Ted's Take
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://www.tedstake.com/2011/09/25/class-warfare-yuck/
Class warfare yuck
Let me get this on the record.
My dad was a waiter. My mom was a secretary. Neither attended college. I grew up in Brooklyn, NY and Lowell, Massachusetts. I attended public schools. My parents - in their best year - earned $31,000 combined. My dad worked for tips - often received in change - as he worked a counter for breakfast and lunch at a diner. My dad, too, once lost his job. I remember the angst in our household.
I attended Georgetown University which at the time wasn’t a need blind school via college loans. I paid them all back five years after I graduated.
I have great empathy for middle class or lower middle class America. My horizons as a young adult were not expansive. I was programmed to be a produce department manager at a grocery store in my neighborhood. That was my dad’s aspiration for me. I would have been proud to work hard to become a leader in a grocery store and I bet I would have been good at it, too. By luck and hard work, my career took a different path.
I say this as I read all of the rhetoric about Class Warfare, the rift that is being created between economic middle and lower class and as the President said “those millionaires and billionaires.”
The real rift in philosophy though is do you want the Government to create jobs and stimulate the economy or do you want America’s small business to be the engine of growth?
Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.
This is a bad move all designed by some pollster who said this is the way to get votes during the re-election. It should be stopped. We should be healing and creating teams NOT dividing and pitting people against one another.
I know the President isn’t speaking to me specifically when he talks but many times I hear stuff and I cringe personally. As a friend told me the other day who lives in China, “Every time your President talks of late, it costs us billions in market cap and in confidence in your country and your economy.” Why do we devalue success in the US when the rest of the world is trying to emulate what we have created as an economic system?
So for fun: I take the Acela train to Philly and NYC all of the time. Alone - no traveling companions to prep me. I have never seen our President on the train, have you? I own 50 hours on NetJets for the rare occasion I do travel by private plane. Does Air Force One charter out? Stop making private planes an issue. This is a tiny issue for us to deal with for our country.
I do have a nice home with a house keeper. I have only one home. I bet there is more staff at the White House though? And Camp David. What kind of real estate tax is the White House paying? Nice jewelry here. Click away. Stop it. Upgrade the discourse.
With my investments and board seats and companies that I own, I am at a leadership position in concerns that employ more than 200,000 people. We do our best to be good corporate citizens. I know in the companies that I own personally or am the largest shareholder that we support now more than 500 charities. We care. Pick some business leaders that you work with and make them heroes. Don’t demonize them. Showcase them as great Americans that care and hire and employ people. Employment is the biggest issue you will face when re-election comes. If people aren’t working, they will blame you and your administration. And since you have never worked before in a real job for a real company, you need help from people who have been there. Don’t push them away!
I pay taxes. I am willing to pay even more taxes but I would want accountability that the money was being spent wisely on infrastructure investments; education and retraining; and anything that makes us more competitive and gets people working again. That seems fair doesn’t it?
I voted for our President. I have maxed out on personal donations to his re-election campaign. I forgot his campaign wants to raise $1 billion. THAT is a lot of money–money–money–money! Money still talks. It blows my mind when I am asked for money as a donation at the same time I am getting blasted as being a bad guy!
Someone needs to talk our President down off of this rhetoric about good vs. evil; about two classes and math.
Our country was founded on the premise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Is anyone happy right now with all of this?
Hit a reset button ASAP.
Rethink how to talk to businesses and sell business leaders on your plan to make America great!
Many of us want to be a part of the solution. We aren’t the problem.
Class warfare yuck
Let me get this on the record.
My dad was a waiter. My mom was a secretary. Neither attended college. I grew up in Brooklyn, NY and Lowell, Massachusetts. I attended public schools. My parents - in their best year - earned $31,000 combined. My dad worked for tips - often received in change - as he worked a counter for breakfast and lunch at a diner. My dad, too, once lost his job. I remember the angst in our household.
I attended Georgetown University which at the time wasn’t a need blind school via college loans. I paid them all back five years after I graduated.
