"Whatever the Issue, the Rich Guys Win"

Government is an abject failure at making people equal.

But no corporation is as wealthy or powerful as government.

This is so fucking stupid and ignorant. You are wrong on both accounts. Corporations, first of all, bribe all of our politicians into becoming elected, with their interests in mind, so government and corporations have really melded into one. Second, corporations can go international, and do things that the government simply can not control. Corporations have taken over this world. All this world is is a bunch of corporations.
 
"A lot of Americans seem to... sense that the structural reality of government and politics is not on their side.

"When the choice comes down to society or capitalism, society regularly loses.

"First attention is devoted to the economic priorities of the largest, most powerful institutions of business and finance.

"The bias comes naturally to Republicans, the party of money and private enterprise, but on the big structural questions business-first also defines Democrats, formerly the party of working people.

"Despite partisan rhetoric, the two parties are more alike than they acknowledge.

"In these terms, the administration of Barack Obama has been a crushing disappointment for those of us who hoped he would be different.

"It turns out Obama is a more conventional and limited politician than advertised, more right-of-center than his soaring rhetoric suggested.

"Most Congressional Democrats, likewise, proved weak and incoherent, unreliable defenders of their supposed values or most loyal constituencies.

"They call it pragmatism. I call it surrender."

IMHO, Karl Marx was completely wrong about the solution to capitalism and entirely correct when he said it became a revolutionary force after emasculating government.

Possibly one of the few things we all could agree on is there are no silver medals in revolution.

ZCommunications
 
Complete_Idiots_Guide.gif
 
From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.

"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

A most excellent article about an issue Americans don't want to talk about.

We have morphed into a full-blown plutocracy where corporations control the levers of governemnet .. and Americans applaud. It isn't just the republicans anymore. both major parties are controlled by the corporate will .. and Obama is part of their plan.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
---- Thomas Jefferson
 
Well George. Capitalism obviously doesn't suite you.

What kind of system would you like??

One like Cuba or Venzuela??

Perhaps Europe where regulations so strangle the economy that it can't grow. Eveyone pays high taxes and sucks off the Govt teat??

We can all see how swimingly well that going. I.E. Greece, Ireland and soon Spain and Portugal.

Tell me George. Which system works for you??
 
From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.

"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

A most excellent article about an issue Americans don't want to talk about.

We have morphed into a full-blown plutocracy where corporations control the levers of governemnet .. and Americans applaud. It isn't just the republicans anymore. both major parties are controlled by the corporate will .. and Obama is part of their plan.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
---- Thomas Jefferson
I think Jefferson and Greider would agree on many things concerning the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations", in particular the Federal Reserves role in inflicting shareholder values on all Americans.

Greider spoke to that in October of 2008 when he discussed the impending passage of the "Wall Street Bailout" in the face of widespread public opposition:

"(T)his is a very revealing moment in American democracy. We’re seeing the real deformities and power alignments that govern issues like this, particularly the financial system.

"(A)ll of the power centers in politics and finance and business are discredited by these events.

"(W)e had this moment Monday (September 29, 2008) when, for complicated political reasons, a majority in the House rose up and said no.

"(O)f course...the broad public...regards this bailout as a swindle and backwards.

"(The public wonders 'w)hy are you giving all this money to the people who caused this crisis and taking the money from the public assets of the victims?

Personally, I'm wondering what will happen in the Fall of 2012 if Round Two of our Great Financial Crisis appears during Obama's reelection effort?

So far he's left little doubt about which side of the class war he's on.

William Greider - Wiki
 
We can all see how swimingly well that going. I.E. Greece, Ireland and soon Spain and Portugal.

You cannot blame Ireland's woes on the government. That was purely banker corruption driven. Read up on the death of the Celtic Tiger. Once again, like here, these guys escape with millions while the innocent taxpayers suffer. We absolutely need to reign the corporatists in and regulate the shit out of them. They have WAY too much power.
 
Well George. Capitalism obviously doesn't suite you.

What kind of system would you like??

One like Cuba or Venzuela??

Perhaps Europe where regulations so strangle the economy that it can't grow. Eveyone pays high taxes and sucks off the Govt teat??

We can all see how swimingly well that going. I.E. Greece, Ireland and soon Spain and Portugal.

