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: 28560
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
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks
You are clueless
You're welcome.
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. capitalism isn't to blame for huma greed. There is nothing essentially wrong with the business model that takes unvestment by many to produce a product. However the idea that stockholders are entitled to super profits and CEO entitked to extravagant renumeration is what is essentially wrong with the system. What is needed is to measure more than profit and earnings per share and to truely determine whether real value is being gained from the endeavour. Whilst not being in favour of a carbon market there is a lot to be said for a tax or royalty or resources used including land so that there is an economic benefit to the community in general. This does exist in some extractive industries but should be more generally applied to limit unnecessary transportation of materials and waste. What I'm getting at is that in many industries there is massive waste and that waste is not valued and therefore all waste that isn't recycled should be taxed. If you have to dig a ton of dirt to gain an ounce of gold you should pay for the ton of dirt, niether should you be able to pile that spoil up in man made mountains
You are clueless Says the commie village idiot. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. capitalism isn't to blame for huma greed. The comrades conveniently forget exactly how communism worked in the USSR. Indeed people owned nothing and had state constructed, managed and provided housing. Indeed like most people everywhere, including those in so-called inner city ghettos in the U.S., Ivan and Natalia took care of their assigned housing quarters, keeping them clean, maintaining and enhancing their inner living spaces to the best of their financial capability. But the outer "public areas" of the state owned and maintained housing apartments and complexes, including stairwells, hallways and, where present, elevators (if working) were run down, unmaintained and often littered sh*tholes. It was my pleasure to have been invited to dinners and parties at more than a few of these public apartments. Irrespective of their economic status the people were gracious hosts and took pride in what was theirs (even if just temporarily and in name only). No-one, but no-one, felt any personal responsibility for what was just outside their front door and the rest of the state owned public access areas. For all of its shortcomings capitalism expands one's sense of responsibility for his private and public surroundings. And that's another manifestation of human nature. The State can never, ever fulfill, much less equal, the sense responsibility that comes with a sense (real or perceived) of ownership. Simply stated people value their private property and capitalism is the single economic systems that fosters broad, mass ownership of private property AND an expectation, if not demand, for the maintenance of public properties. The real evil of communism was that it ignored human nature and consciously worked to kill the individual human spirit. Socialism is not that far behind communism is this regard, it just is less of a heavy hand on the individual spirit, sense of accomplishment and sense of ownership. Every Russian and citizen of the former USSR knows the story of a bucket full of live crabs. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
One look at the title and I knew it had to Willie or A Hole that posted it. Mmmm...Forbes won't sponsor anti-capitalist nonsense. The clickbaity title is a bit inaccurate. The writer advocates reforming capitalism toward sustainability, not abolishing it to move to socialism.
It's just one small step for man to get there - a very small step. Sustainability comes when there is a demand for it. And clearly there is a growing demand, at least for those people that can afford it. The masses in India, China, Russia, etc. do not seem to GAS about sustainability, they simply can't afford it. When it comes to a conscious choice of what to and/or how to between gun point or Adam Smith's invisible hand, the hand is much more effective and sustainable than the gun. Human history bears this out over and over again. The government can't make you value what you have but it sure can make you value what you no longer have. By way of a small example, sustainability has caused the demise of the Hawaiian pineapples, which were arguably among the very best in the world. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
It can't become a reality until we can dream of it, speak of it, implement it. I grant your points and the agenda of some players but you can't dismiss their argument out of hand entirely, regardless of the fate of Hawaiian pineapples.