I have great empathy for middle class or lower middle class America. My horizons as a young adult were not expansive. I was programmed to be a produce department manager at a grocery store in my neighborhood. That was my dad’s aspiration for me. I would have been proud to work hard to become a leader in a grocery store and I bet I would have been good at it, too. By luck and hard work, my career took a different path.
I say this as I read all of the rhetoric about Class Warfare, the rift that is being created between economic middle and lower class and as the President said “those millionaires and billionaires.”
The real rift in philosophy though is do you want the Government to create jobs and stimulate the economy or do you want America’s small business to be the engine of growth?
Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.
This is a bad move all designed by some pollster who said this is the way to get votes during the re-election. It should be stopped. We should be healing and creating teams NOT dividing and pitting people against one another.
I know the President isn’t speaking to me specifically when he talks but many times I hear stuff and I cringe personally. As a friend told me the other day who lives in China, “Every time your President talks of late, it costs us billions in market cap and in confidence in your country and your economy.” Why do we devalue success in the US when the rest of the world is trying to emulate what we have created as an economic system?
So for fun: I take the Acela train to Philly and NYC all of the time. Alone - no traveling companions to prep me. I have never seen our President on the train, have you? I own 50 hours on NetJets for the rare occasion I do travel by private plane. Does Air Force One charter out? Stop making private planes an issue. This is a tiny issue for us to deal with for our country.
I do have a nice home with a house keeper. I have only one home. I bet there is more staff at the White House though? And Camp David. What kind of real estate tax is the White House paying? Nice jewelry here. Click away. Stop it. Upgrade the discourse.
With my investments and board seats and companies that I own, I am at a leadership position in concerns that employ more than 200,000 people. We do our best to be good corporate citizens. I know in the companies that I own personally or am the largest shareholder that we support now more than 500 charities. We care. Pick some business leaders that you work with and make them heroes. Don’t demonize them. Showcase them as great Americans that care and hire and employ people. Employment is the biggest issue you will face when re-election comes. If people aren’t working, they will blame you and your administration. And since you have never worked before in a real job for a real company, you need help from people who have been there. Don’t push them away!
I pay taxes. I am willing to pay even more taxes but I would want accountability that the money was being spent wisely on infrastructure investments; education and retraining; and anything that makes us more competitive and gets people working again. That seems fair doesn’t it?
I voted for our President. I have maxed out on personal donations to his re-election campaign. I forgot his campaign wants to raise $1 billion. THAT is a lot of money–money–money–money! Money still talks. It blows my mind when I am asked for money as a donation at the same time I am getting blasted as being a bad guy!
Someone needs to talk our President down off of this rhetoric about good vs. evil; about two classes and math.
Our country was founded on the premise of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Is anyone happy right now with all of this?
Hit a reset button ASAP.
Rethink how to talk to businesses and sell business leaders on your plan to make America great!
Many of us want to be a part of the solution. We aren’t the problem.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
the american dream is all fine and dandy ... but people need to realize that dream has been exploited and been hijacked ... how can anyone look at the prosperity gap and think that it is ok? ... i find it incredulous that people keep writing that they "worked hard" as if everyone else is lazy ...
Yes- education is more and more geared toward the wealthiest people. Here's an example of how much tuition cost have gone up adjusting for inflation: Tuition in the California State University system today is 36.48 times what it was when I enrolled in my first semester in that system (yeah I know-- a long time ago- don't remind me!) If everything went up at the same rate, gas today would be $12.77 a gallon, the cost of a new home would average $1,017,792.00 , a dozen eggs would cost $22.62, and a first class stamp would cost $2.19.
Something's wrong here. :x
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
i'm not too sure where the point is missed ... he feels "small business" (honestly, how can he refer to himself as a small business?) should be nurtured and promoted to form the engine of the economy ... what he isn't taking into consideration is that the game is rigged in his favour ...
The author is obviously extremely privileged with wealth. I imagine it's easy to talk about class wars when you can afford a housekeeper, travel by private jet (even if only occasionally), etc. Class war seen through the eyes of someone that wealthy? Not the most useful perspective in my personal opinion.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
is the only person who can have an opinion on the usefulness of class warfare the poor?
if your answer is no, can you explain what you mean?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yes, my answer is "No". I'd rather get the perspective of anybody but the most priviledged. Not everybody is super wealthy or dirt poor... yet. In any case, wealthy whiners just don't have much to say that I'm interested in, that's all.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Said it before, say it again...
