1. There is no evidence linking Hussein to Al Queada or Bin Laden. Hussein and Bin Laden are bitter enemies, they absolutely despise each other. That hasn't stopped Bush and gang from trying in vain to link Iraq to 9-11. However, any insinuation that is made, upon further scrutiny falls apart, because that's all it is, is insinuation. Our government knows that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
2. The country that did participate quite a bit in the funding of Al Queada is Saudi Arabia. So, why doesn't our government attack them? Because they are our allies of course. They give us all the oil we want.
3. Our government put Hussein in power. Our government also looked the other way when Hussein "gassed his own people". Three words are missing, "with our support". Before 1991, 10 US corporations participated in the sale of arms to Iraq, even after he gassed his own people. That's part of why the dossier is kept out of the mainstream media.
4. Our government talks about creating democracy in Iraq, and we are to understand that the first step towards democracy is having a military dictatorship, much in the same way that we are to understand that "right to trial" means rounding up hundreds of "suspected terrorists" into concentration camps where they will eventually be tried by a military tribunal.
5. This war is about oil. That's all it is about. If we were out to have a "just war", there would be many other countries that have far worse human rights violations than Iraq.
I agree. That's why I say the things that I say. It can get better. People just need to quit doing the knee-jerk flag waving patriotism, and start thinking about how we can make things better. We've gotten to a point where people seem as if they are afraid to criticize the government, or that someone that criticizes the government is "anti-American". Personally, I would be happier if we just evened out some of the economic disparity, started investing more in people and less in business, and reformed campaign contributions. We should go back to the old system, where it was a felony at least in some states for corporations to fund politicians. This was done for a reason. If I talked about a Democracy where Bill Gates got ten million votes and everyone else got one, we wouldn't even laugh. But in our current system of campaign financing, this is exactly what we have in effect.
Your mention of instability through bringing in elements of direct democracy will only happen if the wealth gap is extremely large. If you even it out some, this instability will go away. So, the question is, "How important is it for someone to have the "right" to become a billionaire if it means that we lose effective democracy?"
Look, you're the third person that has pulled this straw man, and I must say that I'm not impressed. First, I never said that we need to switch to direct democracy. Someone pointed out that a direct democracy would not work in response to my first comment, so I played devil's advocate, that's it. In my original comment, I was using democracy, to refer to the representative democracy that we currently have in the US. A well functioning Republic should be roughly analagous to a direct democracy. However, I do not think that our "republic" is well functioning. The first thing we need to do in our government to help clear up this problem, is to implement campaign finance reform. But, look at what happened to the guy that wanted to promote that in the 2000 elections. John McCain was shot down. Now, there's a Republican that I would have voted for, and I am left leaning to say the least. Instead an inferior candidate that was willing to play by the rules was put in his place. Unfortunately, this is where politics seems to be headed in the US, with the better candidates being beaten by the less scrupulous candidates that "play by the rules".
A well functioning Republic should have similar results as an ideal Democracy. In other words, government of, by, and for the people. And, by people, I mean people, not artificial legal entities known as corporations. The point still stands, and you should keep in mind that most people use the word democracy, and that they still understand that it is a republic. When is the last time you heard our government talk about spreading republics? No? Oh yeah, they talk about spreading democracy, don't they? What about "keeping the world safe for democracy", when is that last time you heard "keeping the world safe for republics"? They use the word democracy, isn't that right, stupid? So, do you think that the Harvard educated elites running our government don't know the difference, or perhaps in many cases they are used interchangeably in our society?
It's not easy to see, I'll give you that. The devil is in the details. One thing to pay attention to is the slant that most of the media puts on the war. They make it sound like a foregone conclusion. This part isn't even subtle. The next thing that is important to look at is the order events happened in. This is very important. When did that 83% happen, that's right, it happened last Sunday. That's my point, it happened after massive media campaigns. I bet if you check polls before the media was lit up with stories of weapons of mass destruction, the support would have been much less.
I'm also not sure where you get the idea that the media is biased against Republicans. Isn't this the same media that absolutely destroyed Clinton? Isn't this the same media that quietly kept their mouth shut while NAFTA and it's counterparts, such as the DMCA were rammed through congress over the strenuous objections of organized labor in the case of NAFTA, and well, no one really knew about the DMCA until it was too late.
I think your assertion that the system is working the way it is supposed to is far off base. The size of corporations no doubt has our founding fathers turning in their graves. Go study your US history and you will learn that a large part of our revolutionary war was to free us from the tyranny of corporate rule. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That was when we took the Boston Tea Company's Tea and chucked into the harbor rather than pay the tea tax. See, we were forced to import certain goods from England, and were taxed heavily for them, and we saw corporations acting as the Arms of power that ruled over us. So, for the first 100 years of US history, corporations had severely limited power, and could have their charter's revoked for any reason. This was used to great effect in disciplining them. Then, in the aftermath of the civil war, when the government was corrupt and in chaos, legislation extending corporate power was rammed through Congress. I think that if they found out that this private power was then responsible for providing the financing of politicians, and therefore, selecting our politicians for us, that they would have included a few extra ammendments in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, for all the checks and balances that we put in our government, we didn't think to add any to our economy.
"Indeed, it may be possible to stop revolutions from happening at all - because a Republic cannot fuck up a country with all possible haste, it is more likely that those in power will see the discontentment of the people coming, and make subtle changes to avert general rebellion."
You could see this as a good thing or a very terrible thing, I suppose it depends on your perspective. You are right, however, the US government is after a certain level of complacency, if people get too pissed off, they are attentive, but the problem is, as soon as people stop paying attention, it goes back to business as usual.
I think that in order for either a functioning representative democracy, or direct democracy, to work in the US, we need to sort out the economic differences. I hesitate to say we should be required to reward people based on effort and hard work, since most Americans wouldn't understand this concept. However, if we at least added some checks and balances in our economic system, the way that we do in our government, it would do a great deal to keep wealth from becoming so incredibly concentrated in our country. No matter how much we think that a certain person "deserves" X billion because they did Y, we need to remember that allowing such huge amounts of power to fall into the hands of a few needs strong justification. Currently the top 1% of the US owns 40% of the wealth, that's up from 33% in the mid 80's. That's right, they added another 30% to their assets in 15 years. To contrast, the bottom 40% of the population owns 1% of the wealth. This hasn't happened by accident, it's what happens when a corrupt government sets up a nice gravy train of subsidies, which largely gets funneled into the hands of the upper class, and then lets them take this cash outside of the US and hire the cheapest labor possible in order to profit even more off the American public. This kind of direct market manipulation, otherwise known as cheating, is how they're doing it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a petty person, I could care less if someone has a nicer car, house, more jewelry, etc. What I do get concerned about is the income of the majority of Americans getting worse and worse, while that top 10% keeps getting better and better.
First, one needs to examine who becomes leaders and how they get there. By the time one gets to a high level of politics you can rest assured that they have aligned themselves with corporate, moneyed interests that don't care about the American people. If they haven't, then they don't even get nominated to represent us. Sure, the Green Party has no problems getting dog catchers elected, but try seeing how many actually have enough corporate funding to get elected to Congress. Note that the issues that other parties represent are issues that alot of Americans would be interested in, but they just don't get exposure. And, when the issue of campaign finance reform is brought up, our "representatives" shoot it down. Even, worse, they usually don't even bring it up for discussion in election. This is the best way to stifle any type of representative democracy, simply refuse to discuss the issues that people care about, and then hand them a bunch of issues that they don't care about to keep them busy.
One needs to examine how issues are discussed. The answer is that they aren't discussed. They are broadcast. It's a one way medium that does not actually do alot to represent Americans. Instead, it represents the agenda of the government.
As far as your reference to classrooms goes, I would say that the more empowered one becomes the more one is likely to behave responsibly, thus reducing the chances of chaos. Democracy is only a "problem" when huge differences in wealth and power occur. We could have also set it up like ancient Greece, where each voting member was guaranteed a certain amount of wealth, such as land. I think you have cause and effect confused. You say that in current US society democracy won't work because democracy is flawed. I believe that democracy will have a hard time working here because the US economic system is flawed, by allowing for such huge differences in power and wealth between it's citizens. When talking about Bill Gate's owning 40 Billion, we aren't talking about rights or freedom, we're talking about power and priveledge. We're talking about allowing one man the power to control sectors of the economy large enough to eclipse entire countries. The problem with this in a representative democracy is that single points of access to power are much easier to corrupt, and unfortunately, this is what has happened. Our government is very corrupt, and I don't see it getting better until people quit getting their ideas from the tv set and start reading material outside of the normal boundaries and taboos that are set for us. The power to control such a large portion of society should be limited in any society that says that it promotes justice and equality.