We all agreee that communism is a system of government that has been tried and rejected. However the absense of communism is not capitalism. Socialism has been successful in varying degrees. The fact is unbridled capitalism is just as evil as communism or unbridled socialism. We can agree that personal ownership of property is a natural right, however we have also determined that government is desirable for the collective good and to exercise its functions government needs to own property. It is undesirable for government to own the means of production excepting in wartime, however depending upon scale it may be necessary for government to participate in certain enterprise, at least until an industry is established. This is not socialism. We need to develop a system that has a social conscience so that heavy handed regulation is not necessary to ensure that individual rights are not infringed. Capitalism has demonstrated that it does not respect or demand ethical behaviour. Therefore individuals cannot be allowed to self regulate and government has proven to be ineffective in forseeing the need to regulate. Lets look to apply a simple test. Is any person likely to suffer losss or damage or injury by these actions, if so, then the activity cannot be undertaken whether it is profitable or not
I grant your points and the agenda of some players but you can't dismiss their argument out of hand entirely, regardless of the fate of Hawaiian pineapples. So go the Hawaiian pineapples so goes the world. Some dreamed of sustainability, some of having Hawaiian pineapples. Guess who won. Correct, those that dreamed of sustainability, spoke of it and implemented it through legislation via the ballot box. Now there is virtually nothing those of us who dream of the pineapples can do about it, other than pay a fortune to visit Hawaii and buy a pineapple in a local market during the season. They that have a fortune and/or live there still have it both ways. They just f*cked it up for the rest of us. Those that can afford sustainability or are not affected by it don't GAS about the rest of us. Life's a bitch that way, no? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I don't think we all agree on that. I am pretty sure Willie Boy a A Boris don't. "We need to develop a system that has a social conscience so that heavy handed regulation is not necessary to ensure that individual rights are not infringed." Good luck with that as no system will ever do what only individual humans acting in some degree of concert can do. Kumbaya and good luck to you. What really will work is pricing in the impact of the utilization of a resource and/or asset has on living conditions on the planet. As of now only regulation, i.e. gun point, is doing that not Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. And only the haves, not the have nots that are playing in the game. Please see post #12. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That's not total true. there are plenty examples of the collective actions of Joe Average have punished or even put out of business unethical players without the need for legislation. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism. I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
"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
You will not see me thanking the Lord for being born in america, I was born in a better place, one that can see the rationale for ensuring that everyone is looked after. Call it socialism if you like, but I think of it as responsibility. You can scoff but communism might be a step on the path of reform for some places, China for example; the rotten system had to be swept away. This can give rise to excesses as it did in Russia and China and it too must be swept away. The great difficulty is controlling capitalism so it produces wealth for all and not just wealth for some
Yeah, Irish famine was funny. And slave trade was even funnier, opium for Chinks, Indian lands for free, Belgian liberation of Kongo savages. One could go for long. Ah, the golden era of free market capitalism, before Reds and Pinkos ruined it. And TooCon, no verbal insults, please.
Don't say it. Cuba under Batista was a swanky paradise.
Russia was poorer than America before Communism, and there are some quite capitalist countries in Africa or Latin America that were poorer than both. 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.
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? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Bwahahahahahahaha.... He doesn't have to, you insult yourself every time you post. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yeah, you are right. Under communism Russia and China both produced a broad and deep middle class with a high standard of living, broader and deeper than the U.S. BTW, what color is the sky in your world? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A few more facts for you to chew on.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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.
Him go and get a dose of reality, that will never happen. None of the good little drones have ever left their basements... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
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. The Communists have made sure to shore up the bottom to a universal standard of decency. Ever been through the Tijuana slums, where people are living in cardboard huts, or seen images of the poor places in India, where people are literally starving and living in mud? Well, the Communists take all of the property and redistribute the wealth, and they bring up the bottom. China always had famines. Their last one was under Mao, during the transition. They don't have famines anymore, because Communists are good at shoring up the bottom. Illiteracy rates in poor countries are high, but Communists educate everybody and get to high literacy rates in a generation. The POSITIVE legacy of Communism in all of those countries is that it took what was a completely backward, half-literate society that had starvation and people perishing from the elements, and brought everybody, all the way to the bottom, up to a working class standard of living. And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve. The bottom rung in America is more miserable than the bottom rung was in Soviet Russia. That said, once those levels of need satisfaction of the bottom have been rounded up, and everybody else has been rounded down, Communism hasn't gone anywhere, because it has always gotten entangled with war with the rest of the world, and war is expensive. China is a new thing, though. Thanks to size and nuclear weapons, the ChiCom homeland is a secure sanctuary, and the Chinese seem to be transitioning from universal working class Communism to middle class Communism. The nationalist leaven in that bread makes the Chinese model unappealing to neighbors, but everybody loves money, and the Chinese have great gobs of that, so even Goldman Sachs is eagerly sucking at that tit. Cuba, for that matter, seems to also have succeeded at it, and that in spite of having been under a US embargo. The US ideological fear was not that the Communists would take over the world. It was that they would SUCCEED. We did what we could to ensure that it wouldn't, but we were not successful in killing it in the crib. European socialism takes the Communist ideal of rounding up the bottom to a standard of decency, but retaining considerable upward mobility. It's an appealing model, but there is not enough wealth redistribution to make it actually sustainable. Trump sees it, and realizes that getting the American lower class back into factories here, at the expense of cheap goods at the store, is a national security issue. None of the other Republicans see it, or will.