If person A makes $1,000,000 a year and person B makes $30,000. And each person makes 10% more the next year, the "prosperity gap" has grown, yet everyone's better off. That's why the whole prosperity gap argument is stupid.
Just say it, if you want everyone to make the same amount.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
but person b isn't making the same increases as person A ... that's the friggin' point ... person A is making exponentially more because the rules are in his/her favour ...
the fact that you assume i want everyone to make the same amount is a clear indication that you neither understand nor want to understand my perspective ...
is there an economic model out there that supports inequalities of wealth!??
How do you know that?
I'm not assuming anything. I posed the point, and you gave a very vague response not addressing the point and just wagging a scolding finger. So, let's rephrase it as a question... do you think everyone should make the same amount of money?
Supports inequality? Sure, pretty much every single market-driven model, including most in labor economic models supports inequality. Inequality occurs when a business decides to pay an individual what they find them to be worth. In these markets, some individuals make more because of the labor supply and demand balances in those markets. Obviously, some individuals make less. That's inequality. Trying to cap that because YOU don't think it's fair is, once again, stupid.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
because many workers have been working with pay freezes for the last few years ... meanwhile bonuses continue to rise for executives ...
the question in it of itself is absurd ... why would anyone support that statement!?? ... where have i or anyone for that matter indicated a value system that believes everyone should make the same amount of money!?? ... so, your assumption or accusation is way off ...
sorry - i should rephrase ... gross inequalities ... what model supports this level of variance in prosperity? ... it's economically inefficient and will at some pt or another lead to revolution ... it has already started ...
And both aren't getting 10% more each year either. The $30,000 person is bringing home less real income after adjustments for inflation etc this year then he did 10 years ago - while the $1M person is making much, much more.
Also when the original poster was growing up I bet his foks could afford a house and didn't have to work 60+ hour weeks to keep a job because after surviving layoffs the ones left have to carry the load the laid-off were doing.
The problem with the economy and market isn't that the president opens his mouth - it's that the GOP has priortized preventing his re-election over everything else.
I would say it's that everyone involved is more interested in the 2012 election than actually accomplishing anything...I don't think it's just the GOP.
Key word "many". Not "all". Subjectivity does nothing to prove points.
Your original complaint is regarding the prosperity gap. To pretend like one person doing better, makes everyone worse off is factually wrong. Hence my point, that inequality can actually be good.
To provide another example:
Person A is CEO and makes $500,000 a year. Person B is a worker, making $50,000 a year. Both make 10% LESS next year. Income inequality declined, yet both are worse off!
Whoops...
I asked the question.... and you still haven't answered it. You're just tossing out lectures on what's appropriate and what's not. Answer it and it will be done.
Why's it economically inefficient? Explain that one. I can't wait to hear this.
In macro, one of the first things you learn is that there's a trade-off between economic growth (or economic efficiency) and equality. Sure, some (obviously you) favor more equality, and a bit less efficiency. And some vice-versa. But, i can't wait to hear you explain how centuries of theory and empirics saying there's a trade-off between the two is wrong. And all of the sudden equality is efficient... Please explain.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Some of you people are really ridiculous. Re-read. I was pointing out the common misconception (especially on here) of claiming that inequality is bad. It's not bad, in fact it can be very, very, very good. My example, the past 200 years of global growth PROVE that. Inequality increased, yet people on a whole are better off.
Anyone who really thinks they know the problems with the economy and starts down the road of discussing it by making it political attack on one political party shouldn't speak on the subject again, in my humble opinion. Politicians on both sides are horrible. It's not a fucking game, ..."yeh, the Republicans scored from the 30 yard line".... nope... it's real life. The policies are the problem. And in a lot of cases, it's not even fiscal policies that are the main problem... it's monetary policies.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
and where is your proof that your examples reflect the real world? ... and i'm not sure how you justify your reasoning that just because some middle class have increased their wealth that everyone has at the same amount as the wealthy ...
uhhh ... i said your question is absurd ... i also asked you what could possibly give you the idea i support that statement ... it's akin to me asking you if bill o'reilly is your father ... the absurdity of the question does not warrant a response ... but just because i fear that you will again say i am avoiding the question ... the answer (which should have been obvious to you) is NO - I do not want everyone to make the same amount ...
it's inefficient because if there are too many people who are poor ... how are they going to purchase the goods and services that is the foundation for the economy!? ... they become burdens to the social infrastructure ... your paying more for these people through social services without the ability or opportunity to rise above ...
