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: 24838
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 (1-38) not displayed.
.
.
.
#39. To: A Pole, Y'ALL (#36)
Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is 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... Not if they (we) are restrained by a system of constitutional law that protects individual rights. You're not making a cogent argument above, imo. Try again..
wow the street scenes are the same as they are today . same cars (except now they are classic cars ) ,same poverty . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Yes, I fundamentally agree with you. "So is the depletion of groundwater by overpumping a socialism problem, a capitalism problem, a theocracy problem, or a sustainability problem?" It's not the nature of the problem but the proposed solution that is under discussion. At one point in my life I would have vigorously argued that people will move to were the resources are. I long since abandoned that argument through observation that vast populations continue to live in places where water and thus crops are scarce. I suppose that there is a rational explanation as to why but it sure eludes me. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Way to go Pooty Poot. Let's see what happens now that oil is $30/bbl. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. The private sector is good at commercializing things that are discovered by state-funded science. Universities are not private, even the private ones. They are funded by the government and operate at the level they do because of government funding and research.
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
" 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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The Communists have made sure to shore up the bottom to a universal standard of decency. You're a deluded pseudo christian. Your views are antithesis to Gods word. But keep both hands in your ears and your blind fold on. That way you can keep tooting your own horn and bragging how smart you are. While smarter people then you shrug their shoulders an have a good laugh at your expense.
You are nothing more then a covetous thief like your father the devil.
Closer your lyihng mouth satan. Jesus is king here and your silly anti God comments are void and you will not make any stinky fruit.
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Did it? How does it compare to the other countries?
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?
How do you define middle class? I have always defined it on the basis of how many economic choices one has to make in life. The upper class have to make less choices (the upper class can have their cake and eat it to) than the middle class (which can have some cake) which have to make less than the lower class (which usually have no cake at all). How do you define from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It seems to be a product of greed and the willingness to shortchange tomorrow in favor of today, and that seems to common to many economic systems. In the exalted USSR we have the example of the Aral Sea, not from groundwater pumping; but the same issues are at work. There was a book published in the 50's titled "Big Dam Foolishness" by Elmer Peterson, it's actually online. The guy was prophetic, but then again so were others when the lands around the 100th meridian went under the plow, and even in the writings of John Wesley Powell. Cassandra seems to have a lot of company. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
This is a slogan that Communists in the Soviet block applied to the future Communism (after Socialist stage).
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Perhaps this may help you answer the question. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Here's a thought: "…”For in order for capitalism to work — in order for it to produce a good and a stable society — the traditional Christian virtues are essential.”" - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
If you think that I am a lying Satan, and that my father is the Devil, and the rest of the spit you fling at me on a regular basis, why do you allow Satan to argue on a website YOU control? There are people who read this site who do not comment often. And there are many of them who agree with me on many things. If I am Satan, as you say, why do you provide the vehicle for Satan to lead people astray? Indeed, as you operate this site at your expense, why do you subsidize Satan?
You're not satan. But you are preaching thievery and calling it christian. God said to put our faith in him and he would provide for us. Not man made institutions that steal from someones family to give it to someone who is slothful. What does the Bible say about the slothful? It doesn't say what you preach which is take from the fruitful and give to the slothful. That isn't christian and if you think it is you are a big fool.
This is a slogan that Communists in the Soviet block applied to the future Communism (after Socialist stage). I know what it is. I asked you how do you define it, particular the ability and need parts. Well, how do you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Well, sure. After all, Einstein was a Swiss patent clerk when he published the special theory of relativity and other major papers.
Exactly so. Many people, poorly educated or grinding their anti-capitalist axes, insist that laissez-faire capitalism is the only variety of the system. We moved on from laissez-faire a couple of centuries ago. Now if we could only get Willie to read a book and learn something from it...
Fat chance. It seems that all he reads or has read is from MELS, aka Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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 Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability.
Sweden and Denmark are classic examples. Neither was ever truly socialist or even came close. The nationalization of major industries and utilities in Britain came pretty close in the post-WW II era but they finally drew back under Thatcher and dismantled their failing semi-socialist economy. Both Sweden and Denmark are much less socialist now than they were decades back. Only old hippies like Bernie Sanders think that Denmark or Sweden are still the leading social-welfare states of Europe. And Denmark formally rejected Sanders' claims about the virtues of Danish democratic-socialism. Even Israel isn't a true social-democratic state, although they came close in the Eighties and Nineties, largely as a result of absorbing new citizens, primarily Soviet Jews.
I've seen the photos, read the story. The Soviets diverted the lake's rivers for irrigation and made it shrink to almost nothing. It had been one of the four biggest lakes in the world, a hub of commerce, fishing, etc.