Russia is quickly catching up, sanctions are helping her. (figure for 2015/2016 is not complete yet for obvious reason)
They do not want to see, and they brainwashed population to be scared of any correction as a Socialist conspiracy. Marx said that capitalists are the most shortsighted and self destructing ruling class (compared for example with the aristocracy that they replaced).
Let's recall the absolutely miserable record of those countries like the USSR and Chine who took Marx's political and economic prescriptions seriously. They were a disaster for all involved other than the top elite. Even the elite did far more poorly than if they had pursued a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework. Which is exactly what eventually happened to the major communist countries.
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]
TooConservative 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...
For your information, Russia was communist, not socialist. 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.
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.
They also advance science and technology, bringing forward new solutions to isolation and hunger. No one ever suggests that "capitalism" would become self-aware and self-governing. There will always be abusers and the need to protect the commons we all share.
Similarly to Bernie Sanders' lifelong love affair with Danish "socialism", you come up with this old chestnut of the Left. You did notice that Denmark replied to Sanders claiming them as a successful social-democrat country by rejecting entirely the idea that they are socialist in any meaningful sense. They rightly consider their country and economy as a capitalist country. They are also pretty nationalistic by any measure, something we see in how they are rejecting the Mideast migrants who try to settle there. They have no intention of sharing their little country and its welfare state with non-Danes. That kinda deflated Sanders and he stopped talking about Denmark so much.
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.
Yes, adult supervision would be a refreshing change compared to the adolescent irresponsibility of the GOP/Tea Party.
That's a big, big if. Let's see who gets elected in November. Let's see what the REP controlled Senate will actually do about filling the seat on SCOTUS with an Obama candidate. "Our present society may not survive, but I think our constitutional principles will." You do not understand the current demographics of the country and were that is going to be in the very near future. About half of the country U.S. population have no philosophical, intellectual, cultural, or, emotional connection to our Founding Fathers and their vision and/or intent of the principals of the Constitution that they penned, passed and confirmed. And the proportion only increase with time. Many of these constitutional principles have already gone by the wayside and more are currently pending SCOTUS action with many more to come. Sure one can always hope but one needs to understand the realities of the world. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
the Castro Brothers of course . They've run the country for almost 60 years . Are the people of Cuba better off for it ? No ,but the Castro's through plunder have done well for themselves .That is the real socialist model . The only people who prosper are the ones well connected with the government . "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
Well, imo, they're wrong, if we can get through this latest crisis. I can wait if you can.. "Our present society may not survive, but I think our constitutional principles will." 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. Everybody wins, -- including that half you mention above... I've been dealing with the realities of the world for 79 years, - over 50 as a building contractor. You?
You? A few years less. I graduated from college at age 20 in 1965 and will be retiring this year. I did work for all of my college years as a musician throughout the and as a lifeguard at Coney Island beach during the summer (no better gig for a healthy, horny teenage kid). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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. The U.S. welfare, nanny state passed that mater a long time ago. You missed the turn. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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
Fidel and Che started ruling by executing over 1,000 men, and yet you have faith in them. "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
----- we sacrificed our industrial base to serve a finance-based economy. Not 'we', -- short sighted capitalists, assisted by stupid politicians, made this happen, -- as Trump is saying, and common sense voters will affirm. Depends on exactly how we set up our welfare system, and how we tax to pay for welfare, imo. 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. Comments?
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. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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.
Thanks, apparently the rest would rather troll.
This is asinine. Food is as cheap as it has ever been. US manufactures are moving plants to cheaper countries which brings up their standard of living. Stupid Americans have forgotten how bad the world was before America showed the world the way. Spoiled rotten Americans ie the easily lead somehow think we went to foreign lands and stole their gold or something! They must not have been told the truth of how Americans worked their ass off and sacrificed to get where they were the best of the best! I guess they forgot how we fought 2 world wars and feed the world until it could stand again!!!!! It is crony capitalism ie socialism/fascism that is killing the planet. Corrupt people like clintons and the elites in both parties are the ones to blame. There is nothing more Christian more fair than real capitalism but don't expect to see it because there is no money to be scammed this way. Socialist and Fascist use the easily lead people with dreams of equality of results which has never worked instead of equality of opportunity.
