The Ultimate and Most Important and Fundamental Economic Question in the World

[Time for change]

For human societies, the most fundamental and important economic question is why resources (or wealth) are distributed the way that they are. Some would object that an equally or more important question is how to increase the total amount of resources available to humanity.

These are both very important issues. But I maintain that the former is a much more important question for humanity today, simply because human societies have in general done such a poor job of addressing it. There is plenty enough food today to feed the world, for example. Yet because food is so unequally distributed, 820 million people, 12.5% of the world’s population, are undernourished today. And something similar can be said about every other resource required by humans to lead decent lives.


Why the question of resource distribution is so important

Distribution of wealth within and among human societies is not something that “just happens”. Human societies choose the laws, policies and customs under which they operate, which in turn determines who gets what. The answer to the question of WHY wealth is distributed as it is determines whether or not attempts should be made to change our nation’s laws so as to alter wealth distribution.

Inequality of wealth in the world and in the United States is truly astounding – and it is increasing at a fast rate. In the United States in 2001, 1% of the population controlled 38% of the wealth, whereas the bottom 40% owned just 1%. That means that, on average, individuals in the top 1% owned about 1,500 times more wealth than individuals in the bottom 40%. Wealth between countries is also severely unequal. The United States, with only 5% of the world’s population, owns 27% of the world’s wealth, whereas Africa, with 11% of the world’s population, owns only 1.5% of the world’s wealth.

Some will object that the question of why wealth is unequally distributed is blatantly obvious and needs no discussion. That is true. To wealthy hard core conservative ideologues it is blatantly obvious that the current state of unequal wealth distribution is necessary in order for society to function or that the wealthy are wealthy because they earn their wealth and the poor are poor because they don’t. To many liberals, on the other hand, it is obvious that the current unequal distribution of wealth is a moral abomination, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and exists simply because of some variation of the phrase “might makes right”.

As a liberal, I am much more inclined to the latter explanation. However, I don’t believe that merely stating the situation like that is an adequate way to address the issue. That statement is bound to be convincing to liberals, since they already believe it. But I believe that it’s much more important to discuss the issue in a way that relates to moderates – for what I hope are obvious reasons.

So, why is this question so important? Well, the fact is that the degree of wealth inequality in the world and in our country today is a moral abomination. People shouldn’t have to starve when there is enough food for everyone. People shouldn’t suffer and die of curable diseases when the means to treat them is readily available. People shouldn’t have to live in the streets when there is enough shelter for everyone. And people shouldn’t have to be jobless when there is plenty of work that needs to be done….
Unless… there is some overriding reason for all this, as the conservative ideologues who run the Republican Party tell us.


CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS TO JUSTIFY WEALTH INEQUALITY

Virtually all conservative arguments used to justify the status quo make use of slightly different variations of the same theme.


Productive efficiency – making the economic pie bigger

Their first argument is that all of society benefits from a great amount of income inequality because the lavish incomes bestowed upon the wealthy provide the incentives that they require in order to produce what society needs. In this view, whereas the economic pie is divided unevenly, the uneven division of the pie causes the pie to expand so that ultimately everyone gets more. Everyone benefits.

Another way to explain the situation from this point of view is that the huge amounts of money received by the wealthy get to “trickle down” to everyone else. That is called “trickle down economics”, and it was introduced to our country on a mass basis by the Ronald Reagan Presidency.

That explains why it is fitting that the average CEO earns 431 times the amount of annual salary as his average worker. A multi-million dollar salary is required to give the CEO the incentive to produce what he produces. With a more equal distribution of wealth, the CEO would produce less, and all his workers would suffer for that.

What about CEOs who run their company into the ground, cause it to go bankrupt, and bail out with millions of dollars in bonuses? Well, uh, that looks bad on the surface, but… Well, the truth is that I don’t know exactly how they explain that. Maybe giving the CEOs a huge bonus for bankrupting their company incites them to do better next time.


Fairness

A slight variation of the above theme is fairness. This argument asserts that it is only fair to reward the most productive members of society, even if it isn’t absolutely necessary to do so in order to make the economic pie bigger.

I agree with that general principle, and I believe that most liberals agree with that. But the question is where to draw the line. And how is it determined, for example, that some individuals should have two thousand (or a million) times as much wealth as others?


The free market

As an answer to the above question, conservative ideologues say that the “free market” decides. It is not necessary for any government or individuals to make decisions about wealth distribution because the “invisible hand of the free market” makes all those decisions.

