Forum Post: I think we should be grateful for the system that has brought the US global dominance for decades. Sure we can improve, but also celebrate its success too.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 11:19 a.m. EST by grateful
(259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We are all very lucky people to live in an age where we can influence the outcome of government by voting. In the not too distant past, voting was not universal. If you don't like what the government is doing, you have a perfectly legal, simple and non-violent way of expressing it, just vote. We do have a democracy, everyone can vote, so what is all the fuss about? Is there corporate greed? Yes. Corporations are merely groups of people. Every action by them is decided upon by a person, and usually that person is highly incentivized to try to make the corporation succeed and earn more money. This is good because it means the corporation has more money, can pay its employees and everyone wins. Sure, the owners of the corporations win too, and you may say they win too much. But if they win too much, then employees can protest this by simply working somewhere else. So a balance must be struck, and who enforces this balance? The bosses who offer a certain pay, and the employees who choose to stay or not.
I believe corporate America is an awesome and powerful institution that has produced wonderful innovation and technology (google, apple, IBM, etc) and without the powerful incentives provided by greed, none of this would be possible.
So if you feel like you are not being paid enough for what you do, think about who sets your pay? If you think you are worth more, look for someone who will pay you more. If no one will pay you more, then perhaps its because your services are not really worth what you think they are worth.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I am saying the system has provided the US with a powerful platform to dominate world politics, and technology for decades, so perhaps don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Quote: "If no one will pay you more, then perhaps its because your services are not really worth what you think they are worth."
I can only add that Van Gogh was not highly regarded during his lifetime. Was the measure of his worth right by your reckoning?
If Big Businesses insist on no regulations, then regulating unions with laws such as those prohibit collective bargaining is clearly hypocrisy and unfair.
Value is subjective, likewise worth.
And we have learned nothing. We still do not value real artists in our society.
I agree. I am a scientist myself, but I believe that visual artists, writers, poets, and musicians have long had better readings of the pulse of the human heart, and better insights into the nexus of the human mind than many scholars of political theory or economics.
The gubmint has destroyed art all in the name of preserving it and society has bought into it.
As an artist, though there is differences in the results and purposes, I think the arts and sciences are both equally, and tremendously, valuable. One for crafting the environment, the other for helping us craft ourselves.
Well, I am certainly no Van Gogh, but in the end, his service, or the product of his service, was recognized. By my measure, he was worth lots. He was just unlucky that his contemporaries did not recognize that at the time.
Big businesses don't insist on no regulations. Neither do I.
So everyone who is undervalued and underpaid in this economy is simply unlucky. What a coincidence that while they are unlucky - so many CEOs are SUPER lucky! Wow.
No one can predict the future, so we cannot say for sure whether anyone's creative output will one day be massively important. However, all we can do is see what someone is willing to pay for it NOW. Its not perfect. But its the best we can do without a time machine. Do CEOs make lots of money? Yes. Why? Because people are willing to pay for them. Are they willing to pay for me as a CEO? Nope. I'm not gifted enough. But I'm not about to let my lack of the CEO-gift stop another person from paying a CEO what they think is a fair salary for the CEO-talent.
People are willing to pay CEOs that? Who is setting these CEOs salaries? I am sure if you poll the employees who've suffered with stagnant wages while producing more than ever before - they wouldn't approve the giant salaries and bonuses that CEOs are given.
CEO salaries are approved by company boards of directors, and then ultimately voted on by shareholders. So the owners of the companies decide where to spend their money on CEOs. It makes sense that an owner of a company can decide the pay of their CEO. They own the company, so they should have the choice as to what they pay their CEO.
So you saying they are responsible also for the stagnant wages that have created the greatest income inequality in this country since the great depression and essentially eviscerated the middle class? Oh okay I am on board with that.
All I am saying is that an owner of a company should be able to decide how much they should pay their employees and the CEO is one of those employees. Its got nothing to do with stagnant wages or any class warfare.
Not when they have undemocratic, foreign labor to use as leverage against the workers. Then it is just terroristic tactics, or better yet, a hostile take over of the middle class’s wealth.
But what if their overseas competitors are using such labour? Are you going to then make US products more expensive and therefore less competitive as a result? Its unfair to US companies to force them to use expensive labour while foreign companies can use cheap labour. Eventually, this will cause the US companies to be less profitable and they will shut down and move the whole operation to countries where outsourcing is allowed.
So how do you explain the stagnant wages while productivity has increased over the last 30+ years?
I'm not explaining that at all. All I am saying is that if you were to own a company wouldn't you think you should have the choice of how much you pay your employees including the CEO? If the answer to that is yes, then the current situation is that. Shareholders determine CEO pay.
The sound you hear (or maybe not) is the sound of 1% of the hands clapping.
The new CBO study tells you all you need to know : 275% increase for the 1%. vs 18%.for the bottom quintile. Digest that for a while and then take you apology for the system to the country club where I am sure you will get the response you were hoping for. Like the flat earth scam, it used to work here, in the absence of facts. Please leave. We have better things to work on.
"I'm not saying the system is perfect, but I am saying the system has provided the US with a powerful platform to dominate world politics, and technology for decades, so perhaps don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Where is this hand you speak of? The system isn't perfect? The system is utterly corrupt, criminal and leading to the mass unemployment and eventual poverty of the two of the most highly educated generations in US History. Bring forth this hand...
Unemployment is around 10% it's not exactly "mass" yet. I don't think it is totally corrupt, or criminal. There are certainly cases of corruption and criminality. Perhaps we should focus on better laws and enforcement, rather than on system change.
Unemployment is a term of art that does not actually reflect the real numbers of Americans out of full time employment and unable to find full time employment. We both know that, do we not, so why play semantics? In real numbers of Americans out of work, not the modern understanding of unemployment, rooted in fantasy land, we are looking at Great Depression era numbers of out of work Americans, certainly as a percentage of our population. This is utterly indisputable. 10% unemployment? [rolling on floor laughing] Downplaying the real magnitude of the jobless crisis by describing the problem in terms of the term of art, "Unemployment" is not productive, at best and a potential act of obfuscation, at worst. [Finally, after years, a moment to use a silly word for obscuring a matter]
Let me put it this way,...Would you describe unemployment in the USA, using the 10% figure, you offered up to me, if you were describing unemployment conditions to a CEO or to an Investment Banker? Do you really believe that figure is very informative? Would an institutional investment company hang a hat on that figure? So, why use that figure on an MBA, like me?
global dominance? i am not thankful for the evils of empire.
Global dominance is a problem, not a bragging point.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
The US empire has been far more benign than most empires in the history of man. I for one am glad The US remains dominant even though I am not a US citizen because the US shares many of the same values held by other western free democracies. The Bush era did send the US a bit astray, but overall the US position of dominance is good I think.
there are no democracies, still oligarchies. the USA in one way or another has murdered millions of people every year for 50 years. Thats not something to be proud of and its not benign.
The position of USA dominance- as with ANY form of dominance- is that dominance is itself wrong, and is itself a problem.
I for one understand that any kind of domination is based in violence.
and i for one understand that thus any kind of domination is simply wrong.
Well said. We live in a direct democracy and you vote with your dollars. Both how you make them and how you spend them. The people Occupying I would bet feel powerless because they've been con'd (brainwashed) out of their money so to speak. Wake up, vote wisely, quit buying useless crap (spend money on things that make you as an individual more self sufficient).
Too many people spend more than their ability to earn and that has been the cause of much of our financial problems to date. The over extension of credit, the excessive expenditures on property in the hope of speculative gains, and the rise of credit cards have made people spend too much. Perhaps, as you say, if people spent within their means, then they would feel more empowered to make choices.
YES! This is certainly what I have found in my own life. The less debt, bills, etc you have the more freedom you gain.
I was blessed with a house I could not afford along with credit cards and student loans I could not pay back. I got better educated (via books and research) and have given all that up and learned the lesson. Living simply and within your means makes you rich in all regards.
Exactly. I wish people would realize that we all have a responsibility to look after our own financial affairs, and we should do so conservatively, leaving plenty of room for rainy days. And this is true on all levels. Many big banks lent out money to people who could not afford it and so instead of being conservative with their money, they chased greed. And they got burned. Then tax payers had to bail them out, and I don't really like that, but banks are so central to our economy that to not bail them out would have been far worse. But lets not forget that the banks lent the money to people who asked for the loan. So the people are also to blame. I'm not trying to say banks are blameless, all I'm saying is that the banks got in trouble because they lent to people who couldn't afford it, but yet they went to banks and asked for loans. So I think both are to blame.
“TOCSFAE” IS TOXIC TO THE BANKERS
we can prevent rioting with this plan
From the beginning when our country was formed we face many challenges and many opposing views
Just like today however, the peoples voices have been silence by special interest groups as well as the over whelming power grab by the bankers. Your demands/petitions will never be heard or taken seriously unless lobbyist/corporate have bless it for greedy reasons or eventually Co-Opt it. so keeping a hard core is essential.
It is time for a fair hearing!
Whether you have protested at the gas pump or you are an Occupier give our protest the teeth it needs beyond the gas pump and over the protest lines.
Wouldn’t it be worth your time to know there is a petition list worth signing that binds all Occupiers together.
Wouldn’t it be great if you can be heard, fairly and equally?
This is were the step plan an ever growing list known as “TOCSFAE” can help. These step plans, enhances your concerns.
This petition will be a notification to congress of things yet to come and to properly prepare.
As of January 2012 we the people
We will not take the abuse anymore and neither should they walk around with there heads in the sand.
We will begin the process of phase one
Your petition will go to congress, informing them you support The “TOCS FAE” plan and so should they, by making preparations for receiving and forwarding income Tax mail. Your petition will also go to the top corporations letting them know of our intentions and they too should support and act on the doctrine by sending their taxes directly to congress. They should also be informed if our demands are not met, protests will be under way the likes they have never seen.
