Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(53,661 posts)
107. A one track mind is a burden to all. But I have reason to agree with BS on this:
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 05:50 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Thu Jun 30, 2016, 07:18 PM - Edit history (2)

Because our growth model, and stressing the GNP is a problem for two reasons:

First, the growth model is not sustainable. It it the reason for environmental destruction and enslaving 'others' around the world, and the poor, especially women and children, is needed to make it work.

They are denied what the 1st world thinks we should have, such as education, healthcare and the most basic of human rights, agency over one's body. There is no such thing when one's time and one's body are for sale. The creative force of billions is being suppressed by the lack of value placed on it by the 'market.' It's great academic talk for those who have the leisure and distance to talk, but I focus on the often denied reality that influences all living things on this planet.

We're racing like raving horsemen to the edge of a cliff and we are not pulling back on the reins. All to keep our jobs and our so-called standard of living.

What kind of person does such things? What kind of system of economics does not take life into account?

GRAPHIC PICTURE: Don't worry, see explanation below:

The children on the left were rescued from the refugee camp. All were well taken care of and lived through it.

Consider the juxaposition of what the third world and the middle class believe they are entitled and have the right to have, while not solving the first side of the picture first. That's 'setting the cart before the horse' for those who believe that all are equal.

Hope that is what BS is saying but he's not talking the language of most. HRC , who has a proven track record of using the wealth from corporations to change conditions for women and children. In the words of Russell Means, a founder of the AIM, the most powerful 'economic units' on the planet are now the corporations, who are the ones we will have to talk to about this, like it or not.

Morality is lacking in all that is being done to the planet and living things. All our candidates in the Democratic Party are for a more moral society in ways they understand.

Russell Means says that the price for denying living creatures respect, will come at a terrible cost. 'There will be hell to pay,' he said, as these 'natural laws' are being broken in the name of the 'market.' Humans have come to 'a sorry pass.'

It's not a wise policy to see endless growth as the most important thing. There is more than one kind of prosperity. Those who can, buy land and produce their own food and drink water from their own well. Those who can't manage to get to or maintains that state of affairs are living at the whims of those who do.

And even after a lifetime of sacrifice and what some might call poverty holding onto that piece of earth (instead of having the cash to buy the latest consumer goods) can also be run off their land by the 'market' mentality which is capable of shoving them off their patrimony. It's to be argued whether it is theirs fairly to begin with, since the way they got it from a larger perspective was theft.

The middle class in this country and others live in a bubble that pretends by going over numbers, it created its own wealth without a negative effect on others and the planet. This is not true. It made its wealth by the greatest theft known, destroying land and resources (living ones), then making a profit by extracting the energy of the laborers without bringing them out of the system of environmental destruction.

Those pressed to work in such conditions are doing what was once called, 'eating the seed corn' or the means of biological production. In other words, the source of 'prosperity' is limited to destroying their local ecosphere for a piece of the first world pie. When it's done and gone, the first world will leave them in the dust, and they will be impoverished for many generations.

Some of what are fondly called the 'good old days' of the middle class, were built on theft from others in this country or the world. And some of the greatest wealth was made by eating through the seed corn, like privatization and bubbles. As the cash flowed freely, some got rich. But it cannot last, it never does.

And during the middle of the bubble, real people are hurt badly, but the media always cheers it on. The Iraq War, which I call 'the greatest money laundering scheme in world history,' and the entire Bush reign, bankrupted us, causing our creditors to call in their notes in 2008. They wisely wrote their terms for lending to be 'paid in kind' with trade deals that have decimated our economy and manufacturing base an enriched and strengthened theirs. These loans were not made for the sake or love or sentiment. They funded the Bush wars, not because they supported the reasoning behind them, but for their own benefit. No one lent us money because they were our allies. It was just 'good business' for them.

They didn't trust the foolish American people to be good for the payment of debt. Every GOP Congress under their baleful control proves them right and tried to renege on the payments, including pushing 'default' to make the country go bankrupt. Then we'd lose more than the 'seed corn', we'd lose the land it grew on. And we are.

