TenuredVulture wrote:...it might involve watching porn, or perhaps salvation.

Either you misspelled "salivation" or that would have to be some awesome porn

Philly the Kid wrote: For now, while the profit motive is still in play, let's start with how govt., has essentially for the most part, passed laws, implemented bailouts and done a variety of things to allow tremendous wealth expansion for an elite small group while gutting infrastructure and the stability of the middle-class.

Cite please. I don't buy this assertion that the government has gutted infrastructure and the stability of the middle-class..

Philly the Kid wrote:What if CEO salaries were more inline, what if resources long ago had gone to "green and eco-friendly" creating new technologies and jobs and skills.

The companies that focus on turning things green were not economically viable in the past, due to the expensive green technologies. As the technology becomes more economically viable and thus accessible, I expect the shift to green to accelerate. Concerning CEO salaries, well, if a company is trying to attract talented workers at any level, then they will have to pay for it. Perhaps there are few talented people who are also willing to take these high stress positions. Are you suggesting that the government should limit salaries?

What if old manufacturing plants had been converted and workers re-trained?

Converted to what and by whom? Retraining paid for by whom? The government currently offers retraining for people who's jobs have been displaced overseas.

What if there was a support for union not a dismantling. What if we still manufactured things here, paid good wages.

Then the manufactured goods would be a lot more expensive. What do you think about GM as a company? Also, I hope you're not suggesting that vast protectionism would be beneficial to the economy. Ask your Mother about that.

What if we had quality national healthcare and public transportation for free.

We can. We would have to pay for it, though, through higher taxes, and that doesnt seem easy to do. Also, without competition from private issuers/transportation, there would be no guarantee of quality and no way for us to decide what services are best. Personally, I would rather have businesses compete for my services.

Now, the argument is, we can't manufacture here because its a global economy and we can't pay an American $25 hr when we can pay some worker in the 3rd world $25 a day (or less). But it didn't have to come to this, or unfold like this. And there are significant things that could be done to ammend this.

Specifics please? What would you do if you were a politician, or running a company?

We could easily envision a new era, not a WPA but something much more sophisticated, but we cannot let lobbyists contine on, we cannot support Exxon/Mobil with record profits that are simply distorted and a result of the power they yield, not just good ole fair play better strategy and acumen. Being better at business isn't why a comapny is successful.

How much profit is too much? Are Exxon's profits (10% income on revenues in Q4 of 2007) worse than Apple's (15% in Q4 2007)? Why is Apple profitable, lobbyists? I would like specifics on why Exxon is bad, and has unfair earnings.

<snip>
So when I see a fact that the upper 1% is at an all-time high since 1928 with 23% of the wealth concentrated, it tells me easily -- that something is deeply wrong. And, corrupt.

Why is something wrong? What is right? What do you mean by corrupt?

I'm concerned that at a gut-level, people in this country are not rebelling? That there is no mass movement. The best we can get is go-Obama? Why don't the messages of Kucinich reonate more loudly? I think there is an illusion that many people think of themselves as middle class and upwardly moving -- when it's really an illusion. People work longer and harder and have less free time, more debt.... worse health, more stress and the analyses are out there. Where is the gut-level, common sense reaction that gets people up in arms?

Are you projecting your own feelings onto the entire middle class? I think that the average worker is taking more leisure time, is healthier, and I has less stress. Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Is it not? Who should be rebel against? Being anti-status-quo is fine, but I like to agree with the alternative plan before jumping ship.

Your post is emotional, which makes it difficult to rebut. I'd welcome some answers to my followup questions. We can talk about 1 at a time to make it less cumbersome on the eyes.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:...it might involve watching porn, or perhaps salvation.

Either you misspelled "salivation" or that would have to be some awesome porn

"or"

Philly the Kid wrote:
The average Joe, is lead to believe that if he works hard, applies himself and is dilligent, he'll succeed. And if he didn't succeed, then he either wasn't talented enough (tough luck) or didn't work that hard, really. Why do people believe this mythology and defend the big bad wolves of the transnationals and their right to manipulate everything, lie cheat and steal -- and continue to rack up obscene profits?

Sometimes you need to do a major re-calibration. The wolrd "as is' is a f'd up situaiton and what really surprises me over n over, is that I post a simple fact about the concentration of wealth, and rather than "wooo brother that is messed up" reaction, I get incredulousness and ripped?

You say: corporations are bad and evil and lie and cheat and steal and rack up obscene profits. How do you expect me to respond, as someone who does not agree with your assertion? I don't share this distrust. Yeah, I dislike some companies, like when Comcast cannot meet my simple requests for a different cable box. But I don't subsequently hate every company. Why do you? I also don't think that wealthy people investing to make more money is a bad thing. I wish everyone did, but I don't think unequal wealth is automatically bad.