That is why conservative ideologues are vehemently against progressive taxation or any taxation of inheritance whatsoever. They aren’t totally against any taxation, since they recognize the need for their government to have a strong military (if nothing else), but they believe that current systems of taxation are unfair to the wealthy and that they disrupt the role of the “free market” in determining wealth distribution.


“Socialism”

The attitude of conservative ideologues towards “socialism” was expressed during one of the Republican primary debates when John McCain was asked about his opinion of universal health care for our country. In a voice dripping with contempt, McCain simply said that universal health care is out of the question because it would constitute “socialism”. No further explanation was needed because the word itself denotes evil to an American conservative ideologue. That’s why I put the word in quotes.


LIBERAL COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Productive efficiency – making the economic pie bigger

To put it quite simply, the economic theory of “trickle down economics, which is at the heart of the argument that unequal distribution of wealth leads to a bigger economic pie, is a myth with no basis in reality. There never was a basis in reality for it. It is simply an ideology.

Right wing conservatives have warned of dire consequences from any attempt to increase taxes on the wealthy ever since the idea was first voiced. From those warnings you would think that the very high rates of taxation on the wealthy starting with FDR’s presidency, and lasting for half a century, would have resulted in catastrophic economic consequences, notwithstanding the reductions in income inequality achieved in part by that taxation. However, just the opposite turned out to be the case.

This chart shows median family income levels, beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics on this issue first became available. With the top marginal tax rate approaching 90% at this time, median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 in 1980. Then, for the next 25 years, except for some moderate growth during the Clinton years, there was almost no growth in median income at all, which rose only to $56,194 by 2005 (85% of that growth accounted for during the Clinton years). However one wants to interpret those numbers, nobody could possibly conclude that they indicate overall bad financial consequences accruing from high tax rates on the wealthy. To the contrary, as economist Paul Krugman notes, this period coincides with “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”.

So much for trickle down economics.

It is also of interest to consider the effects on our national debt, which has currently reached unprecedented levels, and which really does portend a financial crisis in our country. This graph, which shows change in our national debt by year, says it all:



Note the two huge mountains of increasing national debt in this picture. One began with the Reagan administration and went on for the 12 years of Reagan and Bush I presidencies. Then following 8 years of precipitous decrease in the rate of debt accumulation, the onset of the Bush II presidency was marked by another, even more precipitous increase in debt accumulation than was the Reagan presidency. In other words, where we have seen huge tax reductions for the wealthy we have concurrently seen huge increases in our national debt, with no compensatory rise (and even a slowing) of median income.

What do you think those mountains of debt are likely to mean for the quality of life of our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren?


Fairness

Let’s go back to the question of why a CEO who drives his company into bankruptcy, ruins the company, and wipes out the life savings of most of the company’s workers gets a multi-million dollar bonus when he leaves the company. Does that happen because he has the power to make it happen or does it happen because he deserves the money?

The issue of what is fair and what is unfair is, of course, very complicated, so I don’t want to be dogmatic about the issue. I personally feel that driving a company into bankruptcy and ruining peoples’ lives in the process doesn’t warrant a multi-million dollar bonus. But hey, if anyone can give me a good argument for it I’m ready to listen.


The free market

I am all for the general principle of competition to provide an incentive for providing a good product at a reasonable price. At its best, that is what the free market is all about. However, there are numerous situations in which the free market does not apply very well or is not the best means of providing goods or services. I discuss those situations in detail in this post.

Furthermore, there is really no such thing as a pure free market. Our whole economy is based on a gigantic legal system that is backed up by the power of the state. A nation’s economy could not run without such a system. The question is not whether a nation’s economy can exist without state enforced rules. It can’t. The question is what the rules will be and whom they will benefit. One good example of this is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an agreement that established a sort of international “free market”. Greg Palast, in his book “Armed Madhouse”, describes how that worked out:

The giant sucking was not, as Perot predicted, so much the jobs gone south, but the sound of cash vacuumed from the workers’ pockets in both nations to the owner class as workers in Juarez competed with workers in Detroit. Both lost. Real wages fell on both sides of the border…

William Greider provides another great example in a recent article in The Nation titled “Economic Free Fall”. In that article Greider discusses how Congress has attempted to ameliorate our economic crisis by providing economic assistance to … ahem … those who need it:

Washington’s selective generosity for influential financial losers is deforming democracy and opening the path to an awesomely powerful corporate state… Hundreds of billions in open-ended relief has been delivered to the largest and most powerful mega-banks and investment firms, while government offers only weak gestures of sympathy for struggling producers, workers and consumers. The bailouts are rewarding the very people and institutions whose reckless behavior caused this financial mess. Yet government demands nothing from them in return…

Washington can act with breathtaking urgency when the right people want something done. In this case, the people are Wall Street's titans… Talk about warped priorities! The government puts up $29 billion as a "sweetener" for JP Morgan but can only come up with $4 billion for Cleveland, Detroit and other urban ruins.

