Comments on: Remembering the 1960s Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:23:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: LysanderTucker Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:13:49 +0000 “Second, there is an urgent need for a financial system which doesn’t have greed as its only engine.”

Fix this one and the first takes care of its self. We need to end the money monopoly. If the free market is really the best system, why surround it with legal tender laws? Let every country, state, city, community, individual, etc. create it’s own competing currency. Let them back it with whatever they have or choose.

But how would they ever tax (rob) us?!

By: EthicsIntl Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:04:07 +0000 Western style capitalism has proven to be disastrous for the workers and a bonanza for the elite, ongoing to this very day. China, (would have anyone guess it?) just might prove to be more equitable under its new leadership coming up in the next few months.

By: Gordon2352 Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:13:10 +0000 An “ethical economy” is an oxymoron.

Whenever a society attempts to mix the two, the result is an unmitigated disaster — which I believe is an apt description of the present times.

You need to stick to one subject or the other, otherwise you end up with nonsense, which is what this article is.

By: ConstFundie Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:14:34 +0000 @MDickson, Capitalism is not a form of government. It is an economic system. ALL forms of government have employed Capitalism including Aristocracies, Dictatorships, Socialism and Communism, and most have excelled at it at some time in human history. China is not swimming toward capitalism it is proving that their “Communism” can succeed economically with Capitalism.

By: trevorh Thu, 20 Sep 2012 05:21:46 +0000 @MDickson

As much as I don’t like Communism and China. I hope that the CCP won’t be wiped out. Because, with their potential, the day China goes completely under the Kuomintang and the true nationalist spirit, Pacific Asia should remember the old days of Imperial Japan as the “good old days”.

Communism with its many flaws still has in its core the good goal of no-conflict and cooperation.
Nevertheless, it is an absolutist’s solution with the fatal lack of efficiency and balance. It needs to add at least those two in order to compete with private capitalism.

Anyway pointless thought much, I’m back to watching Family Guy now 😛

By: MaggieMP Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:55:06 +0000 @trevorh – very good! :)

Since I’m posting again – here a couple of typo corrections for my piece:

“negative consequences to citizen financial and physical well-being, and are not necessary if we’re willing TO imagine and shift to a better design for our economic system.” (‘to’ omitted by accident)

“the trick is for us to STEP out of the “machine” long enough on a regular basis to seriously consider how to achieve the “dreams of something better”. (‘step’ omitted by accident)

By: MaggieMP Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:45:47 +0000 @bcarwf, and to Mr. Hadas, and to others –

Thank you, Bcrawf for correction re Occupy! The intelligence and sentiment that energized Occupy exists. It’s form may have changed, but it has by no means gone away.

This is also true of calls for fundamental change that emerged during the 1960’s. The intelligence and sentiment has not gone away. True, many participants eventually re-connected with the system, but not all. Of those who did re-connect, the larger share took their philosophies and questions with them. The conversation never completely stopped.

Try as corporatists might, very few have managed to dis-entangle themselves from the system’s mechanisms in such a way that they no longer externalize as many costs as possible. Need to “do whatever is necessary” to ensure market competitiveness, if not outright dominance, puts even the most well-intended corporation in position of ‘slave’ to system as master.

Externalized costs are presented to ordinary citizens as costs they must bear, (bailouts and environmental cleanups, for example). These have negative consequences to citizen financial and physical well-being, and are not necessary if we’re willing imagine and shift to a better design for our economic system.

Poverty, alas, is making fresh gains. Not only are policies skewed to allow more wealth to accrue to an increasingly smaller portion of any national population, but robotics (a good thing) have cost jobs (not so good) and governments have responded by “warehousing” the unemployed with attitudes surpassing those of Scrooge, (not a good thing at all.)

The whole notion that a newly born human is a precious potential of talent and gift to be fed, housed, educated, and kept well as investment and celebration is completely outside any/all discussions of what needs to be thought about in revising the economic machine we’ve designed.

Also off the table is serious open discussion of earth conditions. If we discussed it, we’d have to take responsibility. I’m afraid we’ve shot way past pollution as a concern. We’re now into destroyed oceans, rapid species losses, destroyed large masses of land to extract coal and shale oil/gases, and “privatizing” fresh water as “investment” for you-know-who, those mega-corporations and their chief investors mentioned above. We’re also silent about Fukushima. We’re not opening conversation that takes an honest look at true current and future costs and risks of nuclear energy.

A number of nations include manufacture and sale of weapons of mass destruction on the “positive” side of their ledgers. Wars seem ever popular – quite an opportunity for lucrative contracts. And if a few children, caregivers, and neighbors lose family members or are actually blown to bits themselves – we say “we’re so sorry but we had no choice.” At home, we turn to our people and explain that education and health care are “too expensive” while refusing to discuss full cost of war and military.

While explaining how serious our national economic conditions are, some use “entitlement” as a pejorative against ordinary citizens who foot the costs, and fail to consider “entitlement” when the wealthy want better tax breaks. “Entitlement” definition, too, needs public airing.

I so very much agree with your closing, Mr. Hadas: “idealistic dreamers are … valuable. They can remind the world that the ultimate purpose of a prosperous society is not wealth for its own sake, but something better.”

Now – the trick is for us to out of the “machine” long enough on a regular basis to seriously consider how to achieve the “dreams of something better”.

By: trevorh Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:42:09 +0000 …you will be turned upside down AND inside out

By: trevorh Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:39:46 +0000 “Nonetheless, idealistic dreamers are still valuable.”

Just don’t be an idealistic dreamer yourself. Because when you want to talk about the truth and make things right/logical, somebody will get hurt. And they will track you down, hunt you, mark you down, call you out and you will be turned upside down

Make sure you let somebody ELSE be the “idealistic dreamers”, hopefully they will have thoughts deeper than our current set of “idealistic dreamers”.

By: bcrawf Thu, 20 Sep 2012 01:11:57 +0000 Mr. Hadas says, “… there is an urgent need for a financial system which doesn’t have greed as its only engine.” And in the paragraph before, he said, “Last year’s global Occupy Movement didn’t amount to much. [….] The decade’s economic idealism has had enough influence that calls for radical change now sound silly.”

Well, that urgent need is exactly what the Occupy movement is addressing. Calls for radical, or should we just say substantial change do not sound silly at all to those who see the decision-making process in our country already so strongly shifted to a basis of ‘one dollar, one vote’, rather than ‘one person, one vote’, as the richest 400 families, taking in a quarter or so of the country’s total income in a given year (23.5 % in 2007, latest figures), undermine our democracy through their inordinate influence on legislators, who depend on deep-pocket funding.