Not taking your homework assignments is nor trolling. You are not middle school teacher here and we are not pupils.
The first to benefit were Indians and Negroes.
Don't forget the Mexicans who lost 2/3 of their country, and the phillipinos. What a blessing the americans were to native peoples, releasing them of the burden of looking after their country
The first to benefit were Indians and Negroes. Every nations has issues. Its just easy to keep harping on the two worst things American has done. What about freedom and property rights and equality of rights for all rich or poor? How about when US came and saved Europe twice? Then gave them food until they could get back on their feet? Until the elite socialist and fascist took over US government America was the place everyone good person on earth wanted to come and live! Not France or England or Russian or Spain or Italy but GOOD OLE USA!
What a blessing the americans were to native peoples, releasing them of the burden of looking after their country Hogwash. Mexican government lost their land because they decide whitey wasn't Mexican enough and made them second class citizens which cause whitey(and non whites) to kick their ass and take the land. Any Mexican including non whites that wanted to stay, stayed and became Texans. BTW it was the Mexicans that could not deal with Indians who begged whitey to come and take care of the Indians and then told whitey to piss off after they did. You guys should read a little real history. BTW it was the Mexicans ie Spanish who kicked the Indians off their land. Im sure the Indians kicked someone else off the land before them.
The Mexicans never lost 2/3 of their country. In 1519 Cortez claimed land extending as far North as his imagination could see for Spain. Cortez got his army to the base of a Mexican mountain range but could go no farther because there weren't enough people living there to steal from to feed his army and he could go no further. During the Mexican revolution of about 1820, they overthrew Spanish rule but decided to keep fantasy Spanish claims on the North. There were few Mexicans that ever came North. The land barrier was dry and unpopulated and additionally the Comanch and other Indian tribes were fond of torturing Mexicans to death for sport. The white man subdued the Indian tribes and settled the area. The phillipinos were being attacked by islamic jihad. They got help from the American Army in repelling the islamics, known in military history as "wiping out the moros". When it was over, the Americans left and returned the land to the phillipinos.
Yes, every nation has issues, same way as with individuals. Nobody is perfect or exceptional. But when someone claims to be exceptional, greatest and fit to be master of the world, one needs to run for cover. How can you name yourself "Justified" if you lack sense of justice?
Mexico population: Mestizo: 65-70% White European: 15-20% Amerindian: 10-14% Black, mulatto, or zambo: ±1% https://lobertrindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/races-of-mexico/ === In USA total number of Indians and Mestizo - 5,220,579 - less than 2 percent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
It started in 1898 with the Spanish-American War. America entered the war to wrest the Philippines from Spain because the US wanted a foothold in trade in Asia, particularly with China, and feared European and Japanese domination of commerce in the region. Under the pretext of helping Filipinos in their war of independence against Spain, the US fought Spain and bought the Islands from the Spanish and then fought the Filipino insurgents who still wanted independence. And Mark Twain was absolutely furious. [...] Read the rest at:
But when someone claims to be exceptional, greatest and fit to be master of the world, one needs to run for cover. How can you name yourself "Justified" if you lack sense of justice? I must have missed you point? I thinking you are jealous of America?
Only Spanish Mexicans win office and control Mexihole. Even today I here the stories how non Spanish Hispanics are murdered or enslaved as farm workers for wages that the Chinese made in America back in the 1860's. You need to stop listening to socialist news service. Their propaganda would make Stalin jealous! Not sure what you were trying to point out here. Just remember any Mexicans or others that want to be Texans where allowed to be Texans but those that did not want to be Texans were kicked out. Thats kinda how the world works. The only exception were slaves which was legal back then.