Actually, we are a Democracy, only in reverse. Take the war on Iraq, for example. In a real Democracy, the people of the US give a mandate to it's government to go to war with Iraq, sign petitions, start grass roots movements, and the politicians listen to the people and go to war with Iraq.
In the US version of democracy, the US government gives a mandate to the American people that they are going to war with Iraq. Over shouts of protest, the media begins the assault on the public mind to convince people that this is what they want to do and that the country of Iraq is of primary importance in their lives. After informing the American people, as well as Saddam Hussein, that he has weapons of mass destruction, a furious effort is made to find a pretext for invasion. Eventually, after months of campaigning, petitions start to circulate around the internet, so that the people of America can ratify the decision of their betters. So, it's a grass roots campaign, in reverse, of course.
The government gives it's mandate to the American people, and the American people automatically start discussing this issue. Granted, before the president gave his mandate, nobody was really concerned about Iraq, outside of a few oil companies, but that doesn't matter, and doesn't raise any doubts in our un-biased media about the president's honesty, despite the fact that several of his advisors are ex oil company executives.
The same thing happened with the War on Drugs that was increased by Bush I in 1989. Before the media campaign, the concern about drugs was only 4% in the gallup polls, and people were more concerned about the economy. Then Bush I gave a mandate to the American people, and immediately the "free" media started pumping out dramas about families being torn apart by drugs, despite the statiscally declining drug use in America. So, in spite of the fact that I nor anyone that I knew was on drugs, it was an important issue in my life because George Bush told me so. Another mandate by the government, and another assault on our freedoms. Yeh Bush!!
480i = 640x480 interlaced at 60 Hz refresh 480p = if it is in 4:3 mode then it is 640x480 60 Hz refresh
if it is in 16:9 mode then it is 720x480
at 60 Hz refresh 720p = 1280x720 non-interlaced at 60 Hz refresh 1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced at 60 Hz refresh 1080p = 1920x1080 non-interlaced at 60 Hz refresh
Most HDTV's support 480i, 480p, and 1080i, some of the better ones also support 720p, and some top of the line models will support 1080p.
Look, a company won't be able to make a profit without producing something. If they hire too many people who can't produce something effectively (either managers or low-paid drones), they'll go down the gurgler. The world isn't built around some multinational companies' conspiracy to exploit workers and consumers and not produce anything. There have been some very large corporate collapses recently, and many other large companies in serious trouble, and companies that engage in short-sighted management practices like those will only follow in the same direction.
Taken out context your ideas are reasonable enough, and it sounds like your heart is in the right place, so I won't fault you for them. However, taken in context, we see a very different picture. I'm going to rattle off a list of a few industries, those that are the movers and the shakers in our society. 1. Auto 2. Power 3. Telecom 4. Cable 5. Media 6. Aerospace 7. Agriculture 8. Internet 9. IT 10. Pharmaceuticals/biotech
These are just a few that I listed out literally as they came to mind. Now, what do all of these industries have in common? They have all come into being through massive government subsidies. Now, let's list out the subsidies.
1. Highways - subsidized under defense 2. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies. 3. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies. 4. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies that give them access to private property in order to lay cable. 5. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies in the form of copyright policing and enforcement. 6. Subsidized through massive defense spending and regulation which has helped to finance the aerospace and airline industries. This is covered at taxpayer expense of course. 7. Again, massive government handouts. 8. Subsidized through government funding and finanching of ARPANET, which was a defense project that created the backbone of the internet. This was then handed over to telecom which was also heavily subsidized. 9. Financed by government through defense projects which is what advanced the technology far enough that the PC was available. Of course, after all this work, the government freely handed over this technology to the like of Intel, who proceeded to patent much of the technology and make it their own.
IT is also subsidized through market manipulation and intervention in the form of fake "labor shortages", otherwise known as H1B Visas. This again saves the wealthy from having to actually invest any money in the American population. 10. This is financed by massive government grants in biomedical research. The fruits of this public research are then patented and sold to the customer at exhorbitant costs, and so on.
So, basicly, what we have seen is that the majority of large industries have become successful by taking taxpayer money. This funding is largely labeled "defense" in order to avoid democratic scrutiny and participation. Then, when it's time for them to invest in American people, well, then it's,"Fuck you, America, we're moving to Barbados!"
The other thing that you miss is that many people benefited quite heavily from Enron. You are assuming that it ends with corporations. That's simply not true. Corporations act as arms of the wealthy, by which they can screw us over while insulating themselves from any punitive damages. So, while Enron may have collapsed, which is a worst case scenario, many people still profited immensely from it. More often than not, they don't collapse, and those with power continue to get more powerful.
Taken out of context, your ideas seem great. However, let's examine what is happening to wealth distribution in the US. In the early 1980's, the top 1% of the US owned 33% of the wealth. Today, they own a little over 40% of the wealth. To further put this in context, the bottom 40% own only 1% of the wealth. You can find this information by browsing the US government's census website, as well doing a google search if you don't believe me. The top 10 wealthiest people each own enough to eclipse entire economies of smaller countries. They are kings in their own right. We aren't talking about freedom, we're talking about unbridled power.
Don't get me wrong, anyone with any bit of sense knows that the free market is a horrible way to promote long term planning. Government subsidies are of course necessary. If we left it up to the free market, quite a bit of the tech industry would die. What I question is why taxpayer money is given in large part to those who already have wealth, and why they don't then owe a debt to society for this help. This debt could be repaid by simply spending some money on training or education. What I also question is why our government puts subsidies under the label of "defense", thus removing democratic scrutiny in evaluating where that money gets spent.
You point out that there isn't a strict dividing line between have's and have not's. The answer to this point is that it doesn't matter. If I created a society where wealth was distributed continuously, but extremely unevenly, to the point where the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth, would you think that this is right? Who cares if the distribution is continuous? Does that somehow make it any easier for me to start my own software compnay and compete with Microsoft? Did this continuous distribution help Netscape?
You also mention that business owners put their money on the line and are the true risk takers. Again, taken out of context, this sounds fine. However, if we examine reality, what we find is that unless one is a true rags to riches success story, that very little risk is taken by those who already own the majority of wealth. If the stock market sours, well, then it's a sale, and if the market is doing fine, that's ok too. Nevermind the fact that if you are the wealthy owner of a large corporation that it is even more likely that you will get government handouts in the form of lucrative contracts and subsidies. So, in the end, it is we who absorb the risks. Even in the rags to riches stories it is only partially true that the business owner takes the risk. A friend of mine was arguing with me against progressive taxes because it would discourage the "more productive" members of our society from producing more. He used as an example the owner of a razor blade company, and said that if taxes got too high that they would be unwilling to produce more. My response of course was, "You made all those razor blades yourself, you must be very, very productive, even superhuman." Taken out of context, it seems right to reward the wealthy with the spoils, taken in context, we realize that the reason Bill Gates and others got so wealthy is that they had an army of men working under them, with some of these "Microserfs" working hard enough to put him rightly to shame.
I think that you are misconstruing that I am against all businesses. I am not against competition, and taken out of context, it would seem that one is free to start their own business. Taken in the context of present day realities, one can readily observe that I am no more able to compete against Microsoft than my dad's business was able to compete against Walmart. If I'm lucky, and good, then maybe I'll find a niche and make enough to retire on, but that's all that I can realistically hope for. For those who are not as fortunate as I am, they have far worse things to look forward to. The wealth consolidation that I mentioned above is going to continue as long as there are people such as yourself who are willing to take it up the ass with a smile on your face. One can only hope that the people of our country stop believing in the rhetoric and start realizing what is really happening. One can only hope that they start understanding why the rich keep getting richer, and no, it's not about hard work or some "natural" phenomenon. One can only hope that they understand why unemployment keeps rising, and why supposedly good jobs are providing less and less economic power each year. One can only hope that people begin to understand why home ownership is at an all time low, and over-leveraged mortgages are at an all time high. If we aren't careful, we could end up in society where the majority have no appreciable wealth of any kind, but then I suppose that this what "freedom" is all about. I'm supposed to remember that Bill Gates's "right" to control vast portions of our economy isn't about the power that he has over us, but instead is about the "freedom" that he has. I'm also supposed to remember that I have no rights to determine where taxpayer money is spent, and that they owe me nothing.
Look, a company won't be able to make a profit without producing something. If they hire too many people who can't produce something effectively (either managers or low-paid drones), they'll go down the gurgler. The world isn't built around some multinational companies' conspiracy to exploit workers and consumers and not produce anything. There have been some very large corporate collapses recently, and many other large companies in serious trouble, and companies that engage in short-sighted management practices like those will only follow in the same direction.
Taken out context your ideas are reasonable enough, and it sounds like your heart is in the right place, so I won't fault you for them. However, taken in context, we see a very different picture. I'm going to rattle off a list of a few industries, those that are the movers and the shakers in our society.