When you have a federal gov that starts become oppressive and verbally attacking it's own citizens and it's own most successful citizens it is hurting people's children and grandchildren. It's destroying and smothering opportunity for them bcos they are being taken over by massive debt and control. Future generations are going to suffer. They won't be free, they will become wards of the state.
This is why people like me who aren't a " Billionaire or Millionaire" fight like hell to save our constitution,the civil society and our capitalist system. We do it bcos we want future generations to have a better future. Not to be controlled and smothered by unsustainable debt and hundreds of thousands bureaucrats.
Look at the past two hundred plus years worldwide. Inequality has increased, yet there's little doubt the average person is better off.
I asked because of loonies like this who want to cap executive pay and behead bankers:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ealth.html
If there's crazies like this out there, there's also loonies who want to have everyone make the same wage. I wanted to know if you were one of them. I now wonder if you want to cap exec pay and behead bankers?
First, that's not inefficiency. You kinda dodged the point I made. Once again, there's a trade-off between efficiency and equality. Social Safety Nets try to get at the "equality" issue and in doing so, take away from efficiency. So, if there's too many people who are "poor"... and the social infrastructure created to improve equality is faulty,... blame government and it's attempts to create more equality.
If we focused more on efficiency there would be more jobs. In my humble opinion, jobs help poor more than government hand outs do.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I guess that brings me to a further point, are you really the most privileged if you worked up from a low/middle class background to become wealthy? Is that hard work or is it privilege?
Ignoring the perspective of parts of those involved in the argument seems rather short sided and makes me think that you look for the answer you want to hear. Since I have some of your background from the posts you have made I find you to be reasonable, so I won't put that kind of label on you, so it must be something else. Why would you want to ignore a "side" of any argument? They may not say what you like, but doesn't promoting class warfare seem not nearly as useful as pointing to all those in business who do America proud? give more people a perspective that you can be successful and a philanthropist or benefactor. Rather than make it the "whiny rich" vs. the "lazy poor"... cant it be that success should be looked at as a possibility, a goal that allows for the positive, even when success doesn't always amount to 7+ figures?
I don't know...It just seems wrong to me to think that tax rates and government are going to be what evens out any sort of "prosperity gap"...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the average person is better off because of advances in medicine and science ... not because the prosperity gap has increased ...
:roll:
i didn't really dodge your point ... you believe economic growth = economic efficiency ... that right there puts us at opposite viewpoints ... i'm just stating my belief as to why the gross inequalities in wealth are problematic ...
The average person is living longer because of economic growth (AKA economic efficiency). Once again, there's a trade-off between economic growth and economic efficiency. I'm saying the growth is why people are living longer. Medicine and science improved with the economy. The average person is better off because of this, not because of anything to do with equality.
Ok. You're at opposite viewpoints with pretty much every econ 101 textbook then.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
how can there be a trade off if they are the same thing? ... you want to believe that economic growth is responsible for people living longer!? ... so be it ... but i think you are mistaken ... advances in medicine are not completely driven by economics or capitalism ... in fact, sometimes they contradict each other ... like when pfizer puts out a drug that harms more than it cures ...
of course ... but where is the proof that these models work!? ... where does economic growth factor in sustainability or the social consequences of said growth? ... it doesn't ... it's purely based on some underlying faith that all other things will take care of itself ... sure, exploit all resources ... make as much money as possible ... don't worry about the fact that the resources don't all come back and that the water is poisoned or the air unbreathable ...
