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: 24987
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 132.
#15. To: All (#0)
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now.
should this be so it is because it is profitable to do so, but then it depends on how you define "much". has capitalism donated food to Etheopia? does capitalism feed China or India? I think by much you mean the middle class of the western world. Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise.. the argument is flawed
IDM it's being done by a capitalistic system, not a commie or socialist system but a capitalistic one. b"ut then it depends on how you define "much". Try this on for size, the U.S. is the world's largest agricultural exporter in the world. And not by a liitle, in 2008 the value of U.S. agricultural exports was $118.3 billion vs. the next country at just $79 billion. China was 10th at $35.9 billion. How do you like dem apples?
Here's some more apples for your pie. For the period of 1988-2009 the U.S. has been the world's largest supplier of food aid - and not by just a little. The U.S. was consistently 5 to 10 times higher in tonnage each year than the 2nd place European Community as a whole and 10 to 100 times higher each year than China. India has occasionally been in the top 25 over this period. Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003. So suck on those facts for awhile.
A few more facts for you to chew on.
It's an argument worth having. I just don't agree that "sustainability" is no more than a code word for "socialism". This is a classic legal problem of the commons, how to use a common resource for the benefit of all without destroying it for everyone. Let's look at the crisis in groundwater around the world via some articles posted here at LF. In California (and China and some Arab countries), wells are going dry due to overpumping. China is socialist, California (more or less) capitalist, Saudi Arabia theocratic. Yet all three are having to drill new water wells several miles deep and facing shortages. LF: California Land Subsidence Hits Record Levels, nativist nationalist, 2015 LF: US to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil as China's water runs dry, A K A Stone, 2012 LF: Pumped beyond limits, many U.S. aquifers in decline, TooConservative, 2015 LF: Seas Beneath The Sands, A K A Stone, 2007 LF: Time, Water Running Out for America's Biggest Aquifer, war, 2010 So is the depletion of groundwater by overpumping a socialism problem, a capitalism problem, a theocracy problem, or a sustainability problem? I'd say sustainability is the culprit, far more so than political or economic systems.
Returning to my earlier post on sustainability and the growing global aquifer crisis, I thought I'd cite an example of the Boston Common from colonial America which applied to Britain and its empire around the world. This is an example of the "tragedy of the commons", well-known in politics and law. The concept of the commons is generally taken to mean any shared and unregulated resources such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator; as distinct to the centuries-old use of the word "commons" when colloquially used to indicate formally-recognised common land in its collective sense. The tragedy of the commons concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology. The term tragedy of the commons was probably coined by Lloyd and later used by Hardin in his article.[1] Although commons certainly have been known to collapse due to overuse (such as in over-fishing), many examples of commons exist where commons prosper without collapse. Elinor Ostrom stated that it is often claimed that only private ownership or government regulation can prevent the tragedy. It is however in the interests of the users of a commons to keep the common running and complex social schemes are often invented by the users for maintaining them efficiently.[3][4]
The classic example used in Economic classes is wheat farming in the U.S. There is a significant time delay between when wheat is planted and when its is brought to market. The individual farmer most make a decision each year on how much acreage he will plant for wheat versus other crops. The farmer looks at the then current price of wheat and other crops to help guide his decision. The higher the price of wheat at the time of planting the more wheat he likely will plant. But all or most individual farmers will do the same thing. So by the time the wheat comes to market there either will be a glut and therefore the market price of wheat will drop or there will be a shortage and the price will soar. It's called the Cob Web theory. The point is that rational behavior at the micro (individual) leave can and often does led it irrational outcomes at the macro (societal) level. But the real question is who decides how the ground water is rationed and how is the rationing implemented? And this is a question of the political, social, economics and governance of a society not of sustainability. Is the solution by gun point or by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand? Will it be right, fair and just or will the powerful continue to get more than their fair share? How well did the Command and Control economies do in providing wheat for their masses? What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature? Oh, wait, yes, I forgot about Shangri-La - how silly of me.
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. Everybody wins...
Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation. BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
" 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. Everybody wins... History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism. We are about to correct that trend in this election. - hopefully. You expect me to disagree about guns?
You expect me to disagree about guns? I am referring to the gun point of legislation/regulation not the right to bear arms, i.e. gun point of heavy handed government vs. Adam Smith's the Invisible Hand.