I'm not asking to completely abandon Capitalistic notions, and to make everyone equal with Big Brother handing out gray flannel uniforms for us all to wear and we work side by side with a hoe in our hands singing worker songs. There was an American composer named Charles IVes. Grew up protestant in New England. By day he was an insurance man in NY inthe early 1900's and did very well. At a certain point, he felt his wealth exceeded his needs and he self-imposed a "salary cap' for him and his wife to live on. This was not some radical Bolshevik or socialist. He beleived in the USA and the way of life, and he made profit but his own common sense told him that he could live comfortably and above many other classes but that beyond a certain point was excessive and perverse. And he then used much of his excess profit to do other things, support music whatever...

Where is that mind set?

Charity giving in the US is not tiny; in fact, it is the largest in the world (sorry, I'm too lazy to check that fact, but I'm pretty sure it's right). See the Gates foundation, Warren Buffet, and thousands of other wealthy people who don't make the newspapers.

I think that we can create some regulations and reign things in to the betterment of everyone and keep corporate america going, and still healthy. And I don't think large monopalistic mega-corps is a good thing. They are too powerful and its bad for people. Lose innovation. Lose focus of purpose. isn't 40X the average worker enough? is 400X or 4000X really appropriate? I didn't say make eveyrone the same. But where is the outrage on a gut-level?

The possibility of large profits actually drives innovation. If large profits were "managed" and regulated away, the small probability of success would mean less innovation, not more. People are outraged about CEO pay. But they should be mad at the company's board that sets the policy, not the government for "allowing" it.

Why are so many people not paying attention to a Ralph Nader and why couldn't he get even 12% of the popular vote? Why didn't every displaced auto-worker in the land vote for him over Kerry or Bush?

Because it wouldn't bring their jobs back.

Werthless wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are so many people not paying attention to a Ralph Nader and why couldn't he get even 12% of the popular vote? Why didn't every displaced auto-worker in the land vote for him over Kerry or Bush?

Because it wouldn't bring their jobs back.

Also because, like it or not, people vote on criteria other than economic self-interest/resentment.

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are so many people not paying attention to a Ralph Nader and why couldn't he get even 12% of the popular vote? Why didn't every displaced auto-worker in the land vote for him over Kerry or Bush?

Because Ralph Nader is puritan fanatic, opposed to fun.

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are so many people not paying attention to a Ralph Nader and why couldn't he get even 12% of the popular vote? Why didn't every displaced auto-worker in the land vote for him over Kerry or Bush?

Nader's hatin' on the Corvair

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Why are so many people not paying attention to a Ralph Nader and why couldn't he get even 12% of the popular vote? Why didn't every displaced auto-worker in the land vote for him over Kerry or Bush?

Nader's hatin' on the Corvair

Ah, I forgot - my aunt actually had one of those it got hit and it went on fire... truth....

It's definitely true that people are irrational when it comes to Nader. I voted for him in 2000; now, to use the cliche, if I had to take a leak and saw he was on fire across the street, I wouldn't go over there and put him out with it.

But guess what? People are irrational about voting. Pretty much as a rule.

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

This literally has nothing to do with this at all.

I really could care less what other countries do in regard to their sovereignty and duties to their citizens. I only care about what America does.

So nothing an American ever does could be triable or punishable in an international court in your view?

Yep.

Specifically not the President of the United States who has done nothing worse than stretching the power of the commander in chief. Whether or not his judgment was right in what he has done is certainly debatable, but saying he has committed a crime against U.S. citizens let alone humanity is pure idiocy in my opinion.

And drsmooth, even when I understand the words you use I still can't understand what the hell you're saying and even more so what tone you are trying to use which is fairly important on the internets.

dajafi wrote:It's definitely true that people are irrational when it comes to Nader. I voted for him in 2000; now, to use the cliche, if I had to take a leak and saw he was on fire across the street, I wouldn't go over there and put him out with it.

But guess what? People are irrational about voting. Pretty much as a rule.

I know that people do not vote their own class interest. I've even suggested Tim Wise, has a really compelling analysis about why certain poor white folk vote race over class. There's far more too it. Just odd to me? I would think that on some core level, people without all the history and analysis, have a some sense, common sense -- and can tell when things are broken, distorted or out of whack. No time for a long response to the above breakdown... but I'll try to circle back in the future.

Has anyone read Dee Hock, Birth of Chaordic Change?

Nader is relentless but a lot of what he says is just common sense. People should be literate and have a sense of civic duty. Only we can demand and protect our Democracy. Not worrying about the fat-cats? Why doesn't that message resonate in the heartland? In the Flints of country? And would it -- if he got the same respect and exposure as mainstream people?

Ralph Nader has no political skills and a very narrow platform. He is an afterthought and a one or two issue candidate that just wants to bring light to his pet issues. THere's nothing wrong with that, but let's not act like he's REALLY running for anything.