Tell me George. Which system works for you??
Claudette:

If it's true ALL governments that have ever existed served to socialize cost and privatize profit, Capitalism is their crowning achievement.

For example, a hundred years ago capitalists in the business of refining crude oil cared only about kerosene. Gasoline was an unwanted by product often dumped in the closest river until concentrations of fuel reached a level where the river caught fire.

Capitalists of the day expected society to pay for cleaning up the river in the same way Wall Street expects you and I to backstop their gambling losses today AND in the future.

There ARE alternatives that don't involve socialism, per se.

Social Credit is one such possibility:

"Social Credit is an economic philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924.

"Social Credit is described by Douglas[1] as "the policy of a philosophy"; he called his philosophy 'practical Christianity'.

"This philosophy is interdisciplinary in nature, encompassing the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting and physics.

"Assuming the only safe place for power is in many hands, Social Credit is a distributive philosophy, and its policy is to disperse power to individuals. Social Credit philosophy is best summed by Douglas when he said, 'Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.'[2]

"According to Douglas, the true purpose of production is consumption, and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. Each citizen is to have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete and dynamic access to the fruits of industry assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.[3]

"Consumers, fully provided with adequate purchasing power, will establish the policy of production through exercise of their monetary vote.[3]

"In this view, the term economic democracy does not mean worker control of industry.[3] Removing the policy of production from banking institutions, government, and industry, Social Credit envisages an 'aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.'"
 
What's wrong with profit?

Lets say it's true. And that the rich guy wins no matter what. Is that because he has money or does he have money because he has learned how to profit even from his setbacks?
 
From William Greider's "The End of New Deal Liberalism":

"Society faces dreadful prospects and profound transformation. When both parties are aligned with corporate power, who will stand up for the people?

"Who will protect them from the insatiable appetites of capitalist enterprise and help them get through the hard passage ahead?

"One thing we know for sure from history: there is no natural limit to what capitalism will seek in terms of power and profit.

"If government does not stand up and apply the brakes, society is defenseless.

"Strangely enough, this new reality brings us back to the future, posing fundamental questions about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that citizens and reformers asked 100 years ago.

"Only this time, the nation is no longer an ascendant economic power.

"It faces hard adjustments as general prosperity recedes and the broad middle class that labor and liberalism helped create is breaking apart...

"One key dynamic of the twentieth century was the long- running contest for dominance between democracy and capitalism.

"The balance of power shifted back and forth several times, driven by two basic forces that neither corporate lobbyists nor timid politicians could control: the calamitous events that disrupted the social order, such as war and depression, and the power of citizens mobilized in reaction to those events.

"In those terms, both political parties are still highly vulnerable-as twentieth-century history repeatedly demonstrated, society cannot survive the burdens of an unfettered corporate order."

ZCommunications...

A most excellent article about an issue Americans don't want to talk about.

We have morphed into a full-blown plutocracy where corporations control the levers of governemnet .. and Americans applaud. It isn't just the republicans anymore. both major parties are controlled by the corporate will .. and Obama is part of their plan.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
---- Thomas Jefferson
I think Jefferson and Greider would agree on many things concerning the "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations", in particular the Federal Reserves role in inflicting shareholder values on all Americans.

Greider spoke to that in October of 2008 when he discussed the impending passage of the "Wall Street Bailout" in the face of widespread public opposition:

"(T)his is a very revealing moment in American democracy. We’re seeing the real deformities and power alignments that govern issues like this, particularly the financial system.

"(A)ll of the power centers in politics and finance and business are discredited by these events.

"(W)e had this moment Monday (September 29, 2008) when, for complicated political reasons, a majority in the House rose up and said no.

"(O)f course...the broad public...regards this bailout as a swindle and backwards.

"(The public wonders 'w)hy are you giving all this money to the people who caused this crisis and taking the money from the public assets of the victims?

Personally, I'm wondering what will happen in the Fall of 2012 if Round Two of our Great Financial Crisis appears during Obama's reelection effort?

So far he's left little doubt about which side of the class war he's on.

William Greider - Wiki

Very well said .. and thanks for the reference.

The problem is that most Americans have no understanding of the crisis, and instead, are cheering for the very element that is destroying us.

Always happy to meet enlightened people.
 