History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism We are about to correct that trend in this election. - hopefully. You expect me to disagree about guns? I agree, we've had a heavy handed govt, which I think we're about to correct.. So do we agree that -- History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism?
Several Western European socialist forms of government also has worked to a lesser degree in developing a broad and deep middle class. The question is sustainability, here and there.
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?
As usual wrongo again. The middle class in the U.S. thrived in the 1950s because it was the economic engine, the only engine, that rebuilt the world's industrial and manufacturing infrastructure that was just ravished by WWII. That is when the U.S. truly became a super power. If it wasn't for U.S. capitalism most of Europe, including Russia, and, Japan may still likely be eating dirt. And in the longer run U.S. capitalism did this at the expense of its own industrial manufacturing base, as the plight of our steel mills amply illustrate. In the 1950s and part of the 60s there was more demand for workers of all kinds of education and skills than domestic supply. That is when the U.S. became THE world super power. And unlike the USSR the U.S. did it while still growing and elevating the ranks of its middle class and their economic well being. Unlike Russia, it was never a choice of guns or butter then, the U.S. had both to spare. And true to form, you always play loose, if not outright, lie about the facts. "U.S. Immigration Before 1965 The first significant federal legislation restricting immigration was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. Individual states regulated immigration prior to the 1892 opening of Ellis Island, the country’s first federal immigration station. New laws in 1965 ended the quota system that favored European immigrants, and today, the majority of the country’s immigrants hail from Asia and Latin America. Immigration plummeted during the global depression of the 1930s and World War II (1939-1945). Between 1930 and 1950, America’s foreign-born population decreased from 14.2 to 10.3 million, or from 11.6 to 6.9 percent of the total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. After the war, Congress passed special legislation enabling refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union to enter the United States. In 1965, Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which did away with quotas based on nationality and allowed Americans to sponsor relatives from their countries of origin. So exactly which Third World countries are referring during the period from the end of WII and 1965? It is amazing that you still think that you can get away with the mindless propaganda your handlers give you.
Perhaps this may help you answer the question.
Yo, A Pole, you there? All I hear from you is CRICKETS.
Reread carefully what you and me wrote. I have no energy to untangle your confusion.
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.
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?
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.
SOSO changed my words, see post above. BTW, why did he say "we"?
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.
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.
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.
You are off balance. This an entirely different statement than your original one. But my question remains, specifically to what Third World countries are you referring for the period of 1950s and 1960s which is the original period of time under discussion and specifically quoted BY YOU. I ask you again to prove you contention by posting data on what products and services were on the market and available for import into the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s and what products the U.S. prevented from being imported at your so-called cheap labor price. Also document the data that supports your new contention that U.S. companies were prevented for "off-shoring" to Third World countries during 1950s and 1960s or any countries for that matter. Then let's examine U.S. 1950s and 1960s off-shoring to Developed countries such as UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia (I will be charitable by including Russia) etc. None of these countries were interested in permitting U.S. companies to compete with the rebuilding of the respective country's industrial and manufacturing infrastructure that was destroyed by WWII. These countries were glad to take U.S. financing aid to help their respective companies rebuild but absolutely did not U.S. companies owning the new assets. NB - OPIC was formed in 1971 out of need to help U.S. companies compete against foreign companies that were being directly supported in the global export markets. Document that during the 1950s and 1960s the U.S. government prevented U.S. companies from investing in plants and facilities abroad and how the U.S. government did that. The fact is that there was little-to-no "cheap labor" products from any countries during that period, Third World or otherwise. The fact is the U.S. allowed the demise of much of its indigenous manufacturing infrastructure by funding the rebuilding of the infrastructure in other countries affected by WWII. Just look at the history of U.S. steel manufacturing. But it was years and years later than the 1950s and 1960s that the consequences of this neglect first manifest. Now for the nail in your coffin to expose you for the propagandist you are. "Foreign investment of U.S. companies abroad has changed drastically in the last half of the twentieth century. Since World War II (1939–1945) and especially in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States dominated world wide foreign investment. But with the advent of the energy crisis and the oil shortages in the early 1970s, that situation reversed. The United States became the recipient of large investments from Great Britain, the Netherlands, and especially Japan. Yet recently American "indirect" investment abroad has begun to rise dramatically and in 1998 foreign "indirect" investment hit a record of more than $250 billion, climbing sharply during the entire decade. Europe was the prime destination, with the pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries dominating, along with banking and electricity, gas and water utilities. In 1998 U.S. investment abroad doubled to $97 billion—higher than the world direct investment total less than a decade ago. During the 1980s the United States became the largest recipient of foreign direct investment and Japan became the leader in direct investment abroad. Since 1985 foreigners, especially the Japanese, have increased their acquisitions in the United States or have expanded or established businesses there. That kind of investment from Japan and other countries has "trickled" down to include foreign investment of U.S. companies abroad. Many economists argued that foreign investment, both inward and outward, has been fundamental to the prosperity of the United States." You are an ultimate lying Commie propagandist that believes that if you tell a big lie often enough it becomes the truth. Fortunately there is documented history for those of us that are not off balance.
