I am one of the "parasites" on unemployment benefit who is draining your income

The point the article allows to remain unstated is that this present method of globalization is unsustainable.

Americans living in their cars or in tents make for poor consumers no matter how cheaply Chinese goods are offered at Wal Mart.

GW Bush pushes thru a grant of money for all Americans/families of $300/$600 and the net result is no economic stimulus in the US, which spends its money grant at Wal Mart and the money instantly leaves the US and goes to China stimulating the Chinese economy to produce more goods American's are not going to buy.

And the present crises shows the weakness in the US economy ultimately flows upward to retirement funds, stocks and bonds, money available for business to expand, for banks to make loans in the community, and every industry suffers, real estate, retail, manufacturing, etc. And the dollar loses value in foreign exchanges as nations abroad no long want more dollars in exchange for their manufactured goods. And money for business investment leaves the US and again goes to China.

Like it or not the global economy must change its mode of operation, and I am not encouraged by the pronouncements of Obama administration economic advisors like Summers who said they will grow US export 200% in 5 years, this is total hot air, it will never happen.

Meanwhile the Obama administration this Friday 7/23/10 said unemployment in the US will remain above 9% thru 2012.

First, real unemployment which is different than the officially stated rate is double that in many communities, and further, that high rate of sustained unemployment is unacceptable, and very dangerous.

Therefore the Obama administration is not getting the message and is not facing realities.

From what I heard of the recent UK national election, neither are UK leaders getting the message or facing realities.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


You mean they penalize you if you are thrifty enough to save money yourself? Way to encourage savings, government, which is very important in capitalizing and improving new and existing businesses.

Here in the US we don't have that situation (yet). However if you work more than a pittance in your retirement they take your retirement money away. Even though it's your money that you paid into their retirement 'fund'. (Actually it's a Ponzi scheme.)

I have to think it's all done on purpose. They want wage slaves, they want to crash the system and bring back feudalism, with the banksters acting as the feudal Lords.

reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada


I fear that the massive pain and suffering you mentioned, regarding dismantling the current economic systems, is coming sooner, and harder than anyone, save perhaps people on 'fringe' boards like ATS care to fathom.
The unfortunate side of things, is anarchy - in the media/general public perception of the term (dog eat dog chaos) is the likely outcome, and once that begins it will be impossible to educate people about an alternative. I fully support anarchism, and have long felt it's the most harmonious way to live both as a society, and with regards to environmental stewardship. However, I -as sad as it is- believe that too large a percentage of the global population is obsessed with material wealth for functional anarchy to ever stand a chance of working.
In the next decade or so I fully expect to see crime rates skyrocket as people turn to doing whatever they have to to survive, which will lead to nothing more than the authoritarian jackboot crushing a larger number of people than it currently does. Even more depressing is the fact that so many people, primarily in the western world, allow themselves to be blinded by non-issues such as same sex marriage, that instead of turning on the people that are screwing us over, we'll all just turn on each other for petty differences.
It's heartbreaking that in just over a quarter century the world has fallen so far off the tracks that choosing to not bring children into it has become, in my opinion, the morally correct choice.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada

 

I fear that the massive pain and suffering you mentioned, regarding dismantling the current economic systems, is coming sooner, and harder than anyone, save perhaps people on 'fringe' boards like ATS care to fathom.
The unfortunate side of things, is anarchy - in the media/general public perception of the term (dog eat dog chaos) is the likely outcome, and once that begins it will be impossible to educate people about an alternative. I fully support anarchism, and have long felt it's the most harmonious way to live both as a society, and with regards to environmental stewardship. However, I -as sad as it is- believe that too large a percentage of the global population is obsessed with material wealth for functional anarchy to ever stand a chance of working.
In the next decade or so I fully expect to see crime rates skyrocket as people turn to doing whatever they have to to survive, which will lead to nothing more than the authoritarian jackboot crushing a larger number of people than it currently does. Even more depressing is the fact that so many people, primarily in the western world, allow themselves to be blinded by non-issues such as same sex marriage, that instead of turning on the people that are screwing us over, we'll all just turn on each other for petty differences.
It's heartbreaking that in just over a quarter century the world has fallen so far off the tracks that choosing to not bring children into it has become, in my opinion, the morally correct choice.

I wouldn't in public, but I could conceive of a situation in which I would describe myself as an anarchist (a national anarchist as opposed to a left anarchist, though, in the same vein as Wolfi Landstreicher's essay "Freeing Anarchy from the Leftist Millstone").

However, the notion of anarchy is inseparable with the idea of a struggle to destroy the State as it now exists. As such a struggle would be, in the current power structure, critically futile, the steps needed to advance that struggle would be morally reprehensible.

