Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[CA renter]

[quote=Jim Jones][quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]

drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.

[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,

I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]

Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.

If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.

Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.

There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.

Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.

I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]

Brian,

You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]

Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.

It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.[/quote]

Now that is an organization with vested interest in keeping our heads tilted a certain way. The World Bank is essentially a third world looting operation and launching pad for neoliberal agenda. Developing countries are effectively neutralized politically, have their wealth gaps driven dramatically wider, communities destroyed and economies crippled in the long run. It’s creating massive wealth imbalances and serious environmental degradation. It shifts poverty around and makes in more extreme. Which is why we have the highest percentage of the world living without clean water than ever before along with a myriad of other unhealthy living condition statistics not seen in just income stats.

John Gray wrote False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, which was a fun book on the subject.

IMO, we are at beginning of it’s end as trade wars, competitive currency devaluations, economic collapses, political upheavals are bound to happen. As well as potential wars, which is usually the case with such extreme instability.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.[/quote]

Now that is an organization with vested interest in keeping our heads tilted a certain way. The World Bank is essentially a third world looting operation and launching pad for neoliberal agenda. Developing countries are effectively neutralized politically, have their wealth gaps driven dramatically wider, communities destroyed and economies crippled in the long run. It’s creating massive wealth imbalances and serious environmental degradation. It shifts poverty around and makes in more extreme. Which is why we have the highest percentage of the world living without clean water than ever before along with a myriad of other unhealthy living condition statistics not seen in just income stats.

John Gray wrote False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, which was a fun book on the subject.

IMO, we are at beginning of it’s end as trade wars, competitive currency devaluations, economic collapses, political upheavals are bound to happen. As well as potential wars, which is usually the case with such extreme instability.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.[/quote]

Now that is an organization with vested interest in keeping our heads tilted a certain way. The World Bank is essentially a third world looting operation and launching pad for neoliberal agenda. Developing countries are effectively neutralized politically, have their wealth gaps driven dramatically wider, communities destroyed and economies crippled in the long run. It’s creating massive wealth imbalances and serious environmental degradation. It shifts poverty around and makes in more extreme. Which is why we have the highest percentage of the world living without clean water than ever before along with a myriad of other unhealthy living condition statistics not seen in just income stats.

John Gray wrote False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, which was a fun book on the subject.

IMO, we are at beginning of it’s end as trade wars, competitive currency devaluations, economic collapses, political upheavals are bound to happen. As well as potential wars, which is usually the case with such extreme instability.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.[/quote]

Now that is an organization with vested interest in keeping our heads tilted a certain way. The World Bank is essentially a third world looting operation and launching pad for neoliberal agenda. Developing countries are effectively neutralized politically, have their wealth gaps driven dramatically wider, communities destroyed and economies crippled in the long run. It’s creating massive wealth imbalances and serious environmental degradation. It shifts poverty around and makes in more extreme. Which is why we have the highest percentage of the world living without clean water than ever before along with a myriad of other unhealthy living condition statistics not seen in just income stats.

John Gray wrote False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, which was a fun book on the subject.

IMO, we are at beginning of it’s end as trade wars, competitive currency devaluations, economic collapses, political upheavals are bound to happen. As well as potential wars, which is usually the case with such extreme instability.

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj]

How about one simple metric as defined by the World Bank (whose mission is “Ending Global Poverty”): Poverty. Poverty has declined markedly around the world in just the past 20 years. I recall reading somewhere a while back that in the early-19th century, 75% of the world’s population lived on less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation) and that this figure had fallen to 20% as of a few years back. I’m not saying that this is the perfect metric, but I don’t think you have to squint very hard to see that the lot of the average person around the globe (if not in the U.S. specifically) has improved quite a lot over the last several decades. In fact, you’d have to do a lot of squinting and tilting of the head to view the contrary.[/quote]

Now that is an organization with vested interest in keeping our heads tilted a certain way. The World Bank is essentially a third world looting operation and launching pad for neoliberal agenda. Developing countries are effectively neutralized politically, have their wealth gaps driven dramatically wider, communities destroyed and economies crippled in the long run. It’s creating massive wealth imbalances and serious environmental degradation. It shifts poverty around and makes in more extreme. Which is why we have the highest percentage of the world living without clean water than ever before along with a myriad of other unhealthy living condition statistics not seen in just income stats.

John Gray wrote False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, which was a fun book on the subject.

IMO, we are at beginning of it’s end as trade wars, competitive currency devaluations, economic collapses, political upheavals are bound to happen. As well as potential wars, which is usually the case with such extreme instability.

[briansd1]

I was simply saying that the forces of globalization are unstoppable, and even if (I don’t know if that will happen) millions of Americans fall into poverty (by our American standards), many millions more around the world would be lifted out of poverty, creating a net positive for humanity.