1. Auto
2. Power
3. Telecom
4. Cable
5. Media
6. Aerospace
7. Agriculture
8. Internet
9. IT
10. Pharmaceuticals/biotech
These are just a few that I listed out literally as they came to mind. Now, what do all of these industries have in common? They have all come into being through massive government subsidies. Now, let's list out the subsidies.
1. Highways - subsidized under defense
2. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies.
3. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies.
4. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies that give them access to private property in order to lay cable.
5. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies in the form of copyright policing and enforcement.
6. Subsidized through massive defense spending and regulation which has helped to finance the aerospace and airline industries. This is covered at taxpayer expense of course.
7. Again, massive government handouts.
8. Subsidized through government funding and finanching of ARPANET, which was a defense project that created the backbone of the internet. This was then handed over to telecom which was also heavily subsidized.
9. Financed by government through defense projects which is what advanced the technology far enough that the PC was available. Of course, after all this work, the government freely handed over this technology to the like of Intel, who proceeded to patent much of the technology and make it their own.
IT is also subsidized through market manipulation and intervention in the form of fake "labor shortages", otherwise known as H1B Visas. This again saves the wealthy from having to actually invest any money in the American population.
10. This is financed by massive government grants in biomedical research. The fruits of this public research are then patented and sold to the customer at exhorbitant costs, and so on.
So, basicly, what we have seen is that the majority of large industries have become successful by taking taxpayer money. This funding is largely labeled "defense" in order to avoid democratic scrutiny and participation. Then, when it's time for them to invest in American people, well, then it's,"Fuck you, America, we're moving to Barbados!"
The other thing that you miss is that many people benefited quite heavily from Enron. You are assuming that it ends with corporations. That's simply not true. Corporations act as arms of the wealthy, by which they can screw us over while insulating themselves from any punitive damages. So, while Enron may have collapsed, which is a worst case scenario, many people still profited immensely from it. More often than not, they don't collapse, and those with power continue to get more powerful.
Taken out of context, your ideas seem great. However, let's examine what is happening to wealth distribution in the US. In the early 1980's, the top 1% of the US owned 33% of the wealth. Today, they own a little over 40% of the wealth. To further put this in context, the bottom 40% own only 1% of the wealth. You can find this information by browsing the US government's census website, as well doing a google search if you don't believe me. The top 10 wealthiest people each own enough to eclipse entire economies of smaller countries. They are kings in their own right. We aren't talking about freedom, we're talking about unbridled power.
Don't get me wrong, anyone with any bit of sense knows that the free market is a horrible way to promote long term planning. Government subsidies are of course necessary. If we left it up to the free market, quite a bit of the tech industry would die. What I question is why taxpayer money is given in large part to those who already have wealth, and why they don't then owe a debt to society for this help. This debt could be repaid by simply spending some money on training or education. What I also question is why our government puts subsidies under the label of "defense", thus removing democratic scrutiny in evaluating where that money gets spent.
You point out that there isn't a strict dividing line between have's and have not's. The answer to this point is that it doesn't matter. If I created a society where wealth was distributed continuously, but extremely unevenly, to the point where the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth, would you think that this is right? Who cares if the distribution is continuous? Does that somehow make it any easier for me to start my own software compnay and compete with Microsoft? Did this continuous distribution help Netscape?
You also mention that business owners put their money on the line and are the true risk takers. Again, taken out of context, this sounds fine. However, if we examine reality, what we find is that unless one is a true rags to riches success story, that very little risk is taken by those who already own the majority of wealth. If the stock market sours, well, then it's a sale, and if the market is doing fine, that's ok too. Nevermind the fact that if you are the wealthy owner of a large corporation that it is even more likely that you will get government handouts in the form of lucrative contracts and subsidies. So, in the end, it is we who absorb the risks. Even in the rags to riches stories it is only partially true that the business owner takes the risk. A friend of mine was arguing with me against progressive taxes because it would discourage the "more productive" members of our society from producing more. He used as an example the owner of a razor blade company, and said that if taxes got too high that they would be unwilling to produce more. My response of course was, "You made all those razor blades yourself, you must be very, very productive, even superhuman." Taken out of context, it seems right to reward the wealthy with the spoils, taken in context, we realize that the reason Bill Gates and others got so wealthy is that they had an army of men working under them, with some of these "Microserfs" working hard enough to put him rightly to shame.
I think that you are misconstruing that I am against all businesses. I am not against competition, and taken out of context, it would seem that one is free to start their own business. Taken in the context of present day realities, one can readily observe that I am no more able to compete against Microsoft than my dad's business was able to compete against Walmart. If I'm lucky, and good, then maybe I'll find a niche and make enough to retire on, but that's all that I can realistically hope for. For those who are not as fortunate as I am, they have far worse things to look forward to. The wealth consolidation that I mentioned above is going to continue as long as there are people such as yourself who are willing to take it up the ass with a smile on your face. One can only hope that the people of our country stop believing in the rhetoric and start realizing what is really happening. One can only hope that they start understanding why the rich keep getting richer, and no, it's not about hard work or some "natural" phenomenon. One can only hope that they understand why unemployment keeps rising, and why supposedly good jobs are providing less and less economic power each year. One can only hope that people begin to understand why home ownership is at an all time low, and over-leveraged mortgages are at an all time high. If we aren't careful, we could end up in society where the majority have no appreciable wealth of any kind, but then I suppose that this what "freedom" is all about. I'm supposed to remember that Bill Gates's "right" to control vast portions of our economy isn't about the power that he has over us, but instead is about the "freedom" that he has. I'm also supposed to remember that I have no rights to determine where taxpayer money is spent, and that they owe me nothing.
Thankyou for twisting things up so that people have less understanding of the issues. What you are saying is a lie, plain and simple. It completely runs against the principles of our current economic system. Cheap labor is just that, cheap labor, as far as the cost of goods goes, it's whatever the market will bear. You are arguing that in order to increase sales, businesses will be forced to lower their prices in order to sell to those who have lower paying jobs. In the real world, the order of these things is important. The winners are determined by the order of events. So, if the labor market is continuously flush with cash, and businesses need to keep raising prices in order to keep their goods from being under-valued, the eventual losers are the businesses, who will eventually have less and less. In our world, the opposite is what is happening. The cost of labor is being cheapened, and then if a business feels like it, maybe they will lower the prices of the goods being sold. Or, more in tune with reality, which again, is a far cry from what you are saying, the costs of goods don't go down, and in fact are still rising, but people get in more debt, and at some point the rug gets pulled out from under them and they're left without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
As far as your reference to agriculture goes, I have no idea what your point is. It is so far out of context that it makes no sense whatsoever in the current situation. We aren't talking about a shift from IT to some other more advanced industry. We are talking about the flight of jobs out of the US, in order to drive US wages to third world levels, in a bid to create a desperate market. This only serves those on top, not the rest of us.
That's a good point, we are all dependent on each other. One becomes rich off the hard work of others, there is no such thing as a self-made millionaire, unless one believes that the owner of Ford Motor Company actually assembles all the cars himself or Bill Gates wrote DOS, much less windows. Given this truism, can you explain why we should support the huge differences in wealth that we have? If it's about freedom, then what kind of freedom are we defending that allows a select few vast amounts of economic power and control, and the rest of us are relegated to positions of servitude? Why should someone else's "freedom" to have 1,000 men working under him supercede our expectations of just rewards for our labor?
I have read your posts and agree with you in spirit, but I think that you are missing the point. It's not about profits, unless you also think that Microsoft gave away IE for free in order to increase profits. After one reaches a certain level of wealth, it's no longer about profits per se, or even competition, it's about consolidation of wealth and power. So, if you have to lose some money, which is fairly liquid and meaningless at this level, in order to increase misery and consolidate the things that matter, such as land, water, oil, communications networks, and food, then as a billionaire, this makes perfect sense. It makes sense in much the same way that Microsoft gave away IE, they weren't trying to make a profit, they already had plently of money, their goal is now to own the entire market. This is an old trick, and believe me, the rich in our society don't really care all that much about profits. When the stock markets collapse, it's a sale!, and when they are doing fine, well that's ok too. In this context, we then realize that the real plan is complete domination. So what if markets collapse and people starve, you'll still own everything, and you'll be able to find plently of people desperate enough to keep you pampered. Even if 200 million Americans disappeared, if you have the rights to the majority of property, you can still work the remaining 100 million like slaves.