After this is achieved and we have broken the back of a few select Corporations we will move on to Step1 Taxes which may take months or years
Step1) Send your TAXES to a trusted congressman or congresswoman which maybe hard to find in your state. Make a Petition with your neighbors. Phone, email, fax your congress your list and intentions. Prepare your taxes, made out to the I.R.S check and envelope, and a stamp. Fit it in inside of a bigger envelope, onto which you should write congress address, preferably your state congress.
Example
Washington, DC 203 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone Number: (202) 225-2831
Have congress unwrap the envelopes, state you want your taxes to be mailed to the I.R.S
If you are asking yourself, what will this achieve first it can be used as a bargain chip however, congress cannot spend it or over take the fed reserve and banks system over night, nonetheless this will indeed give teeth/meat, back to congress. You should include a sign return receipt so as to show proof you paid your taxes.
If you are interested in expressing this message to Occupy General assembly feel free to do so.
I do not condone paying taxes in any other way than what is legal.
You have been tricked, it is legal. congress or the tax code can not tell you who may touch your check before it gets into the hand of the IRS, that is a violation of freedom. The Top 1% wants you to go along with their scam system and if you try to do something else they want you to be conscientious objector however it is just a trap another way to silence other more powerful ideas, TocsFae is one of them. The top 1% who pull the strings of corruption does not want you to look their way the banks/corporate promoted that ideology to trick the pubic or to slow down any awakening to their scams. Please do not be fooled.
Well, I'm still unsure. I'd rather pay my taxes and not have to fight the machinery.
You are ready are fighting the machinery in others ways. The real problem is we do not have the ear of congress anyone.
I have a lovely little 2 bedroom bungalow to sell you.....in Iraq.
Thanks... But no thanks.
Here ye !
Here's a bit of rare good news from a British commentator: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8844646/World-power-swings-back-to-America.html I can't speak for the veracity of his comments, but it's nice to hear a foreigner exhibit some faith in the good 'ole USA !
Also see my post and discussion at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/
I sincerely hope the US can maintain it's global position. I am not a US citizen but would prefer the US to the Chinese as dominant global players.
After World War II Under the guise of "progress" and "industrialization" we enslave nations, by persuading leaders to take our loans, then using our corporations we install power plants, mines, factories and when they default on their loans we leverage payment through the sale of their resources at cheap prices, have them vote in our favor, back other military interventions. How the U.S. Became an Empire http://usaempire.blogspot.com/
The nations that have benefited from us help include many of it's former enemies like Japan, and Germany. Upcoming Asian economies have also benefitted from US technology transfer, outsourcing, and providing a great market for them to export to.
Then why are some in power trying to make it harder for people to vote?
Nobody is making it harder to vote.
Yes they are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06mon1.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-states-are-rigging-the-2012-election/2011/06/19/AGCdB3bH_story.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/19/2224624/gov-rick-scott-signs-controversial.html
I believe voting should be mandatory as in Australia.
It is the small percentage of aristocracy that has infected and warped a reasonable system of government and country that is the focus of people's anger. One's vote means little other than supplying a false sense of interaction with federal level decisions at the current state of favoritism and corporate control. Voting is not enough with the current landslide of corporate takeover. There are a lot of people who are grateful for what others have done to build this country to the point where this discussion can even take place, but they are angry at individuals who have taken away their country and stated freedoms, some before they even had a chance to participate. Big business (who didn't even get invited to the party) ambled into the room and started dominating the conversation, right now they are being asked to leave.
One vote means nothing when each US House Rep "represents" 720,000 people. We need to reduce this number to bring democracy closer to the people.
With voter turnouts at 50% or less, I can understand people feel their votes don't count. But they do. Voting is what determines government. Please don't get disillusioned, instead vote. Yes corporations are allowed to donate money to political parties, but in the end, this just buys ads, and politicians can't get voted in by ads.
Unfortunately, sweeping change is required. There really is no precedent to this - in my personal opinion I think this is a delayed reaction to the onset of the modern financial revolution and post industrial society changes that have overtaken this country in the last century. No one voted in the ability for corporations to change the fabric of everyone's daily life, to systematically alter almost every aspect of citizenship and community. Every day you wake up something has been decided on in a board room or investment group, not a governing forum, and your life is changed. You have no say, the government has no say, everyone but those decision makers have no say and we all play catch up and respond until the next change occurs. We have granted an impunity to our own invisible id monster that devours and consumes. And it is far time for the sleeping giant of awareness and consciousness that we all share to wake up and put it back in its place.
The decisions of corporations are made by people, real people incentivized to try to make their corporation better (in most cases, this means richer, though there are times when better means things like, friendlier, less polluting, etc.). Most of the time this impacts people in a positive way, e.g. Apple builds an iPad, we all benefit. I admit, sometimes the impact can be negative, e.g. Pollution. But overall the impacts are good, and they are designed to be good, because the most obvious way a company can impact it's surroundings is by selling something. And good helpful products get bought more than stupid products.
As consumers, we benefit enormously from this, and in fact government is best not to interfere with this process, except in cases where free markets fail, e.g. Pollution etc.
I believe people feel out of control because they think companies are faceless monsters that fire people and outsource jobs away to foreigners. But companies are just groups of people making decisions. Sometimes, they make decisions that do impact people negatively, but that's because circumstances often dictate that.
Outsourcing is a commonly critized thing in these forums as a negative. Yes, I understand that, but let's say the US bans outsourcing in car manufacturing. Then US car manufacturers will have to employ expensive US citizens to make cars instead of cheaper alternatives. This will cause their cars to be more expensive. Meanwhile, the Germans are free to make their cars whereever they like. So their cars are cheaper. The result is that the German company sells more cars, and eventually, the US company goes out of business. So instead of some car jobs being created, an entire car industry is destroyed.
These kind of decisions are not made lightly, but sometimes they must be made.
They're made for the good of companies and not citizens. So there's no buffer to determine if a corporation's decisions are good for anyone outside the concerns of the company. With the sums of money used in lobbying to convince people not directly on the payroll that a corporation's or industry's direction is a good thing, there's no possible way for regular citizens to disagree. With every multi-year lawsuit trying to stop a company's actions, there's another 100 other companies doing the same thing, or worse.
A corporations mandate is not to act for the citizens of the country, only citizens of itself, which include it's owners and employees.
Exactly, i.e., they dont have to have a conscience, when they are protected by insurance, assumed liability by corp, not them as individuals, etc. (except LLC). That's a problem, since corporate decisions obviously effects people outside of their mandate on levels above and beyond the charter.
We cannot make every decision that has the potential to impact others to be subject to a mass vote. That system would be too slow and cumbersome to operate efficiently. All we can do is try to define what rights and freedoms require the protection of law and enforce them on corporates and private individuals alike.
Should we be grateful for the system that destroys and colonizes countries around the world with its military and plays a huge part in the acidification of the ocean, thus destroying 1/3 of its living ecosystem?
No. We don't have to be grateful very every mistake it makes. Rather, be grateful for the good things it does bring us. Like jobs, like security, like technological advancements in healthcare, like education. All these things are funded and created by the financial/economic system that every employed person (90%!!!) contributes to.
Right, but I just happen to think the death of the ocean is a bigger deal than technological advancements.
Species extinctions in the ocean are a result of everyone demanding and eating seafood. It has nothing to do with capitalism.
No... it's acidification as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and pollution. The coral reefs are dissolving and taking a huge ecosystem with them.
I agree we need to regulate the waste products from manufacturing. Carbon taxes tec need to be levied. I agree on this. However capitalism is not to blame. Free markets fail in the presence of negative externalities such as pollution, adequate government regulation is the answer, not changing of the entire system.
Wiki Occupy
Join the Facebook Page: Wiki Occupy
http://www.wikioccupy.org
United We Stand
I don't know where you're at otherwise I'd provide the number for the nearest drug treatment center.
America in the 19th century was in a struggle between mercantilists and independent, intelligent, capable people who could defend themselves. What happened? They were maneuvered into the bridle with inducements of high paying jobs and the manipulation of markets to break down small farms and businesses.
Once our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were led into the factories we were dependent on the very people running America. And America became the enforcer of the enemy.
What enemy? Corporations are massive engines of job growth and innovation. So many people are employed by them we should be doing everything we can to make sure they get good laws that allow them to run smoothly and efficiently while maintaining morality.
Why do Americans in general want to dominate over others ?
Can't you be happy by yourself.
The US doesn't have to dominate, it just has. You can of course be happy by yourself, but the motivation to strive and succeed is certainly something I find admirable.
It depends on how you see success. Be your best or just be better than the rest :)
One can be your best, and if that best is better than the rest, then good right?
I smell a rat!
"Elections are the hallmark of oligarchy" -Aristotle
It's been 2600 years since the world has seen sortition in use in national government, which is about 100 generations or roughly 40 lifetimes. It is arrogance and or ignorance to suggest that mixed constitution and election is as good as it gets. If people are to suffer and die for this movement as in Egypt, I damn sure hope they demand REAL democracy (sortition), anything less would be repeating the insanity.
The US has real democracy. Everyone has a vote. Ancient greeks never had universal suffrage.
It's true we have a lot of things that are better than ancient Athens, but voting is not one of them. Elections are a scam, always have been, always will be.
Elections are supervised by a politically independent body. Votes are done in secret, with no bloodshed or violence, and everyone has the right to vote. What more do you want? Many so-called democratic nations such as those in Africa have "elections" where people lose a hand or even worse their life if they vote for the "wrong" party. I think the US has it pretty good.
Even in a 'free & fair' election money and fame determine the outcome. Only sortition can result in representative government.