Socialism

It is worth asking why the words “socialism” or “communism” inspire such negative connotations in our country that the mere use of the word is enough to explain why a particular policy is bad or evil. Our nation’s economic system actually contains many elements of socialism – though the word dare not be used. Medicare, Social Security, public education, and even our military all operate at least partially on socialistic principles, in that tax dollars are used to pay for programs that are meant to benefit large portions of our population.

So why is “socialism” such a dirty word in our country? Very simply, it is this: When tax money is used to support social programs such as public education, health care, welfare, or Social Security, the poor, working and middle class benefit at the expense of some reduction in the wealth of the wealthy. Consequently, the wealthy use every means at their disposal, which is considerable, to demonize “socialism”.

It is true, of course, that socialism has similarities to communism, and that our 46-year Cold War was fought against a Communist nation that was also a brutal dictatorship, especially in the years when it was ruled by Joseph Stalin. Thus, “Communism” became synonymous with brutal dictatorship in our country. But that is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Most brutal dictatorships are not Communist or socialist. And there is no reason why a democratic political system cannot co-exist with a socialist or even a communist economic system. There are Socialist and Communist political parties in many nations of the world. In a democratic political system why shouldn’t they have the same right as any other party to run for elective office? I am not a communist. But I believe in democracy, and if my fellow countrypersons choose to elect a socialist or a communist president, I don’t see what right I’d have to complain about that. There is no prohibition against either socialism or communism in our Constitution.


HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

The current rationalizations used by wealthy conservative ideologues to justify the status quo, including their enormous share of the world’s wealth, are not new to history. These rationalizations are as old as civilization itself. Let’s consider some of historical examples with the view that they may shed some light on our current controversies. The questions we should consider are: What determined the distribution of wealth and power in the past? And how did the wealthy and powerful justify their disproportionate share of wealth and power?


Overuse of resources by absolute rulers

Since the onset of civilization about 5500 years ago, and even several thousand years before that, human societies have been ruled by ruling elites. Until very recent times, the vast majority of those ruling elites have been absolute rulers, i.e. dictatorships.

Jared Diamond, a professor of geography, evolutionary biologist, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, writes about how various historical societies have died out, in his “Best Book of the Year”, “Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”. Diamond explains that there are many reasons for societal failures. Chief among these reasons is the over-use of resources, leading to resource depletion. That often occurs when a society’s rulers require the working/productive portion of the population to utilize a highly disproportionate amount of resources for the sole benefit of the ruling elite:

Some people (i.e. the ruling elite) may reason correctly that they can advance their own interests by behavior harmful to other people. Scientists term such behavior “rational” precisely because it employs correct reasoning, even though it may be morally reprehensible. The perpetrators know that they will often get away with their bad behavior, especially if there is no law against it…

Conflict of interest involving rational behavior arises when the interests of the decision-making elite in power clash with the interests of the rest of society. Especially if the elite can insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions, they are likely to do things that profit themselves, regardless of whether those actions hurt everybody else…

Throughout recorded history, actions or inactions by self-absorbed kings, chiefs, and politicians have been a regular cause of societal collapses, including those of the Maya Kings, Greenland Norse chiefs… As a result of lust for power, Easter Island chiefs and Maya kings acted so as to accelerate deforestation rather than to prevent it: their status depended on their putting up bigger statues and monuments than their rivals… That’s a regular problem with competitions for prestige, which are judged on a short time frame…

Significantly, Diamond found not a single example of a society that collapsed because too small a share of resources went to the ruling elite.

Ruling elites have used many rationalizations to justify their power over other people. Chief among those rationalizations has been the citing of supernatural forces, including God, gods, or demons. Only in relatively recent times, with the partial displacement of the supernatural by scientific research, have these rationalizations turned from the supernatural to other things, such as “the free market” and other justifications discussed earlier in this post.


