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: 28846
Comments: 163
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale. • Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School). • Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN). • Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census). • The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections). Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form. How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain? Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change. Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways. “Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.” Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health. We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing. A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management. The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives. On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company. According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership: The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards. This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees. REI is a consumer cooperative that drew attention this past year when it opted out of Black Friday sales, encouraging its employees and customers to spend the day outside instead of shopping. I suspect that the most successful companies under this emerging form of capitalism will have less concentrated, more egalitarian ownership structures. They will benefit not only financially but also communally. Joint Ownership Will Lead To Collaborative Management The hierarchical organization of modern corporations will give way to networks or communities that make collaboration paramount. Many options for more fluid, agile management structures could take hold. For instance, newer companies are experimenting with alternative management models that seek to empower employees more than a traditional hierarchy typically does. Of these newer approaches, holacracy is the most widely known. It promises to bring structure and discipline to a peer-to-peer workplace. Holacracy “is a new way of running an organization that removes power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can then be executed autonomously, without a micromanaging boss.” Companies like Zappos and Medium are in varying stages of implementing the management system. Valve Software in Seattle goes even further, allowing employees to select which projects they want to work on. Employees then move their desks to the most conducive office area for collaborating with the project team. These are small steps toward a system that values the employee more than what the employee can produce. By giving employees a greater say in decision-making, corporations will make choices that ensure the future of the planet and its inhabitants. 
(Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-123) not displayed.
.
.
.
#124. To: SOSO (#123)
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
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]