Is sortition a word? Fame can lead to popularity, which can lead to votes. This is fine since people vote not just on who they know, but who they want in. For example Maddoff Is very famous, but would be unlikely to win. Money leads to ads, which again informs people of their existence, but ads are not good policy, or substance. Have some faith that the American voting population can pick a good ad from a good candidate.
Yes it's a word, casting lots is even used as a way to select leaders mentioned in the bible, and still in use in some Amish and Mennanite communities in the U.S. Today. If you want some ammo to criticize sortition with look here: http://thecommonlot.com/faq/16
Personally I have spent about 200 hours reading critiques of sortition written by various authors at various times, and I truly believe democracy is far superior to republic in every way. I like the U.S. Constitution a lot, separation of powers is good, bill of rights is right on, but voting, and especially the electoral college are terrible. Once you understand that the people who invented and wrote about direct democracy clearly regarded election as a way to deceive a population into thinking it is politically empowered, you'll never see elections in a good light again.
Well, I can understand why we have representative voting. For practicality reasons, we cannot all vote on every issue in government.
Maybe yes maybe no, Internet could make that semi feasable, but sortition is just another way of populating representative govt.
Hacking is a big concern with Internet voting. I personally would not trust it.
Yeah, those were the good old days, when corporations had to operate in a democratic society, when they had to compete for the patronage and the labor of their democratically astute fellow citizens, and when their products had to be priced competitively. Those self interested, entrepreneurial titans, like Henry Ford and his model of capitalism, were looking out for them selves, selling reasonably priced goods and services that even their employees could own. But they, the kings of industry euphorically exuberant and high on their own hubris, began consolidating their influence. Who needs democratically astute citizens who are always complaining about low wages, when communistic labor is so much more bendable and thankful? Who needs pesky citizen and government oversight when irrational exuberance and creative destruction work so well? The evolution of capitalism, its eventual metamorphosis into corporatism, is as predictable as a child who gets all he wants from his family and never no consequences, turning into a privileged, selfish person who feels a sense of entitlement.
This sounds like propaganda. Can you point to any hard facts or evidence backed by peer reviewed academic research? There are plenty of statistics showing US dominance over the last 50 yrs in terms of technology and economics.
yeah, they are called newspapers, text books, and it is articulated with words like: off shoring, down sizing, out sourcing, economic development zones, and simply globalization. Or were you not sure whether corporations had to pay a competitive wage and you need me to document that?
Much of America's wealth comes from its corporations and their innovations. Together US corporations employ the majority of americans. I think providing jumps for ordinary citizens is a good thing, and for that I applaud corporations.
Well, I’m glad you enjoy working for corporations. I hear they are jobs that are over-demanding, underpaying, and lead to insecurities and viciousness. Life is too short and I am too confident in my ability to toe a line that is always asking more of me. No wonder there are so many people on anti depressants, and other psycho-pharmaceuticals, they all work for corporations. Give me a nice, laidback job any day. And don’t call me lazy, I just have nothing to prove. I am immune to social cohesion because I have a historic perspective.
Nobody is calling you lazy or stupid or attacking you in any way. The point is, in a fair economy you cannot expect to earn the same as someone who is motivated, driven & chooses to always ask more of themselves. How many CEOs of companies do you think would read the paragraph you wrote and say "Yeah, that applies to me."? None I know.
Thank for the support jbell!
Cheers mate, can't find fault in any of your posts thus far.
I forgot to also mention that my corporation also runs one of the largest charities in this country (I don't live in the US, I just admire the innovativeness of the US). I like my company and I like who I work with and for.
I work 9:5 pm. I get paid a reasonable salary. I enjoy working with my co-workers. I can support my family. I like my job and am very happy.
I never called you lazy.
Is there no positivity here at all?
There is a thin line dividing delusional from optimistic.
Many US citizens have real jobs working for real corporations and are thankful for their salaries. There is nothing delusional about that.
it is not about them and us, it is about everybody all at once demanding a new system based on Prior Unity of human kind, this is about transending our self stupa, self consumption like pigs in a trough, the i i i madness of narcissus while everything around us get destroyed, we are running out of time on this infinate planet to mature as a species, to cooperate and tolerate for the earth and humane sake beyond tribal competition, walk with heart
Not Two Is Peace
http://www.globalcooperationproject.org
Global Cooperative Forum
Beyond Tribalism
Based on Prior Unity of Humanity
Not two Is Peace
Voting doesn't hold the weight it used to. I'd say if you were born into this system more than half a century ago, you should probably feel lucky; But as it is, it's just a caricature if its former self. And no, you can't just "go somewhere else" because that "somewhere else" is everywhere.
What you're talking about is ideal, but it is just that; Idealistic.
Voting is better than it used to be. We have universal suffrage, gender, race, class, are no longer barriers to voting.
Actually, class and race are currently being disenfranchised again. Not to the extent that they used to be, but the process is a gradual one. As for your vote, go ahead; Vote for whatever representative you want. Just don't expect them to actually represent you.
I mean... I just don't get you. You claim you don't think this system is perfect, but the way you talk about it just screams contentment; If you say that you don't find it perfect, then please... do point out what you DON'T like about this system. Not just that it has flaws, but point out some concrete components of it that you take issue with. I'll return the favor and point out some concrete components that I do like.
Ok. I don't like that people have a choice to not vote. I think it is everyone's duty to vote and it should be mandatory. This should improve the democracy that we have because then everyone will have a say.
I think we can improve the healthcare system. Australia and the UK have a great system where everyone gets free, or close to free healthcare. They also have free education to secondary level, and subsidized education at tertiary level. That way everyone gets a good education platform to maximize their potential. The US education system where people have to pay lots for tertiary is difficult for the poor.
I think mortgages should not be tax deductions.
I think mortgages should not be non-recourse loans.
I think banks that were bailed out should pay it back with interest.
I also think unemployment benefits should come with conditions like they have to look for work, they have to accept work within their skill set that meets minimum wage, etc.
I think defence spending should be cut
I think the US should be out of Iraq.
Ok. Your turn.
Good. Nice and fast. You deliver quickly. Excuse me if I take my time, but sometimes I go slowly due to my obsession with punctuality, accuracy, facts, etc. I overdo it at times.
I like our policies on free speech VS Oceania, Asia, etc. I think this country still has a strong and longstanding tradition of upholding the rights to freedom of speech and arguably a model for the rest of the world.
I admire some of our individualist culture as well as our culture's versatility VS other cultures around the world. I.E. coexisting with other cultures.
I am thankful that we have the right to protest without fear of being killed or jailed for an insurmountable amount of time.
I admire our country's passion in its willingness to help other ailing countries like Japan with the nuclear disaster, Libya, etc.
I admire some of the tenants of the free market that we adhere to here, like the convenience of some of the services. We keep our stores open so much later than many other countries. I like having the freedom to be able to shop when I want and how I want. Amalgamated into this is the way we handle our internet here. We're fortunate to be able to have the speed and bandwidth that you and I are both using. Other countries have to contend with slow speed, bandwidth, as well as strict internet censorship.
This also brings me to housing. I like the way housing is in the U.S. We shouldn't all be forced to live in apartments or small homes in my humble opinion. I think it is a right that people should live in whatever house they pay for. Some countries have rather strict housing policies that really limit one's freedom as to where they'd like to live and what kind of home they'd like to live in.
Sorry if I can't type any longer, but it's getting really late. If you feel it's not enough, I'll type more tomorrow as I think of more than I am grateful of when it comes to living in the U.S
This is a great list! More people should read this!
Thanks, I liked yours too. Well then, I'm glad I typed enough. I was afraid I had made the list too small.
good stuff. Perhaps with a balanced approach we can make better decisions
I agree. A balanced approach is best. It's okay to have differing views.
Thanks for not being stubborn and clinging to your views. Thanks for being open minded and willing to also see positives. Its too easy to just complain and not even see the good in things. I wish more people would try to see positives in not just this issue, but everything in life.
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
Agreed.
What we are demanding is not getting more from the corporations. What we want is to end political influence by the corporation.
They do not represent the people.
No I think we going to bite those greedy hand
I think you should consider the rights of the children who work in sweat shops so you can buy your cheap computers and clothes etc. What about all the people Americans have killed by voting based on keeping oil prices down? What about the law? Do no harm! What about the fact you guys are eating GM crops that are toxic and trying to impose them on the rest of the world by force.
Buy organic. It is too expensive to get ill.
Support our petition http://www.petitiononline.com/SoLMag/petition.html
Occupy your motherland.
http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout-federal-reserve-now-backstopping-75-trillion-of.html
looks like a house of cards , people.....
I think it is important to understand that you can support the basic framework of a capitalist system and still debate the nature of our government's interventions into that system. It is important to remember how much of our system is not actually a free market system. We have bankruptcy laws, consumer protection agencies, the EPA, the Fed, the SEC, the FCC.... Nearly every government agency interferes with the free market.
It is also equally important to understand that the market itself interferes with the free market. A free market economy only exists if an extensive list of prerequisites is met. Among those are infinite buyers and infinite sellers. When a company either beats out or buys up other companies and narrows the competitive field, they too are interfering with the free market. There are also externalities that the market does not account for. The market on its own accord regularly. We must act on the market regularly to help it mimic an actual free market.
This is not to slander capitalism. I firmly believe that capitalism is the most effective economic model that their is. I am simply aware that it is not perfect. As society deals with these imperfections it makes many decisions that pick winners and losers. We cannot avoid this process, so I believe that we should deal with it more openly and honestly.
Most of the interventions of the last several decades have favored the elite or uber rich. This condensation of wealth has logistical problems in addition to ethical problems. We live in a society whose economy is driven by consumer spending. When you cut too much money out of the working class, their ability to support the economy staggers.