Right, and if a CEO causes a woman in India to die due to poor working conditions, he's just doing his job. It's the job that needs to be questioned. It's the system that we have in place that needs to be questioned. One way to start is by reducing the amount of insulation that corporations provide to investors. Allow them to be sued into bankruptcy for wrongdoing, and list the names of all shareholders and encourage moral accountability. A small part of this problem is the anonymity that the corporate system encourages. Another problem is that when one buys stock he is buying an organization of people. But, I suppose that I am to understand that while slavery is immoral, buying large groups of people is ok. Ok, I get it, I understand now.
Work smart? What the hell does that mean? Did it ever occur to you that the reason they get the jobs is because they are willing to work for less? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the problem we have with education is that corporations are unwilling to do any training at all? Instead, they want us to pay the increasingly large educational expenses and then when that market disappears, we are supposed to go back and pay for more education. Let me get this through your thick head, I am no man's servant. I will not be reduced to this without a fight. I could care less if you think that it is right. Technology corporations have made their money off of taxpayer funded subsidies, which started the computer revolution, and is responsible for the creation of the internet. They aren't even willing to train people, and instead are relying on an increasingly desperate labor market. If you really think that this is about a battle between nations, then you are even stupider than most. The reality is that this a battle between all citizens of the world and multinational corporations who seek to exploit them. Working harder will only make you a better slave. So, while you may see fit to spend your time being the best slave possible, I see fit to spend my time defending my freedom, rather than bending over and giving up my economic power. Unlike you, I realize that the free market is not about freedom, but instead is about power. So, the real question that needs to be asked is, "Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have an army of men working under him?". I think the answer to this question is obvious.
That sounds like it would be very economically unsound to me. At least if you think that the opinions of the majority of Americans should make a difference in US policy. I guess I forget too easily that we don't have democracy here. And, I'm supposed to remember that when you say something is economically sound, that you are of course referring to the people that matter, business owners. Don't worry, I'm well aware of the fact that I don't matter, it's been rammed into my head since day one, with teachers telling me what kinds of skills employers were looking for, to colleges telling me about the "hot" fields that employers really are interested in. All of this has of course trained me to be an excellent servant to the people that matter, which is not me.
What you need to remember is that the free market is not some natural force, it's an economic system that we can change or do away with entirely if we choose. I think that the first thing we need to do is include democracy within our economic institutions. I know, you're thinking that democracy is a bunch of BS, but I still believe that it's not too late for the US to give democracy a try. So, you give employees of corporations a vote about how the affairs of that corporation is run. Or, if you don't like that idea, we can completely get rid of corporations as we know them, and give them the same rights that they had up until the 1870's, when they took advantage of a corrupt post-civil war government to extend their powers. There are many things we can do, but first, you need to change your reasoning of what is "economically sound". I find it hard to believe that you are thinking of your own interests when you say that. And, in a true democracy, you should be looking out for your own interests, not buying into the latest horseshit spewed from your tv set.
This is about as stupid as "no war for oil" or "violence solves nothing"
Of course, and we are to understand that the country of Iraq and their oil is yours by birthright as well. Don't worry, with your attitude, you will become part of that cheap and desperate labor pool in the future. That's what globalization is about. It's about extending corporate power beyond national borders where they can be regulated by democratic governments. It's about freeing corporations to act as they please while trapping you inside arbitrary borders. Don't worry, you're going to get screwed along with the people of the third world, but unlike them, you'll be getting screwed with a smile on your face, until you realize that it's killing you.
I agree with what you have said. It also begs the question,"Who beat us?". Some might say that the Indians have won, but a quick trip to India will tell you that many of them are living in poverty and have a lower standard of living than average Americans(to say the least), so if we use the definition of average living standard as a measure of success, then clearly this is not the case. My answer is that the ones that are winning are the top 1% of the US population, which owns these businesses and is able to shift the balance of the market to their advantage. In the process, India and other countries are getting robbed of their best and brightest and American engineers are forced to compete with them. What all people of the world need to be reminded of is who the real enemy is. It is those who seek to tilt the "free" market (which upon close examination isn't free at all) in their favor, at the expense of the rest of us. The current theme of globalization seeks to do nothing more than drive the wages of US citizens and all people in the world down to the lowest levels. One might argue that the elite members of US society are shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their ability to maximize profits. One only holds this naive view if he believes that profits are what a billionaire is really after. Once you get to that level, profits are only part of the equation. If one has to give up profits for a few years in order to consolidate power and wealth, then this is seen as a small price to pay. An example of this is when Microsoft gave IE away for free in order to drive netscape out of business. It happens all the time. So, it's a shell game being played against the rest of us, for the remaining bit of wealth that we do have. If we keep going in the direction that we are, we may quickly find ourselves in a society where the majority of people do not own land or any appreciable wealth of any kind and are relegated to a kind of wage slavery. In fact, I would say in the US, with the majority of homeowners over-leveraging their mortgages, we are quickly approaching that day, if not already there.
I think what you are missing is what got us here in the first place. The REASON that so many Americans are supposedly lacking in IT skills is the complete lack of interest that corporations and the elite have in funding our education. Most aren't even willing to spend a couple of months training a qualified candidate. It goes even further than this of course, back to the Reagan years, when our masters cut social spending which includes federal funding of schools, and a large deficit was run up to prevent the next guy in office from being able to spend that money on education. Of course the money that was spent during the Reagan years was a gravy train for the rich, but you aren't supposed to think about that too much. Now this completely antisocial policy that was promoted during the Reagan years has come back to bite business owners in the ass, since they don't have enough qualified "human capital". This is basicly a gross way of saying that, "Gee, we were too selfish, and now it's hurting us.". So, do they turn around and start investing in American people, of course not, who gives a shit about Americans, or people in general, right? Instead, they create a "labor shortage", which is an artificial manipulation of the labor market, and keep the gravy train rolling. Again, you aren't supposed to get upset about this.
In order to understand the position of the wealthy, just imagine yourself in room with a bunch of people who are homeless or ware members of the growing working poor in our country. Try explaining to them why you make $60,000+ a year for 50 hours a week, while many of them work for 70+ hours a week for a third of that. Well, of course your first defense is not to put yourself in that position, so you will tend to avoid "those kinds of people". You will also spend a great deal of time justifying your extra wealth and economic power by saying, "I work hard", "I'm smart", and "You guys are just as free to go to a college as I was", nevermind the fact that many of them went to substandard schools and were constantly reminded of their stupidity throughout their lives by their parents and society in general. Now, take someone that makes a million a year, and multiply the amount of time spent justifying that power and wealth by a few orders of magnitude. Pretty soon, their entire way of life is not about working hard to actually produce something, but instead justifying why they need so much power. Of course, they won't call it power, they call it freedom, so that you will think that you are just as "free" as they are. Entire ideologies will be formed to justify and promote this power, with armies of men and women working in public relations to support your position to the public at large. Then, jump up to the level of a billionaire, and it becomes obvious what the agenda is about.
What I find dissapointing is the amount of people on slashdot who just don't get it. They don't understand how far things have gone, how far the assault on our rights has gone. They don't understand how things are being twisted and manipulated to get them used to the idea of being slaves, since, after all, what right do we have to interfere with Bill Gate's "freedom" to have an army of men working as his servants? It is only when you begin to realize that these discussions have just as much to do with power, as they do freedom, who controls the economy and who is reduced to the role of spectator, that you can begin to talk about these things intelligently.
No, you would not have 100% employment. Don't you understand that this would not serve those in power to have 100% employment. We don't even have 100% employment here. Why employ everyone, when you can let 10 or 20 million starve, and leave the rest desperate and scared that they might lose their job. And his point is that free trade is what helped to corrupt the politicians. Is there any room for the people of Argentina to run their own lives when we promote free trade? Whose freedom are we talking about? Mine? Yours? Corporation's?
Hmm,let's see here, we live in a society where 1% owns 40% of the assets, and the bottom 40% own 1%. The median income of the bottom 20% is 7,000, and the median household income of the 20% that is second from the bottom is 19,000 per year. Our society is dominated by authoritarian insitutions, where the majority of life choices are to either be dominated or to move the ladder and dominate others. Hey, I have an idea, what about democracy? Do we have that, even in government? The answer is no, we have representatives, who are required to accept money contributions from extremely wealthy "beneficiaries". These politicians then serve these interestes while paying lip service to the rest of us, who have no voice.
So, while authoritarian socialist regimes have been tried, democratic socialism has not been tried. IN FACT, I THINK THAT IT IS ARGUABLE THAT DEMOCRACY ITSELF HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED. You cannot have democracy in a society that allows for complete control of the assets of production by such a small minority. The writers of US Constitution were very aware of this and created a representative government to keep the majority from being able to address their needs directly. What they didn't count on is the level of corruption that extreme differences in wealth would promote in a representative government.
Slashdot Mirror
A troll if I ever saw one.