What's wrong with profit?

Lets say it's true. And that the rich guy wins no matter what. Is that because he has money or does he have money because he has learned how to profit even from his setbacks?

There's something wrong when that rich person uses his "profit" to buy political power and legislation in his OWN interest and specifically to the detriment of the American people. Like the meat industry, for example, has written its own legislation that it doesn't have to tell you what specific stores it sold its E-Coli laden biohazards to. Is that in the consumer's best interest, especially knowing the bad SOP horrors that take place at meat packing plants in order to increase "profits"? And that because of libel laws, it is ILLEGAL to say anything bad in public about beef in many states. It's true... shocking, but true.

Veggie Libel

You don't see this as a problem??? And this is one tiny example of thousands.
 
Last edited:
We can all see how swimingly well that going. I.E. Greece, Ireland and soon Spain and Portugal.

You cannot blame Ireland's woes on the government. That was purely banker corruption driven. Read up on the death of the Celtic Tiger. Once again, like here, these guys escape with millions while the innocent taxpayers suffer. We absolutely need to reign the corporatists in and regulate the shit out of them. They have WAY too much power.
And it's probably coming here soon.

The "temporary" two percent reduction in Social Security taxes means that a year from now, those looking to privatize public pension plans will have better arguments than they have ever had before.

Only a Democrat in the White House could pull this off.
Clinton tried, but Monica and the blue dress interfered.

Obama could well be the Dem Wall Street's been praying for.

Hopefully the political atmosphere in the Fall of 2012 will be a hybrid of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the week after 911 and the presidential election of 2008.

If enough voters get fed up enough to consider FLUSHING all elected REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS from DC in the same damn day,... Shit Changes.
 
Mr. H.

GEorge is talking about the economic system.

Your inspiring stories about how heroically you might or might not have done are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

And your ad hominen attacks on George are likewise unwarranted and pointless.

Maybe you ought to limit your thoughts to addressing the issues, rather than taking it upon yourself to insult people.

Let me try try to sum the above up for you.

GROW THE FUCK UP.

Thank you in advance for sticking to the topic.

I know. My apologies. I got really drunk. Now I'm really hung over. :D
 
During the postwar era there was a very powerful compact between government and labor, which itself was part of a broader compact between government and the middle class. Out of this compact grew a myriad of programs designed to promote broadly shared prosperity, e.g., middle class compensation was tied to productivity gains: when business did well, so too did the workers. The government also tried to give the middle class an affordable cost of living, which included access to great public universities; access to affordable health care, as well as controlling the price of necessary staples, e.g., speculators were not allowed to drive up the cost of oil; housing bubbles were prevented; Wall Street was not allowed to expose our savings to excessive risk.

And... the middle class had plenty o' spendin' money. Remember: the New Deal gave them higher wages, a low cost of living, social safety nets, and retirement security. This translated into economic security > massive consumer demand. Guess what happens when demand goes up? The capitalist must innovate and add more jobs to capture all dat extra money.

Point is: during the postwar years, the American government invested in the middle class and it paid off, leading to the golden era of mass consumption. Henry Ford's dream was finally realized: the workers could afford to buy what they produced. Leave It To Beaver nation was born -- suburban expansion exploded: new homes, televisions, ski trips, refrigerators, shopping malls, patio furniture, and space-age gadgets trickled down like mana from heaven. Going to college was no longer a luxury. Everybody, it seemed, was in the middle class.

Which is why the 50s & 60s represented the most sustained economic growth in American history. Best of all, America's highly regulated postwar economy was a blessing to conservatism: the family could be sustained on 1 income, leaving the mother to tend to the children, i.e., the nuclear family was king (unlike today, where the mother must work and the children are raised by MTV).

But there was a catch to our postwar prosperity. High taxes. In order to fulfill the social contract with the middle class -- in order to pay for all the infrastructure projects and the high wages & benefits -- business and the wealthy paid higher taxes. And it worked: we put a man on the moon and built the most impressive tapestry of highways, public works, and suburbs known to man. More importantly, the tenuous compromise between capital and labor held steady because there was still a lot of money coming: America, unscathed by the two great wars, was manufacturer to the world.

Enter 1973. Japan and Germany re-industrialized, China and India were growing into industrial powers, OPEC choked energy supplies, and stagflation ended the postwar boom: less money was coming in.