Henry Ford understood a very important principle when he attempted to make sure that everyone who worked for him could afford to buy his product. Increasing the standard of living of the working class was not simply a charitable gesture, but rather a business decision. The working class is not only tied to the uber rich as workers, but also as customers.
On top of the market interventions that have favored the rich the tax code has been heavily slanted in their favor over the last several decades. It is important to understand that I don't even mean $100,000 or $200,000 incomes here. What we are talking about is the $50,000,000 incomes.
This elite class has shaved their tax burden down to the point that they often pay less as a percentage than the average worker. These are decisions that are not proven to assist the economy as a whole. They are only proven to make the rich richer.
I suggest that we examine this system and the people who have been making the decisions. Why is it that this has happened to the process? The people need to become involved in the process again and speak up for their beliefs. If you are looking for an avenue to rally together and make our voice heard check out www.lobbydemocracy.com. It is a lobbying organization I have founded to represent the interests of the majority to their government.
Well said! A balanced approach that sounds rational and measured. I applaud this!
the US way is to pillage the world for its own profit.
If one of Obama's drones was heading your way, would you still be grateful?
It is this simple, the corporate elite and much of the government wish to keep the masses dumb and poor in order to keep control and keep their vast majority of the wealth.
Who are the corporate elite? Everyone either works for the government or some kind of company. How can everyone be elite?
The "elites" (if they exist), are the same people that have brainwashed you into thinking that lifting regulations will always produce a better outcome for everybody and that nothing is wrong with the economy. Just a bunch of lazy-ass poor people.
TLydon007 - good to know you buy into the lie of the "lazy-ass poor people". This country was built and is run on the backs of poor people.
You may want to re-read what I posted?
With emphasis on the part about "that have brainwashed you into thinking that".
The notion that poor people have just become lazy all of a sudden after the financial crisis is not something I advocate.
I never said anyone was lazy.
I am not brainwashed at all. I am merely asking you to define who are these elites? I mean, everyone I have ever known in my entire life either works for a government body or for some kind of company, big or small.
Thats because they are the 1%. Most of us could live multiple lifetimes and never meet one.
I am certainly not a 1%. Most people I work with a not a 1%. They just work for a company, work hard and get paid a normal salary. Most of the middle class do that, and they are certainly not the 1%.
Please re-read. I did not accuse you of being a 1%. I merely pointed out that you (and I), like most of the 99% will NEVER meet a 1%.
I have met several 1% people. They own the firms that I have worked for.
Now you are just being facetious. I'll give Bank of America and Exxon execs as examples of the corporate elite. As for the government, I am referring to each and every elected official on federal, state and local levels who represent their own personal interests (financial and political) rather than representing the people who they take an oath to serve.
The very fact I'm breaking this down for you tells me you are either being sarcastic and pious OR you have lived such a sheltered life you have no idea how life works for the other 99%
Well in that case I am not a corporate elite, so I guess I am in the 99%. I however disagree with the need to be anti-capitalist as many who are working for companies but who are not defined as corporate elite have done reasonably well from capitalism. We can feed our family, send our kids to school etc. I am hardly sheltered. I donate money, taxes, and I spend time in the local soup kitchen feeding the less fortunate. I am fortunate and give back to those who are not. And my company runs one of the largest charities in this country (I'm not in the US). All company employees donate and give time to help out those less fortunate.
How much do you do to help those less fortunate???
You said, "So if you feel like you are not being paid enough for what you do, think about who sets your pay? If you think you are worth more, look for someone who will pay you more. If no one will pay you more, then perhaps its because your services are not really worth what you think they are worth."
It is difficult to compete with those in other countries who can live on pennies. Look around, man! How do I compete with a a guy or girl in India who can live for way less than I can? I don't ask for six figures, but it would be nice to be able to find a job out of college? Speaking of college, how do we continue to be great innovators when we cut public education first, and raise the prices of college so no one can afford to pay for it?
You don;t have to compete with an Indian. Many Indians would kill for US citizenship. You are so lucky to be in the US. Yes its expensive to live there, but its also a land of opportunity for those who know how to make use of it.
Right, an awesome group of people who do not pay their fair share, send jobs overseas and care about nothing but the bottom line! How do you call that American? If the American way is all about greed and running over anything and anyone who gets in the way, we have failed as a nation!
The US is a great nation of innovation and progress. I admire it a lot. Some element of greed is a good incentive.
Corporate America did not produce shit. It was individuals who made it happen. You think those who create technology and innovations are motivated by greed? Any idiot can be greedy...it's one of our basest notions. It was not greed that Jonas Salk created a vaccine for polio (he actually gave it away for free...he did not even patent it). You make greed sound like a noble trait...greed is the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Greed was never the reason the US became so powerful. The US became powerful because individuals wanted to create and contribute something to the world.
Greed when taken to extreme is bad. Incentives created by good economic regulations which combined with natural human want to have more creates a fertile ground for innovation and creativity. Who can argue the US is not innovative and creative? Think the great inventions of Apply, IBM, Microsoft. Think all the creativity from the US movie and music industries. All this is possible from incentives, good regulations and of course the human want for more.
Again...you are glorifying greed. If you ask anyone who ever invented, created, or built anything...what was their motive...greed or money will not be their primary incentive. Greed knows no bounds...it's that simple. I can appreciate your admiration of our success over the centuries, but you cannot lay it on doorstep of greed.
Of course not all success is about greed. But the human need for more is at the heart of many people's incentive to work hard and want to succeed. I for one know that if I weren't paid, I wouldn't go to work!
Yes...but wanting to get paid for your work is not greedy. However, the boss laying off people from his/her company to increase the value of his stock is greedy. Innovation is never fueled by the prospect of money. Someone working out of his/her garage on some new gadget/program/medicine etc, is not thinking...oh man, I am gonna be rich...they are usually thinking, how am I going to make this thing work?
When I asked my boss what the hardest thing to do was in his life, he replied, 'firing my friend who has worked for me for years'. Firing people is not easy. No one likes doing it. No one does it to be greedy. Managers are often more personally tied to their employees than their shareholders who can often appear aloof and nebulous. Employees are there every day sharing jokes and coffee with the boss. When they get fired, its not because the boss wants to fire them, its because they have to or else the company will not be able to continue to pay for everyone. So the boss has the unenviable position of choosing which 2 people to fire, in order to save the jobs of the entire group.
When people innovate, money is not always the sole motivator, but it sure helps!
Oh, you sound so naive. While I agree, that smaller companies can share a sense of unity with their bosses and co-workers...but we are focusing on Big Business. These are the companies who move 50K jobs over seas in order to reduce their labor costs...while enjoying the freedoms, tax breaks, and protection from our government. I mean, come on...I am certain you have called your bank and had your call routed to India or Malaysia and had an impossible time understanding what they were saying (no disrespect to those people...they too are trying to earn a living)...but they moved those call centers for one purpose...increasing their bottom line. It's not like they were going broke by employing American workers...but they wanted more money...i.e. they were greedy.
I work for a massive company and still my bosses had more affinity for their co-workers than for their shareholders. Their shareholders see them once a year, co-workers every day.
Call centre work is very boring and I am glad that kind of work is outsourced to India.
I'm sure the people who had those call center jobs are not glad it was outsourced. But it's good to know that you care little for those who did lose their jobs.
People adapt, and move on. Call center work does not require many skills, so these people that lose call center work can find other unskilled work elsewhere, or perhaps they should skill up.
So they seek even less skilled workers than the ones we have here in the U.S....... Service goes down, prices go up. Indeed, people do adapt, and that's what we'll have to adapt to from now on. This is the reality of our system.
Call center skills is just talking to people. English is the only prerequisite. It can't get much lower. Remember, the more a company spends on call centers the more it has to increase the price of its product to maintain a reasonable margin to pay its shareholders and employees. As consumers that means if they don't outsource, we have to pay more for our products. Paying more for our products will of course mean those who don't get paid much will be able to afford less products.
get republicans to vote yes on jobs bill-by any means necessary-POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
I like jobs for people. If that vote gets people jobs in a way that is beneficial for society then lets do it!
We shouldn't want to be dominant, that's the problem. Competition is a bad idea.
It makes us crush our neighbor, instead of love them.
Wanting to be dominant is exactly that, a want. Its not a need. The US people have a choice to 'want' to dominate or not. What I am saying is that the system allows for the US to dominate because of the good things in it like incentives. At least the US has the choice to dominate or not if it wants. Other places like Ethiopia or Iran cannot dominate because they don't have the systems in place or the resources to do so. The US is truly a lucky place to live.
"The US is truly a lucky place to live." We are lucky because we benefit from the exploitation of the rest of the world? We don't exist in a vacuum. If we are on the top - others are on the bottom, right? That is how it works. Luck has nothing to do with the way things worked out. Greed, corruption, violence have put us in the position we are in.
The US is lucky. It does use the resources of other nations, in particular, cheap labour. This labour is of course the building blocks for poor nations to get richer. Look at all the Asian economies that are growing so fast and doing so well. Why? Because they were being used as outsourcing labour. This outsourcing has helped them. They are not being exploited they are being given work.
Sure sometimes exploitation does occur, child labour in dubious countries with few laws and regulations does occur and is wrong. But by and large, outsourcing has been good for poorer nations.
Did you work for the East Indian Tea Company in a previous life?
The evidence is clear. Low skilled jobs are being outsourced to where? Asia. And who is growing fast now? Asia. Why are they growing? Because they export the products that the west builds there. Lets not feel too sorry for them. Sure some exploitation exists, but we in the west can do something about that. Boycott the companies that use child labour! This is a far better solution that simply stating capitalism as a system has failed.
Your, right China industrializing because of this and generation ago Korea was the cheap labor spot of the western world.
Outsourcing, low skilled jobs that are dangerous I can why and understand how it done because of too many environmental and safety regulations.
