[Newfie]

Who has power over you?

As long as y pou seek others to blame you remain frozen.

The only one you can change is yourself, maybe.

[vox_mundi]

Sixty-two people have the same amount of wealth as half the world, says Oxfam

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ust 62 people own as much wealth as the poorer half of the global population, a new report reveals, as the widening of the gap between the rich and poor accelerates.

As the business elite converge on Davos for the World Economic Forum, an Oxfam report shows wealth is becoming further concentrated, with the number of people owning the same amount as the bottom half of humanity falling from 388 to 62 in five years.

It says a "broken" economic model underpinned by deregulation, privatisation and financial secrecy has seen the wealth of the richest 62 people jump by 44 per cent in five years to $1.76 trillion.

In that time, the wealth of the poorest 3.6 billion people plunged by 41 per cent.

"The big winners in our global economy are those at the top. Our economic system is heavily skewed in their favour. Far from trickling down, income and wealth are instead being sucked upwards at an alarming rate," the report said.

[Newfie]

I try to never confuse financial digits with wealth. One is having lots of zeros in your bank account, the other is having a meaningful and full life.

The robot thing is troublesome for many reasons. I think it points to some of the congnative dissonance in our culture. We say we value people and want them to have good jobs, etc. but then we find ways to replace them, make them meaningless. And then blame them for being unemployed and poor. A queer sort we humans. Think we are so smart but can't seem to connect the dots.

[SeaGypsy]

I'm not so sure it's that straightforward. As much hate as get spewed at certain classes of people abusing the social security system (free money) in most western economies only half of the working age population actually 'work'. This isn't a new phenomena, over the last few decades the figures never amount to more than about 60% actually employed. The ruling classes set off the low & medium wage masses into lathering hatred (via right wing shock jocks in the MSM) against leaners, bludgers, cheats, welfare mama's, bad back whiners etc- the two majority populations are busy with attack & defence while the rich have endless cannon fodder for their investment projects.

I don't think it's really about employment being better than job destruction. More about the lack of honesty & integrity in the practices of economics creating traps & stumbling stones all over. Very few escape the illusion, but some do, perhaps for another illusion, but one chosen with all the important facts in place rather than the usual process.

[onlooker]

This is a very insightful point and comprises the larger point of how in the US and perhaps in many other countries as well, the political process has bogged down via among other things corruption/lack of compromise but also a unrelenting dynamic of bickering about relatively mundane matters and neither side willing to concede an inch. Maybe because this distracts from the true important issues in which compromise is needed to afford some solution or at least progress. Also, yes the Media nourishes this type of confrontational politics by incessantly highlighting it and rehashing the same divisive issues over and over again. In the US these issues revolve around; guns, abortion, gay/lesbian ,religious tolerance or lack thereof, taxes, small govt. vs. big govt. and a few others. Each election cycle these issues are trotted out and debated. Meanwhile, the larger systemic/chronic issues that threaten society and its stability are kept rather obscure.

[SeaGypsy]

Society is not stable, that is part of the illusion. It needs to be stable enough for 2 things- enterprise & physical safety of the entrepreneurs. It also needs to be unsettled enough that the people don't use the Parliament to off the heads of the oligarchy. Hence the standard diatribes all round. The most dangerous thing to the oligarchy is a united public.

[onlooker]

Yep, keep the masses divided, dependent and distracted. Sounds like the TPTB are unto something.

[onlooker]

Here is a little article on the Rothchilds and how their family is estimated to be worth 500 trillion or so and yet not listed on Forbes richest list. Oh and a picture of one of them. http://educateinspirechange.org/alterna ... ople-list/

[JV153]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'M')eanwhile, the larger systemic/chronic issues that threaten society and its stability are kept rather obscure.

[Newfie]

Seriously, just look around at this forum, look at the bickering. Are TPTB at work here, guiding us from our natural tendency to agree, compromise, and cooperate!