What did capital do when their profit rates began to plummet? They went in search of a political party. Business took over the New Right quicker than Germany took over France. [The left was still too beholden to labor to enjoy the immense advantage of Lockheed] The new federation between the GOP and business resulted in a machine which seamlessly funneled money into politics. The machine also poured money into think tanks, publishing groups, PACs, and every manner of mass media. They would spend the next 30 years remaking government (destroying regulatory agencies, lowering taxes, gutting laws that benefited the middle class, and making it easier for business to craft their own legislation). On the media front, their plan was brilliant: use conservative social issues -- mostly centered around religion, tradition, and patriotism -- to recapture the south and heartland. Divide the country into two groups: good Americans (conservatives) versus evil anti-Americans (liberals). [This "divide and conquer" strategy by business was a brilliant way of balkanizing the cross-party coalitions that united under the New Deal] By the 90s, with the birth of talk radio, the GOP was in charge of an army of "identity Republicans" -- who were strategically agitated by wedge issues from abortion & gay marriage, to gun control & hollywood indecency. Men like Reagan successfully shifted populist ire from the cigar smoking fat cat to the incompetent bureaucrat. To top it off: the old Red Scare was reborn, only this time it was the liberals who had supposedly infiltrated American institutionally to the core.

The new Republican voter was now part of an epic holy war to save America from evil.

Having successfully branded half the country, the machine now began to reformat public opinion with ruthless efficiency. In short, business (aka capital) finally had the power to repeal all the gains given to labor during the postwar years. Everything done for the middle class would now be called socialism. Everything done for business would be called freedom. Profit would finally be unhinged from any obligation to the public good. It would buy all elections and, through a series of mass mergers made possible by Reagan's destruction of the Sherman Act, consolidate control over mass media.

Welcome to it.. Corporations are richer than ever and the country is bankrupt. This is the final phase of neoliberal capitalism: the pure concentration of wealth. Capital's victory over labor is complete. When money is made in this country, it goes overwhelmingly into fewer and fewer hands. Game over.

The record Wealth Gap that continues to grow, is an example.
A decade of basically stagnant wage growth despite good profits and excellent worker productivity also confirms the above statement.
 
During the postwar era there was a very powerful compact between government and labor, which itself was part of a broader compact between government and the middle class. Out of this compact grew a myriad of programs designed to promote broadly shared prosperity, e.g., middle class compensation was tied to productivity gains: when business did well, so too did the workers. The government also tried to give the middle class an affordable cost of living, which included access to great public universities; access to affordable health care, as well as controlling the price of necessary staples, e.g., speculators were not allowed to drive up the cost of oil; housing bubbles were prevented; Wall Street was not allowed to expose our savings to excessive risk.

And... the middle class had plenty o' spendin' money. Remember: the New Deal gave them higher wages, a low cost of living, social safety nets, and retirement security. This translated into economic security > massive consumer demand. Guess what happens when demand goes up? The capitalist must innovate and add more jobs to capture all dat extra money.

Point is: during the postwar years, the American government invested in the middle class and it paid off, leading to the golden era of mass consumption. Henry Ford's dream was finally realized: the workers could afford to buy what they produced. Leave It To Beaver nation was born -- suburban expansion exploded: new homes, televisions, ski trips, refrigerators, shopping malls, patio furniture, and space-age gadgets trickled down like mana from heaven. Going to college was no longer a luxury. Everybody, it seemed, was in the middle class.

Which is why the 50s & 60s represented the most sustained economic growth in American history. Best of all, America's highly regulated postwar economy was a blessing to conservatism: the family could be sustained on 1 income, leaving the mother to tend to the children, i.e., the nuclear family was king (unlike today, where the mother must work and the children are raised by MTV).

But there was a catch to our postwar prosperity. High taxes. In order to fulfill the social contract with the middle class -- in order to pay for all the infrastructure projects and the high wages & benefits -- business and the wealthy paid higher taxes. And it worked: we put a man on the moon and built the most impressive tapestry of highways, public works, and suburbs known to man. More importantly, the tenuous compromise between capital and labor held steady because there was still a lot of money coming: America, unscathed by the two great wars, was manufacturer to the world.

