in Leelanau County, Michigan. My house would be a log-and-stone cabin, built entirely with local materials. Such electrical power as needed would be wind-generated. It would be good. But I don't have the choice - too many commitments, too many other people depending on me. This is true of all. If my wife had the choice, we'd live in Paris or Manhattan. Connecticut is a compromise.
Yes. Paris was a very easy place to live and to like. New York was. The other American cities in which I've lived, less so, because there's nothing in most cities except clothing stores, gas stations and fast food.
You are calling God's own economic structure, laid out in Exodus and Leviticus, and repeated in Deuteronomy, "thievery". You're wrong.
You're wrong. You are full of it on this like most things. God never told anyone to give 50 plus percent of their income to a godless government. You support stealing from productive people and giving it to sloths. Tell me great one what the Bible says about sloths and why you want to give slots money from productive people. You would make God a liar if you could.
I'm free to live in the United States. Many Italians, or Brazilians, or Irish, or Indians want to, but cannot. There many Americans who want and live in other countries. This is XXI century in case if you don't know. And every Italian, Brazilians etc have freedom to live in their country. And many of them like to do so. You have skewed perspective because you meet only those who wanted to emigrate. Returning to the original question, can you show how Italy or India are less free?
Are you saying that rich people are rich because they work hard and poor working people are poor because they are lazy?
Tell me great one... You would make God a liar if you could. Pass. It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. (Proverbs 20:3)
Of course it has. And we're long overdue to stop the 'cash' type of welfare, and concentrate on a voucher/card type system that can eliminate most fraud... Then how do you believe that, given the current demographics and the irrefutable trend, the U.S. will reverse course and backup to something more reasonable? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Get out much? -- We're about to elect Trump, who says he will reverse the trends. I have high hopes, ( but not much faith). - And if Trump fails, we'll find somebody who can.
The outlook is not encouraging at all, in part because the GOP talks more about fiscally conservative policy than doing anything about it.
This is a time in which talk is cheap, and rhetoric abounds. Reality has flown and will be back in the autumn
As sad as this is, that is my point. Keep coming to the light. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You reread what you said, I will just post it here: "#55. To: SOSO (#53) .................................................... In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor. ................................................. A Pole posted on 2016-02-17 13:35:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply" NB - you made the claim for the prosperity of the middle class IN THE 1950 and 1960s. I asked you three times now exactly to which Third World countries are you referring in the 1950s and 1960s. You haven't answered this yet and probably never will because you know that you are full of sh*t. On the utterly remote chance you answer it is incumbent on you to document with links the source of you information as I just about always do with you. It is plain for all to see that you are just a mindless propaganda tool for your Commie handlers as you rarely, if ever, back up you claims with credible data from credible sources. This will just be one more time in that mold for you. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Show me exactly how much the U.S. benefitted from cheap labor from Third World countries in the 1950s and 1960s as you claim was a significant reason for the prosperity of the middle class in the U.S. during that time. Read the data very well now or get an honest person to read it for you and you will see that the value of ALL imports into the U.S. in the 1950s and1960s was close to nothing. You can't defend your claim, can you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I can defend the claims I make. if as you say the imports into the US in the 50's and 60's were inconsequential I would have to ask is this because of high tarriff barriers? You imports rose only because your job creators took your jobs and created them somewhere else
I can defend the claims I make. My post we directed to A Pole who made the claim that I referenced. You were copied because you appeared to be interested in the thread. But if you have a claim to make then make it and we'll go from there. Please be specific and stick to the specific ear that A Pole reference, i.e. - the 1950s and 1960s. Look at the chart that I posted and tell me when imports really started to rise in any significant manner. It certainly wasn't in the 1950s and 1960s. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Charts by themselves prove nothing, the scale has reduced the early numbers to inconsequential. Are we really to believe that imports in the 50's were zero. No the numbers need to be adjusted for inflation or changes in currency values. A single line on a chart doesn't allow us to corrolate the data with other factors. Why don't you chart the data with exports, population and GDP and employment(participation rate)
OK, have at it. The ball is in your court. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
BTW, the dollar value of imports thru the 50s and 60s was less than 1/230 of what it was in the last five years. Inflation doesn't account for 1/10 or so, and currency much less. The fact is in real terms the U.S. was importing a small fraction of what it has been for the last decade and only a somewhat larger fraction of what it was for the 1980s and 1990s. I leave it to you to do the math. Frankly, I don't think that you are capable of it and will surely waffle and weasel out of it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You misread me. I wrote: "In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor. " BTW, you replaced "workers" with "U.S.". Saying that England or English peasants benefited from Henry VIII rule, are two different things.
