Every Obama speech seems to be constructed with one objective in mind, to reinforce the mind-set of the malcontent. Whether the venue is foreign or domestic he portrays an image of a world filled with injustice, populated with hapless inhabitants biding their time until some evil force devours them, with their only salvation being some international bureaucrat or government program that will fulfill their basic needs and change the course of an unjust human history selflessly guiding it toward some far off unreachable utopia.
Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.
Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.
Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.
In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.
Anthony D Dolpies
Obama subscribes to the zero sum philosophy, or at least that’s what he preaches, this is the theory that an individual or a nation can only advance their own interest or add to their wealth by denying those things to another. On the domestic level this philosophy suggests that if a corporation or employer is allowed to keep more of its earnings through low taxation somehow the employee’s wages suffer. Or that one individual’s economic hardship is the direct result of another individual’s success, in other words he presents an image of an ever shrinking communal pie. Promising the malcontent a bigger piece in return for a vote or support of some liberty stealing legislation that will level the playing field and foster a better “equality” among citizens.
Globally the same concept applies. One nation’s prosperity impedes the ability of another to achieve the same. Obama advanced this theory in his speech to the U.N. then repeated it during his recent Shanghai town hall, he proclaimed “power in the 21st century is no longer a zero-sum game; one country's success need not come at the expense of another.” Obama’s idea to correct this perceived injustice is the same as his answer to domestic issues, global wealth redistribution and intergovernmental regulations tasked with insuring economic balance.
Power or economic success has never been a zero sum game. The idea is absurd, power goes hand in hand with a strong economy, economic success depends on many factors, navigable waterways and geography, political stability, government policies, cultural factors, human beings in general have the same basic potentials but a nation’s success can never be guaranteed. It is also important to realize that countries like China and India have grown economically after pulling back their governments involvement in the marketplace, Obama suggests just the opposite, while global wealth redistribution has proven as much of a failure as its domestic cousin. Look at Africa, GDP has decreased as economic aid to the continent has reached unprecedented levels. Finally the industrial revolution did not just benefit the U.S. it advanced nearly all of civilization, the nations that lag behind did so as a result of cultural barriers and political instability, the industrial revolution was not the cause of those instabilities.
In reality Obama seeks the same globally as he does domestically a population of victimized serfs in permanent economic stagnation dependent on an elite political class that holds out the carrot of unattainable utopia in exchange for individual liberty.
Anthony D Dolpies
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
jason420
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
DJohn
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
I really wish you people would get the opportunity to live in a society such as you want to build...so that you could see what a piece of shit it would be.
I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving...and I thank you for sharing your malcontentment...but government is not the problem right now...and may very well be a huge part of the solution.
Government…and governmental regulation has a reason for being…and for the most part, is more than beneficial for society to function.
People like you…with your simplistic notions…just cannot see it.
But don't worry...at some point you may actually learn to think!
In a socialist nondemocratic economy the State would own all the productive assets. What that means is that economic and political power would be concentrated in the State, and the State, or rather a bureaucratic elite, would dictate the working and living conditions of the rest of the citizens, with income and power concentrated in the top.
In such a situation a redistribution of wealth and income would mean that people farther down the ladder would enjoy greater wealth, income, and power, thus stimulating the economy and giving more people economic and other opportunities.
The irony is that a capitalist economy with a high concentration of wealth and income at the very top functions very much like a socialist economy. The only difference is that instead of a handful of State bureaucrats controlling the means of production, a handful of wealthy and powerful land owners and business owners controls the means of production, and they largely dictate the working and living conditions of everyone else. And the tendency, as Marx pointed out, is to pay people just enough so that they don't starve to death so they can come to work the next day.
The problem is a concentration of wealth, income, and power at the top, and it doesn't matter whether that happens through socialism or capitalism; the net effect on everyone else is virtually the same.
So the issue is not "government involvement" in the economy per se, but whether the governmental involvement tends to move the economy into giving everyone some reasonable economic and other opportunities. The point is not to impoverish the business owner, but to make sure that the janitor can have a decent and humane life.
It's not hard to find examples of what happens when there is an uneven distribution of wealth, income, and power. One of the slums of Juarez, Mexico, is a place called Anapra. There are around 40,000 people living there in shacks made of cardboard and scrap wood. There is no running water, sewer system, no paved roads, or any other kind of public system. The interesting thing is that these people are not unemployed; they are employed in the maquiladoras, the U.S. border factories. When I was there they earned around 80 cents an hour. All that those border factory jobs did was to maintain people in a continual state of impoverishment. And as Marx said, people were paid just enough so that they didn't starve and could come to work the next day. Assembling consumer goods for the U.S., their cheap labor is used to subsidize a comfortable lifestyle for those of us in the U.S.