Still have to draw a line of being too dependent on imports of other countries not always a good thing. USA should require all cars be made with 80% or less parts outside North America or pay 30% tariff. We do not need Japan to build our cars nor Korea.
Why did we sign trade Agreement with Korea they will not buy our cars period, and Mexico, EU buy our goods unlike South Korea.
EU, Russia, Brazil require you to build pretty much whole car locally. Foreign investment and profits made you can keep long as you providing work to the local economy.
Sometimes, savings 1000 dollars a car not worth it, or saving 200 dollars for a computer is ether sometimes. To much dependance on imports means we are beholden to them to provide those imports. Dependance on imports cheapens the value of our fell yeoman. Better to be self sufficient in most goods than be dependant on all goods.
Are you from the UK?
Is that Global Dominance or Degradation?
Dominance. The US as a super-power is certainly losing some ground to up and coming countries like China and India. And the only way to continue your place at the top is to promote laws and regulations that help innovation, incentives so super-smart people can continue making great products that make good companies that employ lots of people and give people jobs and financial security.
"employ lots of people" - In China and India. These corporations - made up of people - have been outsourcing and off-shoring jobs. These corporations - made up of people - have been increasing CEO salaries and benefits while laying off workers and offering stagnant wages for those left behind. You are living in a fantasy world where people don't actually need money to survive. People work so that they can feed their family and have a place to live. People depend on jobs - and corporations - made up of people - know that and EXPLOIT them. Your post is completely out of touch with reality - if finding a job was this easy - why is the unemployment rate so high? Also - corporations - made up of people - pollute the environment because there is not sufficient regulation, exploit workers - exposing them to unsafe working conditions. These corporate "people" are not held responsible for anything. "Limited liability", right? The problem that OWS is attempting to address is the corporate control over our "democracy". The more money funneled into the system by corporate interests the less attention is paid to the needs of actual people.
The jobs that are outsourced are the low paying jobs like putting the ipod together. The good high paying jobs like designing the ipod is done in the US. Why? Because the US has the best universities in the world, and therefore have the best educated programmers and designers. These are the jobs I care about. If the low paid boring jobs go to China and India, then fine. If the US can stay competitive and innovative then the good smart jobs stay here and the US can enjoy a higher standard of living that the Chinese or Indians.
Are companies exploiting their employees in the US? If this were the case, then employees would move elsewhere and work somewhere else. Is it easy to find a job? The unemployment rate is 10%. That means 90% of people find a job. If they can do it, then you can do it.
Do corporations pollute the environment? Yes they do. Because they create products and in creating products they have to make a mess. But we have regulations to say how they can make a mess, and where they can make a mess. If you don't like companies polluting things, then join the greens party and vote for tighter regulations on pollution. Don't destroy companies, just regulate them better.
Politics pays attention to votes. Money is used to fund campaigns which of course helps in getting votes. But ultimately its votes. Don't like what the government is doing? Then ignore the ads they spend money on and vote them out! You have that choice.
Are you kidding me? Outsourcing picked up steam in the late 60s early 70s and steamrolled economy. The automotive industry was devastated by outsourcing. Those are jobs that American's used to have. Outsourcing destroyed the manufacturing sector of our economy. US corporations have shipped manufacturing jobs and now some service sector jobs overseas. (Ever contacted a call center? If they are located in the U.S. - they are likely using prison labor). Also - depending on high end jobs to keep your economy afloat is ABSURD. The vast majority of Americans in the workforce are not going to be computer programmers or designers. Especially when our educational system is SO BROKEN. Your obviously coming from a place of complete ignorance. You are blinded by privilege - "If this were the case, then employees would move elsewhere and work somewhere else." - Picking up and moving is that easy for you? - You have access to a car? You can afford a down payment on a new place? You don't have a family that is dependent on whatever community resources are available to you now?
"If they can do it, then you can do it." - I have a job. I work with foster children. The problem is that politicians will say ANYTHING to get votes - but what they actually DO is determined by how much money they receive from corporations and lobbyists, etc. etc. I honestly feel like I am having this discussion with a 12 year old.
Making personal comments (I honestly feel like I am having this discussion with a 12 year old) in a political discussion says more about the maker of the statement than who the statement was intended to be about, so I won't comment on that.
Outsourcing is indeed difficult for the people who lose their jobs as a result. And yes of course not everyone is a programmer or designer. But are we to say companies are not allowed to start factories overseas? Then US companies will be disadvantaged compared to say German companies that are allowed to source factories from say Thailand or China. Then the German companies will do better than US companies and the entire US company will be out of jobs, not just the outsourced ones. Jobs are not things people own for life. They are transient things that exist when two entities decide it makes sense for it to exist then and there. In the case of car manufacturers, it made sense some time ago for the car company to hire people in Detroit, but not now. Is it fair to FORCE them to hire them? No. They should have choice.
I'm glad you have a job. So do I. If you don't feel like you are being paid enough then why do you think you should get paid more? If you think you should be paid more, then find someone who will be willing to pay more and work for them. Cannot find any? Then rethink about how much you should be paid.
Politicians do things to get votes and will be influenced by lobbyists who donate money. This is true. Its also a good thing. If politicians did not care about votes (e.g. failing democracies where voting is meaningless like in say some African nations) then politicians wouldnt be doing what we the people ask them to do. Voting is how we make politicians do what we want them to do. Companies are the same, except they use money. Rmemeber that companies are just made of people and their jobs are better off if the governement listens to their concerns. So it makes sense for poltiicans to listen to companies because they represent their employees and shareholders.
I'm sorry you aren't naive. You are willfully ignorant. If you actually believe that voting makes a politician do things - why do we have the LOWEST voter turnout of ANY developed nation (and many less developed nations). Money runs politics - people with more money have more influence - the people know that. You are either completely unaware of how the political system actually runs here or you are playing dumb.
I'm glad you have a job. I work at a non-profit and I make enough to get by alright. I love my job and am fortunate to have one in this economy - especially one where the workers are valued, I have health benefits that are payed by my employer, and I get to help kids in the foster care system. I can sympathize with people who are underpaid, overworked and produce a lot for a system that has only rewarded the ones at the top for the last 30 + years. If you refuse to see that - that is a choice you have the privilege to make. I am siding with the rest of the country - that faces great hardship that they can't simply pretend doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong. I do sympathize with those doing it tough. I believe in a social security net. I believe in welfare. I believe in universal healthcare and education. I believe in equal opportunity and I believe there are those who don't get that. I believe I pay taxes that end up going to people that do need it more than I do.
All my point is, is that the system has for a long time been very good at making the US a dominant player on the world stage. It is a successful system. Of course it has its faults. But what I am saying is that there is some good, lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets also appreciate the good stuff too. I'm just saying be positive about things too, while also being aware of the parts that need fixing.
What has made the United States a hegemonic power has also caused its decline. The people are not to blame for the decline of US influence - it is the influence of multinational corporate interests that hold allegiance to no one but themselves who've swayed the political course of this country by buying off politicians. It has been a lack of emphasis and investment in education and programs that empower people to work. Tax cuts that have gone to the wealthiest and corporate loopholes that have allowed the 1% to siphon resources out of the United States while never being held accountable.
Tax cuts are an interesting question. Lets say person A earns less and is taxed 10%. Person B earns more and is taxed 50%. Who should get their taxes cut? Lets say we want equality, then we should cut the tax of the person paying 50% taxes. So anyone who wants to cut the 10% tax guy is saying that they want less equality. They want low income earners to be tax free while high income earners pay for everything!! Thats not fair and is counter to the structure of giving incentives for working hard.
Our current system is NOT giving incentives for working hard. Do I need to pull out a chart for you on productivity vs. wages? Wealthy people have reaped more of the benefits from our economy and should pay more. How much less does A earn?
This Dominance looks very much like Ignorance based on the assumption that human existence is defined by product and consumption. Shallow and dangerous, as is obvious by the current global suffering that was produced directly through this childish and egoistic system of thought and behavior.
Wanting to create awesome technology and products is not evil. People choose to buy good products and that is their choice and they only do so because they want to. There is no ignorance there. I buy my ipod and iphone and yes they are cool, but they don't define my existence. Do they define yours? Probably not.
How has the purchasing of goods and services created global suffering? I think it has created lots of good products that people like to use and enjoy. Sometimes things go wrong (e.g. companies can sometimes create suffering like dumping waste product in rivers etc) but that is where good regulations come in to make such things illegal.
Supply=Demand
You demand they supply, Resources are depleted, You demand more they supply more, Resources are depleted, They supply more you increase your demand, Resources are depleted, Resources end, you die, they die, we all die....
That's somewhat fatalistic. I believe in human ingenuity. Yes resources are limited, but when one resource runs out, we have always worked out a way to get by with something else. Have some faith in our adaptiveness and genius.
You will usually find that this is only true when it comes to wants. We actually have some very basic life requirements that rely on a reasonably healthy eco system. What exactly do you plan on replacing oxygen and water with?
Oxygen is not in short supply, neither is water.
"Have some faith in our adaptiveness and genius." Could you please explain the "our" that you are referring to? I am sure a lot of people starving because of the global food shortages LOVE playing with their iPhones and iPods. I am sure impoverished people living in Central America love all of the cool gadgets that have just come out - it doesn't define them though. The system right now is obviously slanted in your favor - that is why you don't wish to change it. You are in the minority. Funny (or sad) that you should bring up the iPhone - here is an article about the 10th suicide at Foxconn iPhone Factory over working conditions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282163/China-Foxconn-iPhone-factory-crisis-13th-suicide-bid-employee.html
I am not in the minority. I am in the majority that lives in a developed nation (not US) that admires how the US is able to be so innovative. Yes third world shortages and hunger is bad. But that is NOT the problem of the US. Sure the US has a moral responsibility to help but it doesn't have the obligation to help, nor does third world hunger mean the US system is bad. It means the third world needs to get a real government rather than dictatorships and despots. I personally prefer western democracy than third world despotism.