Examples from U.S. history

Europeans settled the present day United States by displacing and nearly exterminating the native population. Every excuse in the book was used to justify this, including self-defense, the claim that Native Americans didn’t deserve the land they occupied because they were “uncivilized”, and the God-ordained paradigm of “Manifest Destiny”.

Much of the early U.S. economic system was based on slavery. Again, this was justified for all the “best” of reasons, mostly involving claims that black people were inferior, uncivilized, savage, etc. etc. etc. The idea was also advanced that black people benefited from being slaves and owed their masters a debt of gratitude for giving them the chance to “serve”. Even today some Neanderthals continue to advance that point of view. Take for example, Pat Buchanan, in his enthusiasm for criticizing the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, for not being gracious enough:

The Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

And Buchanan is a full-fledged talking head and representative of our so-called “mainstream media”!


The dominance of the Indo-European language family

Going further back in history, Jared Diamond discusses in his latest book, “The Third Chimpanzee – The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal”, how it was that the Indo-European language family became the dominant language in the world, as it is today. It should be kept in mind that the dominance of their language was undoubtedly accompanied by many other forms of dominance by the original speakers of that language family.

Diamond provides evidence that the original proto-Indo-European (PIE) language began in the Russian steppes, east of the Dnieper River. It was about 5300 years that the inhabitants of that area invaded Europe, in the process imposing a culture and language upon large areas of the world that has remained dominant to the present day. What enabled them to do that was the domestication of wild horses:

Most important, speed helped warriors to launch quick surprise raids on distant enemies and to withdraw again before the enemies had time to organize a counterattack. Hence throughout the world the horse revolutionized warfare and enabled horse-owning peoples to terrorize their neighbors.

Therefore, it was not any innate superiority that allowed these people to spread their influence and domination throughout the world. Rather:

Their success, like that of the second-stage European expansion that began in 1492, was an accident of biogeography. They happened to be the peoples whose homeland combined abundant wild horses and open steppe with proximity to Mid-eastern and European centers of civilization.

CONCLUSION

A review of human history shows us that: grossly unequal distribution of resources and wealth has been commonplace throughout history; that the elites on the high end of that distribution have used every explanation imaginable to justify their privileged position, with little or no concern for the truth of their claims; and that the results have tended to be disastrous for the bulk of humanity.

There have been improvements. For example, most of the world today recognizes the immorality of slavery and wars of aggression. Nevertheless, those who hold monumental wealth and power continue to come up with new rationalizations to justify their privileged positions. The most powerful nation on earth invades weaker nations with valuable resources, not for selfish purposes but for reasons of self-defense or to “spread the benefits of democracy” to the “uncivilized” nations of the world. At the same time, the wealthy and powerful of the world justify their claim to grossly disproportionate ownership of the world’s resources with every lofty rationalization they can think of, while hundreds of millions of the world’s inhabitants starve. In the wealthiest nation in the world, unemployment is purposely kept high so that its wealthy corporations can reap the benefits of a desperate work force, while they convince the majority of their fellow citizens that the main cause of unemployment is the laziness of those who refuse to work. To justify the withholding of needed social services from the population, the word “socialism” is demonized, while the wealthy exhibit no reluctance to benefit from their own brand of socialism. As William Greider explains, with respect to our current economic crisis:

A generation of conservative propaganda, arguing that markets make wiser decisions than government, has been destroyed by these events. The interventions amount to socialism, American style, in which the government decides which private enterprises are "too big to fail."

There is a very good reason for all the rationalizations of the rich and powerful, to justify their privilege, especially in a democracy. Once a large enough proportion of the population recognizes the fraud being perpetrated upon them, they are unlikely to stand for it any longer. A problem cannot be satisfactorily addressed until it is exposed. And it can’t be exposed until it is at least viewed as a potential problem that is worthy of discussion.

These issues need much more discussion than they currently receive.

[Kire]

1. TRIBUTE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcJwz7wu8_s

sorry, seems a bit long for me, and a bit broad

I hope there won't be a test.

I did see at the end where you say these problems need to be exposed before they are satisfactorily addresses. Do you have any solutions, or any ideas in what direction to go to solve the problems? Preferably ones that don't involve force or intimidation?