SOSO changed my words, see post above. BTW, why did he say "we"?
Hey, I am a charitable guy. I will get you started. The CPI was 23.8 in mid-1950 and 238.6 in mid-2015, that's just spot on 1/10 or in other words 2015 was ten times higher not the 230 times higher as the chart shows. Now you may determine just how much currency changes adjust the numbers. I guarantee you its nowhere near 23 times. Both you and A pole are totally full of sh*t. The fact is imports accounts for virtually nothing of the rise of the middle class in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s. Your turn. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
SOSO changed my words, see post above. You are a total sh*t eating liar. I copy what you posted in #55 and pasted it. There was no way that I could have changed you words. Go to your paste #55, the truth is there. They are the words that YOU posted. Piss off you smelly dishonest turd. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
See post #110 you lying SOS. #110. To: A Pole (#94) You reread what you said, I will just post it here: "#55. To: SOSO (#53) .................................................... In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor. ................................................. A Pole posted on 2016-02-17 13:35:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply" NB - you made the claim for the prosperity of the middle class IN THE 1950 and 1960s. I asked you three times now exactly to which Third World countries are you referring in the 1950s and 1960s. You haven't answered this yet and probably never will because you know that you are full of sh*t. On the utterly remote chance you answer it is incumbent on you to document with links the source of you information as I just about always do with you. It is plain for all to see that you are just a mindless propaganda tool for your Commie handlers as you rarely, if ever, back up you claims with credible data from credible sources. This will just be one more time in that mold for you. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO posted on 2016-02-18 20:20:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply" You are a disgusting person. A characteristic of almost all commie, leftist and leftwing jerks потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You are a total sh*t eating liar. I copy what you posted in #55 and pasted it. There was no way that I could have changed you words. Go to your paste #55, the truth is there. They are the words that YOU posted. Piss off you smelly dishonest turd. You copied this from me? "Show me exactly how much the U.S. benefitted from cheap labor from Third World countries in the 1950s and 1960s as you claim was a significant reason for the prosperity of the middle class in the U.S. during that time." Here is the entire post and wash you mouth Mr "We". ("My post we directed to A Pole", you work in twos?) #55. To: SOSO (#53) Western European socialist forms of government also has worked to a lesser degree in developing a broad and deep middle class. How do you define middle class? People who live from selling their labor but are able to command wages significantly higher that needed for basic leaving. They have leisure time and means to do extra activities. Lower class are those who just have enough to make ends meet. Underclass are those who cannot break even. Upper class are those who buy labor of the other classes to turn profit. In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor. After Free Trade reforms workers moved to lower class thanks to labor arbitrage and off-shoring. Professionals like physicians are protected by their unions/associations so they remained in the middle class. Financial deregulation opened door to usury and many working people slide into underclass. Now, who has more disposable income and free time, German or American workers? A Pole posted on 2016-02-17 13:35:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
You are a total sh*t eating liar. I copy what you posted in #55 and pasted it. There was no way that I could have changed you words. Go to your paste #55, the truth is there. They are the words that YOU posted. Piss off you smelly dishonest turd. You copied this from me? "Show me exactly how much the U.S. benefitted from cheap labor from Third World countries in the 1950s and 1960s as you claim was a significant reason for the prosperity of the middle class in the U.S. during that time." F*ck off you lying sack of sh*t. I quoted you word for word in my post #110 and will do it again. "#110. To: A Pole (#94) You reread what you said, I will just post it here: "#55. To: SOSO (#53) .................................................... In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor. ................................................. A Pole posted on 2016-02-17 13:35:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply" NB - you made the claim for the prosperity of the middle class IN THE 1950 and 1960s. I asked you three times now exactly to which Third World countries are you referring in the 1950s and 1960s. You haven't answered this yet and probably never will because you know that you are full of sh*t. On the utterly remote chance you answer it is incumbent on you to document with links the source of you information as I just about always do with you. It is plain for all to see that you are just a mindless propaganda tool for your Commie handlers as you rarely, if ever, back up you claims with credible data from credible sources. This will just be one more time in that mold for you. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO posted on 2016-02-18 20:20:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply" Or are you just a moron and don't know what you said "In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor." means. You continue to weasel and lie and snake and deflect. And that is because you can't defend your words. So, ass wipe, for the last time I ask what to Third World countries are you referring in your statement? I know, as everyone else does, that you will not answer this very straight forward, simple question. You can't because you know you lied. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You continue to weasel and lie and snake and deflect. Yup. Now you quoted me correctly, hoping that others will not notice that you are wiggling away from recent distortion. Let me interpret this for you, "American workers were able to command high wages, thanks to the unions, New Deal regulations, tariffs on imports, and lack of competition from the cheap Third World labor (no mass immigration, no off-shoring)" And forget about throwing me out of balance by your silly vulgar insults. You do not look pretty with them.
Let's go further: by 1900 the US (not the British Empire) was the world's number one economic power. We grew to be an industrial titan behind, and because of, a tariff wall that did not allow first- mover British manufacturers to smother American industry while it was growing. Back then, it was because the British had much more advanced machines and techniques, and could produce more goods of comparable or better quality, cheaper than Americans or anybody else could. The whole world, not just the Anericans, had a choice: accept British domination of economics by simply letting them manufacture everything and export to the world OR protect the domestic markets through tariffs and barriers, so that the same industrialization could occur at home, and concentrate profits at home. Countries that had advanced populations and armies were able to do that - France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Japan and America. The rest of the world was unable to defend itself militarily, and ended up colonized by one of those great powers. Colonized countries could NOT break the domination of British (or French, or German, or Japanese, or Italian, etc.) industry, and so THEIR economies remained banana plantations and gold mines, with backwards people. They could not defend themselves, so they were reduced to what free trade would have reduced the whole world too. The major powers were able to erect barriers, build their own industries, and prevent the British from running the table. But where the British DID run the table (or the French, etc.), you saw exactly what happened, and happens: Britain: rich, India and Africa and the rest of the colonies: poor. The Americans broke the British model first, before industrialization, but we had no free trade. We understood that, against the British Empire, we would either be an economic colony, or we would build our own industry. The French, Germans, Italians, Russians, Japanese, et al in Europe, saw this too. In the 20th Century, the protectionism of the 19th Century paid off for America in the World Wars. The Europeans did isometrics in World War I, but the massive industrial advantage of the Americans turned the table. America was unstoppable in World War I, and again in World War II, because of an overwhelming logistical advantage. The Third Reich had to conquer and steal in order to try to compete, and in the end they could not. The Russians fought bravely and desperately, but their margin of victory was American trucks and American planes and American ammunition. Without those, Russia could not have kept a supplied army in the field and on the roll to Berlin. American industrial power was the key to victory in the World Wars. The destruction of the rest of the world in those world wars was the key to the utter American economic dominance of the post-war period. In 1950, the war had only been over for 4 1/2 years. Millions were still dead. Lives were still shattered. And - importantly - the Europeans were losing their colonies left and right. The war broke their power. They no longer had the finance or industry to easily dominate the world. And out there in the world, a combination of American penetration of all formerly closed