So you are totally oblivious to the U.S.'s impact on the rest of the world? The U.S. government has support tyrants and despots in order to extract cheap labor and natural resources from the Global South. Much of what you own was likely assembled by exploited foreign workers, much of the food you eat was likely planted and harvested by exploited workers. Have you ever heard of Bechtel or Unocal? Two examples of U.S. based corporations that worked with oppressive regimes to profit. Bechtel worked with tyrants in Bolivia to privatize the water of an entire city - when the people could not afford to pay for the water - they tried to collect rainwater - they were punished. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html They privatized water - even water that fell from the sky. Unocal's pipeline construction in Burma led to torture, murder and rape. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tale-of-rape-and-murder-on-burmese-pipeline-haunts-us-576248.html These are the corporations you are throwing your support behind?
As long as the profits are flowing to the US there isn't a problem right?
There are hundreds of thousands of companies, that together employ almost everyone. Few people do not either work for the government or some kind of company. Of course you can point to some companies that were evil. Just like you can point to people that were evil. Companies are after all run by people.
People who are not held responsible for the collective actions taken by the corporations. Are you old enough to remember the Bhopal Gas Leak? 1984. No one was held responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of people - until 2010 where the punishments were 2 years in prison and up to $2,000 fines. That is less than a dollar a life. Wow. When a corporation kills someone - say they don't follow safety regulations and a worker in their plant dies - who is sent to jail? If you take a gun and shoot someone - you will likely go to jail. Corporations are not people. Corporations are externalizing machines.
Given inflation that actually makes the average life now worth less than the medievil serf which was 20 shillings.
Corporations can be fined. They are financial entities, and so fining them so much that they go bankrupt is the analogue to capital punishment for a company. Yes some companies are evil. Just like some people are. Companies as a system is not bad, its just that some companies run by evil people are of course evil.
I agree. Capitalism is the greatest system we've ever had, but now it's time to transition to an even better system: a resource based economy.
www.thevenusproject.com
We have a resource based economy. Resources are used to create products, which people buy because the products give them some kind of benefit. You might say the economy is based on money, but really thats just the medium of exchange. The real basis is resources, and don't forget human capital is a resource. Your brain is a resource, and thats why people spend so much time educating their brains in universities, because they know that leads to skills, which leads to prosperity.
A resource based economy is a different concept all together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDhSgCsD_x8
All resources are exchangeable for money on the commodities exchange. We are in a resource based economy.
No! That's a monetary system. I get what you're trying to say though.
Our resources are not priced correctly for sustainability, so no, we are not a resource based economy we are a resource hogging economy that does not take supply into account. We're human and we think in singular human terms, but the challenge is that there are so many of us now we have a need to think of resources in global and far-reaching terms and we are NOT doing that.
The supply/demand curve does not take into account long term supply, only instant supply that we can get right now at our own long term detriment. Just ask yourself, what should the price of gas actually be if it were determined by world supply, since we have world distribution.
But no, we have some 'oil producing countries' who have gas cheaper than 'non oil-producing countries', which doesn't even make sense to me since I know I spend more for my gas then any American does and yet I see commercials touting the CANADIAN tar-sands as your own American asset. Where is the cost of the damage done by fossil fuels on human health and environment when you buy gas? Its not. There are taxes, but I bet its earmarked to pay for the road you need tomorrow and not the lung you need 20 years from now.
what are you paying for gas. In Australia we are paying $1.50 a litre ($5.67 per gallon) and we are a oil/gas producing nation. We are down to 3 petrol companies (2 of which belong to Woolworths and Coles) and the prices go up and down at the same rate on the same day with all of them. Every time oil goes up our petrol price jumps within hours but it doesn't seem to go down when oil drops!
If sustainability is the problem, then join the greens party and vote for carbon taxes. I personally think Obama's push for hybrid cars and technology is a good step in the right direction towards sustainability. Yes things can be improved, but surely, and slowly it is.
I'm Canadian. I vote green when appropriate (we have a green party here). I went to government meetings and asked for a provincial carbon tax the same day that Gore and the UN agency on the environment won the Nobel prize and guess what?
IT HAPPENED. THERE IS A CARBON TAX IN MY PROVINCE NOW. YAY!!! MY GOVERNMENT LISTENED!!!!
So I just want to say there is hope people, not all government is bad. :-)
Oh and I'm not in Greenpeace or anything either. No group influenced me. What influenced me was my uncle nearly dying in one of the many forest fires up north in the Yukon, fires that never happened in my childhood. Thank God for GPS technology or they never would have been able to land the rescue helicopter among all the smoke.
Good Stuff! That's awesome!
The hand is biting us, along with the rest of the globe - rise up, resist, occupy!
and Sign the Online petition the OWS backs...
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/8/stop-the-corruption-on-wall-street/
TY, Marlow/Editor Investors4Justice.net
The hand of course bites some people. Those who choose to not work even though they are capable of work. Those people of course do not get much from the system. But then they shouldn't get anything out of the system because they put nothing in.
And who is 'us'??? Lets be clear about this. MOST people are employed by companies, big or small. So what are we going to do? Shut all corporations down? Everyone will be out of a job and then we will all suffer.
Extremely simplistic argument. Big multinational corporate monopolies are only a fairly recent thing. All the smaller community based businesses that were forced out of the market as a result of these monopolies will have a chance again. America might actually start producing stuff again.
The US is producing stuff. Some amazing stuff. Google, Apple, IBM to name a few. I personally admire US products.
They used to also produce wonderful clothes, furniture etc.
And still do.
USA only produces 5% of the clothes used in the USA compared to 95% in 1965
Every one of the employed 90% (unemployment is 10%) is working to build some product or service which I'm sure they think is good.
Your right wing talking points are meaningless when 45% of the American population between ages 16 and 29 is unemployed - these people aren't "choosing" unemployment, it's being foisted on to them, along with the record 46 million Americans who are living in poverty.
What are we going to do? Shift the power. Change the system. Ignore your platitudes.
And who may employ them??? Almost everyone is employed by either the government or a company of some form. So therefore to get them jobs, we should be helping companies, not hurting them.
Companies are already posting record profits, but they aren't creating jobs. They'd rather outsource to China and elsewhere than give jobs to Americans.
The problem is not "companies" per se, but the influence corporations - in particular, financial institutions - wield over the political process and the wealth and power their executives and directors enjoy even as the majority of the country is struggling.
We should also not just be looking for "jobs", but meaningful work - at a time when the American Society of Civil Engineers gives US infrastructure a 'D minus' and the rest of the world is leaving us behind in the development of alternative energy and manufacturing, it's not enough to simply create low level service jobs. We need to question our priorities as a society. In addition to getting money out of politics, this means making the focus of our society education and innovation - not the accumulation of abstract financial wealth.
I understand that not everyone will agree with the amount of influence money has on the political system. In which case, focus on changing election campaign funding rather than on anti-capitalist sentiment (which is much of what the forums here are about). I'm not saying the 'occupy' movement is wrong, I'm just saying that some people have hijacked the movement to include strong anti-capitalist themes which I think is counter to the movement as it disconnects the vast majority of the middle-class that has actually done reasonably well from capitalism. All I'm saying is don't be anti-capitalist. Focus on election campaign funding change.
History has shown that Power Corrupts and non-managed Greed can cannibalize. So while the US and Corporate US may have had their moments of dominance, the unbridled power and greed may have come home to self-destruct.
No one is against Corporate US but all against many of the Corporations' malpractices. No one is against a government but all are against a bought-out congress and government.
When wealth is spread through the nation, the nation is prosperous, the buying power and the health of a nation improve for the benefit of its people and their prosperity.
When wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, it is spent towards protecting the wealth at the expense of the people it feeds off thus gravitating the nation into a vicious self-destruct cycle.
If only the proposed path were chosen, OWS would not have been needed see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IlRVy7oZ58
However the OWS gives hope that there is still a spark of hope left.
Corporate malpractice is of course a bad thing and I agree that needs to be punished, that's why we have laws against that. Spreading wealth is good in that it gives people social security, however too much spreading removes incentives to work hard and achieve. Therefore a balance is required.
The thing is that the size of the modifications people want to make to the system are often grossly exaggerated in an attempt to spread fear and prevent actual consideration of real change. Case in point: the New Deal. The New Deal was essentially a narrow technical fix to the existing capitalist economic model, a relatively minor "patch" if you will, to deal with existing unrest before things got out of hand and people decided to junk the system altogether and start over.
Today, however, as much of the New Deal as possible has been repealed (i.e. Glass-Steagall and other Depression-era industry and bank reforms) or gutted (what PRWORA did for welfare in 1996) and any attempts to reinstitute modern analogues to the New Deal is slandered as communism, thievery, etc. Honestly, I feel like a modernized New Deal would be able to effectively pick up the pieces of the 2008 crisis while preventing the onset of future crises if it's left alone once it's instituted.
One of the main complaints I've heard against such a reform is "I worked my ass off for a given number of years to get where I was, and got kicked in the teeth time and again before finally succeeding. I got nothing from the government during this time and now you want a bailout?" I'd argue that the question is not why they should get the assistance they need, but why working people and small business owners shouldn't have recognition of the work they do and safety nets for the risks they take. My answer is that they should: federal subsidies should be provided to actual small businesses (especially in industries like alternative energy that the country is going to need later) and means-testing for welfare/food stamps/etc. should be revised to cover the working guy in the donut hole.
The two biggest items in the US federal budget are health care 23% of budget (arguably most going to the poor as the rich get private healthcare) and to social welfare 20% of budget (again only goes to the poor). So, to be clear, the current government is spending a HUGE amount on the poor.