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 wouldn't call that sustainability at all, especially since many Americans believe that their children will be the first generation in a long, long time that will not be at least as well of as their parents. In other words, the Great Experiment has past its prime time and is on the way out with a bullet. We shouldn't feel too badly about our demise though as there hasn't ever been a single world leading society that has survived or maintained its once great and lofty position - never, ever. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law. "…”For in order for capitalism to work — in order for it to produce a good and a stable society — the traditional Christian virtues are essential.”" - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Thanks for making my point.. I'm an agnostic, -- but the values of the founders constitution are echoed by Christian principles.
IDM the 10 Commandments are good rules for a society to live by. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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 Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability. Well, imo, they're wrong, if we can get through this latest crisis. Yep, there's lots of defeatists who agree with you. I still have some hope. Our present society may not survive, but I think our constitutional principles will.
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. Why is that you ask?? Well it's because all those types of government are for people who want/require adult supervision. So if you think Scandinavia is so great I suggest you might want to make your last few years on Earth happy ones and move there... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Who destroyed Cuba? the revolution or the US who wanted their puppet government back
The Roman empire lasted over a thousand years, it wasn't based on capitalism, we have yet to see how long you will last, but remember the British empire was essentially capitalist also but it fought too many wars. You have survive only because you have been more remote from those wars and didn't bear the full impact on your territory, in fact, in the true capitalist sense you profited from those wars. Today you fight your wars through trade more than you do through military means but that can bring you down too. George Bush thought he could bring democracy to the middle east, what he brought was chaos
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 Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability. You forget the civil war, on our territory, and in one sense, a war against capitalism. Granted, in WWI&II capitalists profited. Society didn't, -- in any war. That makes you happy? -- Whatever.
Comments (80 - 163) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other.
Only external threats like in the past from Fascism and Communism combined with smart government leadership like FDR, can force them to allow social development and to save the system from collapse or regressive oppression. --- Talking that idealized market system is fine, that its problems are abnormal to be blamed on malicious plots, weather and wickedness of individuals or some backward groups, is same as saying that Communism is perfect and that its faults are caused by others.
#40. To: A Pole (#20)
Don't say it. Cuba under Batista was a swanky paradise.
#41. To: TooConservative (#27)
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.
#42. To: A Pole (#30)
Russia is quickly catching up, sanctions are helping her.
#43. To: TooConservative (#37)
They also advance science and technology,
#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.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
Before Communism, Russia and China were worse for most people. So was Vietnam. What Communism excels at is getting everybody into a house, getting everybody basic health care, getting everybody enough to eat, and getting everybody literate.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
Well, the Communists take all of the property and redistribute the wealth,
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve.
#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?
#54. To: tpaine (#52)
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.
#56. To: A Pole (#55)
Western European socialist forms of government also has worked to a lesser degree in developing a broad and deep middle class.
#57. To: TooConservative (#27)
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.
#58. To: SOSO (#56)
How do you define from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
#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?
#61. To: tpaine, All (#52)
History tells us that capitalism works, but that human nature will tear it down if it is unrestrained by the rule of law.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#51)
Closer your lyihng mouth satan. J
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve.
#64. To: A Pole (#58)
How do you define from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
#65. 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.
#66. To: SOSO (#46)
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.
#67. To: TooConservative, Willie Green (#66)
Now if we could only get Willie to read a book and learn something from it...
#68. To: SOSO (#53)
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.
#69. To: SOSO (#53)
Several Western European socialist forms of government also has worked to a lesser degree in developing a broad and deep middle class.
#70. To: nativist nationalist (#57)
In the exalted USSR we have the example of the Aral Sea, not from groundwater pumping; but the same issues are at work.
#71. To: A Pole (#54)
Did it? How does it compare to the other countries?
#72. To: tpaine (#68)
Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability.
#73. To: SOSO (#61)
Here's a thought:
#74. To: tpaine (#73)
I'm an agnostic, --
#75. To: SOSO (#72)
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.
I wouldn't call that sustainability at all, especially since many Americans believe that their children will be the first generation in a long, long time that will not be at least as well of as their parents.
In other words, the Great Experiment has past its prime time and is on the way out with a bullet.
We shouldn't feel too badly about our demise though as there hasn't ever been a single world leading society that has survived or maintained its once great and lofty position - never, ever.
#76. To: Willie Green (#35)
For your information, Russia was communist, not socialist.
#77. To: tomder55 (#40)
wow the street scenes are the same as they are today . same cars (except now they are classic cars ) ,same poverty
#78. To: tpaine (#75)
Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability.
#79. To: paraclete (#78)
SOSO --- The question is sustainability, ---
The Roman empire lasted over a thousand years, it wasn't based on capitalism, we have yet to see how long you will last, but remember the British empire was essentially capitalist also but it fought too many wars. You have survive only because you have been more remote from those wars and didn't bear the full impact on your territory,
--- in fact, in the true capitalist sense you profited from those wars.
Today you fight your wars through trade more than you do through military means but that can bring you down too. George Bush thought he could bring democracy to the middle east, what he brought was chaos.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]