1. There is no evidence linking Hussein to Al Queada or Bin Laden. Hussein and Bin Laden are bitter enemies, they absolutely despise each other. That hasn't stopped Bush and gang from trying in vain to link Iraq to 9-11. However, any insinuation that is made, upon further scrutiny falls apart, because that's all it is, is insinuation. Our government knows that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
2. The country that did participate quite a bit in the funding of Al Queada is Saudi Arabia. So, why doesn't our government attack them? Because they are our allies of course. They give us all the oil we want.
3. Our government put Hussein in power. Our government also looked the other way when Hussein "gassed his own people". Three words are missing, "with our support". Before 1991, 10 US corporations participated in the sale of arms to Iraq, even after he gassed his own people. That's part of why the dossier is kept out of the mainstream media.
4. Our government talks about creating democracy in Iraq, and we are to understand that the first step towards democracy is having a military dictatorship, much in the same way that we are to understand that "right to trial" means rounding up hundreds of "suspected terrorists" into concentration camps where they will eventually be tried by a military tribunal.
5. This war is about oil. That's all it is about. If we were out to have a "just war", there would be many other countries that have far worse human rights violations than Iraq.
I agree. That's why I say the things that I say. It can get better. People just need to quit doing the knee-jerk flag waving patriotism, and start thinking about how we can make things better. We've gotten to a point where people seem as if they are afraid to criticize the government, or that someone that criticizes the government is "anti-American". Personally, I would be happier if we just evened out some of the economic disparity, started investing more in people and less in business, and reformed campaign contributions. We should go back to the old system, where it was a felony at least in some states for corporations to fund politicians. This was done for a reason. If I talked about a Democracy where Bill Gates got ten million votes and everyone else got one, we wouldn't even laugh. But in our current system of campaign financing, this is exactly what we have in effect.
Your mention of instability through bringing in elements of direct democracy will only happen if the wealth gap is extremely large. If you even it out some, this instability will go away. So, the question is, "How important is it for someone to have the "right" to become a billionaire if it means that we lose effective democracy?"
Look, you're the third person that has pulled this straw man, and I must say that I'm not impressed. First, I never said that we need to switch to direct democracy. Someone pointed out that a direct democracy would not work in response to my first comment, so I played devil's advocate, that's it. In my original comment, I was using democracy, to refer to the representative democracy that we currently have in the US. A well functioning Republic should be roughly analagous to a direct democracy. However, I do not think that our "republic" is well functioning. The first thing we need to do in our government to help clear up this problem, is to implement campaign finance reform. But, look at what happened to the guy that wanted to promote that in the 2000 elections. John McCain was shot down. Now, there's a Republican that I would have voted for, and I am left leaning to say the least. Instead an inferior candidate that was willing to play by the rules was put in his place. Unfortunately, this is where politics seems to be headed in the US, with the better candidates being beaten by the less scrupulous candidates that "play by the rules".
A well functioning Republic should have similar results as an ideal Democracy. In other words, government of, by, and for the people. And, by people, I mean people, not artificial legal entities known as corporations. The point still stands, and you should keep in mind that most people use the word democracy, and that they still understand that it is a republic. When is the last time you heard our government talk about spreading republics? No? Oh yeah, they talk about spreading democracy, don't they? What about "keeping the world safe for democracy", when is that last time you heard "keeping the world safe for republics"? They use the word democracy, isn't that right, stupid? So, do you think that the Harvard educated elites running our government don't know the difference, or perhaps in many cases they are used interchangeably in our society?
It's not easy to see, I'll give you that. The devil is in the details. One thing to pay attention to is the slant that most of the media puts on the war. They make it sound like a foregone conclusion. This part isn't even subtle. The next thing that is important to look at is the order events happened in. This is very important. When did that 83% happen, that's right, it happened last Sunday. That's my point, it happened after massive media campaigns. I bet if you check polls before the media was lit up with stories of weapons of mass destruction, the support would have been much less.
I'm also not sure where you get the idea that the media is biased against Republicans. Isn't this the same media that absolutely destroyed Clinton? Isn't this the same media that quietly kept their mouth shut while NAFTA and it's counterparts, such as the DMCA were rammed through congress over the strenuous objections of organized labor in the case of NAFTA, and well, no one really knew about the DMCA until it was too late.
I think your assertion that the system is working the way it is supposed to is far off base. The size of corporations no doubt has our founding fathers turning in their graves. Go study your US history and you will learn that a large part of our revolutionary war was to free us from the tyranny of corporate rule. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That was when we took the Boston Tea Company's Tea and chucked into the harbor rather than pay the tea tax. See, we were forced to import certain goods from England, and were taxed heavily for them, and we saw corporations acting as the Arms of power that ruled over us. So, for the first 100 years of US history, corporations had severely limited power, and could have their charter's revoked for any reason. This was used to great effect in disciplining them. Then, in the aftermath of the civil war, when the government was corrupt and in chaos, legislation extending corporate power was rammed through Congress. I think that if they found out that this private power was then responsible for providing the financing of politicians, and therefore, selecting our politicians for us, that they would have included a few extra ammendments in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, for all the checks and balances that we put in our government, we didn't think to add any to our economy.
"Indeed, it may be possible to stop revolutions from happening at all - because a Republic cannot fuck up a country with all possible haste, it is more likely that those in power will see the discontentment of the people coming, and make subtle changes to avert general rebellion."
You could see this as a good thing or a very terrible thing, I suppose it depends on your perspective. You are right, however, the US government is after a certain level of complacency, if people get too pissed off, they are attentive, but the problem is, as soon as people stop paying attention, it goes back to business as usual.
I think that in order for either a functioning representative democracy, or direct democracy, to work in the US, we need to sort out the economic differences. I hesitate to say we should be required to reward people based on effort and hard work, since most Americans wouldn't understand this concept. However, if we at least added some checks and balances in our economic system, the way that we do in our government, it would do a great deal to keep wealth from becoming so incredibly concentrated in our country. No matter how much we think that a certain person "deserves" X billion because they did Y, we need to remember that allowing such huge amounts of power to fall into the hands of a few needs strong justification. Currently the top 1% of the US owns 40% of the wealth, that's up from 33% in the mid 80's. That's right, they added another 30% to their assets in 15 years. To contrast, the bottom 40% of the population owns 1% of the wealth. This hasn't happened by accident, it's what happens when a corrupt government sets up a nice gravy train of subsidies, which largely gets funneled into the hands of the upper class, and then lets them take this cash outside of the US and hire the cheapest labor possible in order to profit even more off the American public. This kind of direct market manipulation, otherwise known as cheating, is how they're doing it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a petty person, I could care less if someone has a nicer car, house, more jewelry, etc. What I do get concerned about is the income of the majority of Americans getting worse and worse, while that top 10% keeps getting better and better.
become an elected leader....
First, one needs to examine who becomes leaders and how they get there. By the time one gets to a high level of politics you can rest assured that they have aligned themselves with corporate, moneyed interests that don't care about the American people. If they haven't, then they don't even get nominated to represent us. Sure, the Green Party has no problems getting dog catchers elected, but try seeing how many actually have enough corporate funding to get elected to Congress. Note that the issues that other parties represent are issues that alot of Americans would be interested in, but they just don't get exposure. And, when the issue of campaign finance reform is brought up, our "representatives" shoot it down. Even, worse, they usually don't even bring it up for discussion in election. This is the best way to stifle any type of representative democracy, simply refuse to discuss the issues that people care about, and then hand them a bunch of issues that they don't care about to keep them busy.
One needs to examine how issues are discussed. The answer is that they aren't discussed. They are broadcast. It's a one way medium that does not actually do alot to represent Americans. Instead, it represents the agenda of the government.
As far as your reference to classrooms goes, I would say that the more empowered one becomes the more one is likely to behave responsibly, thus reducing the chances of chaos. Democracy is only a "problem" when huge differences in wealth and power occur. We could have also set it up like ancient Greece, where each voting member was guaranteed a certain amount of wealth, such as land. I think you have cause and effect confused. You say that in current US society democracy won't work because democracy is flawed. I believe that democracy will have a hard time working here because the US economic system is flawed, by allowing for such huge differences in power and wealth between it's citizens. When talking about Bill Gate's owning 40 Billion, we aren't talking about rights or freedom, we're talking about power and priveledge. We're talking about allowing one man the power to control sectors of the economy large enough to eclipse entire countries. The problem with this in a representative democracy is that single points of access to power are much easier to corrupt, and unfortunately, this is what has happened. Our government is very corrupt, and I don't see it getting better until people quit getting their ideas from the tv set and start reading material outside of the normal boundaries and taboos that are set for us. The power to control such a large portion of society should be limited in any society that says that it promotes justice and equality.
Actually, we are a Democracy, only in reverse. Take the war on Iraq, for example. In a real Democracy, the people of the US give a mandate to it's government to go to war with Iraq, sign petitions, start grass roots movements, and the politicians listen to the people and go to war with Iraq.