The other big item is defence (20%) which employs soldiers who are probably not rich....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
So much better to just step over them when they die in the street.
Here's the other thing; if you compare the healthcare budget of the United States (which runs a largely privatized system with the government simply picking up the people who can't afford anything better) with that of many European countries (which tend to run single-payer systems), the US actually spends far more on healthcare (14% of GDP compared to 6-9% of GDP in 2004, see http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-health-total-expenditure-gdp for data). Social welfare is a fairly large portion of our budget, but the other thing is that most of the defense spending is on contracts with private vendors like Lockheed Martin that tend to come in way late and way over budget with few consequences.
DHS is one example of a military budget item that is not included in the pie chart. There are many more. It is the largest budget item, but it is mstly hidden.
Salary wages are so behind with regards to cost of living, so how can you say we set the pay. The one thing that keeps us from doing that is the only way we can survive, even barely, is if we get paid a wage less than we deserve. Less than one that is realistic. I think the scope here is out of scope. Dominating world politics(can you produce some objective evidence for that). Dominating technology(can you produce objective evidence for that). The hand that feeds us, is feeding use just enough to keep from starving, that is more the issue. I am not grateful for wasting, overindulging, and living beyond means. That is what powerful institutions have created, and I will take happiness for more people over wonderful innovation any day.
Evidence of technology and innovation is given by university rankings: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011
Evidence of economic dominance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Employees set pay be unions, and by leaving jobs if they feel the pay is too low. What you deserve is what another person is willing to pay you. You cannot simply assert that you deserve more, someone must be willing to pay you that, or else your assertion is meaningless.
I am also grateful. I think I'm very lucky to live here instead of somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia where there is no freedom of speech or women's rights. I consider myself very well-off. I'm by no means a 1%er but I got a good job 3 years after graduating and have been able to pay off all my debts. This is an accomplishment that I'm very proud of (how many people do you know that are debt free, I know maybe one besides myself.). I'm not lazy like many people are saying. I often work 60 hour weeks, I'm not complaining I am rewarded in accordance with my effort.
But many people are not as lucky as I am. In this economy (that the elite have created) people don't have the option of simply walking out on their jobs because they don't agree with their company.
Many people thought Obama would make positive changes, but he has fallen short. There simply is no canditate that is willing to separate themselves from corporations because politicians benefit too much from this involvement.
Who can we vote for? They're all in cahoots with eachother. This is why a movement like OWS is necessary, because no one will listen otherwise.
I am not saying OWS is unnecessary, I'm saying be grateful, and focus on what you want to change. Is it more financial equality? Then how can that be achieved? Can it be achieved without hurting the incentives system that has been so good at creating innovation in the US. I believe more equality is good, but total equality is bad. It stifles innovation and incentives. I believe in meritocracy, where people who contribute and work hard get rewarded. Total equality is bad. Instead we should have equal access to the opportunity to do well. i.e. we should all have good access to education and health.
I think fairness could be accomplished with ensuring that corporations and lobbyists don't have more power than actual voters do.
They don't have more power in the voting system. Everyone gets one vote. Corporations actually don't get a vote!
But they influence our politics through lobbyists and by contributing vast sums of money to political candidates, more money than any one person could contribute. Because they are such large supporters of politicians, politicians are beholden to them because of their contributions.
Political campaigns should be publicly funded or funded by individual citizens, not corporations.
If I see a political ad, I don't immediately vote for them, in fact, I rather dislike ads for political parties. It tends to make me vote less for them because I dislike ads and the ads tend to be negative. Instead I think about the issues and vote for who I think is right. I believe most people do this too. If you believe the population has any intelligence and doesn't just vote for who shows them the most ads, then its the vote that matters, not the campaign contributions.
There is no one worth voting for. Politicians are given contributions by corporations and act in the interest of the corporations.
Once they are elected they are also co-opted by lobbyists who are paid to sway politicians to the side of the corporations they represent.
If elections were publicly funded, politicians would have no interest in listening to lobbyists over constituents.
Politicians should be interested in lobbyists with or without funding because lobbyists are one avenue for people to express their views. For example, I don't believe in the gun owners lobby group's views but I do believe they should have some avenue for expressing their views and attempting to get their view across, and that is of course through their lobby group.
I don't have enough money to hire a lobbyist to express my views, do you? Corporations do have this kind of money. That's the problem.
I don't feel comfortable with lobbyists claiming to represent my views.
You don't have to have lots of money to form a lobby group. A lobby group is just a group of like-minded people. Find people that think like you and then thats a group. Then all agree to vote in one direction, and you are almost at a political party. Then go to a politician and tell them you have X many thousands of people in your group and they will certainly listen to you. If your group is small and only 5 people in it, then of course no one will listen to you. So its up to you to make the group if you feel strongly enough about it.
I wonder if a lobby group would work for OWS.
Why not? Get the people to agree on a tight set of focused objectives and a clear vision on what you stand for and all of a sudden you are far more powerful in the political arena. Stay unfocused and unsure of what direction you really want to take, and you will always stay that... unfocused and unsure.
"If no one will pay you more, then perhaps its because your services are not really worth what you think they are worth."
Yes, and vast numbers of Americans are going to find that out soon enough. Here's why: You see, back in 1933, at the height (or depth) of the Great Depression, the U.S. government decided that it no longer wanted to be constrained by a pesky gold standard, that it wanted to be able to spend as much money as it wanted, whenever it wanted, wherever it wanted, FOREVER. But simply decoupling the economy from the gold standard--which the government promptly did--wouldn't be enough. SOMEBODY would have to pay for the gigantic money-printing and spending spree on which the government was about to embark, and that somebody, not surprisingly, would be ME AND YOU. How would the government do this? By introducing the backdoor tax of chronic inflation, that's how! The inflation would have to be kept moderate, of course--a couple of percent a year, a rate that would not only be barely noticed by the public, but would eventually be accepted as literally a natural phenomenon, like gravity or light. But of course, even moderate annual inflation would begin to eat into the consumer's pocketbook after a few years (and, in fact, consumer prices have risen by roughly 1,100% since World War II), but a parallel form of inflation--wage inflation--would solve that problem. As long as wages kept up with inflation, everyone was happy. Prices always went up, but wages always seemed to go up, too, so the public was kept generally fat and content. Now fast forward to the 1990s. Suddenly, repressive governments around the world--most notably, China--have begun to adopt controlled capitalism. And just as suddenly, there is a pool of some two BILLION extra people who want to get in on the capitalism game, who want a new house, and a car, and a jacuzzi, and maybe a nice vacation every year. And guess what? They're willing to chase the "American Dream" by doing the same work that Americans do--but for a TENTH of what we Americans are used to being paid. UH-OH!!! If you're running a corporation, and you can pay ten times less for labor by outsourcing your operations to China or other nations, who are you going to pay--Chinese laborers, or Americans? I think you know the answer. And how will this be resolved? By widespread poverty in the United States, which will soon be populated by people who can only hope to make a fraction of what they once did. So I would say to you, enjoy your memories of our wondrous century of dominance--they're likely to be the only things you have left....
I would love to see a law where you had to sell your products at the market value of the country in which they were produced. Pay third world wages charge third world prices.
Yes of course many jobs go overseas. But what kind of jobs are those? The kind of jobs that unskilled workers can do in developing nations that do not have access to world class education. The jobs that stay in the country are the high tech and high skill jobs that require knowledge and skills poor countries cannot afford. Corporations like google and apple outsource simple jobs like making the ipod in poor countries while keeping the good jobs like designing the ipod in the US. And in fact, when innovation occurs, it creates higher tech jobs. Think about all the iphone apps, who writes that code? Some factory worker in a poor country? No. Its programmers. And who are the best programmers? University trained professionals. And where are the best universities? In the US and other developed countries.
And how does it dominate? The whole system is enforced through violent domination. Don't fool yourself. Demand Peace.
I mean domination as in the US is the leader in technology. Its universities are world class, its research institutes are world class, its inventions are world class, it is an amazingly innovative place. To me that is dominance. Sure it also has an impressive military, but better an impressive one than a useless one!
All of it is backed by violent domination. Without the environment of violently dominating the entire world none of this advantage would exist. This is not even arguable. It's our way or the highway.
Dominating technology requires no violence. Having world class universities required no violence. Does the US go to war? Yes. Are these wars the sources of US technological dominance? No.
Friend you are naive or intentional deceitful. The wars demonstrate the US's ability and willingness to violently dominate ANYONE who attempts to threaten it. The US spends more money on SUPPRESSING technology then actualizing it. That is because a system based on violence is at a HUGE HUGE disadvantage when it comes to Prosperity through peace which is the cornerstone of creativity. Despite what they would have you believe, fear is disabling, not enabling. The security the United States offers it's lackeys is similar to the security the mob offers to neighborhood businesses. Support us or die. So should we be impressed that "the best" of anything are those that support the USA's violent domination? I'm not. It's a sick.
The US helped defeat the Nazis in WW2. Not all US wars are wrong. Sometimes warfare is necessary.
I'm not going to comment on whether or not your viewpoint is well grounded, but I would note that regardless of your opinion on the benefits of consumer culture, what we really want here more than anything, is a return to republican ideals (Note the lower case R).
While I agree with the assessment that we have benefited from corporations, you can not say with any degree of certainty that we wouldn't be better off without them. I believe we can have corporations (in some more limited form) AND justice at the same time.
Corporations are just groups of people with laws that help them operate as groups more efficiently. I think we can say that working together is better than not working together. By having corporations, we allow people to work together better, and that is good.
"We do have a democracy, everyone can vote, so what is all the fuss about?"
The fuss is all about the fact that special interests and corporations can bribe politicians for their votes with huge sums of money. Hope that helps...