For the millionth time, I say the media is not a friend, for so many reasons. All 'news' stories are designed to divert us off the theft in process and brainwash us into the next round of theft.

Endless growth for a few on the planet, including most of the fabled 99%, is just plain suicide, IMO.

Second, the GNP is touted as the solution for a nation's prosperity. It isn't. Wealth doesn't buy real joy or meaning to life, it only buys more of its own innate corruption, dead and temporary things and the destruction of the living being reduced to the level of commodities, that is by definition, for using up and then discarding. 'For whose benefit is all this chaos being done to so many?' I always ask.

The things being destroyed are irreplaceable, like species and communities. It is a function of where one is to rejoice in this state of affairs and call it wealth. I cannot be happy buying vanities, destroying the future, even the hard work of the generations passing or have passed in their idealism and sacrifice.

An example is the planned obsolence model of consumerism that is wrong and wasteful of time and resources, and the media facilitates it. (Enough about my ire for the media.)

The things being done around the planet, both to the living and our spirits, is obscene. I recall the words of RFK on GNP and I took them seriously and have pondered on it ever since:

Please forget any and all 'HRC bashers.' They're hurting themselves just by being what they are. Don't waste your time, as HRC doesn't, because she's using her fire power on the GOP, as always. It's why they hate her so much, she will not allow them to talk down to her belief system.

There are epic smack downs she has done to the GOP in Congress, in the Senate and as SoS. They always, and will continue with it, and come away looking stupid. To us in our liberal bubble. To them, it's all a big win to block their version of the natural order of things, with a few at the top ruling the rest of us. And that's even before they went apeshit. It's all they have, no substance even though power gives that appearance.

Still, we must think of something better. I see giving agency to women as an essential part of maintaining the ecosystem. Overpopulation is the breeding ground for poverty and empire which creates environmental disaster. This is history, pre-history, and a natural cycle that has been inescapable and leads to permanent changes in human and animal population and landscape.

