Your point still stands, however, I'd like to point out that US "farms" are not what they were when the subsidy was first conceived. Today it's big-time agribusinesses like Tyson, who run factory operations that hardly resemble "farming." They are getting paid subsidies in spite of their massive profit margins.
There's a really interesting theory called "shock democracy" and also another called "disaster capitalism," whereby governments take advantage of the collective shock and fear caused by disasters and use that time to push through the most painful forms of legislation, either out of perceived necessity or because nobody's paying attention. This is particularly true for economic "reform" and was conceived by Milton Friedman, who had Nixon's ear. The Patriot Act definitely falls into this category
Actually, they fear third parties. That's why Dems have taken legal action against Ralph Nader's campaign. The two main parties grudgingly accept each other's presence in a sort of "cold war" deal -- each ensures the other's existence as the "only way" to maintain a balance of power. ie., "Don't like Republicans? Democrats are big enough to stop 'em." Never mind that Nader is the only candidate with a truly democratic/progressive platform. Democrats will always just say "we're the only way to stop another Bush from getting elected." But twice it didn't work out that way so why should we keep voting for them?
That must be why the United States has elected GW Bush twice.
Look at the men who are usually labelled "despotic." Men like Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. The truth is that all of these men participated in global capitalism with the US government and corporations. It was only when they began going against it that they became labeled "despots" USA either put those men in power or gave them the wealth they enjoyed, then took it from them when they did things for their own people.
Capitalism only brings freedom to those with money and sticks everybody else into a system of debt and dependency. Seriously, look at the USA as the picture of a hyper-capitalist society. Notice how we all MUST own a car in order to function at the most basic level of society? If you have no car, it is almost impossible to get a job or navigate through the environmental infrastructure (unless you live in one of the rare cities with public transport). A trip to Wal-Mart becomes your whole afternoon instead of a half-hour errand if you don't have a car. I am a slave to my car. I must constantly worry about it having gas, oil, good brakes, etc. If it breaks down, I have no choice but to spend money to fix it. Capitalism gives us products we may not need and then eventually forces us to need them.
Global capitalism, spread and maintained largely through Microsoft products, causes more problems with poverty and economic disparity than Gates' foundation can ever fix. In fact, charities let this effed-up system continue by dealing with the outcome and not the source of the problem. So the guy's kinda right
You must be feeling a little bit of alienation from the capitalist machine... Don't worry, I've got some anti-depressants and inferior software to sell you
Slashdot Mirror
Your point still stands, however, I'd like to point out that US "farms" are not what they were when the subsidy was first conceived. Today it's big-time agribusinesses like Tyson, who run factory operations that hardly resemble "farming." They are getting paid subsidies in spite of their massive profit margins.
There's a really interesting theory called "shock democracy" and also another called "disaster capitalism," whereby governments take advantage of the collective shock and fear caused by disasters and use that time to push through the most painful forms of legislation, either out of perceived necessity or because nobody's paying attention. This is particularly true for economic "reform" and was conceived by Milton Friedman, who had Nixon's ear. The Patriot Act definitely falls into this category
As a socialist myself, let me assure you that there's nothing socialist about the Supreme Court.
That's why I will always vote Nader
Actually, they fear third parties. That's why Dems have taken legal action against Ralph Nader's campaign. The two main parties grudgingly accept each other's presence in a sort of "cold war" deal -- each ensures the other's existence as the "only way" to maintain a balance of power. ie., "Don't like Republicans? Democrats are big enough to stop 'em." Never mind that Nader is the only candidate with a truly democratic/progressive platform. Democrats will always just say "we're the only way to stop another Bush from getting elected." But twice it didn't work out that way so why should we keep voting for them?
oh yeah, and end the drug war ... that would save a lot more lives than getting patted down at the airport
That must be why the United States has elected GW Bush twice. Look at the men who are usually labelled "despotic." Men like Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. The truth is that all of these men participated in global capitalism with the US government and corporations. It was only when they began going against it that they became labeled "despots" USA either put those men in power or gave them the wealth they enjoyed, then took it from them when they did things for their own people. Capitalism only brings freedom to those with money and sticks everybody else into a system of debt and dependency. Seriously, look at the USA as the picture of a hyper-capitalist society. Notice how we all MUST own a car in order to function at the most basic level of society? If you have no car, it is almost impossible to get a job or navigate through the environmental infrastructure (unless you live in one of the rare cities with public transport). A trip to Wal-Mart becomes your whole afternoon instead of a half-hour errand if you don't have a car. I am a slave to my car. I must constantly worry about it having gas, oil, good brakes, etc. If it breaks down, I have no choice but to spend money to fix it. Capitalism gives us products we may not need and then eventually forces us to need them.
Global capitalism, spread and maintained largely through Microsoft products, causes more problems with poverty and economic disparity than Gates' foundation can ever fix. In fact, charities let this effed-up system continue by dealing with the outcome and not the source of the problem. So the guy's kinda right
You must be feeling a little bit of alienation from the capitalist machine ... Don't worry, I've got some anti-depressants and inferior software to sell you