colonial markets (due to the overwhelming American industrial advantage AND the fact that Britain and France were both economically trashed and had depended upon the Americans to save them - such that they could not say "No" to the Americans - AND the insistent subversive pressure of Communist agitation and domestic anti-colonial agitation - all of this meant that the chase-gardees of the past, the great poor hinterlands in which Britain and France, Germany and Italy, and Japan, could operate without competition, were all gone. There was America, and there were a bunch of rebuilding Europeans and Japanese under American tutelage. There was the USSR, ravaged and rebuilding under Stalin, and there were the ex- and soon-to-be ex-colonies all wriggling free. OF COURSE American productivity and wealth was high in the 1950s and into the 1960s. We were in a better position than Britain had ever been: absolute superpower of the West, with all of the Europeans of the West beholden to us, the Japanese conquered and beholden to us, and not defending the Europeans as their colonial empires fell apart, opening new markets to us. But by the 1960s, 15-20 years after the war, things were different. Europe had rebuilt, and undistracted by military expense, was industrially competitive. Japan likewise. America bore the burdens of empire, and did so rather badly (Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, etc. It added up, and in Vietnam it began to take its toll). With the oil shock of the 1970s, American domestic automobile monopolies faded in the face of fuel efficient Japanese cars that turned out to be better built. The decline began then. And then came the age of Reagan and beyond, where finance moved to the top, "free trade" became the mantra, and financiers shifted their game to a global enterprise. Industry flowed out, and in time, unemployment rose and rose, and stayed stuck in the McJobs economy. Meanwhile, China is now the industrial behemoth. So, there are lines on charts, but the charts don't show the severe wealth redistibution upward into fewer and fewer hands, as we sacrificed our industrial base to serve a finance-based economy. It may give us pause to remember who the greatest bankers of the late-19th and earliest 20th centuries were - the "bankers to the world" were not the British or the Americans or the Swiss. No, it was France that was called "Banker to the world". It was the French who financed the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and country after country. France was a first-rate financial power. When the shooting came, though, money was not enough. You needed industry, and people. And that meant that France needed allies. The victorious power was America, because we had industry. We are following the path of France, into monied aristocracy and finance, sacrificing industry. It didn't work out well for the French. It's not working out for us either. When I say "us", I mean the bulk of Americans, and overall American power and security. Sure, the cream at the top have gotten wealthier and more powerful than ever. But then, there was nowhere like Versailles, was there? Until the people overturned it all because they were left with too little. The American model is not sustainable without industry to employ most and make most middle class. And that requires a tariff, for Americans can no more compete industrially with China today than we could with Britain in 1850, but we need the industry nonetheless. The North had the industry. The South had the money. And then the North had both. There is a lesson in this. Short-sighted capitalists don't seem to be able to see the lesson. Which is why a French, and Southern plantation, perspective can be helpful.
Neither. However, unlike you I believe in God's sovereignty. He chooses our parents and where we will be born. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Comments (127 - 163) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSo exactly which Third World countries are referring during the period from the end of WII and 1965?
#87. To: Willie Green (#35)
For your information, Russia was communist, not socialist.
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
But historically, the great breakthroughs in medicine and physics have been made by state institutions, mostly professors and engineers who work for state- funded institutions, and not the private sector.
#89. To: paraclete (#5)
However the idea that stockholders are entitled to super profits and CEO entitked to extravagant renumeration is what is essentially wrong with the system.
#90. To: SOSO (#85)
The U.S. welfare, nanny state passed that mater a long time ago.
You missed the turn.
#91. To: CZ82 (#76)
Those of us who have traveled around the world and have seen "ALL" those other sorry ass forms of government have a tendency to lump them all together.
you think Scandinavia is so great I suggest you might want to make your last few years on Earth happy ones and move there...
