[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', 'I')s what I have said true? If so how can we change it?

[Peak_Modernity]

In my estimation, the "haves" today are only different than in the past in that they are better at fooling the "have nots". I see everything as an illusion (the economy, freedom etc.), however we like to be fooled if it means a few moments of pleasure.

"How can we change it?"

I believe that it will take a tremendous collapse to end the extent of corruption and inequality, but it will still exist in some form. I feel this is the reason that so many people are doomers, they know that something is fatally wrong with the system, but are powerless to change it. Collapse is their only hope. To some extent, a collapse would be a blessing. It will be extremely hard for many to adjust to, but given enough time people will realize that the quality of life is better than our current consumer madness.

[aldente]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Modernity', ' ') It will be extremely hard for many to adjust to,

[Peak_Modernity]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('albente', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peak_Modernity', ' ') It will be extremely hard for many to adjust to,

[MrBill]

US Census Data 2004

Elijah, it sounds like you have been thinking about some important issues, but I cannot agree with some of your conclusions. You seem to suggest that because the world is not equal that it is unfair, and because the world is not fair it can be somehow changed to make it fair?

You recommend dismantling a system that has lifted millions of working poor out of the coal mines of Pennsylvania and given them a living wage. You liken having to work for a living to being a wage slave. Well, yes it is a fact of life that unless you're born rich & beautiful that you might have to work for your daily bread. I don't think that has changed much since the beginning of time. Get used to it.

You mention Bill Gates? A brilliant entrepreneur that changed the way we live, work & play. Warren Buffet? A man who knows how to spot value where others cannot see it. Both are success stories. But, why do you choose to compare the average worker with a median family income of $44.389 to the super rich and successful and not instead to those who live in extreme poverty elsewhere in the developing world? I would suggest that the first $40.000 buys a great deal less pain & suffering than any amount of money above $45.000. I call it the law of diminishing returns.

12.7% of Americans live in poverty and 15.7% of Americans have no healthcare, but they still live better in absolute terms than those Pennsylvanian coal miners did in the 1870's or better than the Oakies that picked fruit & vegetables for less than a living wage with no security. Poverty is defined as less than $19.300 median income for a family of four. Not a lot, but yet you advocate dismantling a system where even the poor do not starve, even if they have to rely on food banks and food stamps for what? No system? It is fine to have a hypothesis that says, this sucks! It is quite a different to make concrete proposals that may solve some of the problems you see with the existing system.

Although 15.7% of Americans have no healthcare they only paid approximately 15% of their own healthcare costs $26 billion. The rest nearly $171 billion was picked-up by the government, hospitals and private & public payers. That may not be perfect or ideal, but it is still a safety net and a huge subsidy despite programs exist like COBRA & Medicaid for the unemployed and the poor, so in many cases the choice not to have healthcare is a conscious choice. Healthy people may have other priorities than health insurance and once they get sick they may find themselves uninsurable. I have great sympathy for the working poor who are trying to make ends meet. However, food, shelter, heat & healthcare have to be basic expenditures before anything including Nikes, DVDs, cigarettes, booze and other consumerables.

We live in an age where the average family earning $44.389 per year spends just 10% on food and another 10% on energy. Not huge amounts. Housing should never consume more than 30% of net earnings. Owning a $400.000 home and an SUV are not rights confered from above. If you cannot afford them, you have to forgo consumption until you have saved enough to buy them. Anyone that starts borrowing to spend or spends before they can afford to is saving up trouble for the future. However, that is an individual responsibility. No government or corporation makes the masses spend themselves deeper into debt.

You say the powerful always rule over the weak? I am not sure that is an insight or just stating the obvious. The educated will always rule over the uneducated. The rich will always have more than the poor. Those that work hard will usually have more than those who will not or cannot work. What is your point? Are you disappointed that your career has not worked-out? That others have not recognized your potential? That others have been more successful? That others have larger houses or better autos? I think that most families who earn $44.389 have enough disposable income after basic needs to finance a nice quality of life. They do not have to consume, consume, consume. They can afford to anything they like, but they cannot afford to do everything they want. Pretty lucky place to be really.

It seems you have the luxury of being able to whine about the system while at the sametime sitting at your computer. You could add another obvious truism. Those that have computers will always blog more than those with no computers. Should we wage the class war of the digital divide next?

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'd')ismantling a system

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he real problem is that the bottom 60% of the nation's wage earners have experienced a net drop in real income since 1980. Despite this, they continue to vote on cultural issues rather than in their economic interest. This is because conditions are (were) still good enough that they are (were) willing to stick with the system as it was. One of these days, TS will HTF and some of these people will become ticked off enough that there will be another period of discontinuous change. The emergence of a leader will also make this change happen.

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ho will lead them? Jesse Jackson? Oprah?

[Eli]

There is one thing that rules this world and it is money.

Money brings freedom and power with enough money you can do anything you want.