You should read about a man named Thomas Malthus. You sound a lot like him. A lot of people thought he was right back when he lived 200+ years ago (even contributed to economics getting the name the dismal science)... he predicted that economic growth was not necessarily good because it destroys scare resources. Read more about him. Look him up. He was, in fact, 100% wrong. He never took into account technology. You aren't either.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
MERDE! Not I, Monsieur!!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Both
Your example, the history of inequality, demonstrates that inequality in the US had not been at the 2007 level since 1928. Then after the great depression inequality was much lower (more equal) and remained that way for 30 years with a vibrant middle class that led the most sustained 30 years of economic growth in your 200 years.
Since the New Deal every successful economy has had New Deal economics to help sustain a strong middle class which has created demand. The current shrinking middle class has led to decreased demand to support continued economic growth.
And here is some empirics:
"In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth."
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fan ... 9/Berg.htm
dude ... resources all over the world have been depleted and exploited ... global warming is gonna cost canada alone $5 billion a year by 2020 ... but right, you don't believe in global warming ... :roll: ...
how can you say he is 100% wrong when he is has to be at least partially right based on our current state!?? ...just take the microcosm of the fisheries industry ... it's been decimated because of overfishing and pollution ... how was that a good thing?
Dude, you're really not trying to "get it".
Just like they do now, when Malthus was alive, people feared depletion of food resources (now it may be other types, but the story remains the same). There was basically a set supply of food in Malthus' day. When economic growth occurred, populations expanded and therefore, that stable set of food was not going to be enough.... hence, the "dismal science" moniker. The problem: He didn't see the industrial revolution coming. He didn't see the technological advancement that would come and make farming easier by allowing farmers to get more from less. He didn't get it. Neither do you.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
ok - so, you ignored my example of the fisheries ... i will work with yours ... the industrialized food system is a failure ... sure, initial yields were far greater but over time those yields have dropped and the consequences of that food system have left us with shortages in many parts of the world and global problems such as global warming (again, you don't believe nor understand the science) ... i find it sad that you can be so patronizing on this topic but yet refuse to look at the picture beyond your view of economic growth is good at all costs ...
you haven't even once tried to account for the sustainability factor ... but i'm the one who doesn't get it ... granted i didn't study economics nor am i remotely close to being an expert on the matter ... i do feel like i have the ability to think critically and your constant referrals to economic theory is a joke simply because it should be obvious to anyone that things don't work in isolation ...
I don't think the industrialized food system is good at all. There's tons of room for improvement. What I am saying is we're feeding a lot more people now and people are living longer. Could it be even better? Absolutely.
Almost every post you have always comes back to global warming. We're talking about an economic issue and you're trying to bait the discussion into global warming. I don't care to discuss that issue in this thread. But since you keep pushing I'll say, I am not at all sold on it. But, if it is occurring, I think it's no where near as serious an issue as some, such as yourself, claim. Also, if it is occurring, I believe it's reversible and technology will get us there when it's time. Basically, I'm not worried about it. I also understand that there's reason for leftist to fuel the Global Warming debate to advance socialist-style policies. Basically, it's in their interest to make it into a bigger issue than it is. I'm more worried about pollution itself than global warming because that really effects us all and it's easy to see that. There are my comments on the subject, I'm not being baited further into a discussion on that, because the truth is it's.... about 99th in the list of top 100 world events right now to me. Basically, it's the lowest of the low in terms of priorities to discuss.
I have discussed the sustainability factor, you just haven't listened. I mentioned that you don't know what's going to happen in 10 years. Neither do I. You can't predict "inventions". You can't predict technology.
In my opinion, anyone who claims economic theory is a joke, is a joke themselves.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
how is mentioning not knowing what is going to happen 10 years from now addressing sustainability? ... we are not sustaining ourselves now ... i mention global warming because it is probably the major consequence of the uncontrolled economic growth ... something that has cost billions of dollars and many lives ... but there is no need to discuss it in this thread ... i only point it out because you patronize in your posts but yet you don't believe in something that most people believe in all over the world and the fact you point ...
i didn't say economic theory is a joke ... i just said that referring to it constantly like the world exists in some bubble is a joke ... if you took the time to read what i wrote - you would understand that ...
sooo ... in the end, your response to the state of our resources and planet is simply ... wait 10 years and technology will save us?