[Time for change]

2. Yes

A major source of the problem is that these things are never discussed by our so-called "mainstream" news media. The reason that it's never discussed it that the news that most people receive is owned by the very corporate elites who have an abiding interest in maintaining the status quo.

An independent press would consider this issue of major importance to the American people, and they would discuss it. As people became more informed on how our laws are more a more tilted for the benefit of the rich at the expense of everyone else, there would be outrage in this country, and that outrage would translate into pressure on our elected representatives to reverse course. And of course they would go along with the will of the people in order to maintain their jobs, or else they would be replaced by others who are interested in responding to the needs of the American people.

So, how do we disrupt the corporate monopoly on our major news media? There are basically two routes. One is that we need to reverse laws that have enabled the corporate media to build up their monopoly of the news -- most especially the Telecommunications Act of 1996. An alternative way to go about it would be for the people to develop their own news media. John Nichols talks about that in his book, "Our Media, Not Theirs". There are already many movements underway to do that. I can't explain very well exactly what it would take to make those movements a success, but I highly recommend reading Nichols' book.

[Kire]

3. Why would they discuss it?

What is there to discuss?

It seems like all that is being said here is that "something", the answer to the universe, I suppose, is not being discussed...

Is this a plug for a John Nichols book? I've got a lot on my reading list already, could you summarize it for me?

[Time for change]

30. They should discuss it because it is of great importance to the American people

That's what professional news organizations are supposed to do in a democracy.

You indicate on your first post of this thread that you only read the very last part of my OP. So why would you ask a snarky question like "What is there to discuss"?

[Kire]

34. it didn't catch my attention

The first three sentences said something is "important", "important", "important" and my eyes glazed over. That's just what they do in some situations like that. It wasn't a personal attack against you. I'm serious.

And the last sentence said we need to expose the problem and let somebody else, like the media, fix it.

that's all I need to know

This is what I consider abstract.

If I am walking down the street, will I bump into "restibution of wealth" on the street. Can I talk to it? Will it hurt me? Will it help me?

It's just an idea. And it doesn't affect me, unless someone is in my face threatening me with something about it.

Maybe I was snarky, but did you see where I was getting at about the "force and intimidation" idea?

If not, could try to explain. But, I can't guarantee anything. I'm going on vacation for 10 days on Saturday. I probably won't be able to post unless it's an emergency.

I hope whatever is important about this can be addressed within the next 24 hours. Otherwise, it will have to wait.

Thank you

Kire

[Time for change]

42. I would suggest in the future that if you only read the first and last sentence of a long post

that you don't make insulting comments about it. If you think that the first and last sentence "that's all I need to know", then any comment you make about the post is not likely to be productive.

As far as "force and intimidation", I did not advocate that in my article. If you would have read it you would have konwn that.

[Kire]

51. I didn't intend to insult you

I intended to debate with you.

You said there's a problem, a very important, important, important problem.

Then you said the media needs to fix it.

That was your thesis. Was it not?

Is there anything else that I'm missing? Like why should I go out of my way of what I consider important to help you? I would like to help you, but you didn't say what anything should be done about it.

Go ahead and feel hurt if you want, but that is not my intention.

I have some experience writing scholarly papers, and they need a thesis, some main points to support the thesis and a conclusion, which usually includes recommendations for a solution to the problem.

You stated that wealth inequality is the most important issue in the ultimate history of the universe, and then you described the arguments, for and against it, throughout history. Your conclusion thesis was "A review of human history shows us that: grossly unequal distribution of resources and wealth has been commonplace throughout history"

You didn't say anything that I didn't already know.

So far the solution is to rip the bandaid off the wound and beg the media to publish pictures of the bloody stump so some magical figure can come and kiss it and make it better.

That is my interpretation of your paper.

Do you mind sumarrizing it in your own words?

If anybody wants to solve the problems in society, it's me. If that is your goal, I'm with you. Even if that's not your goal, I'm with you. I just think we have different goals.

Keep posting. Never fear. Don't hide from history.

Warm Regards,
Kire

[Time for change]

53. I welcome debate

But you acknowledge that you didn't read the vast majority of what I wrote. Yet you feel that you can interpret it from reading a couple of sentences at the beginning and at the end. I don't see the point of debating something with someone who hasn't even read what they say they want to debate. Isn't that reasonable?

[Kire]

54. What do you want to debate about?

If you don't see the point, then what are you replying to me for?

It was about the redistribution of resources. It described some of the arguments, and it didn't say which one was better. Then it said that the problem shoudl be talked about some more.