I do not think there is a human system that can defeat the influence and injustices that come from a society based on the desire to have more and more money. And that includes communism having dacha outside Moscow, is the same as having money.

[donshan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'T')here is one thing that rules this world and it is money.

Money brings freedom and power with enough money you can do anything you want.

I do not think there is a human system that can defeat the influence and injustices that come from a society based on the desire to have more and more money. And that includes communism having dacha outside Moscow, is the same as having money.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('donshan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eli', 'T')here is one thing that rules this world and it is money.

Money brings freedom and power with enough money you can do anything you want.

I do not think there is a human system that can defeat the influence and injustices that come from a society based on the desire to have more and more money. And that includes communism having dacha outside Moscow, is the same as having money.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', ' ')My feeling is that if the system goes through a serious period of correction that those who are successful now under this system will be those that are successful under any other system that replaces it.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'M')y feeling is that if the system goes through a serious period of correction that those who are successful now under this system will be those that are successful under any other system that replaces it.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'M')y feeling is that if the system goes through a serious period of correction that those who are successful now under this system will be those that are successful under any other system that replaces it.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '[')url=http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html]US Census Data 2004[/url]

Elijah, it sounds like you have been thinking about some important issues, but I cannot agree with some of your conclusions. You seem to suggest that because the world is not equal that it is unfair, and because the world is not fair it can be somehow changed to make it fair?

You recommend dismantling a system that has lifted millions of working poor out of the coal mines of Pennsylvania and given them a living wage. You liken having to work for a living to being a wage slave. Well, yes it is a fact of life that unless you're born rich & beautiful that you might have to work for your daily bread. I don't think that has changed much since the beginning of time. Get used to it.

You mention Bill Gates? A brilliant entrepreneur that changed the way we live, work & play. Warren Buffet? A man who knows how to spot value where others cannot see it. Both are success stories. But, why do you choose to compare the average worker with a median family income of $44.389 to the super rich and successful and not instead to those who live in extreme poverty elsewhere in the developing world? I would suggest that the first $40.000 buys a great deal less pain & suffering than any amount of money above $45.000. I call it the law of diminishing returns.

12.7% of Americans live in poverty and 15.7% of Americans have no healthcare, but they still live better in absolute terms than those Pennsylvanian coal miners did in the 1870's or better than the Oakies that picked fruit & vegetables for less than a living wage with no security. Poverty is defined as less than $19.300 median income for a family of four. Not a lot, but yet you advocate dismantling a system where even the poor do not starve, even if they have to rely on food banks and food stamps for what? No system? It is fine to have a hypothesis that says, this sucks! It is quite a different to make concrete proposals that may solve some of the problems you see with the existing system.

Although 15.7% of Americans have no healthcare they only paid approximately 15% of their own healthcare costs $26 billion. The rest nearly $171 billion was picked-up by the government, hospitals and private & public payers. That may not be perfect or ideal, but it is still a safety net and a huge subsidy despite programs exist like COBRA & Medicaid for the unemployed and the poor, so in many cases the choice not to have healthcare is a conscious choice. Healthy people may have other priorities than health insurance and once they get sick they may find themselves uninsurable. I have great sympathy for the working poor who are trying to make ends meet. However, food, shelter, heat & healthcare have to be basic expenditures before anything including Nikes, DVDs, cigarettes, booze and other consumerables.

We live in an age where the average family earning $44.389 per year spends just 10% on food and another 10% on energy. Not huge amounts. Housing should never consume more than 30% of net earnings. Owning a $400.000 home and an SUV are not rights confered from above. If you cannot afford them, you have to forgo consumption until you have saved enough to buy them. Anyone that starts borrowing to spend or spends before they can afford to is saving up trouble for the future. However, that is an individual responsibility. No government or corporation makes the masses spend themselves deeper into debt.

You say the powerful always rule over the weak? I am not sure that is an insight or just stating the obvious. The educated will always rule over the uneducated. The rich will always have more than the poor. Those that work hard will usually have more than those who will not or cannot work. What is your point? Are you disappointed that your career has not worked-out? That others have not recognized your potential? That others have been more successful? That others have larger houses or better autos? I think that most families who earn $44.389 have enough disposable income after basic needs to finance a nice quality of life. They do not have to consume, consume, consume. They can afford to anything they like, but they cannot afford to do everything they want. Pretty lucky place to be really.

It seems you have the luxury of being able to whine about the system while at the sametime sitting at your computer. You could add another obvious truism. Those that have computers will always blog more than those with no computers. Should we wage the class war of the digital divide next?

[CrudeAwakening]

Part of the problem with 'the system' is the debt-based nature of money, which demands perpetual growth. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CrudeAwakening', 'P')art of the problem with 'the system' is the debt-based nature of money, which demands perpetual growth. This has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'D')ebt & savings are two sides of the same coin. YOu cannot have one without the other. Taking on debt is sacraficing future consumption for present consumption.