In vast areas of the world, this is how things work. The people in Anapra are not malcontents, but they are caught in a system that gives them just barely enough to survive, caught in a capitalist system that leaves them in "permanent economic stagnation." They do not hope for a utopia, but for a life that has some measure of hope for something better.
you then say "In such a situation a redistribution of wealth and income would mean that people farther down the ladder would enjoy greater wealth, income, and power, thus stimulating the economy and giving more people economic and other opportunities." sounds good in theory but give me an example of it actually working out that way. What happens when the producers decide to stop producing, are going to force them to continue? You say that give people a better chance at opportunity, How? Why try to create wealth for yourself when the government has decreed you have the right to the wealth of others? Why would you want to succeed if the fruits of your labor are not yours to enjoy?
And as far as your Mexico example, sure it's sad that those people are making such little money. But why are there not more factories giving the people more choices of jobs, therefore driving up the orice of quality labor? Also, what happens if the company wasn't there at all? Obviously the Mexican government is in no position to create a better situation.
"The irony is that a capitalist economy with a high concentration of wealth and income at the very top functions very much like a socialist economy."
I applaud this recognition that those who are condemned to think in terms of labels could never see.
I would like to see you without health insurance, living through one natural disaster, and lose one job and then get back to me with the above rhetoric. The problem with all the posts like these, none of you seem to have lived through any of these problems...yet you think you know so much.
And, don't comment on Juarez, Mexico, if you don't know the first thing about it. That economy was initially destroyed by drug trafficking, in which the US is the #1 consumer, Mexico can not protect its own citizens against the cartels without US aid, they are forced to take those .80 an hour jobs to survive, pray to God their children/wives/siblings are not stolen from them to be used in sex slavery in which they will have no recourse for rescuing them, where once again the US is the #1 consumer and trafficker and not providing any support in correcting the problem (until Obama). So, it isn't just a matter of economics, it's a matter of safety, and above all, humanity. If you don't think we have a lion's share of responsibility in that mess, then you have no idea what you are talking about. I dare you to go talk to one of those grieving families and tell them it is a matter of economics.
But you prove my point a nations economy depends on many factors, the safety issue being one of them. yes Americans consume a large quantity of illegal drugs, but we also have the most posperous people on average again this is a problem of prosperity resulting from capitalism. that being said we are not at fault for corruption within the mexican government that allows these thing to continue.
And Kate i do live without health insurance and have no interest in buying it at the moment, and will not buy it even if the government tells me I have too.
I am not against capitalism - I am against it in its current state, without the necessary checks and balances - where it has overreached it's own power to the point where the margin between the average worker and the corporate CEO is so disproportionate, the gap creates the servitude Mimisha speaks to. (A great study of this was done in the late 90s when the SEC filings of WalMart showed that their CEO's earning went from approx. 225x the average worker in their company to over 400x the average worker in less than a decade. This kind of unchecked corporate greed is the number one indicator Americans can look for in terms of the ethics of a corporation. These people are literally getting rich on the backs of someone else). This began to go awry when the corporation was given to much power beginning in the mid 50s. Eisenhower saw this.
The Mexican government can not reign this in when its whole economy has been undercut by this drug/sex trafficking war? It is a 'WE' situation, it took both sides coming together and at least some in roads are being made now. We let this go unchecked, didn't own our share of culpability, and there was no way they could reign this in when they were clearly out financed and out armed. Their society has been decimated by this. The male population's pride has been completely undercut - it is like living in a permanent depression without any hope in the sight. For someone who doesn't want any government help, I find it interesting that you see the government as the answer to a very complex problem in which the USA helped create in that country. It is this overly simplistic, anecdotal thinking which is going to be the downfall of this country.
Have you lived without health insurance with out a job and having Cancer? With a spouse who has an illness? Or a child with a life-threatening illness? I don't think the government wants to run your medical health - it wants to make medical treatment available to more people. Do I think their are some politicians in the mix who want to make something for themselves in the process? Hell yes. It wouldn't be Washington without it - on both sides of the aisle. It will take serious reform and a demanding public before that ever turns around.
"you people" I thought was "we the people"; I guess we are living in different countries.
And, no, I'm not living in cronyism, it is one indicator to look at as to when capitalism began to exponentially grow at a rate which was completely disproportionate to the average citizen - it is called unchecked greed - and it always costs someone. This came through deregulation, tax breaks for the rich (can you say amortization for fossil fuel burning hummers? Hello Bush), lax SEC regulations, and many other reasons. This isn't because a few guys were puffing cigars together, although I'm sure it helped things along. This was systematic, incremental change, which came to the brink of disaster as president Bush was on his way out the door.