A better choice of action would be to wait for systemic collapse and then advantage oneself of the opportunity to capture the power vacuum. This is the same strategy that led Nestor Makhno to success in establishing an anarchist non-state in the Ukraine. The chance of a systemic collapse on that order of magnitude is almost nil, however, the chance of a revolutionary struggle is even less than nil.

In other words, the chance of achieving an anarchist non-state sits somewhere between almost nil and less than nil, IMO, and is probably only useful as a thought experiment. (not because the idea of an anarchist non-state is unsound, only because the current power structure is far too powerful and entrenched - it would be like Liechtenstein attacking Switzerland)

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]

reply to post by leschwartz


How would you suggest we make movements to a more sustainable economy?
I agree with all your points regarding the changes that must be made, and I fully agree that more emphasis should be placed on locally produced consumables.

But (and I'm assuming you're an American) look at your country's reaction to anything remotely socialist or pro-union. I understand that the media and tea party don't represent all, or even a majority of Americans, but unfortunately that *is* the segment that forces their voice to be heard and is, well, just generally screwing the pooch for everyone else, because their head-up-their-own-ass views fall in line with what the people who make the rules to the game want.

I know many MANY Americans and Canadians (unfortunately including my own father), who feel that unions are nothing but a bad thing. Just a bunch of lazy construction/steel/dock workers, too 'stupid' to get a 'real' job and expecting more pay and vacation time than is reasonable (because, for whatever reason, us N. Americans seem to firmly believe that if you're not sacrificing at LEAST 3/4 of your life at a job, you're lazy).
Why do people feel that way? how do we change it?

Or hearing working class people actually side with the wealthy regarding tax hikes that only affect the wealthy. Are people that convinced that they're a mere week away from joining the top 5%?

Sure, we get pissed off when we hear about bankers getting multi-million dollar golden parachutes, or jetting away to a corporate retreat at some 5 star island paradise resort. But when did we lose the balls and/or spine to put our foot down and tell them to F off. Or demand the government make them F off.

Look at 'Obamacare' (oh no, he's going to personally kill your granma and pep pep!) people are outraged! OUTRAGED! they have hilariously misspelled signs to show how OUTRAGED they are! He's Hitler! no, he's worse than Hitler, because he's also BLACK! Obama is BLACK HITLER! and he wants to walk up to your sweet old granma and tell her that she doesn't get to live! then he's going to pull out a glock and cap your granma in the head!.... and yet... Bush actually DID push unpopular laws through. Making him far more Hitlerish than Obama, who is probably less than 10% Hitlerish.

How do you educate and empower a population that is seemingly hellbent on their own destruction, for reasons i'm sure that none of them understand (other than Democrats = bad, and Obama = a fascist, who isn't even an american citizen, yo).

If you were to publicly propose any of the ideas you've touched on ( primarily the idea of an economy not focused on 'efficiency before everything else') you would be shouted down as a dirty fascist, socialist, communist, possibly pro-gay, secularist, who totally doesn't even like the music of Toby Keith. whether it's true or not.

You're right, and if the people who ran the economy shared the view you have we'd all be in a much better place... except for the top 5%, who would only be able to afford one private jet instead of a fleet... but i guess that's kind of the point?

reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada


I feel somewhat out of my depth, because you're clearly more well versed in the theory of anarchism and mutualism than I (which is certainly not a bad thing), but to address your statement about the moral reprehensibility inherent in the actions needed to fully destroy/dismantle the State as it now exists:

If an otherwise morally reprehensible action is needed to bring about the end of an even MORE reprehensible action or system, would it not become justified, or at the very least LESS reprehensible?

If the current puppetmasters are willing to resort to the enslavement, or even outright murder of a population, or percentage of a population, to secure their wealth and power then isn't an acceptable reaction to visit the same level of violence upon them to reclaim undeniable rights to things such as food, shelter, or personal freedom?

Same idea as 'if it's wrong for a man to steal because he covets something or out of greed, is it also wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread to feed himself'.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
[

But (and I'm assuming you're an American) look at your country's reaction to anything remotely socialist or pro-union.

Look at 'Obamacare' (oh no, he's going to personally kill your granma and

People aren't mad - at least not me or anyone with whom I speak - about Obamacare being "socialist." There is nothing socialist about (1) taking $3 million in campaign donations from private health insurance companies, (2) after being elected, passing a law requiring the 8% of the population who are not currently customers of those companies to become customers.

There is nothing socialist about using the state's police power to round-up new customers for a for-profit corporation.

Obamacare is not a socialized medical system. Obamacare is a corporate welfare system. If Obamacare were a socialized medical system, shares in big insurance companies like UHC wouldn't have spiked within a month of it passing:

finance.yahoo.com...:symbol=aet;range=1y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcval ues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

the share price of Aetna wouldn't have spiked within a month of it passing:

finance.yahoo.com...:symbol=aet;range=1y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale= on;source=undefined

the share price of every big, for-profit insurance conglomerate wouldn't have spiked within a month of it passing

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada

 

If an otherwise morally reprehensible action is needed to bring about the end of an even MORE reprehensible action or system, would it not become justified, or at the very least LESS reprehensible?

