Ponderable

Have you seen this?

http://www.alternet.org/visions/tru...erica-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda

The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda
Before Milton Friedman was earning plaudits as an economic genius, he was a shill for the real estate industry and an early pioneer for big business propaganda known as libertarianism.

I haven't fact checked it, not sure if it's true, but it would be funny as hell if true. What a scam on dumb Americans!!

Read the whole thing.

http://www.thegoyslife.com/Documents/Books/A People's History of the United States- Howard Zinn.pdf
 
IMAO, globalism is a logical result from Capitalism. Profits will be sought anywhere they can be found.

I think manifest destiny can also be seen as an extension of 19th century capitalism. A nascent American corporatism. And why stop just because you've reached the beach? Trump/Bannon's economic nationalism, to the extent that it means anything at all, is similarly a means to manipulate markets to squeeze profits in a different type of way. Since we are quoting Roosevelt's today, here is what FDR had to say back in 1938. By today's metrics is what he's saying liberal, conservative, what?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15637
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Its interesting in that this seems to touch on something where we are not sure how to read each other. On the one hand I can read this as ridicule of a right wing conspiracy theory. On the other as a class based view on how globalism serves the interests of an American "elite" versus the "common man". Or both. Or neither. How are you thinking of it?
Like in the movie Demolition Man, someday everything will be Taco Bell after they survive the franchise wars.

 
As the United States entered the nineties, the political system, whether Democrats or Republicans were in power, remained in the control of those who had great wealth. The main instruments of information were also dominated by corporate wealth. The country was divided, though no mainstream political leader would speak of it, into classes of extreme wealth and extreme poverty, separated by an insecure and jeopardized middle class.

Yet, there was, unquestionably, though largely unreported, what a worried mainstream journalist had called "a permanent adversarial culture" which refused to surrender the possibility of a more equal, more humane society. If there was hope for the future of America, it lay in the promise of that refusal.
 
The United States, with 5 percent of the earth's population, consumed 30 percent of what was produced worldwide. But only a tiny portion of the American population benefited; this richest 1 percent of the population saw its wealth increase enormously starting in the late 1970s. As a result of changes in the tax structure, by 1995 that richest 1 percent had gained over a trillion dollars and now owned over 40 percent of the nation's wealth.

According to the business magazine Forbes, the 400 richest families owned $92 billion in 1982. Thirteen years later, this had jumped to $480 billion. The Dow Jones average of stock prices had gone up 400 percent between 1980 and 1995, while the average wage of workers had declined in purchasing power by 15 percent.

It was therefore possible to say that the U.S. economy was "healthy"-but only if you considered the richest part of the population. Meanwhile, 40 million people were without health insurance, and infants died of sickness and malnutrition at a rate higher than that of any other industrialized country. For people of color, the statistics were worse: Infants died at twice the rate of white children, and the life expectancy of a black man in Harlem, according to a United Nations report, was 46 years, less than that in Cambodia or the Sudan.

The United States (forgetting, or choosing to forget, the disastrous consequence of such a policy in the twenties) was consigning its people to the mercy of the "free market." The "market" did not care about the environment or the arts. And it left many Americans without jobs, or health care, without a decent education for their children, or adequate housing. Under Reagan, the government had reduced the number of housing units getting subsidies from 400,000 to 40,000; in the Clinton administration the program ended altogether.

Despite Clinton's 1997 Inaugural Day promise of a "new government," there was no bold program to take care of these needs. Such a program would require huge expenditures of money. There were two ways of raising this money, but the Clinton administration (like its predecessors) was not inclined to turn to them, given the powerful influence of corporate wealth.
 
The other major source of funds was the military budget. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Randall Forsberg, an expert on military expenditures, had suggested, "A military budget of $60 billion, to be achieved over a number of years, would support a demilitarized U.S. foreign policy, appropriate to the needs and opportunities of the post-Cold War world."

Instead, in 1996, the United States was spending more money on the military than the rest of the world combined-four times as much as Russia, eight times as much as China, forty times as much as North Korea, eighty times as much as Iraq. It was a bizarre waste of the nation's wealth.

A radical reduction of the military budget would require a renunciation of war, a refusal to use military solutions for international disputes. It would speak to the fundamental human desire (overwhelmed too often by barrages of superpatriotic slogans) to live at peace with others.
 
The other major source of funds was the military budget. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Randall Forsberg, an expert on military expenditures, had suggested, "A military budget of $60 billion, to be achieved over a number of years, would support a demilitarized U.S. foreign policy, appropriate to the needs and opportunities of the post-Cold War world."

Instead, in 1996, the United States was spending more money on the military than the rest of the world combined-four times as much as Russia, eight times as much as China, forty times as much as North Korea, eighty times as much as Iraq. It was a bizarre waste of the nation's wealth.

A radical reduction of the military budget would require a renunciation of war, a refusal to use military solutions for international disputes. It would speak to the fundamental human desire (overwhelmed too often by barrages of superpatriotic slogans) to live at peace with others.
We definitely need to stop arbitrarily attacking other countries for no apparent reason...
 
In the seventies and eighties, their struggles against poverty and discrimination continued. The Reagan years hit them hard, as it did poor people all over the country. By 1984, 42 percent of all Latino children and one-fourth of the families lived below the poverty line.

Copper miners in Arizona, mostly Mexican, went on strike against the Phelps-Dodge company after it cut wages, benefits, and safety measures in 1983. They were attacked by National Guardsmen and state troopers, by tear gas and helicopters, but held out for three years until a combination of governmental and corporate power finally defeated them.
 
A friend proposed starting an alt.middle movement. I suggested that as a first project that we publishe true statements that people would have a hard time believing.
 
I hope Trump will be as good at cutting back Social Security and privatizing Medicare as Obama has been at taking away our guns and instituting Sharia Law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Like in the movie Demolition Man, someday everything will be Taco Bell after they survive the franchise wars.


I think we're on the same wavelength then. And this way we could get a mascot for Pence's needle exchange program on the cheap. "Quieres una aguja limpia. It costs good money to keep you from dying bitch."

nooooo-dog-crazy-insane-demotivational-posters-1355202977.jpg
 
Growing up in Vermont, we were all given the"official" story that Vermont had no native inhabitants in Colonial times because it was the dividing line between the Iriquois and Abenaki, and thus was just a battle and hunting ground. It has only been in the last few decades that the remaining descendants have been able to get state recognition; they are still working on Federal status to match the status they have over the line in Canada. My brother-in-law is part French-Canadian and part Abenaki. He has participated in protest hunts, in which Abenaki fish, hunt and gather food in the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge on the US-Canada border with the intent of getting arrested and having a day in court.
Good God, not another, "when I was growing up in Vermont" story.
 
I think we're on the same wavelength then. And this way we could get a mascot for Pence's needle exchange program on the cheap. "Quieres una aguja limpia. It costs good money to keep you from dying bitch."

View attachment 508
Looks like the nurse I had for my colonoscopy.
For every, "back in verminshire" story espola tells, from now on, I will counter with an unpleasant plumbing story, or more details of my colonoscopy.
 
Back
Top