We can. We would have to pay for it, though, through higher taxes, and that doesnt seem easy to do. Also, without competition from private issuers/transportation, there would be no guarantee of quality and no way for us to decide what services are best. Personally, I would rather have businesses compete for my services.

I disagree with this. Controls and competent oversight ensure that public transport systems are above board. Plenty of nations in Europe and Asia excel through a publicly-administered system. We have one but choose not to adequately fund it.

mpmcgraw wrote:Yep.

Specifically not the President of the United States who has done nothing worse than stretching the power of the commander in chief. .

This is by far the worst thing he has done.

pacino wrote:Ralph Nader has no political skills and a very narrow platform. He is an afterthought and a one or two issue candidate that just wants to bring light to his pet issues. THere's nothing wrong with that, but let's not act like he's REALLY running for anything.

This is a way simplistic review of what Nader could bring to the table in a leadership role. He's probably too old now, but back in 2000, he could have done far more to end corruption and remind the citizenry that apathy doesn't strengthen the nation. The mere fact that he wasn't owned by lobbysists and corporate back-dealing -- made him preferable to any other option. Add in, all the positions he was likely to fill for various directorships, cabinet members... the pres isn't just the prez.

What was Bush offering?

And the point I made, wasn't whether Nader was a good choice or could win, it was why weren't more displaced working men and women in the nation who have had their towns and burghs decimated by big box stores, and the export of jobs over-seas, toxic waste in their water, and amost no support for basics like health care and quality food -- why wouldn't those people get behind Nader who was trying to speak to the masses of workers with a populist message -- but rather -- went out and voted for either no one, or Bush in many cases. Many poor whites in the South, Southwest, Northwest and Rust belt voted for Bush? Why did they think Bush represented them better than Nader who was actually interested in their plight, not the welfare of the Carlysle Gourp, Haliburton, Blackwater, ExxonMobile, LocheadMartin, LawrenceLviermore etc...?

mpmcgraw wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:

mpmcgraw wrote:No American should ever be tried in a global court under any circumstance.

Are global courts okay for non-Americans?

This literally has nothing to do with this at all.

I really could care less what other countries do in regard to their sovereignty and duties to their citizens. I only care about what America does.

So nothing an American ever does could be triable or punishable in an international court in your view?

Yep.

Specifically not the President of the United States who has done nothing worse than stretching the power of the commander in chief. Whether or not his judgment was right in what he has done is certainly debatable, but saying he has committed a crime against U.S. citizens let alone humanity is pure idiocy in my opinion.

This mindset basically puts the U.S. on a pedestal over the rest of the world.

When you think about it, what is the U.S. in relation to the rest of the world? It is a community. It goes World > Continent > Country > State/Province/Territory/etc. > City ... yada yada.

Why shouldn't the U.S. be punishable by the rest of the world? If the U.S. goes into the Middle East and fans the flames unnecessarily (as we have done on several occasions), and makes things harder not only for the countries directly involved, but the neighboring countries as well, why shouldn't the U.S. be held accountable by other nations?

If you apply this mindset -- that the U.S. shouldn't be tried in a global court -- to, say, Germany after World War I, then Germany never would have truly been held responsible. According to the Wikipedia article on the Treaty of Versailles:

After its defeat in World War I, Germany was forced to accept the crippling terms forced upon it by the Allies. This involved Germany losing its overseas colonies in Africa and Asia, as well as parts of German territory. Germany was also forced to accept guilt for starting the war.

Germany also had further military restrictions—its air force was disbanded, its army was limited to 100,000 men, and its navy to 15,000 sailors, six battleships, and no submarines. Germany was forbidden to put troops in the Rhineland and France was entrusted to patrol it with troops to enforce these restrictions.

Germany also had to pay reparations for damages ensued by the war, which meant having to pay £6600 million (about $3 billion) in compensation. However, the land that Germany lost included 10% of its industry and 15% of its agricultural land. Furthermore, in 1923, in order to collect its own compensation, the French occupied the Ruhr region in Germany—the biggest industrial area in the country. This made it extremely difficult for Germany to pay other Allies the reparations.

Would you have punished the U.S. if it was in Germany's position after World War I?

It was a rousing success success when everyone punished Germany after WWI. Let's do it again!

You people calling for Bush to be tried in some international law court--what is the precedent for trying the leader of a sovereign nation in such a court?

TenuredVulture wrote:You people calling for Bush to be tried in some international law court--what is the precedent for trying the leader of a sovereign nation in such a court?

Prominent indictees of war crimes.

I keep thinking of what Robert McNamara said in the great Errol Morris documentary The Fog of War: if the Allies had lost WWII, he might well have been put on trial for war crimes regarding his role in directing the strategic bombing of Japan.

The point is that, right or wrong, only history's losers ever stand in the dock. If you want justice or fairness, this is not the place to look for it.