Quote:

---

Dozens of organizations were established to structure that co-operation. But then, in yet another fountain of unintended consequences, something man is better at than just about anything else, we let those organizations loose upon the world without ever asking what happened to what they were intended for, or whether the original grounds for founding them still existed, and whether they should perhaps be abolished or put on a tight leash.

These are questions that should be asked about any large-scale organization. Be they multinational corporations, global banks, Google or indeed the United States of America. We can’t just assume these powers, which gather more power as time goes by, share and serve the purposes of the people. What if they gradually come to serve only their own purpose, and it contradicts that of the people? Should we not get that leash out?

Turns out, we never do. If someone would suggest today to break up the USA, because its present status contradicts that which the Founding Fathers had in mind (and there are plenty of arguments to be made that such contradictions exist in plain view), (s)he would not even be sent to a nuthouse, because no-one would take him/her serious enough to do so.

But wealth inequality still rises rapidly within America, and it doesn’t serve the people. So why does it happen, and why do we let it? Because the inequality that matters most is not wealth, but power. And we’ve been made to believe that we still have that power, but we don’t. Voting in elections has the same function today as singing around a Christmas tree: everyone feels a strong emotional connection, but it’s all just become one giant TV commercial.

---

Quote:

---

Voting in elections has the same function today as singing around a Christmas tree

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, well, you think 'Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher' was a great leader, despite the fact that she threw millions into poverty in the interests of an industry that dissolved shortly afterwards - though those deep wells of poverty she created still remain. Apparently her Greatness is based on the Falklands War. You don't agree with progressive taxation...

---

Quote:

---

You believe in a society of the Roman arena and the war of all against all. You believe those who can't 'make it' should be efficiently scrubbed from the competition without further consideration. Your goals are personal wealth and to be counted among the elite. You yearn for a return of Imperial Splendor and Might. And whomever or whatever stands in the way is damned. You are a neo-liberal, another way of saying fascist in so many words. We already know that about you, rapPO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I think an economy is an organic thing ..."

Very much a Darwinism notion - that economies are natural things, that evolution runs by direct competition, and that death is the fate of the non-competative.

"... and regardless of what you want it to be you have to give it freedom and room to grow."

This is you lauding Maggie Thatcher's union-busting, and shuttering and sale of government-run corporations.

"Otherwise you choke the life out of it."

Sounds like pro-business ideology to me.

"A pre-Thatcher UK economy is not one I would like to live in."

Despite the fact that it had far lower poverty levels. So, lots of poverty is - to you - a non-issue.

"Conservatives have a point that there *is* a fundamental unfairness in the tax system - a lot of people pay in MORE than they get out. ... wealthy people have a duty to pay more? Why?"

Yep. Those are all your opinions.

---

Quote:

---

He also lists 12 environmental problems facing humankind today. The first eight have historically contributed to the collapse of past societies:

Deforestation and habitat destruction
Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)
Water management problems
Overhunting
Overfishing
Effects of introduced species on native species
Overpopulation
Increased per-capita impact of people

Further, he says four new factors may contribute to the weakening and collapse of present and future societies:

Anthropogenic climate change
Buildup of toxins in the environment
Energy shortages
Full human use of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Dozens of organizations were established to structure that co-operation. But then, in yet another fountain of unintended consequences, something man is better at than just about anything else, we let those organizations loose upon the world without ever asking what happened to what they were intended for, or whether the original grounds for founding them still existed, and whether they should perhaps be abolished or put on a tight leash.

These are questions that should be asked about any large-scale organization. Be they multinational corporations, global banks, Google or indeed the United States of America. We can’t just assume these powers, which gather more power as time goes by, share and serve the purposes of the people. What if they gradually come to serve only their own purpose, and it contradicts that of the people? Should we not get that leash out?

Turns out, we never do. If someone would suggest today to break up the USA, because its present status contradicts that which the Founding Fathers had in mind (and there are plenty of arguments to be made that such contradictions exist in plain view), (s)he would not even be sent to a nuthouse, because no-one would take him/her serious enough to do so.

But wealth inequality still rises rapidly within America, and it doesn’t serve the people. So why does it happen, and why do we let it? Because the inequality that matters most is not wealth, but power. And we’ve been made to believe that we still have that power, but we don’t. Voting in elections has the same function today as singing around a Christmas tree: everyone feels a strong emotional connection, but it’s all just become one giant TV commercial.

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-18/wealth-inequality-not-problem
-it%E2%80%99s-symptom

---

Quote:

---

rapPO

I quoted you directly. See those quote marks?

---

Quote:

---

And FWIW I have ALL of your quotes archived. I FULLY expect you to move on to post-editing, just like rappy, just like THUG.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Whatever.

Denying your own past posts - another rap trait. Your mutation is complete, rapPO. Enjoy.

---

Quote:

---

Russia will be long gone first. Perhaps you should be sending your warning out to them.

---

Quote:

---

Making a claim about someone, and when asked to back it up, refusing and claiming that everyone knows, is also very rappy-like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Making a claim about someone, and when asked to back it up, refusing and claiming that everyone knows, is also very rappy-like.

---

Apparently I missed quite a conversation! But I found the quotes to be revealing. Didn't you?

---

Quote:

---

Conservatives have a point that there *is* a fundamental unfairness in the tax system - a lot of people pay in MORE than they get out. And a lot of people pay in LESS than they pay in. That's a fundamental unfairness. You can make enlightened arguments other types of fairness - like equality of opportunity, and income inequality (although is that last one unfair?), but conservatives will just keep hammering on about this one fundamental unfairness (as usual liberals are making cerebral arguments, and conservatives are making primal arguments).

So my approach is to directly counter the right-wing argument. To paint the picture of a world that meets the right-wing ideal of 'fairness'. Where people pay in similar to what they get out. Where taxes go up on the middle class 500-1000% and the rich pay so little as a proportion of what they earn, that they don't even feel it. What a wonderful world that would be! Let's move the tax code in that direction!

---