A debate happens when two ideas conflict somehow. There should be a tension and a resolution.

Thanks.

I'm going to bed now.

When I wake up I'll be getting in a car and going on a plane and visiting my family.

By that time, this thread will probably be dropped to archive level. If you'd like to tell me what you want to debate about other than I said I didn't read something, and then I asked you to describe what I should be looking for, and you said there was no point, then PM me.

If not, then I wish you luck in all your endeavors.

Warm Regards,
Kire

[LongTomH]

9. Test or not, I plan to return to this editorial for study!

A brilliant analysis, as always.

K&R :kick:

[Time for change]

24. Thank you

[dccrossman]

4. The tide is slowly shifting

The fact that some form of expanded healthcare now seems a foregone conclusion in the next decade or so is at least a small sign that we are moving forward.

Unfortunately, conservative idealogues are very good at creating "bumper sticker statements" that capture a message they want to convey.

Add to that the social connotation to socialism and communism with the USSR, as you allude to.

It's easy to say "personal responsibility", "the market will adjust", etc... They come down to trusting people who have profit as an overriding motive above those that have, at least in theory, public service as an overriding motive. When capitalism is the primary religion of your culture and everything is for profit, then people, by default, believe that the status quo is the easiest way forward. Inertia. Based on what people can see, it seems to make sense. As an individual, you would rather be in control of your finances, etc...

The progressive argument is more difficult to make because it requires explaining to people that the deck has been stacked against them and they can't necessarily see it. People don't want to hear that. To steal a line from "Men In Black" (paraphrased), "A person is smart, people are stupid, and you know it." You can talk to individuals and show them the information and help them understand how they've been duped and that it isn't because of a lack of intelligence on their part, its a problem with the system. But when you go explaining this to large groups, it just takes too long and attention spans just won't handle it.

I'm a little disjointed today, so I'll leave it there. Bookmarked this article and will probably read and share it with my friends over the next several days.

[conscious evolution]

5. What do you think the effects of

monotheism and its hierarchical structure has on inequities in resource distribution?

[Time for change]

6. I haven't thought a lot about that

I don't know what effect it has.

The hierarchical structure that characterizes monotheism in general could exacerbate the problem.

On the other hand, the Christian religion also teaches that we should take care of the poor, which should alleviate the problem some, to the extent that that advice is followed.

Of course, God has often been invoked as an excuse for inequities in resource distribution. But I don't believe that that means that monotheism is responsible for it -- but only that it provides a convenient excuse.

My overall belief is that it doesn't have much effect, but I have an open mind towards the question.

[tama]

7. Indo-Europeans

Other, more convincing theories see the spreading of Indo-European languages coincidental with spreading of agriculture - or rather, unsustainable cultivation of land by mining the fertile soil that millions of years of photosynthesis has produced.

Also to be noted that among human languages (modern) Indo-European have exceptionally strong morphosyntax of subject-object division and allmost no way of talking beyond or regardless that division. Objectification of nature as a mere resource for the trascendental subject and his infinite greed, man above nature instead of participation in nature as integral part.

[glitch]

12. Very interesting. K & R for tfc posts, always thought provoking. nt

[Uncle Joe]

17. I agree, however I believe the language may be changing as well

in adapting to the growing realization of an ever shrinking world with finite resources.

I cite the increasing popularity of the terms "green," "renewable," "sustainable," and maybe even "permaculture" in our considerations of public policy.

Maybe if our language changes enough, we will become more in tune not just with nature but the rest of humanity as well.

[tama]

18. True

"Language moves down time in a current of its own making. It has a drift."
- Edward Sapir

[Ghost Dog]

38. .

Caminante son tus huellas
El camino nada más;
caminante no hay camino
se hace camino al andar.
Al andar se hace camino
y al volver la vista atrás
se ve la senda que nunca
se ha de volver a pisar.
Caminante, no hay camino
sino estelas sobre el mar.
¿Para que llamar caminos
A los surcos del azar...?
Todo el que camina anda,
Como Jesús sobre el mar.

Yo amo a Jesús que nos dijo:
Cielo y tierra pasarán
Cuando cielo y tierra pasen
mi palabra quedará.
¿Cuál fue Jesús tu palabra?
¿Amor?, ¿perdón?, ¿caridad?
Todas tus palabras fueron
una palabra: Velad.
Como no sabéis la hora
En que os han de despertar,
Os despertarán dormidos
si no veláis; despertad.