You are off balance. This an entirely different statement than your original one. You are disingenuous. You deny me right to explain what I mean by my own words, and play games. This is trolling.
Back at #128 I challenged y'all to comment on the issue I raised. Any takers? -- The Fair Tax scheme, wherein everybody would get a 'prebate' payment (a monthly debit card) for x dollars, -- (enough to pay for three hots and a cot and NOTHING MORE) could work, --- and such a scheme would allow those who wanted a better life to engage in unfettered capitalism, restrained only by the rule of constitutional law.
I'll take a look in a bit.
#133. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#132)
Thanks, apparently the rest would rather troll.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestUnless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now
#22. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, All (#16)
Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise..
#25. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#22)
#26. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, TooConservative, All (#25)
#27. To: SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles (#26)
A few more facts for you to chew on.
LF: What California can learn from Saudi Arabia’s water mystery, Willie Green, 2015
#33. To: All, SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#27)
The Common's purpose has changed over the years. It was once owned by William Blaxton (often given the modernized spelling "Blackstone"), the first European settler of Boston, until it was bought from him by the Puritan founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. During the 1630s, it was used by many families as a cow pasture. However, this only lasted for a few years, as affluent families bought additional cows, which led to overgrazing, a real-life example of the Tragedy of the commons.[8] After grazing was limited in 1646 to 70 cows at a time,[9] the Boston Common continued to host cows until they were formally banned from it in 1830 by Mayor Harrison Gray Otis.[10] The tragedy of the commons is a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole by depleting some common resource. The concept was based upon an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land in the British Isles.[1] This became widely-known over a century later due to an article written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968.[2]
So this argument about sustainability is not particularly unique to capitalism and it is certainly nothing new in public policy.
#44. To: TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#33)
It has also been used in analyzing behavior in the fields of economics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, game theory, politics, taxation and sociology.
#45. To: SOSO, y'all (#44)
SOSO, --- this is a question of the political, social, economics and governance of a society not of sustainability. Is the solution by gun point or by Adam Smith's Invisible Hand? Will it be right, fair and just or will the powerful continue to get more than their fair share? How well did the Command and Control economies do in providing wheat for their masses? ---- What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature-- ?
History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. ---- And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism.
#46. To: tpaine, TooConservative, All (#45)
And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism.
#47. To: SOSO, y'all (#46)
SOSO, ------- What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature-- ?
Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation.
BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
#48. To: tpaine (#47)
BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
#52. To: SOSO (#48)
SOSO, ------- What has history taught us about what to expect from human nature-- ?
Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation.
BTW, Adam Smith never argued or advocated for unbridled, unrestrained, uncontrolled capitalism. He, like any rational person, understood the darker side of human greed and lack of self-restraint and the need for a gun every now and then.
I am referring to the gun point of legislation/regulation not the right to bear arms, i.e. gun point of heavy handed government vs. Adam Smith's the Invisible Hand.
#53. To: tpaine, TooConservative, All (#52)
And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism?
#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.
#59. To: A Pole, TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#55)
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.
#60. To: A Pole, TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#59)
So exactly which Third World countries are referring during the period from the end of WII and 1965?
#86. To: A Pole, TooConservative, paraclete, Willie Green, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13, All (#60)
So exactly which Third World countries are referring during the period from the end of WII and 1965?
#94. To: SOSO (#86)
Yo, A Pole, you there? All I hear from you is CRICKETS.
#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?
#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.
#120. To: A Pole, paraclete (#118)
#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.
#129. To: A Pole (#124)
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)"
#130. To: SOSO (#129)
"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)"
#131. To: A Pole, SOSO, Vicomte 13, Y'ALL (#130)
This is trolling..
#132. To: tpaine (#131)
Replies to Comment # 132.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 132.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]