In the US version of democracy, the US government gives a mandate to the American people that they are going to war with Iraq. Over shouts of protest, the media begins the assault on the public mind to convince people that this is what they want to do and that the country of Iraq is of primary importance in their lives. After informing the American people, as well as Saddam Hussein, that he has weapons of mass destruction, a furious effort is made to find a pretext for invasion. Eventually, after months of campaigning, petitions start to circulate around the internet, so that the people of America can ratify the decision of their betters. So, it's a grass roots campaign, in reverse, of course.
The government gives it's mandate to the American people, and the American people automatically start discussing this issue. Granted, before the president gave his mandate, nobody was really concerned about Iraq, outside of a few oil companies, but that doesn't matter, and doesn't raise any doubts in our un-biased media about the president's honesty, despite the fact that several of his advisors are ex oil company executives.
The same thing happened with the War on Drugs that was increased by Bush I in 1989. Before the media campaign, the concern about drugs was only 4% in the gallup polls, and people were more concerned about the economy. Then Bush I gave a mandate to the American people, and immediately the "free" media started pumping out dramas about families being torn apart by drugs, despite the statiscally declining drug use in America. So, in spite of the fact that I nor anyone that I knew was on drugs, it was an important issue in my life because George Bush told me so. Another mandate by the government, and another assault on our freedoms. Yeh Bush!!
To keep it simple.
480i = 640x480 interlaced at 60 Hz refresh
480p = if it is in 4:3 mode then it is 640x480 60 Hz refresh
if it is in 16:9 mode then it is 720x480
at 60 Hz refresh
720p = 1280x720 non-interlaced at 60 Hz refresh
1080i = 1920x1080 interlaced at 60 Hz refresh
1080p = 1920x1080 non-interlaced at 60 Hz refresh
Most HDTV's support 480i, 480p, and 1080i, some of the better ones also support 720p, and some top of the line models will support 1080p.
Sorry for the lack of formatting. I have added formatting and reposted my comment below.
Look, a company won't be able to make a profit without producing something. If they hire too many people who can't produce something effectively (either managers or low-paid drones), they'll go down the gurgler. The world isn't built around some multinational companies' conspiracy to exploit workers and consumers and not produce anything. There have been some very large corporate collapses recently, and many other large companies in serious trouble, and companies that engage in short-sighted management practices like those will only follow in the same direction.
Taken out context your ideas are reasonable enough, and it sounds like your heart is in the right place, so I won't fault you for them. However, taken in context, we see a very different picture. I'm going to rattle off a list of a few industries, those that are the movers and the shakers in our society.
1. Auto
2. Power
3. Telecom
4. Cable
5. Media
6. Aerospace
7. Agriculture
8. Internet
9. IT
10. Pharmaceuticals/biotech
These are just a few that I listed out literally as they came to mind. Now, what do all of these industries have in common? They have all come into being through massive government subsidies. Now, let's list out the subsidies.
1. Highways - subsidized under defense
2. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies.
3. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies.
4. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies that give them access to private property in order to lay cable.
5. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies in the form of copyright policing and enforcement.
6. Subsidized through massive defense spending and regulation which has helped to finance the aerospace and airline industries. This is covered at taxpayer expense of course.
7. Again, massive government handouts.
8. Subsidized through government funding and finanching of ARPANET, which was a defense project that created the backbone of the internet. This was then handed over to telecom which was also heavily subsidized.
9. Financed by government through defense projects which is what advanced the technology far enough that the PC was available. Of course, after all this work, the government freely handed over this technology to the like of Intel, who proceeded to patent much of the technology and make it their own.
IT is also subsidized through market manipulation and intervention in the form of fake "labor shortages", otherwise known as H1B Visas. This again saves the wealthy from having to actually invest any money in the American population.
10. This is financed by massive government grants in biomedical research. The fruits of this public research are then patented and sold to the customer at exhorbitant costs, and so on.
So, basicly, what we have seen is that the majority of large industries have become successful by taking taxpayer money. This funding is largely labeled "defense" in order to avoid democratic scrutiny and participation. Then, when it's time for them to invest in American people, well, then it's,"Fuck you, America, we're moving to Barbados!"
The other thing that you miss is that many people benefited quite heavily from Enron. You are assuming that it ends with corporations. That's simply not true. Corporations act as arms of the wealthy, by which they can screw us over while insulating themselves from any punitive damages. So, while Enron may have collapsed, which is a worst case scenario, many people still profited immensely from it. More often than not, they don't collapse, and those with power continue to get more powerful.
Taken out of context, your ideas seem great. However, let's examine what is happening to wealth distribution in the US. In the early 1980's, the top 1% of the US owned 33% of the wealth. Today, they own a little over 40% of the wealth. To further put this in context, the bottom 40% own only 1% of the wealth. You can find this information by browsing the US government's census website, as well doing a google search if you don't believe me. The top 10 wealthiest people each own enough to eclipse entire economies of smaller countries. They are kings in their own right. We aren't talking about freedom, we're talking about unbridled power.
Don't get me wrong, anyone with any bit of sense knows that the free market is a horrible way to promote long term planning. Government subsidies are of course necessary. If we left it up to the free market, quite a bit of the tech industry would die. What I question is why taxpayer money is given in large part to those who already have wealth, and why they don't then owe a debt to society for this help. This debt could be repaid by simply spending some money on training or education. What I also question is why our government puts subsidies under the label of "defense", thus removing democratic scrutiny in evaluating where that money gets spent.
You point out that there isn't a strict dividing line between have's and have not's. The answer to this point is that it doesn't matter. If I created a society where wealth was distributed continuously, but extremely unevenly, to the point where the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth, would you think that this is right? Who cares if the distribution is continuous? Does that somehow make it any easier for me to start my own software compnay and compete with Microsoft? Did this continuous distribution help Netscape?
You also mention that business owners put their money on the line and are the true risk takers. Again, taken out of context, this sounds fine. However, if we examine reality, what we find is that unless one is a true rags to riches success story, that very little risk is taken by those who already own the majority of wealth. If the stock market sours, well, then it's a sale, and if the market is doing fine, that's ok too. Nevermind the fact that if you are the wealthy owner of a large corporation that it is even more likely that you will get government handouts in the form of lucrative contracts and subsidies. So, in the end, it is we who absorb the risks. Even in the rags to riches stories it is only partially true that the business owner takes the risk. A friend of mine was arguing with me against progressive taxes because it would discourage the "more productive" members of our society from producing more. He used as an example the owner of a razor blade company, and said that if taxes got too high that they would be unwilling to produce more. My response of course was, "You made all those razor blades yourself, you must be very, very productive, even superhuman." Taken out of context, it seems right to reward the wealthy with the spoils, taken in context, we realize that the reason Bill Gates and others got so wealthy is that they had an army of men working under them, with some of these "Microserfs" working hard enough to put him rightly to shame.
I think that you are misconstruing that I am against all businesses. I am not against competition, and taken out of context, it would seem that one is free to start their own business. Taken in the context of present day realities, one can readily observe that I am no more able to compete against Microsoft than my dad's business was able to compete against Walmart. If I'm lucky, and good, then maybe I'll find a niche and make enough to retire on, but that's all that I can realistically hope for. For those who are not as fortunate as I am, they have far worse things to look forward to. The wealth consolidation that I mentioned above is going to continue as long as there are people such as yourself who are willing to take it up the ass with a smile on your face. One can only hope that the people of our country stop believing in the rhetoric and start realizing what is really happening. One can only hope that they start understanding why the rich keep getting richer, and no, it's not about hard work or some "natural" phenomenon. One can only hope that they understand why unemployment keeps rising, and why supposedly good jobs are providing less and less economic power each year. One can only hope that people begin to understand why home ownership is at an all time low, and over-leveraged mortgages are at an all time high. If we aren't careful, we could end up in society where the majority have no appreciable wealth of any kind, but then I suppose that this what "freedom" is all about. I'm supposed to remember that Bill Gates's "right" to control vast portions of our economy isn't about the power that he has over us, but instead is about the "freedom" that he has. I'm also supposed to remember that I have no rights to determine where taxpayer money is spent, and that they owe me nothing.