Yes special interest groups can donate money to political parties and that can have an influence on the recipient's views if they get elected. But there's the point, if they get elected means they have to convince the population to vote for them. So if you feel hard-done by and don't like the system, then vote for someone who suits your views. If that person does not get voted in, then I guess your view is not the majority. SO what are your choices then? Well you can always switch countries.
But the whole point of the Citizens United ruling is that it lets corporations pay for and run ads specifically designed to sway the electorate to vote in a certain way. That would be fine if EVERYONE had the money to buy that kind of airtime, but 99.9999% of the people out there don't. So, in a nutshell, Citizens United gives people with more money a bigger voice, and that, as I'm sure you'll agree, is unfair and wrong...
Agreed. You should see the ads that are being shown in Queensland convincing us that destroying our agricultural land for Coal Seam Gas so private companies can sell it overseas is the best thing that could happen to us.
But they can have as many ads as they like, people must vote. People are smart, and they don't just vote randomly, they vote for who they think is best. Have more faith in people's intelligence!
"People are smart, and they don't just vote randomly, they vote for who they think is best."
LOL...then why is so much time and money spent on campaign ads?
Because they help make people aware of issues. But in the end its people who vote, not companies. Its like why do people spend money on TV ads for products? To make consumes aware of the products, which will persuade some of them to buy their products, but the consumers have the ultimate choice. Make a crap product, and people may try it but they won't buy it twice.
What if there are only two crap products to choose from.
Then vote for independents, or some other minor party that represents your interests better. Or engage your local politician through petitions, etc.
"Make a crap product, and people may try it but they won't buy it twice."
People bought millions of GM cars.
You may think GM cars are crap. But there are many who think GM cars are great. Over 2 million cars sold per year. That's either a lot of dumb people buying dumb products, OR that's a lot of people who chose to buy GM cars instead of some other car because they thought the GM car was better given their budget constraint.
Thanks for the input, dad. So, what you're saying is, all the things I think are unjust are not? Please don't insult my intelligence.
He has a point when he says if people think their services are worth more money, yet no one will pay them that, then they probably aren't worth what they think they are. Many people unfortunately lack the skills to even be worth minimum wage.
I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. Just asking people to also see the good things that the current system has brought to us. Its not all doom and gloom is what I'm trying to say. Sure we can improve things, but lets not forget we have a good system that has brought prosperity and a strong level of wealth to the US, so throwing that all away is probably a bad plan. Making modifications is a good plan, the key is expressing what those modifications are.
Sounds like a plan...
Since you're doing so well, you can buy the drinks!
not at the expense of midgets and crack addicts, I won't
Sorry? Not sure what you mean...
i won't be privy to a system that doesn't take care of midgets and crack addicts...and i certainly won't stand for a society that turns away crack addict midgets
Yay!
We value artists fine, just look at TV.
And the movies, and shit like that.
Plenty of valuing going on.
You are cool.
Obviously you are being sarcastic.
I used to also think singers and movie stars where overpaid. But then I realized who am I to detainee how much they should get paid? Am I some finance god that is all knowing? No. All I know is that millions of people love to be entertained, and are made happy by what these people do. And I can certainly say they have made more laughter in more people than I could ever do. So in some respects, they deserve it.
Besides, the ones on tv are the most extremely lucky or talented ones. By far the norm for show biz is the unemployed actor living on food stamps to get them to the next audition.
I was not being sarcastic at all.
Oh, my apologies... I'm just so used to negative replies to my posts... In that Cade, you are cool too.
My name is not Cade.
WTF.
Sorry, I'm on iPad, I means, in that case.
in agreement http://blog.richardkentgates.com/2011/10/going-after-government.html
As we write this Congress is very busy passing more Free Trade agreements which will ultimately mean the loss of jobs through the outsourcing of our labor (just look at NAFTA and Mexico, for example. Or China or Vietnam)... This is a form of imperialism - it is corporate America exploiting a foreign population, and foreign labor market, for the purpose of re-import at maximum profit to those who can afford to pay the price (that's us here in the US - we are their market). But listen folks... we cannot have EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in this country, if there is NO opportunity. This Utopian vision of a mutual love simply is NOT possible in an environment where all must compete so viciously for employment; our desire of employment as the product of the evolutionary desire to self-determination, which has been traditionally interpreted in America as the "right" to freely assert ourselves in the acquisition of necessary resources. This right to Free Enterprise is born, declared, established, and further asserted, with the following words: "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator (whoever that creator may be), etc... etc. We need a government on OUR side of this equation. And not a corporate-ocracy determined to imperialize (or colonize and enslave) for the purpose of maximizing profit. It's not just the corporations, either, the banks quickly follow suit there to establish themselves and enslave through debt.
Outsourcing is not imperialism. Its an attempt to make goods cheaper by using cheap labour elsewhere. Simple. 'All men are created equal' is false. People born in the US are LUCKY, people born in Iraq or Iran or Nth Korea or any number of less fortunate nations are UNLUCKY. People in the US should be glad all are not equal.
The US has it VERY good, be grateful for the positives. Certainly be aware of the areas that need improvement, but I just want people to also see the positives and not always be so negative!
I think I'm going to concur with your statements... but still, outsourcing as the political process of creating a more favorable foreign environment for the purpose of relocating factories so that we might exploit labor... is certainly a form of imperialism.
Remember IBM Helped organize the Holocaust...
That is an unproven accusation of an American icon. In any case, people do evil things, corporations are groups of people, and they also do evil things. This does not mean all corporations are evil. It just means some corporations are evil.
Google first please...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II
Then Google General Motors....here i'll do it for you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors
...and This....
http://knol.google.com/k/allies-trading-with-hitler-economic-games-during-world-war-ii#
just sayin...
Again... evil things happen in any system. This should be a debate about the system and not individual things that happen.
Mebbe get people out of government? People are always messing things up...making a perfectly good system look bad. guess power corrupts absolutely... We do have to use individual examples to make general rules...opensource, baby
No. we want USA to be a communist nation. Don't you see all innovations come from communist nations? They are number one in everything. That is the reason everyone wants to move to a communist country. Even if it means risking their lives to cross the border.
Because in all the history of the world there has only ever been Capitalism and Communism!
The US clearly leads the world in technology. There are some communist nations that are very advanced, and good luck to them. But the US is still the dominant technological force in the world.
Name one.
The US is the leader in computing. Apply. Google. IBM. Sun. Microsoft.
Sorry for the confusion. I meant, "Name one communist country that is very advanced".
The Soviet Union was a very advanced country. China is a very advanced nation.
I respectfully submit that either you are not very well educated on conditions in the former Soviet Union or in China, or that we have a very different definition of 'advanced'.
Well the Soviet Union was very advanced in that they had technologies rivaling that of the US (e.g a close second in the space race, and nuclear deterrent weapons equaling the US). China is of course one of the largest economies in the world. This I would say is pretty advanced.
The average annual salary in China is roughly 5,000 USD. It was worse in the Soviet Union. Living conditions for most people in both countries is (were) horrible. Infant and adult mortality rates far exceed(ed) Western countries.
Sure, the Chinese manufacture iPhones and the Soviets launched a satellite before we did, but that's communism for you---the State gets all the money and the people get nothing. I personally would not call any country 'advanced' when half the population does not have such modern conveniences as indoor plumbing and electricity.
Well then be glad the US is advanced! Why is it advanced? Because of the great system it has!
No because of the great system it had.
The system is not too different from a decade ago. The basis is the same. Sure some laws have changed, but capitalism is still there.
You will get no argument from me on that point. There are things we need to fix, but we are a great nation.
Amen!
"US dominance" is not fair to other countries. I think that all countries should be equal. We need fairness and equality, not only in the United States, but worldwide including all countries.
Okay, so we should start invading other countries and imposing our sense of equality and fairness upon them?
George Bush should be your idol if this is how you really think.
The US wants to do as best as it can, as does every other country. It can only make laws for itself and in doing so hopefully improves its position for its citizens. It does have some duty to be mindful of other countries but its main goal is to serve its citizens with good laws. So fairness to other countries is a secondary concern, not a primary concern.
So fairness to other countries is a secondary concern, not a primary concern. Not when wealthy american companies are allowed to make major profits by taking advantage of employing people not covered by these laws.
Let the laws of other countries deal with their own citizens. Worry first about your own country, not others. I'm not saying ignore other countries and what we do to them, just lets get our own house in order first.
But what if its your house causing the problems in the neighbourhood.
i agree. we should tax america and use the money to support countries like ethiopia and congo.
Yes. redistribute the wealth in america all over the world. Everyone in the world should have the same amount of money.
I hope you are kidding... We should of course help them, but support them? I think that's going too far. They do not contribute to US taxes, so any financial assistance the US gives them is purely pro bono and should therefore be help not support.
EDIT: this reply somehow ended up n the wrong topic.
Due to increasing pensions, it seems that the average working person probably has some money in a superannuation or pension fund that invests in the stock market. So many owners of corporations are regular people that benefit from efficient working of the stock market. The market does not siphon wealth from anyone, in fact, it pays dividends to its owners, who are in many cases regular people with pensions.
Sorry, this reply ended up in the wrong topic. Will delete.
Oh please, the people that became rich producing an innovative product (e.g. bill gates, Jeff Bazos, Steve Jobs RIP because they had an incentive. TO BECOME RICH!
computers and the internet spent years being developed in the public sector before these guys could find a way to profit off them. And they thank us by monopolizing the industry and stifling competition.
Doh, this topic got replied in the wrong thread. It was supposed to be about the stock market!
furthermore innovators like bill gates et al, did not "siphon from the masses" they sold the masses a product that the masses needed and the masses bought it. btw if you have student loans from business school you wasted your money!