I noticed
----- we sacrificed our industrial base to serve a finance-based economy. Not 'we', -- short sighted capitalists, assisted by stupid politicians, made this happen, -- as Trump is saying, and common sense voters will affirm. The American model is not sustainable without industry to employ most and make most middle class. It's painful to watch both of you bump your heads into walls for lack of knowledge and business sense. So let me try once again to help you out. MANUFACTURING IS CAPITAL, NOT LABOR, INTENSIVE. There was no way that a U.S. industrial economy could have created the jobs to employ all the women that entered the U.S. workforce since the 1960s. Lines, charts and graphs DO matter if you know how to read them, which obviously neither of you do. So here are some more lines to confound you. What do the lines tell you? HINT: The percentage of women in the U.S. workforce increase form 30% in 1950 to 60% in 2000. In absolute numbers this is more than just twice the number of women as the population grew from 1950 to 2000. The next two lines show that the huge gap in the participation rate of women vs. started to narrow by 1970 and shrunk to about 12% in 2005 vs. about 42% in 1950. An now for the last chart, at least in this post, as follows: Look at the slope of the employment line for 1940-1965 and that from 1965- 2008. What does it tell you. HINT: The rate of growth in the number of people employed was higher in the period from 1965-2008 than it was from 1940- 1965. Do you know what that means? HINT: That the evolution to the service economy had the capacity to employ more people than the manufacturing economy. Or stated in another way, the loss in manufacturing jobs was MORE than offset by the increase in service jobs. Or in other words, you both are wrong. I have a pretty good idea as to your response to these facts and am well prepared for them with more lines for you. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A preview of things to come. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
White European: 15-20% Oh I see you think mestizo is Indian? Nope those are mixed race with Spanish and others. Spanish took over and kicked(killed them) the Indians off their land and still to this day rule over the half breeds(I use that word for a reason) that stayed. The closer to Indian Mexicans are the poorer they are and the more they are treated as second class citizen.
Not 'we', -- short sighted capitalists, assisted by stupid politicians, made this happen, -- as Trump is saying, and common sense voters will affirm. Depends on exactly how we set up our welfare system, and how we tax to pay for welfare, imo. 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. Comments? True enough. --- So what do you think of the Fair Tax scheme and unfettered capitalism, --- as a solution?
White European: 15-20%" Oh I see you think mestizo is Indian? Nope those are mixed race with Spanish and others. You took it out of context:
If you you are so helpful, could you explain me if the CAPITAL could create goods without the labor? Second, isn't capital the fruits of accumulated labor? Third, what was the role of the Negroe slave labor and former Indian land (third factor is the natural resource that yields rent) in the plantation economy of the South, what was the capital there? Fourth, what do you think about this old saying? "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
Yes but you first have to tell me what YOU think CAPITAL is. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I will allow you to hang yourself, but slowly, and answer the question. Among other things it was......what for it..........land. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?" What was Adam delving? With what, only his hands? What was Eve spinning? With what? The old saying was used by a priest to stir up a peasant revolt. So what do I think about it? Well, it is a clever use of words that was design to obfuscate by playing off the word gentleman. It's value turns on what one takes the word gentleman to mean as in the same manner the words "hope and change" means to specific individuals. The broad definition of gentleman today refers to just about to anybody, rich or poor alike. At the time of the quote it was more narrowly used to refer to a person of means, of good family and distinction. As intended by Ball it connotes more of a class divide than the usage of the word today. What do you think about this saying? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Look to the definition of capital to get your answer. Is land capital? Is money capital? Is a bridge capital? A plow? A horse? Water? Fuel? Your answers will reveal your understand of the subject but more revealing of your ideology and biases. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yes but you first have to tell me what YOU think CAPITAL is. It was responding to your use of the word. I guess you do not know what your are talking about.
It was responding to your use of the word. I guess you do not know what your are talking about. F*ck off you disingenuous asshole. I asked you what YOU think capital is as you seem confused about it and you can't even answer that simple straight forward question. You propagandist turds can't play your moron word games with me. All your response tells me is that you are a leftist shill prick that has no integrity and absolutely no interest in having a dialogue about anything. Take your handler's talking points somewhere else, there is too much intelligence on this forum for you mindless Commie mental midgets. And jut to point a finer point on it, here's one of YOUR questions from the same post "Second, isn't capital the fruits of accumulated labor?" You used the word with an obvious meaning to you. I GUESS YOU,/u> DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TAKING ABOUT. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your language and manner give testimony to your character and integrity. It is called psychological projection, look at the mirror.