The interstate highway system, and railways before that, “globalized” America and allowed easy movement of people, goods and knowledge between the states.

Today, technology (fiber optics, satellites, internet, jet travel, etc…) is globalizing the world. Globalization is unstoppable. No government can stop it.

Another important thing to note. Globalization is not a zero-sum game and does not spread existing wealth around. Globalization enlarges the pie and creates more wealth for everybody (admittedly there will be winners and losers).

As far as government policies are concerned, the best way to preserve our wealth is to preserve our purchasing power.

Slapping punitive tariffs on goods in a futile attempt to stop globalization will only result in lower purchasing power (and lower wealth) for Americans. That would never work. We are addicted to cheap goods already.

[briansd1]

I was simply saying that the forces of globalization are unstoppable, and even if (I don’t know if that will happen) millions of Americans fall into poverty (by our American standards), many millions more around the world would be lifted out of poverty, creating a net positive for humanity.

The interstate highway system, and railways before that, “globalized” America and allowed easy movement of people, goods and knowledge between the states.

Today, technology (fiber optics, satellites, internet, jet travel, etc…) is globalizing the world. Globalization is unstoppable. No government can stop it.

Another important thing to note. Globalization is not a zero-sum game and does not spread existing wealth around. Globalization enlarges the pie and creates more wealth for everybody (admittedly there will be winners and losers).

As far as government policies are concerned, the best way to preserve our wealth is to preserve our purchasing power.

Slapping punitive tariffs on goods in a futile attempt to stop globalization will only result in lower purchasing power (and lower wealth) for Americans. That would never work. We are addicted to cheap goods already.

[briansd1]

I was simply saying that the forces of globalization are unstoppable, and even if (I don’t know if that will happen) millions of Americans fall into poverty (by our American standards), many millions more around the world would be lifted out of poverty, creating a net positive for humanity.

The interstate highway system, and railways before that, “globalized” America and allowed easy movement of people, goods and knowledge between the states.

Today, technology (fiber optics, satellites, internet, jet travel, etc…) is globalizing the world. Globalization is unstoppable. No government can stop it.

Another important thing to note. Globalization is not a zero-sum game and does not spread existing wealth around. Globalization enlarges the pie and creates more wealth for everybody (admittedly there will be winners and losers).

As far as government policies are concerned, the best way to preserve our wealth is to preserve our purchasing power.

Slapping punitive tariffs on goods in a futile attempt to stop globalization will only result in lower purchasing power (and lower wealth) for Americans. That would never work. We are addicted to cheap goods already.

[briansd1]

I was simply saying that the forces of globalization are unstoppable, and even if (I don’t know if that will happen) millions of Americans fall into poverty (by our American standards), many millions more around the world would be lifted out of poverty, creating a net positive for humanity.

The interstate highway system, and railways before that, “globalized” America and allowed easy movement of people, goods and knowledge between the states.

Today, technology (fiber optics, satellites, internet, jet travel, etc…) is globalizing the world. Globalization is unstoppable. No government can stop it.

Another important thing to note. Globalization is not a zero-sum game and does not spread existing wealth around. Globalization enlarges the pie and creates more wealth for everybody (admittedly there will be winners and losers).

As far as government policies are concerned, the best way to preserve our wealth is to preserve our purchasing power.

Slapping punitive tariffs on goods in a futile attempt to stop globalization will only result in lower purchasing power (and lower wealth) for Americans. That would never work. We are addicted to cheap goods already.

[briansd1]

I was simply saying that the forces of globalization are unstoppable, and even if (I don’t know if that will happen) millions of Americans fall into poverty (by our American standards), many millions more around the world would be lifted out of poverty, creating a net positive for humanity.

The interstate highway system, and railways before that, “globalized” America and allowed easy movement of people, goods and knowledge between the states.

Today, technology (fiber optics, satellites, internet, jet travel, etc…) is globalizing the world. Globalization is unstoppable. No government can stop it.

Another important thing to note. Globalization is not a zero-sum game and does not spread existing wealth around. Globalization enlarges the pie and creates more wealth for everybody (admittedly there will be winners and losers).

As far as government policies are concerned, the best way to preserve our wealth is to preserve our purchasing power.

Slapping punitive tariffs on goods in a futile attempt to stop globalization will only result in lower purchasing power (and lower wealth) for Americans. That would never work. We are addicted to cheap goods already.

[blahblahblah]

In summary:

* Poor Americans aren’t really poor because there are people dying of disease and malnutrition somewhere else. Since they are better off than these people, they really have nothing to complain about.

* Poor Americans aren’t actually poor because a hundred years ago poor people couldn’t have a TV or a flush commode. Poor Americans now have both! They’re rich! What a bunch of whiners.

