Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right made an art out of "hyperbole" and mobilized people. The left is weak and talk "nicely" to people. Maybe it's time for a little "hyperbole"? Maybe instead of having a vision of "kumbaya" with right wing maggots we should have a vision of them kicked out of power and sent to live in Somalia, laissez fair "paradise" or Iran, with it's "traditional values?"
I am sick and tired of the pansy "let's unite America" line. That is the difference between a liberal and a progressives: liberals wants peace, including with their enemies. But peace is often another word for surrender. I don't want "peace" with the Tea Party, the corporate owned DINOS (like Obama, Pelosi and the other right wing hacks in sheep's clothing) and the corporations. I don't want peace...I want VICTORY.
We are a part of the system, nothing we can do about that. Stopping to "buy stuff" does NOTHING to hurt the pigs. That's a fallacy believed in by the anarchist numbskulls: a few people dropping out of "the system" does nothing to hurt the pigs.
However, building a real, progressive political movement will. It may take years, but eventually, the working class will win and America will be a land of freedom, fairness and justice. A true democracy...a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
My point was that it's entirely possible for America to be seized by a tyrant before such progressive movement takes place.
That I agree with. Something needs to be done to address the issues of wealth disparity, vanishing middle class and the all around awfulness that is happening in America. Hopefully America will embrace the progressive solution before something far, far worse comes along.
The Bolsheviks were able to gain power because the Czar kept the Social Democrats out of power and the people turned to Lenin as a result of their frustration. I hope history does not repeat itself in America.
That I agree with. Something needs to be done to address the issues of wealth disparity, vanishing middle class and the all around awfulness that is happening in America. Hopefully America will embrace the progressive solution before something far, far worse comes along.
The Bolsheviks were able to gain power because the Czar kept the Social Democrats out of power and the people turned to Lenin as a result of their frustration. I hope history does not repeat itself in America.
Since corporations are doing so great, everyone who works for them should be reaping the rewards, right? Wrong, only the folks at the top: CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985.
Obviously corporate profits are high when the government has placed such unbelievable uncertainty on how it will treat corporations in the future. If we had a business friendly leader, we would see more corporate investing. If we didn't drive the fed rate to 0, we would see more spending.
Quote:
Since corporations are doing so great, everyone who works for them should be reaping the rewards, right? Wrong, only the folks at the top: CEO pay is now 350X the average worker's, up from 50X from 1960-1985.
This graph is flat out wrong. This was based on a study done by the EPI. They looked at data from the S&P who changed their grading methodology in 1992. Prior to 1992 they looked at only income while post 1992 they looked at income as well as the NPV of non-monetary benefits (stock options, health care, etc.) and continued to compare it to only the income of workers. Additionally, they now only looked at the compensation of the 350 most profitable publicly traded companies (NOT all CEOs) but yet people put that data on the same graph. Adjusting for those factors, and comparing average CEO compensation today to compensation in 1970 using the same grading criteria, CEOs today only make about 37x what the average worker does.
Right...and the A576RC1 data series is not adjusted to today's dollars while GDP is, so obviously the graph will look like that.
Am I the only person on this forum who doesn't blindly trust something just because someone threw it on a graph?
Unlike you, I actually read the book. It's a history book. It can all be verified easily. There is no angle.
He doesn't call for laissez faire. How could he? It's about events that happened in the 1600 and 1700s. He doesn't have a time machine.
All I did was suggest people read a book about how the private sector has coined money in the past. You come on here and act like you know everything about it and you didn't even bother to read it. That makes a lot of sense. NOT !
I know that's all that you did. I didn't shoot you for it, did I? I didn't send the police after you, right? lol All I said was that it was written by someone whose point of view is Libertarian, that Libertarians are right wingers, that Libertarians believe in the tenets of pure laissez faire, and that his book, because he's a big honcho at the foremost Libertarian organization in the U.S., expouses nothing but laissez faire. Laissez faire is what Libertarians are about. Everything is shaped, designed, and viewed through the glasses of laissez faire as a panacea.
Laissez faire, however, has been responsible for this country's downfall, is amoral, is immoral, promotes social stratification, encourages ruling via royalty (our form of royalty, anyway), and because of the financial disparity it encourages ends up so large, discrimination becomes its natural by-product.
Laissez faire is equivalent to having an Olympics race event in which the race officials allow certain people to start the race sooner if they wish, run a shorter race if they wish, permit them to use any tactics to prevent others from getting to the end if they wish, and at the end they consider the race to have been fair, and the winner to have won fairly.
Obviously corporate profits are high when the government has placed such unbelievable uncertainty on how it will treat corporations in the future. If we had a business friendly leader, we would see more corporate investing. If we didn't drive the fed rate to 0, we would see more spending.
This graph is flat out wrong. This was based on a study done by the EPI. They looked at data from the S&P who changed their grading methodology in 1992. Prior to 1992 they looked at only income while post 1992 they looked at income as well as the NPV of non-monetary benefits (stock options, health care, etc.) and continued to compare it to only the income of workers. Additionally, they now only looked at the compensation of the 350 most profitable publicly traded companies (NOT all CEOs) but yet people put that data on the same graph. Adjusting for those factors, and comparing average CEO compensation today to compensation in 1970 using the same grading criteria, CEOs today only make about 37x what the average worker does.
Right...and the A576RC1 data series is not adjusted to today's dollars while GDP is, so obviously the graph will look like that.
Am I the only person on this forum who doesn't blindly trust something just because someone threw it on a graph?
What really surprises me is that you seem to be one of only a handful in here who thinks CEOs salaries have NOT multiplied by 100s since the right wing ideology has been the dominant one in the U.S., and that it's all a lie. Where have you been all this time? (Besides busy denying).
Here, from 2010, even the millionaire-worshipping Forbes magazine admits it, yet you don't:
What really surprises me is that you seem to be one of only a handful in here who thinks CEOs salaries have NOT multiplied by 100s since the right wing ideology has been the dominant one in the U.S., and that it's all a lie. Where have you been all this time? (Besides busy denying).
Here, from 2010, even the millionaire-worshipping Forbes magazine admits it, yet you don't:
Faux News propaganda artist Roger Ailes coined the phrase "Job Creators" , so regardless of how much proof there is that is just not so, they will always be lovingly referred to as such by the right wing.
All hail the great Barack "My plan is working" 0bama
I know that's all that you did. I didn't shoot you for it, did I? I didn't send the police after you, right? lol All I said was that it was written by someone whose point of view is Libertarian, that Libertarians are right wingers, that Libertarians believe in the tenets of pure laissez faire, and that his book, because he's a big honcho at the foremost Libertarian organization in the U.S., expouses nothing but laissez faire. Laissez faire is what Libertarians are about. Everything is shaped, designed, and viewed through the glasses of laissez faire as a panacea.
Laissez faire, however, has been responsible for this country's downfall, is amoral, is immoral, promotes social stratification, encourages ruling via royalty (our form of royalty, anyway), and because of the financial disparity it encourages ends up so large, discrimination becomes its natural by-product.
Laissez faire is equivalent to having an Olympics race event in which the race officials allow certain people to start the race sooner if they wish, run a shorter race if they wish, permit them to use any tactics to prevent others from getting to the end if they wish, and at the end they consider the race to have been fair, and the winner to have won fairly.
You just described 0bama's crony capitalism, and his relationship with corporations like GE, GM, and the Solyndras of the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
