General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMoostache
(9,895 posts)EVERYONE needs to see this and internalize it...
The things in our society that have fooled people into believing in an economy that discards humans by the millions for the benefit of a handful of obscenely wealthy billionaires are USELESS.
You do NOT need that $75,000 new car.
You do NOT need that $4,000 hand bag.
You do NOT need that $400 dog collar.
You DO need protection from communicable diseases.
You DO need access to healthcare and healthcare providers that are compensated justly.
You DO need the ability to get from place to place, but not at the expense of the environment or the climate.
Our world is based on many falsehoods, but chief among them is the paradigm of promoting infinite 'growth' in a finite system of resources and its evil twin theory of 'trickle down economics' (which is as big of an abject failure as one can possibly imagine).
Yes, yes and yes!
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)What is the connection between what someone wants to purchase and what should be provided to everyone regarding healthcare transportation etc?
What is it to you if someone wants to purchase an expensive car? Or handbag? If they earned the money to purchase such an item who cares? They absolutely should be able to. I agree with the reat of your post but that part just seems judgey.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)The choices people make in the purchases I was outlining are not usually ones made independently or without external advocacy - ie. advertising induced consumption for consumption's sake and status driven by external metrics of "sexy", "cool", "desirable", etc.
In a world without advertising, allocating money into sunk causes (like the expensive, gaudy car or obnoxious hand bags to mimic vapid 'stars' of TV and media) at the cost of NOT paying for infrastructure improvements is an inherent wrong and a societal misallocation of finite resources.
The entire system has convinced everyone that because you CAN, you SHOULD....or MUST spend money on personal entitlements and fuck off to those with less allocated (earned or otherwise) wealth.
Is it going to happen? Not in this lifetime.
Does that make the grotesque way we allow infants to die, children to starve and veterans to go homeless any less morally offensive? Not one tiny bit...
People are free to spend their money how they see fit - they do not though, because our society has established a slave mindset in the zeitgeist. The ethos of "more from me and less for thee" is one of the things that will ultimately cause the extinction of homo sapiens...in my opinion anyway.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)It sounds like you are advocating for full on socialism which I am sorry isnt going to happen in this country. I am not anti-socialist but I am not anti-capitalist either. Both need to have guard rails to keep them from being abused and corrupted. Like any system.
I dont know how you achieve your vision in this country. However, I am not sure I want to live in your vision either.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I will simply say that I think my goals are a society that CHOOSES its allocation of resources without the inanity of the Kardashians or the stupidity of advertising making the choices for everyone on a subliminal level BEFORE they ever get to really think about it and make rationale decisions.
The government of the United States IS the people of the United States. That is a fundamental bedrock of this nation and the truly revolutionary thing that makes the CONCEPT of the USA the greatest achievement in human governing history...no kings, no queens, no empire (at the conception level - though we fail abjectly at the execution level on this) - the concept of one man one vote, which has been corrupted and strangled by abominations like radio, TV, advertising and "Citizens United"-type horror shows. The concept lives in memory, but in reality, money is king and the people are given false choices and expected to just accept it as unchangeable - or even undesirable to pursue.
The vision is a society that understands building on coastal areas and destroying the natural barriers to erosion and wetlands is not a choice for individuals, but a societal level choice, an impact on more than an individual or a family - but in reality a forced set of consequences for the entire community and region. (This is just an example to illustrate the idea...but it applies to other consumer-driven decisions as well. Nothing is happening in a vacuum or independent of impact on others, we just choose to ignore it - or more properly, we are put to sleep by others via selected desires and wants that erase the need to critically evaluate total impacts of 'individual choices'.)
Because someone has means to BUY that decision, and then build whatever they want there does not make it right or desirable.
Somewhere between what you call socialism, and I consider societal rationalism is a sweet spot that would make our current advertising-driven, false-choice providing culture look like what it truly is - a scam that enriches some at the expense of many, but also allows the few to continue making choices that imperil the many without fair compensation or paying for the totality of their "free choices".
A more just and sane society is the vision or north star to me...not some kind of Politburo or regime-based control...a true (unvarnished, untainted, unmanipulated by ulterior motive) government of, by and for the people. A dream that will go unrealized as homo sapiens slowly ensures its own extinction instead in the name of someone else's vision of "freedom"...
