[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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: 28405
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.
(Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)


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. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-28) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#29. To: SOSO (#24) (Edited)

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-17   6:41:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: SOSO (#25)

Russia has only sporadically been in the top 25 supplier countries and only since 2003.

Russia is quickly catching up, sanctions are helping her.

(figure for 2015/2016 is not complete yet for obvious reason)

A Pole  posted on  2016-02-17   7:12:02 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#29)

None of the other Republicans see it, or will.

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).

A Pole  posted on  2016-02-17   7:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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).

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   7:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: All, SOSO, paraclete, Willie Green, A Pole, nativist nationalist, A K A Stone, Pericles, nolu chan, Vicomte13 (#27)

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.

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]

This is an example of the "tragedy of the commons", well-known in politics and law.

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]

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]


So this argument about sustainability is not particularly unique to capitalism and it is certainly nothing new in public policy.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   8:58:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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...

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   9:26:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: GarySpFC, CZ82, A Pole (#17)

Go to Russia and see the effects of socialism.

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.

Willie Green  posted on  2016-02-17   9:42:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#34)

Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system...

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.

A Pole  posted on  2016-02-17   9:50:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   10:02:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Willie Green (#35)

If YOU want to see the effects of socialism, visit Scandanavia...

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   10:06:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A Pole, Y'ALL (#36)

Exactly,--- " a reasonable social-welfare state within a capitalist framework", is a workable system...

'Three hots & a cot' provided for those who need it, --- and dog eat dog (within the rule of constitutional law) for everyone else.

Everybody wins...

Problem is that capitalist class is incapable to be rational by itself. They devour the substance of the poor and devour each other.

Not if they (we) are restrained by a system of constitutional law that protects individual rights.

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.

You're not making a cogent argument above, imo. Try again..

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   10:28:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A Pole (#20)

Don't say it. Cuba under Batista was a swanky paradise.

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

tomder55  posted on  2016-02-17   10:33:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   11:07:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A Pole (#30)

Russia is quickly catching up, sanctions are helping her.

Way to go Pooty Poot. Let's see what happens now that oil is $30/bbl.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   11:10:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: TooConservative (#37)

They also advance science and technology,

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.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-17   11:21:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   11:33:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: SOSO, y'all (#44)

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...

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.

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   12:02:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: tpaine, TooConservative, All (#45)

And the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   12:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: SOSO, y'all (#46)

" 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...

SOSO, ------- 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.

Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation.

We are about to correct that trend in this election. - hopefully.

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.

You expect me to disagree about guns?

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   12:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   12:29:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-02-17   12:32:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#29)

Well, the Communists take all of the property and redistribute the wealth,

You are nothing more then a covetous thief like your father the devil.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-02-17   12:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#29)

And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-02-17   12:35:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: SOSO (#48)

SOSO, ------- 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

Which is heading head long at a rapid pace towards socialism via gun point a la government regulation.

We are about to correct that trend in this election. - hopefully.

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.

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.

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?

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   12:52:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: tpaine, TooConservative, All (#52)

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   13:24:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: tpaine (#52)

the only type of rule of law that has worked, -- is American constitutionalism

Did it? How does it compare to the other countries?

A Pole  posted on  2016-02-17   13:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   13:53:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

nativist nationalist  posted on  2016-02-17   14:00:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: SOSO (#56)

How do you define from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

This is a slogan that Communists in the Soviet block applied to the future Communism (after Socialist stage).

A Pole  posted on  2016-02-17   14:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   14:17:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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?

Perhaps this may help you answer the question.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   14:26:31 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   14:56:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: A K A Stone (#51)

Closer your lyihng mouth satan. J

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?

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-02-17   16:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)

And that is quite an achievement, one that capitalst countries do not achieve.

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.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-02-17   16:03:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: A Pole (#58)

How do you define from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   16:06:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

Well, sure. After all, Einstein was a Swiss patent clerk when he published the special theory of relativity and other major papers.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   17:37:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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.

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...

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-02-17   17:39:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: TooConservative, Willie Green (#66)

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

SOSO  posted on  2016-02-17   17:42:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: SOSO (#53)

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.

Yep, and we're the only form that's lasted well over 200 years, as you must admit. - That's sustainability.

tpaine  posted on  2016-02-17   17:42:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (69 - 163) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com