Enter 1973. Japan and Germany re-industrialized, China and India were growing into industrial powers, OPEC choked energy supplies, and stagflation ended the postwar boom: less money was coming in.

What did capital do when their profit rates began to plummet? They went in search of a political party. Business took over the New Right quicker than Germany took over France. [The left was still too beholden to labor to enjoy the immense advantage of Lockheed] The new federation between the GOP and business resulted in a machine which seamlessly funneled money into politics. The machine also poured money into think tanks, publishing groups, PACs, and every manner of mass media. They would spend the next 30 years remaking government (destroying regulatory agencies, lowering taxes, gutting laws that benefited the middle class, and making it easier for business to craft their own legislation). On the media front, their plan was brilliant: use conservative social issues -- mostly centered around religion, tradition, and patriotism -- to recapture the south and heartland. Divide the country into two groups: good Americans (conservatives) versus evil anti-Americans (liberals). [This "divide and conquer" strategy by business was a brilliant way of balkanizing the cross-party coalitions that united under the New Deal] By the 90s, with the birth of talk radio, the GOP was in charge of an army of "identity Republicans" -- who were strategically agitated by wedge issues from abortion & gay marriage, to gun control & hollywood indecency. Men like Reagan successfully shifted populist ire from the cigar smoking fat cat to the incompetent bureaucrat. To top it off: the old Red Scare was reborn, only this time it was the liberals who had supposedly infiltrated American institutionally to the core.

The new Republican voter was now part of an epic holy war to save America from evil.

Having successfully branded half the country, the machine now began to reformat public opinion with ruthless efficiency. In short, business (aka capital) finally had the power to repeal all the gains given to labor during the postwar years. Everything done for the middle class would now be called socialism. Everything done for business would be called freedom. Profit would finally be unhinged from any obligation to the public good. It would buy all elections and, through a series of mass mergers made possible by Reagan's destruction of the Sherman Act, consolidate control over mass media.

Welcome to it.. Corporations are richer than ever and the country is bankrupt. This is the final phase of neoliberal capitalism: the pure concentration of wealth. Capital's victory over labor is complete. When money is made in this country, it goes overwhelmingly into fewer and fewer hands. Game over.

The record Wealth Gap that continues to grow, is an example.
A decade of basically stagnant wage growth despite good profits and excellent worker productivity also confirms the above statement.

No, it's government's victory over prosperity.
 
During the postwar era there was a very powerful compact between government and labor, which itself was part of a broader compact between government and the middle class. Out of this compact grew a myriad of programs designed to promote broadly shared prosperity, e.g., middle class compensation was tied to productivity gains: when business did well, so too did the workers. The government also tried to give the middle class an affordable cost of living, which included access to great public universities; access to affordable health care, as well as controlling the price of necessary staples, e.g., speculators were not allowed to drive up the cost of oil; housing bubbles were prevented; Wall Street was not allowed to expose our savings to excessive risk.

And... the middle class had plenty o' spendin' money. Remember: the New Deal gave them higher wages, a low cost of living, social safety nets, and retirement security. This translated into economic security > massive consumer demand. Guess what happens when demand goes up? The capitalist must innovate and add more jobs to capture all dat extra money.

Point is: during the postwar years, the American government invested in the middle class and it paid off, leading to the golden era of mass consumption. Henry Ford's dream was finally realized: the workers could afford to buy what they produced. Leave It To Beaver nation was born -- suburban expansion exploded: new homes, televisions, ski trips, refrigerators, shopping malls, patio furniture, and space-age gadgets trickled down like mana from heaven. Going to college was no longer a luxury. Everybody, it seemed, was in the middle class.

Which is why the 50s & 60s represented the most sustained economic growth in American history. Best of all, America's highly regulated postwar economy was a blessing to conservatism: the family could be sustained on 1 income, leaving the mother to tend to the children, i.e., the nuclear family was king (unlike today, where the mother must work and the children are raised by MTV).

But there was a catch to our postwar prosperity. High taxes. In order to fulfill the social contract with the middle class -- in order to pay for all the infrastructure projects and the high wages & benefits -- business and the wealthy paid higher taxes. And it worked: we put a man on the moon and built the most impressive tapestry of highways, public works, and suburbs known to man. More importantly, the tenuous compromise between capital and labor held steady because there was still a lot of money coming: America, unscathed by the two great wars, was manufacturer to the world.