Ferrets are Cool
(21,104 posts)uponit7771
(90,304 posts)... one believes we should have city wide only private police or fire depts
mac2766
(658 posts)3 individual people possess enough wealth to build the machines that will get them into outer space. Not countries full of tax paying citizens, but individual people.
In my opinion, this is absolutely grotesque. The redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class up to the uber-rich is destroying our world.
The desire for individuals to earn more and more leaves very little for the rest. That is fact. When executives demand salaries, bonuses, stock options, etc... they're taking the very money away from the company that they work for that would go toward paying better employee salaries and affording benefits for their employees.
I'm not saying that any single individual should earn less than they are worth. What I'm saying is that those individuals should really take a step back and actually look at what they are worth and at what they actually need. Always taking into consideration the company that they work for.
Go for it if you can afford to purchase a $200,000 car, or a million dollar home. Just remember how many people you put in the poor house when you demanded all of that unnecessary money.
Consider McKesson. When I worked in the IT field for McKesson, The CEO was the highest paid CEO in America (maybe the world, I can't remember) earning $140 million dollars a year (at the time). I was called to a phone conference one day. All of us who were in the technology division were called to the conference call, which represented a few thousand employees. During that call, we were informed that over 1,000 employees in our division were being laid off that day. 1,000 people lost their jobs on that day, while the CEO was "earning" over 140 million dollars that year. Just think if his greed - and the rest of the executives at McKesson - would have subsided just enough to take a 10 million dollar a year pay cut, leaving him a paltry 130 million dollars that year. Consider how many of those 1,000 jobs could have been saved. Consider how much advertisement or research and development would have benefited if he had taken a 40 million dollar pay cut - to a measly 100 million that year... and how much that research and development would have improved the companies position in the technology market. But, instead, company money was spent to lobby congress into forcing the DEA to increase the number of opioid doses that McKesson could deliver to particular communities. The CEO was never concerned with the company he worked for, the employees that were employed by the company, and he was never concerned with the communities the company was ruining. He was never a company man, but a single greedy man who wanted more. And actually believed he was worth it. Meaning that the employees he screwed over were not, in his mind. I used this as a single example. Consider that there are literally thousands of executive types around the world who could care less about what their individual greed is doing to the companies that they work for, or the employees that they are affecting by taking so much away from their companies.
It's all a matter of perspective. How much does any single individual actually need? Certainly, we all need a basic minimum, and I'll agree that we all need to save and build a nest egg for lean times and for retirement, but we certainly don't need to have so much money that we begin fantasizing about being a self funded space agency.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Though I doubt our opposites would agree.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,088 posts)They believe their right to a $4,000 handbag is in the Constitution and Healthcare is not. The preamble apparently doesn't matter. It's just an idea that lawyers can get around.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Duppers
(28,117 posts)Bravo! Sending this out.
Thank you for posting.
TheRickles
(2,047 posts)malaise
(268,724 posts)Rec
Wounded Bear
(58,605 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,088 posts)Just look at the name. And where he works.
We know we're up against Fascism.
patphil
(6,150 posts)Everything is "new and improved". You're told that this, that, or the other thing you buy will make you stronger, smarter, sexier, happier.
Immense amounts of money are spent to steer your purchases in a given direction to benefit the seller. Essentially our economy is constructed based on wants, not needs; wants you are programmed to have.
Very often the result is economic slavery. We over extend our debt to get those things we have "just got to have"; things that will make us happy.
All to often the happiness part doesn't fulfill it's promise.
The pandemic gave us a time out to re-evaluate what really matters in our lives.
Mohamad Safa has really hit the nail on the head.
I love his statement that we live in a society, not an economy.
A lot to think about in these words.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)ShazzieB
(16,286 posts)Well, actually I grew with Ike, then JFK, then LBJ. I pretty much owe my college education to LBJ and his Great Society, and I am immeasurably grateful for that.
LBJ screwed up badly in Vietnam, but he also got some pretty important things right. Fuck Reagan and the rest of the other Repugs who killed all of that.