- Antonio Machado

[tama]

46. Thanks

Too bad my Spanish is even worse than my English.

[Time for change]

21. The spreading of the Indo-European languages coincidental with spreading of agriculture

is not inconsistent with Diamond's explanation. He provides a good deal of evidence that PIE did not begin in Europe, and goes on to show evidence that it began in the Russian steppes. After it was established in Europe, the spread of agriculture and other advantages of civilization probably had a lot to do with its further spread.

[tama]

36. Renfrew hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

[Hannah Bell]

44. Bunch of BS. Which "indo-european" languages? for which period?

this "morphosyntax of subject object division with no way of talking beyond or regardless that division" - how would you say that, in, for example, 6th century urdu?

You read a book, it sounded nice, you repeat it like you know something.

Japanese doesn't have to make the distinction you speak of: Japanese historically killed lots of people & japan is now 1/4 cement.


and wow, language is changing? revelatory!!!

[tama]

49. Well

I have academic background in general linguistics, I've read and thought a lot about philosophies of language etc., I'm a professional translator and a published poet. With that kind of experience I might have something to share. But something tells me you are not interested in hearing and discussing but only mocking because of some personal antipathy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. A quote of J K Galbraith, used by DUer as his signature line seems to fit the bill here:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

[Time for change]

32. Yeah, that says it all

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether they're just trying to fool other people, or themselves as well.

[Greyhound]

10. K & R.

Another great piece.

Here's hoping it gets some love.:toast:

[Time for change]

11. Thank you greyhound

:toast:

[LonelyLRLiberal]

13. In past history, isn't the ultimate result of resource inequality , an uprising of the masses?

If the poor get poor enough, or if the numbers of poor and suffering increase vastly, don't you risk that? If so, does that explain the token economic benefits handed down to the more economically disadvantaged masses?

[Time for change]

16. It often is

Although sometimes regimes can get away with very severe repression for a long period of time without appearing to pay a high price -- as in Pinochet's Chile starting in 1973 and going on for many years.

I think that there are a lot of factors involved. We are dealing with an uprising in Iraq, which is due partly to resource inequality, but it's also due to a lot of other things.

In the U.S. things would have to get a lot worse, I believe, before we had an actual violent uprising. Question is, how far are we going to go in allowing abuses of power before we do something about it?

I think it's true that that risk explains at least to some extent token benefits that are handed down. Some say that that was the purpose behind FDR's New Deal -- though I'm inclined to believe that FDR was sincere in his view the the New Deal was the right way to go. On the other hand, sometimes regimes respond with increased repression rather than token benefits. It seems to me that sometimes one is more effective, and sometimes the other, and I don't have a good handle on which is more effective under what circumstances.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

31. Maybe we'll revolt by voting for Obama this time.

Let's hope he gets a legislature with some backbone and a super-majority.

[Hannah Bell]

14. k & r; problem is you have to read & think to get it, not rely on slogans & soundbites.

power distribution also; it's important to link the two, since more equality in wealth distribution if unaccompanied by more equal power distribution (i.e. TRUE democractic processes) can still = tyranny.

[tama]

19. Hmm

Wouldn't then "TRUE democratic processes" start from wanting less power, not more?

[Hannah Bell]

20. no.

[Hannah Bell]

22. PS: oil at $107 today.

[tama]

37. No?

You are not thinking logically.

[Hannah Bell]

43. no, in fact, you have a reading comprehension problem & i'm

not interested in discussing anything with you except the price of oil today: $107, band of $105-109.

so go peddle the new agey bullshit & the red-baiting & your comic book knowledge of marxism elsewhere.

[tama]

45. Comic book knowledge?

Well I am a former member of a Trotskyite party (IS-tendency), guess that's comical enough... :D

As for what you express interest to discuss, have patience and longer attention span - pricess will go up again. Now we are still riding the peak plateau, high pricess have for their part brought dlobal depression and huge demand destruction wich have taken the excess speculators out of the game. It's a bumby road downhill for the consumer mass-society, as peak oilers have predicted.

[Hannah Bell]

47. yes, i know. you've shared before. both your previous affiliation

& your deep knowledge.

as well as your deep knowledge on peak oil & how speculation had nothing to do with prices.

but now the speculators (which didn't exist) are "taken out of the game", is it? & in global "depression"?