Look, a company won't be able to make a profit without producing something. If they hire too many people who can't produce something effectively (either managers or low-paid drones), they'll go down the gurgler. The world isn't built around some multinational companies' conspiracy to exploit workers and consumers and not produce anything. There have been some very large corporate collapses recently, and many other large companies in serious trouble, and companies that engage in short-sighted management practices like those will only follow in the same direction. Taken out context your ideas are reasonable enough, and it sounds like your heart is in the right place, so I won't fault you for them. However, taken in context, we see a very different picture. I'm going to rattle off a list of a few industries, those that are the movers and the shakers in our society. 1. Auto 2. Power 3. Telecom 4. Cable 5. Media 6. Aerospace 7. Agriculture 8. Internet 9. IT 10. Pharmaceuticals/biotech These are just a few that I listed out literally as they came to mind. Now, what do all of these industries have in common? They have all come into being through massive government subsidies. Now, let's list out the subsidies. 1. Highways - subsidized under defense 2. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies. 3. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies. 4. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies that give them access to private property in order to lay cable. 5. Subsidized through government regulated monopolies in the form of copyright policing and enforcement. 6. Subsidized through massive defense spending and regulation which has helped to finance the aerospace and airline industries. This is covered at taxpayer expense of course. 7. Again, massive government handouts. 8. Subsidized through government funding and finanching of ARPANET, which was a defense project that created the backbone of the internet. This was then handed over to telecom which was also heavily subsidized. 9. Financed by government through defense projects which is what advanced the technology far enough that the PC was available. Of course, after all this work, the government freely handed over this technology to the like of Intel, who proceeded to patent much of the technology and make it their own. IT is also subsidized through market manipulation and intervention in the form of fake "labor shortages", otherwise known as H1B Visas. This again saves the wealthy from having to actually invest any money in the American population. 10. This is financed by massive government grants in biomedical research. The fruits of this public research are then patented and sold to the customer at exhorbitant costs, and so on. So, basicly, what we have seen is that the majority of large industries have become successful by taking taxpayer money. This funding is largely labeled "defense" in order to avoid democratic scrutiny and participation. Then, when it's time for them to invest in American people, well, then it's,"Fuck you, America, we're moving to Barbados!" The other thing that you miss is that many people benefited quite heavily from Enron. You are assuming that it ends with corporations. That's simply not true. Corporations act as arms of the wealthy, by which they can screw us over while insulating themselves from any punitive damages. So, while Enron may have collapsed, which is a worst case scenario, many people still profited immensely from it. More often than not, they don't collapse, and those with power continue to get more powerful. Taken out of context, your ideas seem great. However, let's examine what is happening to wealth distribution in the US. In the early 1980's, the top 1% of the US owned 33% of the wealth. Today, they own a little over 40% of the wealth. To further put this in context, the bottom 40% own only 1% of the wealth. You can find this information by browsing the US government's census website, as well doing a google search if you don't believe me. The top 10 wealthiest people each own enough to eclipse entire economies of smaller countries. They are kings in their own right. We aren't talking about freedom, we're talking about unbridled power. Don't get me wrong, anyone with any bit of sense knows that the free market is a horrible way to promote long term planning. Government subsidies are of course necessary. If we left it up to the free market, quite a bit of the tech industry would die. What I question is why taxpayer money is given in large part to those who already have wealth, and why they don't then owe a debt to society for this help. This debt could be repaid by simply spending some money on training or education. What I also question is why our government puts subsidies under the label of "defense", thus removing democratic scrutiny in evaluating where that money gets spent. You point out that there isn't a strict dividing line between have's and have not's. The answer to this point is that it doesn't matter. If I created a society where wealth was distributed continuously, but extremely unevenly, to the point where the top 1% owned 90% of the wealth, would you think that this is right? Who cares if the distribution is continuous? Does that somehow make it any easier for me to start my own software compnay and compete with Microsoft? Did this continuous distribution help Netscape? You also mention that business owners put their money on the line and are the true risk takers. Again, taken out of context, this sounds fine. However, if we examine reality, what we find is that unless one is a true rags to riches success story, that very little risk is taken by those who already own the majority of wealth. If the stock market sours, well, then it's a sale, and if the market is doing fine, that's ok too. Nevermind the fact that if you are the wealthy owner of a large corporation that it is even more likely that you will get government handouts in the form of lucrative contracts and subsidies. So, in the end, it is we who absorb the risks. Even in the rags to riches stories it is only partially true that the business owner takes the risk. A friend of mine was arguing with me against progressive taxes because it would discourage the "more productive" members of our society from producing more. He used as an example the owner of a razor blade company, and said that if taxes got too high that they would be unwilling to produce more. My response of course was, "You made all those razor blades yourself, you must be very, very productive, even superhuman." Taken out of context, it seems right to reward the wealthy with the spoils, taken in context, we realize that the reason Bill Gates and others got so wealthy is that they had an army of men working under them, with some of these "Microserfs" working hard enough to put him rightly to shame. I think that you are misconstruing that I am against all businesses. I am not against competition, and taken out of context, it would seem that one is free to start their own business. Taken in the context of present day realities, one can readily observe that I am no more able to compete against Microsoft than my dad's business was able to compete against Walmart. If I'm lucky, and good, then maybe I'll find a niche and make enough to retire on, but that's all that I can realistically hope for. For those who are not as fortunate as I am, they have far worse things to look forward to. The wealth consolidation that I mentioned above is going to continue as long as there are people such as yourself who are willing to take it up the ass with a smile on your face. One can only hope that the people of our country stop believing in the rhetoric and start realizing what is really happening. One can only hope that they start understanding why the rich keep getting richer, and no, it's not about hard work or some "natural" phenomenon. One can only hope that they understand why unemployment keeps rising, and why supposedly good jobs are providing less and less economic power each year. One can only hope that people begin to understand why home ownership is at an all time low, and over-leveraged mortgages are at an all time high. If we aren't careful, we could end up in society where the majority have no appreciable wealth of any kind, but then I suppose that this what "freedom" is all about. I'm supposed to remember that Bill Gates's "right" to control vast portions of our economy isn't about the power that he has over us, but instead is about the "freedom" that he has. I'm also supposed to remember that I have no rights to determine where taxpayer money is spent, and that they owe me nothing.
Get back to work, slave.
Thankyou for twisting things up so that people have less understanding of the issues. What you are saying is a lie, plain and simple. It completely runs against the principles of our current economic system. Cheap labor is just that, cheap labor, as far as the cost of goods goes, it's whatever the market will bear. You are arguing that in order to increase sales, businesses will be forced to lower their prices in order to sell to those who have lower paying jobs. In the real world, the order of these things is important. The winners are determined by the order of events. So, if the labor market is continuously flush with cash, and businesses need to keep raising prices in order to keep their goods from being under-valued, the eventual losers are the businesses, who will eventually have less and less. In our world, the opposite is what is happening. The cost of labor is being cheapened, and then if a business feels like it, maybe they will lower the prices of the goods being sold. Or, more in tune with reality, which again, is a far cry from what you are saying, the costs of goods don't go down, and in fact are still rising, but people get in more debt, and at some point the rug gets pulled out from under them and they're left without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
As far as your reference to agriculture goes, I have no idea what your point is. It is so far out of context that it makes no sense whatsoever in the current situation. We aren't talking about a shift from IT to some other more advanced industry. We are talking about the flight of jobs out of the US, in order to drive US wages to third world levels, in a bid to create a desperate market. This only serves those on top, not the rest of us.
That's a good point, we are all dependent on each other. One becomes rich off the hard work of others, there is no such thing as a self-made millionaire, unless one believes that the owner of Ford Motor Company actually assembles all the cars himself or Bill Gates wrote DOS, much less windows. Given this truism, can you explain why we should support the huge differences in wealth that we have? If it's about freedom, then what kind of freedom are we defending that allows a select few vast amounts of economic power and control, and the rest of us are relegated to positions of servitude? Why should someone else's "freedom" to have 1,000 men working under him supercede our expectations of just rewards for our labor?
I have read your posts and agree with you in spirit, but I think that you are missing the point. It's not about profits, unless you also think that Microsoft gave away IE for free in order to increase profits. After one reaches a certain level of wealth, it's no longer about profits per se, or even competition, it's about consolidation of wealth and power. So, if you have to lose some money, which is fairly liquid and meaningless at this level, in order to increase misery and consolidate the things that matter, such as land, water, oil, communications networks, and food, then as a billionaire, this makes perfect sense. It makes sense in much the same way that Microsoft gave away IE, they weren't trying to make a profit, they already had plently of money, their goal is now to own the entire market. This is an old trick, and believe me, the rich in our society don't really care all that much about profits. When the stock markets collapse, it's a sale!, and when they are doing fine, well that's ok too. In this context, we then realize that the real plan is complete domination. So what if markets collapse and people starve, you'll still own everything, and you'll be able to find plently of people desperate enough to keep you pampered. Even if 200 million Americans disappeared, if you have the rights to the majority of property, you can still work the remaining 100 million like slaves.