#92. To: tpaine (#75)
Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit.
#93. To: tpaine (#71)
Silly question, seeing there are no other countries with our freedoms.
#94. To: SOSO (#86)
Yo, A Pole, you there? All I hear from you is CRICKETS.
#95. To: A Pole (#91)
Those of us who have traveled around the world and have seen "ALL" those other sorry ass forms of government
#96. To: paraclete (#95)
if you really had a choice would you live where you do?
#97. To: A Pole (#93)
Did it? How does it compare to the other countries?
I would love to see some examples. What freedoms do you have that Italians, or Brazilians, or Irish, or Indians do not?
#98. To: paraclete (#95)
Those of us who have done this have come to know a good thing when we see it. Before you talk about sorry ass forms of government you really should think for a while, if you really had a choice would you live where you do?
#99. To: paraclete (#95)
Those of us who have done this have come to know a good thing when we see it.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#63)
But you are preaching thievery and calling it christian.
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#100)
You are calling God's own economic structure, laid out in Exodus and Leviticus, and repeated in Deuteronomy, "thievery".
#102. To: tpaine (#97)
What freedoms do you have that Italians, or Brazilians, or Irish, or Indians do not?
#103. To: A K A Stone (#101)
Tell me great one what the Bible says about sloths and why you want to give slots money from productive people.
#104. To: A K A Stone (#101)
You are full of it on this like most things. ... You support stealing,,,
#105. To: tpaine, TooConservative (#90)
The U.S. welfare, nanny state passed that mater a long time ago.
#106. To: SOSO (#105)
Then how do you believe that, given the current demographics and the irrefutable trend, the U.S. will reverse course and backup to something more reasonable?
#107. To: SOSO, tpaine (#105)
Then how do you believe that, given the current demographics and the irrefutable trend, the U.S. will reverse course and backup to something more reasonable?
#108. To: TooConservative (#107)
the GOP talks more about fiscally conservative policy than doing anything about it.
#109. To: TooConservative (#107)
The outlook is not encouraging at all
#110. To: A Pole (#94)
#111. To: A Pole, TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#110)
NB - you made the claim for the prosperity of the middle class IN THE 1950 and 1960s. I asked you three times now exactly to which Third World countries are you referring in the 1950s and 1960s. You haven't answered this yet and probably never will because you know that you are full of sh*t.
#112. To: SOSO (#111)
You can't defend your claim, can you?
#113. To: paraclete (#112)
You can't defend your claim, can you?
#114. To: SOSO (#113)
(Edited)
#115. To: paraclete (#114)
harts by themselves prove nothing, the scale has reduced the early numbers to inconsequential. Are we really to believe that imports in the 50's were zero. No the numbers need to be adjusted for inflation or changes in currency values.
#116. To: paraclete (#114)
Charts by themselves prove nothing, the scale has reduced the early numbers to inconsequential.
#117. To: SOSO (#111)
Show me exactly how much the U.S. benefitted from cheap labor from Third World countries in the 1950s and 1960s as you claim was a significant reason for the prosperity of the middle class in the U.S. during that time.
#118. To: paraclete, SOSO (#113)
My post we directed to A Pole who made the claim that I referenced. You were copied because you appeared to be interested in the thread.
#119. To: paraclete, A Pole, All (#116)
#120. To: A Pole, paraclete (#118)
#121. To: A Pole paraclete (#120)
#122. To: SOSO (#120)
#123. To: A Pole (#122)
#124. To: SOSO (#123)
Or are you just a moron and don't know what you said "In the 1950s and 1960s American workers were middle class because of the unions/New Deal/custom tariffs and protection from the cheap Third World country labor." means. You continue to weasel and lie and snake and deflect.
#125. To: (#124)
#126. To: A Pole (#21)
But why do you thank God? That you were born in America and not in Haiti, is presumably a result of your hard work and entrepreneurship.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]