Here's a clue: speculators play both ends, & all assets. They never leave the game.

[tama]

50. I've never said

that speculation has nothing to do with prices. What I've said is that speculation is made possible by fundamentals of demand and supply - which you have been denying.

Speculation makes the price evolution more volatile, but it does not change or deny the fundamentals of demand and supply.

[Ghost Dog]

39. Such is the true anarchist political philosophy,

spun in the early years of the last century to represent violence and destruction, which, in essence, it is not.

It is a concept of collaborative collective decision-making and action in which the individual may or may not have power (or, better, influence) only to the extent that he/she participates in the collective whole.

[tama]

41. Yup

"All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why Marxists wanting to take over the state machine are wrong and will allways fail achieving communism.

Wanting more power - each individual doing so - leads to competition between individuals and individual groups (e.g. political parties) for power, leads to seeing others as enemies instead of fellow humans. On mass-societal level worship of power leads to suicidal attitude of putting human culture above nature, instead of realizing participation in nature, this all-inclusive undivided whole.

[ihavenobias]

15. I don't have time to read it all now, but thanks for posting

:)

[Greyhound]

23. Kick. This is what it boils down to, every time, and always.

Are we willing to sacrifice our lives, families, and well being to support the parasite class?

So far, the answer remains yes. We have capitulated for so long that most of us believe there is no alternative and this is the way it has to be.
:kick:

[trthnd4jstc]

25. I love your essay.

I have been hated and demonized by several people for being a democratic socialist. Have you ever heard of the time dollar. The idea is to have an Hour equal $50.00 an hour or some other amount. Please forgive me not giving you a link. My friend, Bob Blain, professor emeritus of SIUE, has worked, and is still working on instituting the Time Dollar as the world currency. Imagine labor, and not credit creating wealth?

[Time for change]

26. Thank you -- I haven't heard of the Time Dollar

It sounds like an interesting concept.

It seems to me that the bottom line is that it is labor -- physical or mental -- that creates wealth. How we ended up with a system where people get paid for moving money around so much more than they get paid for what I think of as productive labor.... It's really hard to understand.

[trthnd4jstc]

27. Howdy, I googled Bob Blain, here are some links.

In this one he calls it the Hour Money: http://anti-poverty-activism.suite101.com/article.cfm/hour_money_may_create_equality

Here is one that he calls Time Money: http://www.siue.edu/~rblain/timemoney.htm

Here is a link to two books that he wrote: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2983134A

Sorry to say he does not call it the Time Dollar here, and maybe that was something that I mistakenly called it. I found some literature in my office, and have a small stack of Time Money. If you wish to e-mail me on a private e-mail through DU and give me a P.O. address or some other address, I will mail you photocopies of some literature that he gave me, and send you some Time Money.

I wish to make the world a better place immediately. I also agree that Labor is the creator of all wealth. The tyrants that rule our world are horrible creatures who not entitled to continue their oppression over the rest of life on the planet.

I am a tiny businessman, and a working class man. I have an electrical contracting shop. I am doing my best to be a contributor to this world. It is tough. I hope you are healthy and safe, and take care.

[Time for change]

28. Thank you for the links

I think I'll read one of Bob Blain's books rather than have you send me the literature for now. But thank you for the offer.

As you can tell from reading my OP, this subject is of great interest to me.

:toast:

[trthnd4jstc]

29. Coolio. n/t

[DaveJ]

33. I've been saying, it's not about money but about natural resources

We could give every man woman and child a million dollars to spend and all would be well as long as they don't use the money on monster trucks, personal jets, palaces, and other material goods.

Problem is we can't trust people to spend responsibly. They will, overall, use the money in ways that damage the planet if there are no checks in place.

So that's why, unfortunately, individual wealth needs to be limited UNTIL someone thinks of a way to prevent people from wasting natural resources.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

35. This is a most excellent post.

Very well and intelligently written.

This is something that we should ALL (every human being) be discussing in great detail.

[whistle]

40. Greed, power, privilege and class summed up as the pursuit of happiness and self interest

[raccoon]

48. Great post. Thanks for the link about the Greenland Norse.

What an idiot Buchanan is. Thanks for the quote. Some people actually do believe that slavetraders and slaveowners did the blacks a favor by enslaving them. I can’t understand such convoluted, self-serving,idiotic thinking.

[mhatrw]

52. I'll say. Economic justice is THE issue!

Thanks.