You can scoff but communism might be a step on the path of reform for some places, China for example; the rotten system had to be swept away. This can give rise to excesses as it did in Russia and China and it too must be swept away. The great difficulty is controlling capitalism so it produces wealth for all and not just wealth for some It sounds as if you have more faith in the state to solve problems than Christ. "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
Christ has already solved the problem he came to solve and part of that was to demonstarte a particular form of behaviour to us; compassion. Compassion is not socialism but it is using your resources to help others. The idea that capitalism, which is based on greed, can solve anything long term is rediculous. The inevietable outcome of capitalism is resources being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is very obvious with 1% owning 99% of the wealth. Christ doesn't need capitalism, he owns it all already and if we understand that we will willingly share. Capitalism and despotism are two sides of the same coin
According to your Christology after the Atonement and Resurrection Christ abandoned His Lordship over our lives. "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
not at all Jesus is Lord and it is a finshed work. You don't understand relationship, Jesus is there for us all the time however he has given us an ability to act, to represent his love and part of that, as I said, is compassion. Some people just want to sit back and say let God do it, whereas Jesus says I am with you, go. Christianity is not about accumulating as much wealth for yourself as you can, that is the world, typified by capitalism. You can mess around in the permissive love of God all you want, but where the rubber hits the road is in how much you are prepared to sacrifice, how much you are prepared to be christ like, it's a big ask for most and it comes out in attitude
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#2. To: Willie Green (#0)
#3. To: SOSO (#1)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#4. To: A Pole (#2)
#5. To: Willie Green (#0)
Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health.
#6. To: A Pole (#3)
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#7. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole (#5)
#8. To: SOSO (#1)
Title: Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Capitalism has nothing on communism and socialism in this regard. In fact it doesn't even register on the starvation scale set by communism.
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
The writer advocates reforming capitalism toward sustainability, not abolishing it to move to socialism.
#10. To: SOSO (#9)
Sustainability comes when there is a demand for it. And clearly there is a growing demand, at least for those people that can afford it. The masses in India, China, Russia, etc. do not seem to GAS about sustainability, they simply can't afford it.
#11. To: SOSO (#7)
The real evil of communism
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
It can't become a reality until we can dream of it, speak of it, implement it.
#13. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole (#11)
We all agreee that communism is a system of government that has been tried and rejected.
#14. To: paraclete (#11)
Capitalism has demonstrated that it does not respect or demand ethical behaviour.
#15. To: All (#0)
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#16. To: SOSO (#15)
capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now
#17. To: Willie Green (#0)
#18. To: GarySpFC (#17)
I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
#19. To: SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#15)
This is really funny as it has been capitalism has been feeding much of the world for quite sometime now.
#20. To: paraclete (#18)
You can scoff but communism might be a step on the path of reform for some places, China for example; the rotten system had to be swept away.
#21. To: GarySpFC (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism. I would like to see you on your knees thanking the Lord you were born in Ameerica.
#22. To: paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, All (#16)
Does capitalism produce surpluses because government subsidies them, they would not do it otherwise..
#23. To: A Pole, paraclete, Willie Green, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#19)
And TooCon, no verbal insults, please.
#24. To: paraclete, GarySpFC (#18)
The great difficulty is controlling capitalism so it produces wealth for all and not just wealth for some
#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
#28. To: GarySpFC (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism.
#29. To: SOSO (#24)
(Edited)
#30. To: SOSO (#25)
Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
None of the other Republicans see it, or will.
#32. To: A Pole (#31)
Marx said that capitalists are the most shortsighted and self destructing ruling class (compared for example with the aristocracy that they replaced).
#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.
#34. To: TooConservative (#32)
Let's recall the absolutely miserable record of those countries like the USSR and Chine who took Marx's political and economic prescriptions seriously. They were a disaster for all involved other than the top elite. Even the elite did far more poorly than if they had pursued a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework. Which is exactly what eventually happened to the major communist countries.
#35. To: GarySpFC, CZ82, A Pole (#17)
Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism.
#36. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#34)
Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system...
#37. To: A Pole (#36)
Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other.
#38. To: Willie Green (#35)
If YOU want to see the effects of socialism, visit Scandanavia...
#39. To: A Pole, Y'ALL (#36)
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.
#80. To: CZ82 (#76)
Well it's because all those types of government are for people who want/require adult supervision.
#81. To: tpaine (#75)
Well, imo, they're wrong, if we can get through this latest crisis.
#82. To: paraclete (#77)
Who destroyed Cuba? the revolution or the US who wanted their puppet government back
#83. To: SOSO (#81)
That's a big, big if. Let's see who gets elected in November. Let's see what the REP controlled Senate will actually do about filling the seat on SCOTUS with an Obama candidate.
You do not understand the current demographics of the country and were that is going to be in the very near future. About half of the country U.S. population have no philosophical, intellectual, cultural, or, emotional connection to our Founding Fathers and their vision and/or intent of the principals of the Constitution that they penned, passed and confirmed. And the proportion only increase with time.