* There is no poverty in America. I certainly don’t see any on my commute between Encinitas and Sorrento Valley.

* Poor Americans are greedy and want free houses in Encinitas without working. Therefore all American jobs deserve to be shipped to China. Except for mine of course, Chinese people aren’t smart enough to be a (choose one) financial adviser/tax accountant/day trader/middle manager/real estate agent.

* Globalization is helping poor people in places like China by giving them jobs with no worker protection, safety, or environmental standards.

* Globalization is unstoppable and Americans are addicted to cheap goods so we must continue on our current course. What we need is more outsourcing, more movement of capital out of the US so that we can continue importing cheap furniture and cheap TVs. We’re addicted to this stuff! Everyone knows that the cure for addiction is to simply have more of whatever it is you’re addicted to.

* Anyone who uses the word “deserve” or “fair” in their argument is childish, since only children use these words. Children like Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” or Eleanor Roosevelt – “It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself. ”

[blahblahblah]

In summary:

* Poor Americans aren’t really poor because there are people dying of disease and malnutrition somewhere else. Since they are better off than these people, they really have nothing to complain about.

* Poor Americans aren’t actually poor because a hundred years ago poor people couldn’t have a TV or a flush commode. Poor Americans now have both! They’re rich! What a bunch of whiners.

* There is no poverty in America. I certainly don’t see any on my commute between Encinitas and Sorrento Valley.

* Poor Americans are greedy and want free houses in Encinitas without working. Therefore all American jobs deserve to be shipped to China. Except for mine of course, Chinese people aren’t smart enough to be a (choose one) financial adviser/tax accountant/day trader/middle manager/real estate agent.

* Globalization is helping poor people in places like China by giving them jobs with no worker protection, safety, or environmental standards.

* Globalization is unstoppable and Americans are addicted to cheap goods so we must continue on our current course. What we need is more outsourcing, more movement of capital out of the US so that we can continue importing cheap furniture and cheap TVs. We’re addicted to this stuff! Everyone knows that the cure for addiction is to simply have more of whatever it is you’re addicted to.

* Anyone who uses the word “deserve” or “fair” in their argument is childish, since only children use these words. Children like Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” or Eleanor Roosevelt – “It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself. ”

[blahblahblah]

In summary:

* Poor Americans aren’t really poor because there are people dying of disease and malnutrition somewhere else. Since they are better off than these people, they really have nothing to complain about.

* Poor Americans aren’t actually poor because a hundred years ago poor people couldn’t have a TV or a flush commode. Poor Americans now have both! They’re rich! What a bunch of whiners.

* There is no poverty in America. I certainly don’t see any on my commute between Encinitas and Sorrento Valley.

* Poor Americans are greedy and want free houses in Encinitas without working. Therefore all American jobs deserve to be shipped to China. Except for mine of course, Chinese people aren’t smart enough to be a (choose one) financial adviser/tax accountant/day trader/middle manager/real estate agent.

* Globalization is helping poor people in places like China by giving them jobs with no worker protection, safety, or environmental standards.

* Globalization is unstoppable and Americans are addicted to cheap goods so we must continue on our current course. What we need is more outsourcing, more movement of capital out of the US so that we can continue importing cheap furniture and cheap TVs. We’re addicted to this stuff! Everyone knows that the cure for addiction is to simply have more of whatever it is you’re addicted to.

* Anyone who uses the word “deserve” or “fair” in their argument is childish, since only children use these words. Children like Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” or Eleanor Roosevelt – “It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself. ”

[blahblahblah]

In summary:

* Poor Americans aren’t really poor because there are people dying of disease and malnutrition somewhere else. Since they are better off than these people, they really have nothing to complain about.

* Poor Americans aren’t actually poor because a hundred years ago poor people couldn’t have a TV or a flush commode. Poor Americans now have both! They’re rich! What a bunch of whiners.

* There is no poverty in America. I certainly don’t see any on my commute between Encinitas and Sorrento Valley.

* Poor Americans are greedy and want free houses in Encinitas without working. Therefore all American jobs deserve to be shipped to China. Except for mine of course, Chinese people aren’t smart enough to be a (choose one) financial adviser/tax accountant/day trader/middle manager/real estate agent.

* Globalization is helping poor people in places like China by giving them jobs with no worker protection, safety, or environmental standards.

* Globalization is unstoppable and Americans are addicted to cheap goods so we must continue on our current course. What we need is more outsourcing, more movement of capital out of the US so that we can continue importing cheap furniture and cheap TVs. We’re addicted to this stuff! Everyone knows that the cure for addiction is to simply have more of whatever it is you’re addicted to.

* Anyone who uses the word “deserve” or “fair” in their argument is childish, since only children use these words. Children like Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” or Eleanor Roosevelt – “It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself. ”

[Author]

Posts