Right, and if a CEO causes a woman in India to die due to poor working conditions, he's just doing his job. It's the job that needs to be questioned. It's the system that we have in place that needs to be questioned. One way to start is by reducing the amount of insulation that corporations provide to investors. Allow them to be sued into bankruptcy for wrongdoing, and list the names of all shareholders and encourage moral accountability. A small part of this problem is the anonymity that the corporate system encourages. Another problem is that when one buys stock he is buying an organization of people. But, I suppose that I am to understand that while slavery is immoral, buying large groups of people is ok. Ok, I get it, I understand now.
Work smart? What the hell does that mean? Did it ever occur to you that the reason they get the jobs is because they are willing to work for less? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the problem we have with education is that corporations are unwilling to do any training at all? Instead, they want us to pay the increasingly large educational expenses and then when that market disappears, we are supposed to go back and pay for more education. Let me get this through your thick head, I am no man's servant. I will not be reduced to this without a fight. I could care less if you think that it is right. Technology corporations have made their money off of taxpayer funded subsidies, which started the computer revolution, and is responsible for the creation of the internet. They aren't even willing to train people, and instead are relying on an increasingly desperate labor market. If you really think that this is about a battle between nations, then you are even stupider than most. The reality is that this a battle between all citizens of the world and multinational corporations who seek to exploit them. Working harder will only make you a better slave. So, while you may see fit to spend your time being the best slave possible, I see fit to spend my time defending my freedom, rather than bending over and giving up my economic power. Unlike you, I realize that the free market is not about freedom, but instead is about power. So, the real question that needs to be asked is, "Why shouldn't a man be allowed to have an army of men working under him?". I think the answer to this question is obvious.
That sounds like it would be very economically unsound to me. At least if you think that the opinions of the majority of Americans should make a difference in US policy. I guess I forget too easily that we don't have democracy here. And, I'm supposed to remember that when you say something is economically sound, that you are of course referring to the people that matter, business owners. Don't worry, I'm well aware of the fact that I don't matter, it's been rammed into my head since day one, with teachers telling me what kinds of skills employers were looking for, to colleges telling me about the "hot" fields that employers really are interested in. All of this has of course trained me to be an excellent servant to the people that matter, which is not me.
What you need to remember is that the free market is not some natural force, it's an economic system that we can change or do away with entirely if we choose. I think that the first thing we need to do is include democracy within our economic institutions. I know, you're thinking that democracy is a bunch of BS, but I still believe that it's not too late for the US to give democracy a try. So, you give employees of corporations a vote about how the affairs of that corporation is run. Or, if you don't like that idea, we can completely get rid of corporations as we know them, and give them the same rights that they had up until the 1870's, when they took advantage of a corrupt post-civil war government to extend their powers. There are many things we can do, but first, you need to change your reasoning of what is "economically sound". I find it hard to believe that you are thinking of your own interests when you say that. And, in a true democracy, you should be looking out for your own interests, not buying into the latest horseshit spewed from your tv set.
This is about as stupid as "no war for oil" or "violence solves nothing"
Of course, and we are to understand that the country of Iraq and their oil is yours by birthright as well. Don't worry, with your attitude, you will become part of that cheap and desperate labor pool in the future. That's what globalization is about. It's about extending corporate power beyond national borders where they can be regulated by democratic governments. It's about freeing corporations to act as they please while trapping you inside arbitrary borders. Don't worry, you're going to get screwed along with the people of the third world, but unlike them, you'll be getting screwed with a smile on your face, until you realize that it's killing you.
I agree with what you have said. It also begs the question,"Who beat us?". Some might say that the Indians have won, but a quick trip to India will tell you that many of them are living in poverty and have a lower standard of living than average Americans(to say the least), so if we use the definition of average living standard as a measure of success, then clearly this is not the case. My answer is that the ones that are winning are the top 1% of the US population, which owns these businesses and is able to shift the balance of the market to their advantage. In the process, India and other countries are getting robbed of their best and brightest and American engineers are forced to compete with them. What all people of the world need to be reminded of is who the real enemy is. It is those who seek to tilt the "free" market (which upon close examination isn't free at all) in their favor, at the expense of the rest of us. The current theme of globalization seeks to do nothing more than drive the wages of US citizens and all people in the world down to the lowest levels. One might argue that the elite members of US society are shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their ability to maximize profits. One only holds this naive view if he believes that profits are what a billionaire is really after. Once you get to that level, profits are only part of the equation. If one has to give up profits for a few years in order to consolidate power and wealth, then this is seen as a small price to pay. An example of this is when Microsoft gave IE away for free in order to drive netscape out of business. It happens all the time. So, it's a shell game being played against the rest of us, for the remaining bit of wealth that we do have. If we keep going in the direction that we are, we may quickly find ourselves in a society where the majority of people do not own land or any appreciable wealth of any kind and are relegated to a kind of wage slavery. In fact, I would say in the US, with the majority of homeowners over-leveraging their mortgages, we are quickly approaching that day, if not already there.
I think what you are missing is what got us here in the first place. The REASON that so many Americans are supposedly lacking in IT skills is the complete lack of interest that corporations and the elite have in funding our education. Most aren't even willing to spend a couple of months training a qualified candidate. It goes even further than this of course, back to the Reagan years, when our masters cut social spending which includes federal funding of schools, and a large deficit was run up to prevent the next guy in office from being able to spend that money on education. Of course the money that was spent during the Reagan years was a gravy train for the rich, but you aren't supposed to think about that too much. Now this completely antisocial policy that was promoted during the Reagan years has come back to bite business owners in the ass, since they don't have enough qualified "human capital". This is basicly a gross way of saying that, "Gee, we were too selfish, and now it's hurting us.". So, do they turn around and start investing in American people, of course not, who gives a shit about Americans, or people in general, right? Instead, they create a "labor shortage", which is an artificial manipulation of the labor market, and keep the gravy train rolling. Again, you aren't supposed to get upset about this.
In order to understand the position of the wealthy, just imagine yourself in room with a bunch of people who are homeless or ware members of the growing working poor in our country. Try explaining to them why you make $60,000+ a year for 50 hours a week, while many of them work for 70+ hours a week for a third of that. Well, of course your first defense is not to put yourself in that position, so you will tend to avoid "those kinds of people". You will also spend a great deal of time justifying your extra wealth and economic power by saying, "I work hard", "I'm smart", and "You guys are just as free to go to a college as I was", nevermind the fact that many of them went to substandard schools and were constantly reminded of their stupidity throughout their lives by their parents and society in general. Now, take someone that makes a million a year, and multiply the amount of time spent justifying that power and wealth by a few orders of magnitude. Pretty soon, their entire way of life is not about working hard to actually produce something, but instead justifying why they need so much power. Of course, they won't call it power, they call it freedom, so that you will think that you are just as "free" as they are. Entire ideologies will be formed to justify and promote this power, with armies of men and women working in public relations to support your position to the public at large. Then, jump up to the level of a billionaire, and it becomes obvious what the agenda is about.
What I find dissapointing is the amount of people on slashdot who just don't get it. They don't understand how far things have gone, how far the assault on our rights has gone. They don't understand how things are being twisted and manipulated to get them used to the idea of being slaves, since, after all, what right do we have to interfere with Bill Gate's "freedom" to have an army of men working as his servants? It is only when you begin to realize that these discussions have just as much to do with power, as they do freedom, who controls the economy and who is reduced to the role of spectator, that you can begin to talk about these things intelligently.
Perhaps my post was marked off topic while the others weren't because it hits a little too close to the truth.
No, you would not have 100% employment. Don't you understand that this would not serve those in power to have 100% employment. We don't even have 100% employment here. Why employ everyone, when you can let 10 or 20 million starve, and leave the rest desperate and scared that they might lose their job. And his point is that free trade is what helped to corrupt the politicians. Is there any room for the people of Argentina to run their own lives when we promote free trade? Whose freedom are we talking about? Mine? Yours? Corporation's?
Hmm,let's see here, we live in a society where 1% owns 40% of the assets, and the bottom 40% own 1%. The median income of the bottom 20% is 7,000, and the median household income of the 20% that is second from the bottom is 19,000 per year. Our society is dominated by authoritarian insitutions, where the majority of life choices are to either be dominated or to move the ladder and dominate others. Hey, I have an idea, what about democracy? Do we have that, even in government? The answer is no, we have representatives, who are required to accept money contributions from extremely wealthy "beneficiaries". These politicians then serve these interestes while paying lip service to the rest of us, who have no voice.
So, while authoritarian socialist regimes have been tried, democratic socialism has not been tried. IN FACT, I THINK THAT IT IS ARGUABLE THAT DEMOCRACY ITSELF HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED. You cannot have democracy in a society that allows for complete control of the assets of production by such a small minority. The writers of US Constitution were very aware of this and created a representative government to keep the majority from being able to address their needs directly. What they didn't count on is the level of corruption that extreme differences in wealth would promote in a representative government.