Many of these constitutional principles have already gone by the wayside and more are currently pending SCOTUS action with many more to come. --- Sure one can always hope but one needs to understand the realities of the world.
#84. To: tpaine (#83)
I've been dealing with the realities of the world for 79 years, - over 50 as a building contractor.
#85. To: tpaine (#83)
As I noted earlier: --- TooConservative advocated " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework".
#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?
#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.
#127. To: paraclete (#77)
Who destroyed Cuba? the revolution or the US who wanted their puppet government back
#128. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#125)
China is now the industrial behemoth.
The American model is not sustainable without industry to employ most and make most middle class.
#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)
#133. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#132)
#134. To: Willie Green (#0)
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
#135. To: tpaine (#133)
Thanks, apparently the rest would rather troll.
#136. To: Justified (#134)
how bad the world was before America showed the world the way
#137. To: A Pole (#136)
The first to benefit were Indians and Negroes.
#138. To: A Pole (#136)
how bad the world was before America showed the world the way
#139. To: paraclete, A Pole (#137)
Don't forget the Mexicans who lost 2/3 of their country, and the phillipinos.
#140. To: paraclete (#137)
Don't forget the Mexicans who lost 2/3 of their country, and the phillipinos.
#141. To: Justified (#138)
(Edited)
Every nations has issues. Its just easy to keep harping on the two worst things American has done.
#142. To: Justified (#139)
BTW it was the Mexicans ie Spanish who kicked the Indians off their land.
#143. To: rlk (#140)
The phillipinos were being attacked by islamic jihad. They got help from the American Army in repelling the islamics, known in military history as "wiping out the moros". When it was over, the Americans left and returned the land to the phillipinos.
#144. To: A Pole (#141)
es, every nation has issues, same way as with individuals. Nobody is perfect or exceptional.
#145. To: A Pole (#142)
#146. To: Justified (#145)
Not sure what you were trying to point out here.
#147. To: tpaine, vicomte13 (#128)
#148. To: tpaine, vicomte13 (#147)
#149. To: A Pole (#142)
Mestizo: 65-70%
#150. To: SOSO (#147)
vicomte13 ----- we sacrificed our industrial base to serve a finance-based economy.
Vicomte --- The American model is not sustainable without industry to employ most and make most middle class.
soso ---- MANUFACTURING IS CAPITAL, NOT LABOR, INTENSIVE. There was no way that a U.S. industrial economy could have created the jobs to employ all the women that entered the U.S. workforce since the 1960s.
#151. To: Justified (#149)
"Mestizo: 65-70%
Mexico population:
Mestizo: 65-70%
White European: 15-20%
Amerindian: 10-14%
Black, mulatto, or zambo: ±1%
#152. To: SOSO (#147)
So let me try once again to help you out. MANUFACTURING IS CAPITAL, NOT LABOR, INTENSIVE.
#153. To: A Pole (#152)
If you you are so helpful, could you explain me if the CAPITAL could create goods without the labor?
#154. To: A Pole (#152)
Third, what was the role of the Negroe slave labor and former Indian land (third factor is the natural resource that yields rent) in the plantation economy of the South, what was the capital there?
#155. To: A Pole (#152)
Fourth, what do you think about this old saying?
#156. To: A Pole (#152)
Second, isn't capital the fruits of accumulated labor?
#157. To: SOSO (#153)
"If you you are so helpful, could you explain me if the CAPITAL could create goods without the labor?"
#158. To: A Pole (#157)
If you you are so helpful, could you explain me if the CAPITAL could create goods without the labor?" Yes but you first have to tell me what YOU think CAPITAL is.
#159. To: SOSO (#158)
F*ck off you disingenuous asshole.
You propagandist turds can't play your moron word games with me.
#160. To: paraclete (#18)
You will not see me thanking the Lord for being born in america, I was born in a better place, one that can see the rationale for ensuring that everyone is looked after. Call it socialism if you like, but I think of it as responsibility.
#161. To: GarySpFC (#160)
It sounds as if you have more faith in the state to solve problems than Christ.
#162. To: paraclete (#161)
Christ has already solved the problem he came to solve and part of that was to demonstarte a particular form of behaviour to us; compassion.
#163. To: GarySpFC (#162)
(Edited)
According to your Christology after the Atonement and Resurrection Christ abandoned His Lordship over our lives.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]