We're going into a period of scarcity, diverted by consumerism to take our minds off of what is being degraded. Satellites are monitoring the loss of arable land and vegetation that sustains the circle of life. It's been hidden bycultural blindness. There are apocalyptic scenes that don't stay in the world's consciousness long enough to do enough.
So am I. nt LWolf Sep 2015 #1
Exactly. Growth, by definition, is an unsustainable concept. HappyPlace Sep 2015 #95
YES. nt LWolf Sep 2015 #122
#feelTheBern2016 newfie11 Sep 2015 #2
Neo liberal austerity garbage Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #3
I agree, Sanders should not be conceding garbage neo-liberal economic talking points DanTex Sep 2015 #5
You have no clue on what you are talking about Ichingcarpenter Sep 2015 #19
Umm, the links are by Stiglitz and Piketty. Do you consider them neo-liberal? DanTex Sep 2015 #22
He does, and supplies links. Also check my post because I do know what I'm talking about. PatrickforO Sep 2015 #130
Indeed...too many are now "wised up" about Wall Street and the Rest KoKo Sep 2015 #111
what growth? ibegurpard Sep 2015 #4
Can't put it any better than that. Thank you. djean111 Sep 2015 #7
+1000 Hydra Sep 2015 #41
...! KoKo Sep 2015 #113
/\_/\_This right here_/\_/\ Scuba Sep 2015 #119
I would recommend but for the editorial comment by the OP. morningfog Sep 2015 #6
+1 dorkzilla Sep 2015 #52
Self-pwned by your own OP marmar Sep 2015 #8
Create jobs by demonizing wealth. SonderWoman Sep 2015 #9
Have you even read your own sig ? TheFarS1de Sep 2015 #11
really? lol n/t retrowire Sep 2015 #12
Is that a Ronald Reagan quote? Armstead Sep 2015 #18
wow. nt m-lekktor Sep 2015 #64
5 minutes ago the talking point was that Sanders supporters are all 1%er elitists. Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #96
yeah it's a bad looking growth though retrowire Sep 2015 #10
I get the feeling that some of your critics never bothered to read the material at the MADem Sep 2015 #13
The responses say a lot about the economic literacy level of Hillary bashers. DanTex Sep 2015 #15
Ain't that the truth...! MADem Sep 2015 #17
Battling for a share of an increasingly smaller economic pie... DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2015 #37
Dan I gotta be honest with you Armstead Sep 2015 #24
You're a smart person too, which means you certainly are aware of the Hillary bashing going on here. DanTex Sep 2015 #30
She does make me want to throw my shoe -- as have many other Democrats over the last 30 years Armstead Sep 2015 #36
I don't buy the "both sides" thing in this case. There are a lot of asymmetries. DanTex Sep 2015 #40
It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. I feel the same way you do from the other side. Armstead Sep 2015 #46
Not in this case. I've seen no threads accusing Sanders of being a racist. Can you link to one? DanTex Sep 2015 #48
Well, I'm going to agree to disagree Armstead Sep 2015 #49
I think most of the folks disagreeing with you here... Blus4u Sep 2015 #39
Yes, that is my take on this OP and replies, too. Hiraeth Sep 2015 #88
A one track mind is a burden to all. But I have reason to agree with BS on this: freshwest Sep 2015 #107
Well, one supposedly did ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2015 #26
Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #63
What the ever loving fuck??? sufrommich Sep 2015 #66
LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2015 #71
So glad it got a Hide. Cha Sep 2015 #134
Glad that racist dribble got a Hide. Cha Sep 2015 #133
Actually, wealth redistribution can help growth. It can produce more demand in an economy. mmonk Sep 2015 #14
Yes, that was my point. DanTex Sep 2015 #16
. mmonk Sep 2015 #21
Decreasing wealth inequality is the only way to lasting growth that won't come crashing down in RichVRichV Sep 2015 #87
+1 mmonk Sep 2015 #100
Rule Number One: Never trust economic arguments. Never. DetlefK Sep 2015 #20
Well, the problem is, you have to make economic policy somehow, so you have to trust something. DanTex Sep 2015 #23
Exactly. And we have plenty of examples through global history. mmonk Sep 2015 #27
And we've been trusting the wrong people and somethings for too long Armstead Sep 2015 #32
Hillary is not Bill. DanTex Sep 2015 #33
It's not a matter of "sacrificing" growth. It's what type of growth. Armstead Sep 2015 #38
It is in the way Bernie is phrasing it. DanTex Sep 2015 #44
Except Bernie isn't phrasing it that way. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #80
Clearly implying that he's willing to accept less growth in order to redistribute. DanTex Sep 2015 #84
Correct. Not, as you have insisted, that redistribution necessitates stymieing growth. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #89
WTF??? LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #60
Which do you disagree with? Obama more left than Bill, or Hillary more left than Obama? DanTex Sep 2015 #69
Socially or economically? LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #70
Both. DanTex Sep 2015 #75
So are you still clinging to the strawman that Bernie wants to sacrifice growth? LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #77
He came out and said that he was willing to see less growth. I'm not mischaracterizing it at all. DanTex Sep 2015 #82
Actual headline: The thing Bernie Sanders says about inequality that no other candidate will touch Hiraeth Sep 2015 #93