I don't ascribe the bickering to TPTB, it resides within each of us naturally, each a fountainhead of artesian bickering! LOL!

Sea, I know it's not as simple as I state, but my ideas are pretty unusual and would just take far too much time and space to explain. Rightfully no one would read them through. So I kind of abbreviate.

FWIW I no longer harbor much anger at the poor and jobless. Well I do, but that's many years of Puritanical upbringing and conditioning I need towrassel with. In the screwy economy and culture we have created I now see that they play an important, perhaps vital, role. I don't like it, it goes deeply against my grain, but my observations lead me to conclusions about how things work, things I don't like.

[Tanada]

Can anyone give me an example from any time in history when TPTB willingly instituted huge changes that would reduce their own ability to stay in control of the system? I have been thinking about that a lot today and can not come up with any real examples. Here is the article that got me thinking about this again, link below the quote.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The world's historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world's way of life.

In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries. The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change. In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

Those vast sums are why M.J. Kelly, a University of Cambridge engineering professor, recently wrote that the push to restrict carbon "is set to fail comprehensively in meeting its avowed target, and a new debate is needed." For that reason, Kelly is skeptical that initiatives like the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris will achieve its lofty goals.

In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the "immense benefits" of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world's quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is "only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society."

COP21 "will be an irrelevance within a few years," Kelly said to CNBC via email, "as the the bills pile up, and ... the promises are reneged upon."

[HARM]

9 years ago, as the aftermath of the global housing/credit bubble and oil bubble collapse played out, I would never have believed that in 2016 house prices would have equaled --much less surpassed-- their 2007 peaks. I would also have never believed that oil production would have exceeded the late 2000's peak, or that fracking would drive U.S. oil production to a second peak (something Hubbert could not have foreseen), or that we would be experiencing an oil glut with prices ~$35/BBL.

I know this goes against the grain here, but the fact of the matter is, central banks are far more powerful and capable of kicking that can than anyone here imagined. People here --including me-- have routinely underestimated the ability of the .1% to maintain the status quo and keep the game going.

Yes, physical limits to growth will inevitably eventually impose themselves and "oil" production must eventually crest and fall, but... getting the exact timing right is a real b-tch, and you underestimate TPTB at your own peril.

As JMK famously said, "In the long run, we're all dead". It's very hard to maintain a state of constant vigilance for a Collapse that never comes (and may never come in my lifetime). If the collapse hits 10 years after I'm dead and buried, then really, what's the point? Why prep for a Doomsday/reckoning that keeps on getting deferred indefinitely?

[ennui2]

We have a winner!

[HARM]

@ennui2,
Thanks! The doomer certainty here really gets old and frequently borders on dogma. Whenever something conflicts with the model, you're supposed to reexamine your assumptions and change the model, but here... not so much.

[kublikhan]

After his friend complained the nation was about to be ruined Adam Smith responded: "There's a great deal of ruin in a nation". Meaning it takes a lot to ruin a nation.

[onlooker]

At some point those who clamor about underestimating resilience will overestimate it. Tell me of one truly promising trend or trajectory that can substantially negate these limits to growth? I see none. What I see is wishful thinking and shrewd maneuvers to delay the Correction to the Human juggernaut. Eventually, we will run of out magic tricks. Yes agree exact timing is very difficult but I focus on the trajectory and so am saying I see nothing in the horizon that will change it.

[sunweb]

yes, it is truly wondrous how healthy the economies of the world are: the environment, the oceans, the politics, the fresh water, the soil, the air - ah, the list for a rosy cheeked future bogles. It has never really been IF only WHEN and if the civilized world has a living will it states "do everything necessary."

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Eventually, we will run of out magic tricks.

[onlooker]

Yes, Sun. I have thought for awhile now that the choice is a stark one. Do we chose Industrial Civilization or a Living Planet. Cannot have both
Ennui, yes and your right we should not insult those who may not have similar timelines as others