You're absolutely correct.

However, if you have no realistic chance of success, the necessary actions become nothing more than a noble, idealistic gesture. People's lives aren't worth sacrificing over noble gestures that have no chance of fruition.

reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada


Perhaps (or to the point: obviously) my example of Obamacare was not a good one. However the news media, not just Fox, but in general has been very vocal about tying it to socialism.
I was more making a comment about how a certain, unfortunately larger than it should be, segment of the American population seems to have a really unhealthy knee-jerk reaction to anything that can even remotely be labeled 'socialist'.
As a Canadian I can tell you that socialism has ZERO effect on how democratic or free a country is. I could go so far as to say that Canada's government is perhaps MORE democratic than in America, to the point that when and if elections are called or forced is part of political strategy up here. We have our problems, sure, but globally we came out better than most countries in regards to the initial economic meltdown. Without a doubt the much smaller population of Canada in comparison to the States certainly played a large role that can't be discounted.
(Some) Americans really need to get over this irrational fear that socialism is a jackbooted goosestep away from being a country of nazis.

I suspect that the population of America would make many truly socialist ideas impossible to adopt, and nobody likes paying taxes, but if we have a system set up where there are clear winners and losers it's important to have a safety net in place that people born into economic disadvantage or who simply hit a rough patch don't end up destitute to the point that they are incapable of turning their life around.

As for healthcare, in no way should a family dealing with, lets say a battle with cancer, have to decide whether they keep a roof over their heads or get chemo for mommy/daddy. Maybe I'm just a naive sucker, but I'd rather pay more tax and know that it's helping people get through horrible situations like that without having to sell everything, as well as knowing the same will be available to me should I need extensive or emergency health care.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
reply to post by Ko-Dan Armada

 

Perhaps (or to the point: obviously) my example of Obamacare was not a good one. However the news media, not just Fox, but in general has been very vocal about tying it to socialism.

You indicated Americans are opposed to Obamacare because they view it as "socialist." Is your contention then that the mainstream media is the voice of the American people?

I talk to Americans every day who are, to a man, opposed to Obamacare and none of them consider it "socialist." Perhaps you interact, on a daily basis, with a larger breadth of the American public than me?

It's a little offensive to have someone flippantly dismiss my viewpoint on the basis of 2 soundbytes they saw on the CBC a few months ago.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
I was more making a comment about how a certain, unfortunately larger than it should be, segment of the American population seems to have a really unhealthy knee-jerk reaction to anything that can even remotely be labeled 'socialist'.

On what do you base that perception? Did you spend several years living in different American cities, interacting with a large swath of the US public to form that idea? Did you see an academic, university study that affirms that? Or, more likely, did you see a TV show that told you that?

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
As a Canadian I can tell you that socialism has ZERO effect on how democratic or free a country is. I could go so far as to say that Canada's government is perhaps MORE democratic than in America, to the point that when and if elections are called or forced is part of political strategy up here.

Again, this is a non sequitur.

No one is arguing the merits or demerits of socialism.

You are arguing it against an imaginary American you have created in your mind. Your imaginary American doesn't exist in fact, except in perhaps some fringe minority.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
We have our problems, sure, but globally we came out better than most countries in regards to the initial economic meltdown. Without a doubt the much smaller population of Canada in comparison to the States certainly played a large role that can't be discounted.
(Some) Americans really need to get over this irrational fear that socialism is a jackbooted goosestep away from being a country of nazis.

Again, it sounds like you are having a stimulating and vibrant argument with your imaginary, stereotyped American. Please say hi to him for me.

It is a fact that most people who oppose "ObamaCare" are on Medicare or Medicaide, themselves.

Basically, they don't want more people edging in on their gravy train.

Hence, "there will be death panels!" - Meaning resources will have to be rationed due to the increased load.

And, "You will have to wait 3 months to get an MRI!" - along the same lines of thought.

Basically..."it's OURS, and we don't want everyone else getting in on it!"

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
I suspect that the population of America would make many truly socialist ideas impossible to adopt, and nobody likes paying taxes, but if we have a system set up where there are clear winners and losers it's important to have a safety net in place that people born into economic disadvantage or who simply hit a rough patch don't end up destitute to the point that they are incapable of turning their life around.

Other than healthcare, what are these initiatives you think the U.S. should have that it doesn't right now? If you could just list 3 or 4 that would be super.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
As for healthcare, in no way should a family dealing with, lets say a battle with cancer, have to decide whether they keep a roof over their heads or get chemo for mommy/daddy.

Now it sounds like you're not only arguing with an imaginary American, but one who lives in an imaginary version of the United States.