And, no, I don't think it's reasonable for any of the reasons you mentioned that a family is "one crisis" away from bankruptcy. That is capitalism at its worst. And the idea that "tough for that guy" simply lacks all humanity.
So, basically, you answered my question. You haven't faced any of these situations. Until you have, don't bother trying to speak to me from your philisophical highhorse. You have NO experience with any of these matters, you just have ideas about them.
Sorry you can't hang Anthony, good luck with a life less lived. I won't sink to your level - you're not worth the effort - something about pearls before swine.
Not only that, this conversation has jumped around so much I was trying to keep it on track. Don't worry, I won't be coming back. You can not handle an intelligent conversation.
My son was a government employee at The National Bonsai Arboretum, and now he (Michael) is attempting to create a local community he would like to live within,
and raise a family farmstead based upon:`
Smallness. Frugality. Family. He is a believer in caring. He speaks about caring about the environment, community, and the local economics'. (Arthur Schopenhauer)
It's emphasis on`Small, local, and what is eventually sustainable? This thought is what my main emphasis is ... I'm promoting here, sustainability.
Global is not.
E.R. Schumacher is my/his focus. E.F. Schumacher wrote the classic:`
Sensibility is Beautiful. Read :` E.F. Schumacher.
Arthur Schopenhauer is worth a gander. He was a thinker who wrote of will, sacrifice, happiness, and ultimate reality. Health.
E.R S. is influential in that he teaches small local, sustainable economics, and
Sustainability.
My point?
Read others
Have humility.
I received a letter from my son when he was a student at Cornell. He was disillusioned with grant commercial research by agra-business CEO's. bribery?
Research baloney?
I remember a sentence in the letter correspondence that Michael sent to me. The sentence read:`
"When I get out of school I want to create a place in the world that I'd want to live in, and be proud of, and wish to be actively participating in the local community. I want to create a Place I'd wish to be happy to raise my family." - Michael James
Years later, when my son returned home to seriously homestead ... I remembered the letter Michael sent to me. I asked him about that thought ...
He said ...
"That's what You have been saying since I was a child."
I went off and pondered what my son said. I never realized.
He (my son) was paying attention. He now tends the garden.
Oikos- economics.
home- economics.
domestic tending.
A local defending.
Homeland Security.
I Hope this fits in ...
I'm tuckered, weary.
I would be happy to talk about utilizing the 'free market' for insurance competition with minimal government intervention for purposes of regulating any pooling or other unethical practices (as I said, I'm not against capitalism, just not how it stands). However, that isn't where the conversation headed when Anthony lost his head and started being rude.
So, from a debate stand point, that wouldn't be tolerated. FYI. Maybe you just like his view of the world - I can respect that.
In terms of Mexico being a socialist government, OK. But, it still doesn't take away from my points of how it has been undermined, both internally and externally, and we didn't even get to NAFTA. Anyway, I'm happy to talk about anything with anyone, but not if people are not willing to be civil. And, if they don't agree or think I've gotten off track, ask for what they want.
I also LOVE the tendency, and excuse me here, but I find it usually with men, to bring out the "overly emotional" line if you suggest being humane or showing compassion. I never said check logic at the door, nor was I remiss on bringing up logical points in line with the tone of this conversation. This is why I pointedly asked the questions if Anthony had EXPERIENCED any of these things, because until you have, you are only coming from logic, not logic met with real world application. A better example would be an Intern versus a seasoned medical doctor. I find this all the time. And, I make a habit of not speaking to things I don't have experience with if I only have philosophical knowledge with any degree of authority.
It just kills me when people rattle off philosophy of any sort, economic or otherwise, like a hollow Victrola, without clearly digesting the experience of what they are espousing. Like the example we were using, if you have been to Juarez, Mexico or dealt directly in the drug/sex trafficking (beyond smoking some pot), then I would be happy to hear your experience with it.
I love conversation - I was hoping this would be a welcome place for it and am actually disappointed.
It either is or it isn't. It isn't.
I don't see anything from Dolpies but wishful generalizations and snippets of dogma. It's not much of a debate. It's a medley of the right wing's Greatest Fits.
The post itself looks like somebody cut some "big words" from a dictionary, chewed and spit them out. The poor logical construction can't be hidden or improved by embellishing it with gibberish. It reads like a Libertarian rant from the head trauma ward.
If he had stated it in only words he knew the meaning of, it wouldn't have made a paragraph.
Really, it's crap. It strains to appear intellectual, but it's just entirely random dogmatic drivel, with every nonsense ideological buzz phrase from the booby hatch.
That aside, an enjoyable read!