Poor choice of wording is "sacrifice". "Controlled growth" would be a better phrase, I think. Hiraeth Sep 2015 #90
Do you trust the "trickle-down-theory"? DetlefK Sep 2015 #34
No. DanTex Sep 2015 #35
Our leaders have trusted that if they take care of the wealthy the wealthy will in turn take care of Autumn Sep 2015 #42
False premise. RDANGELO Sep 2015 #25
Actually, that was the OP's point. N/t 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2015 #28
Which is why Bernie shouldn't be talking about sacrificing growth. DanTex Sep 2015 #31
Bernie is right. We shouldn’t worry so much about economic growth if that growth serves Autumn Sep 2015 #43
Except he's not. Sacrifice is your word, your imagery, your choice, Bernie is not saying any such Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #59
+1,000 LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #61
The OP will not respond. Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #62
I do believe there is a name for such an argument, where one misrepresenst the views LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #65
thank you. no wonder this thread is a hot mess. Hiraeth Sep 2015 #92
The words he used that seem to be invisible to you are Autumn Sep 2015 #114
Economic Growth Is Dead - Redistribution Is All That Is Left cantbeserious Sep 2015 #29
We need to start talking about reducing growth Hydra Sep 2015 #45
Context! drm604 Sep 2015 #47
Pish. Fawke Em Sep 2015 #50
Post removed Post removed Sep 2015 #51
This argument is disingenuous. nt. druidity33 Sep 2015 #53
Eeek! Bernie wants to take away our yachts!!! Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #54
LMAO!!! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #121
I'm sooo tired of hearing kacekwl Sep 2015 #55
You mischaracterize, he does not say 'sacrifice growth' he says pursue healthy growth and equitable Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #56
"Socialism! BOOGA WOOGGA!" LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #57
Sounds like boloney to me; elleng Sep 2015 #58
Did I accidentally stumble into Reaganomics Underground or something Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #67
Sort of LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #72
Good luck trying to win a presidential campaign arguing that we don't need growth. DanTex Sep 2015 #76
You are reinforcing an inaccurate portrayal Armstead Sep 2015 #78
"Healthy" growth rates in this case means "lower" growth rates. DanTex Sep 2015 #86
and they might Armstead Sep 2015 #91
Of course he is. That is his objective. djean111 Sep 2015 #101
yep. Hiraeth Sep 2015 #108
But he doesn't say that. You're totally making that up. arcane1 Sep 2015 #81
Except he's not talking about redistribution at the expense of growth. Scootaloo Sep 2015 #83
Apparently the drug war is great, too, it just needs more money. Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #97
I believe that is a good thing, as current growth is not sustainable. Xyzse Sep 2015 #68
We ought to talk to the Pope about this. Ron Green Sep 2015 #73
When 99% of all new 'growth' goes to the top 1% AgingAmerican Sep 2015 #74
I'm glad he and I are in agreement. arcane1 Sep 2015 #79
Until balance is obtained the pendulum will make a wide arc. Simply put, Sanders is right. Hiraeth Sep 2015 #85
Conservatives claim it is a zero sum game -- it's not Armstead Sep 2015 #94
Fuck capitalism ... GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #98
And that is why I support him - TBF Sep 2015 #99
Sorry I'm late to this thread. Now please tell me what the fuck this is all about. HappyPlace Sep 2015 #102
damn, I had to look twice to make sure I wasn't on National Reviews m-lekktor Sep 2015 #103
Growth is a myth....redistribute now. bowens43 Sep 2015 #104
That works for me. Repugs are always talking "growth" whathehell Sep 2015 #105
Unfettered growth isn't always good; just look at cancer. n/t Avalux Sep 2015 #106
Unrec. n/t Admiral Loinpresser Sep 2015 #109
It is OK, Dan. We got this. Relax. Agony Sep 2015 #110
Unrec right wing tripe. PowerToThePeople Sep 2015 #112
Bingo! Scuba Sep 2015 #120
This is one of my many concerns with Bernie as our candidate. DCBob Sep 2015 #115
Yes, conservative Democrats who have the same views as the GOP Armstead Sep 2015 #116
It's getting harder to tell the difference between the two. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #118
Because if we all have more, we participate in the economy, more. Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #117
This is rather close to a republican argument. kenfrequed Sep 2015 #123
Ironically, it's Bernie who is conceding the supply-side economics talking points here. DanTex Sep 2015 #125
You paraphrase poorly Armstead Sep 2015 #127
How wonderfully dishonest of you. kenfrequed Sep 2015 #128
unchecked growth is called cancer JackInGreen Sep 2015 #124
I rec'd the post for what Sanders said NowSam Sep 2015 #126
Ah, the new establishment meme! PatrickforO Sep 2015 #129
It's a losing strategy in the GE. Plain and simple. redstateblues Sep 2015 #131
Because I think that, long term, we need to change our economic model to one based on sustainability Agnosticsherbet Sep 2015 #132
In and of itself, "growth" only benefits the rich. Ken Burch Sep 2015 #135
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders is willing to sac...»Reply #107