Originally posted by FuzzyDunlop
Maybe I'm just a naive sucker, but I'd rather pay more tax and know that it's helping people get through horrible situations like that without having to sell everything, as well as knowing the same will be available to me should I need extensive or emergency health care.

My aunt has been battling breast cancer for the last 3 years and her standard of living hasn't changed. After repeated chemotherapy and a double-masectomy she is just fine and just got back from holiday in Puerto Rico.

A friend of mine had cancer of the lymph nodes and was hospitalized for 2 months near death. His economic standard of living didn't change.

A co-worker was in a serious car accident in which her sister was killed. She was in a 2-week coma but has now made a full recovery. Her treatment cost her a $250 deductible.

What exactly is your frame of reference other than what you see on the tele?

Originally posted by __rich__
It is a fact that most people who oppose "ObamaCare" are on Medicare or Medicaide, themselves.

(1) No, that is not a "fact."

(2) Obamacare is not synonymous with Medicare. Medicare is a system of socialized medicine. Obamacare is "buy private health insurance from a for-profit corporation or we'll write you a $300 ticket."

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__
It is a fact that most people who oppose "ObamaCare" are on Medicare or Medicaide, themselves.

No, that is not a "fact."

It's an observable phenomenon.

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada

Originally posted by __rich__
It is a fact that most people who oppose "ObamaCare" are on Medicare or Medicaide, themselves.

No, that is not a "fact."

It's an observable phenomenon.

An uncaptioned photo of 3 people applauding at some event, what event it is we know not, you found on a blog does not make something a "fact." You do know there are 300 million people in the U.S., right?

You look a little silly trying to schill this straw man argument.

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada
You look a little silly trying to schill this straw man argument.

The real straw man is the attempt to imply it's not a repeatable observation with a definite and consistent bias, gathered empirically.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada
You look a little silly trying to schill this straw man argument.

The real straw man is the attempt to imply it's not a repeatable observation with a definite and consistent bias, gathered empirically.

I asked for a source to the statement "it's a fact that the majority of people opposed to Obamacare are on Medicare or Medicaid" the source I got was a photo of 3 people of unknown nationality, at an unknown event, clapping their hands at an unknown subject and for unknown reasons.

You really want to go for a ride on that train?

Empirical data does not = a photo you saw posted on a political blog. That doesn't meet any observational standard that exists in the realm of the lucid.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada
Empirical data does not = a photo you saw posted on a political blog. That doesn't meet any observational standard that exists in the realm of the lucid.

But, based on repeated experience, sometimes sampled from large gatherings, I have accepted far higher than chance likelihood that the statement has merit, regardless of the context of the photo. Arguing over the photo doesn't really adress the truth of the assertion, even if the photo lacks appropriate context to be regarded as "evidence".

Edit: Was the photo really intended to be presented as evidence, or as an illustration of what's observable?

[edit on 7/25/2010 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Ko-Dan Armada
Empirical data does not = a photo you saw posted on a political blog. That doesn't meet any observational standard that exists in the realm of the lucid.

But, based on repeated experience, sometimes sampled from large gatherings, I have accepted far higher than chance likelihood that the statement has merit, regardless of the context of the photo. Arguing over the photo doesn't really adress the truth of the assertion, even if the photo lacks appropriate context to be regarded as "evidence".

Firstly, you're perpetrating a fallacy of false cause.

Secondly, I also have repeated experience sometimes sampled from large gatherings and I have never observed this to be the case.

Thirdly, while a fact can exist independent of evidence it's an off-kilter and socially abnormal style of interpersonal communication to make concrete statements of fact that lack supporting evidence. It is reasonable to assume that a fact of the significance stated could be easily documented through statistical models. We're not talking about astrophysical estoerica. The absence of such documentation can casually be construed as the falsity of the assumed "fact.'

Edit: Was the photo really intended to be presented as evidence, or as an illustration of what's observable?

The poster made a statement that something was a "fact."

I said it was not a "fact."

The poster retorted it was an "observable phenomenon."

I noted that a "phenomenon" could not be established by an uncaptioned photo of three people clapping at an unknown subject during an unknown event, on an unknown date and for unknown reasons.

This is akin to me saying "it is an observable phenomenon that Mickey Mouse supports Obamacare":






[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]

Actually, I take back what I said. I'll play, too.

It is a Fact / Observable Phenomenon that the majority of Obama supporters don't know very much about the candidate/party/policies whom they support, or the world around them.

(Prior to today I didn't put much stock in videos of this type but, if a single uncontextualized photo of 3 people can establish that "the majority of Obamacare opponents are on Medicare or Medicaid" then I'm sure you'll all agree this is adequate to established observable phenomenon by all objective standards as well.)

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 25-7-2010 by Ko-Dan Armada]