Enter 1973. Japan and Germany re-industrialized, China and India were growing into industrial powers, OPEC choked energy supplies, and stagflation ended the postwar boom: less money was coming in.

What did capital do when their profit rates began to plummet? They went in search of a political party. Business took over the New Right quicker than Germany took over France. [The left was still too beholden to labor to enjoy the immense advantage of Lockheed] The new federation between the GOP and business resulted in a machine which seamlessly funneled money into politics. The machine also poured money into think tanks, publishing groups, PACs, and every manner of mass media. They would spend the next 30 years remaking government (destroying regulatory agencies, lowering taxes, gutting laws that benefited the middle class, and making it easier for business to craft their own legislation). On the media front, their plan was brilliant: use conservative social issues -- mostly centered around religion, tradition, and patriotism -- to recapture the south and heartland. Divide the country into two groups: good Americans (conservatives) versus evil anti-Americans (liberals). [This "divide and conquer" strategy by business was a brilliant way of balkanizing the cross-party coalitions that united under the New Deal] By the 90s, with the birth of talk radio, the GOP was in charge of an army of "identity Republicans" -- who were strategically agitated by wedge issues from abortion & gay marriage, to gun control & hollywood indecency. Men like Reagan successfully shifted populist ire from the cigar smoking fat cat to the incompetent bureaucrat. To top it off: the old Red Scare was reborn, only this time it was the liberals who had supposedly infiltrated American institutionally to the core.

The new Republican voter was now part of an epic holy war to save America from evil.

Having successfully branded half the country, the machine now began to reformat public opinion with ruthless efficiency. In short, business (aka capital) finally had the power to repeal all the gains given to labor during the postwar years. Everything done for the middle class would now be called socialism. Everything done for business would be called freedom. Profit would finally be unhinged from any obligation to the public good. It would buy all elections and, through a series of mass mergers made possible by Reagan's destruction of the Sherman Act, consolidate control over mass media.

Welcome to it.. Corporations are richer than ever and the country is bankrupt. This is the final phase of neoliberal capitalism: the pure concentration of wealth. Capital's victory over labor is complete. When money is made in this country, it goes overwhelmingly into fewer and fewer hands. Game over.

The record Wealth Gap that continues to grow, is an example.
A decade of basically stagnant wage growth despite good profits and excellent worker productivity also confirms the above statement.

No, it's government's victory over prosperity.

What kind of answer is that?
Corporate America has decided that instead of rewarding the workers who's record productivity helped them reach their excellent profit margins, they'd just hand out high bonuses internally and gives their stockholders great dividends.
 
What's wrong with profit?

Lets say it's true. And that the rich guy wins no matter what. Is that because he has money or does he have money because he has learned how to profit even from his setbacks?

Some do not make much of a living. They do not like profit because they make so little.

George has admitted that he has worked low end jobs all his life.

So it is understandable...

He's bright enough (even if horribly obsessed with hate of reality) so it likely is because of his attitude. When he tries for better paid work, likely his personality comes out and they fire him, that is if he even makes it through the hiring process.

Floor sweepers do not get asked what they think very often. The higher up one goes on the profit chain, the more they articulate their thoughts.

You see George's articulated here.

Would you hire that mind? Even if that mind is able to use logic, he uses that logic to decry pretty much everything.

I would not have him around staff of mine. Too much malevolence. Look at his questions to others.

Not his posts, not his answers even. Look at his personal questions and wonder if you would want a staff member to ask you those questions?

No, he makes a poor bed to sleep in and then sleeps poorly all the whilst blaming the poor sleep externally.

His bed. Not ours...
 
Start your own corporation and show them how it's done.

Denial again?
Try this;
Slow Wage Growth But Soaring Profits in the Current Recovery

Slow Wage Growth But Soaring Profits in the Current Recovery | Dollars & Sense

Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html

Corporate profits up, but consumer optimism sagging

Corporate profits up, but consumer optimism sagging | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/28/2010

All of this leads to this;

The rich get richer: Income and wealth gap grows over the past decade

See full article from DailyFinance: The rich get richer: Income and wealth gap grows over the past decade - DailyFinance
 

Forum List

Back
Top