Title

body
 
xxx of yyy characters
Socialism
  • Join Group
  • Message Board
  • Start New Topic
  • Group Members

Watch this Topic   watch
Messages 

1-10 of 12 1 Next > >|

Close Topic

Reason

Message



 
Topic: tHE LIES OF THE FALSE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
rIGHT NOW IN THIS XXI CENTURY THE MEDIA THAT IS AT THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERMENT, HAVE MADE US BELIEVE THAT WE LIVE IN A TRUE DEMOCRACY WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. wHAT A LIE!!! WHILE INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE BEEN BOMBED IN IRAK TO SPREAD DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM. IT IS UNBELIEVEBLE TO WHAT POINT THE RIGHTIST GOVERMENTS AROUN THE WORLD LIE TO OUR PEOPLE. THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE PROMOTING DEMOCRACY BUT JUST THE WAY THEY CONCEIVE IT AND NOT THE WAY HOW WOULD BENEFIT THE BIG MASSES OF PEOPLE.

i'M FROM EL SALVADOR, A SMALL COUNTRY LOCATED IN CENTRAL AMERICA, AND OVER THERE THE GOVERMENT WE HAVE, FORCES THOUSANDS OF SALVADORIANS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY EVERY YEAR TO LOOK FOR SOMETHING IN THE UNITED STATES THAT THEY CAN'T FIND AT HOMEF. MY BROTHERS FIND THEMSELVES IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THEY DECIDE TO MIGRATE ILLEGALLY TO U.S.A. THE GOVERMENT HAS SAID TO THE WORLD THAT THE ECONOMY IS DOING GOOD AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY BASICALLY HAVE SOLD THE ENTIRE NATION TO THIS CAPITALIST BANKING AND SERVICES CORPORATIONS. IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THE WEALTHY FOREING BUSINESSES, THEY IMPOSED UPON THE PEOPLE THE USE OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR AS THE NEW OFFICIAL CURRENCY OF THE COUNTRY THUS ELIMINATING OUR OWN CURRENCY WHICH WAS THE SALVADORIAN COLON. NOW PEOPLE WHO USED TO GET PAID IN COLON, GET PAID THE SAME EQUIVALENT BUT IN DOLLARS WHICH IN THE END IT COMES TO BE NOTHING. NOW BECAUSE OF PRICES GOING UP AND BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN CURRENCY, POOR PEOPLE CAN'T EVER AFFORD THE BASIC THINGS THEY NEED TO SURVIVE. NOW IN MY COUNTRY FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON IT IS A LUXURY TO EAT THREE MEALS A DAY. CAN YOU GUYS BELIEVE THAT?, WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS BEEN IMPOSED ON US.

I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEVELOPE PEOPLE'S CONCIOUSNESS ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THE WORLD. IT IS TIME TO SPREAD A HUMAN SENSE WHICH GOES AGAINST THE ABUSES AND THE OBSCURE DESIRES OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM. IT'S TIME TO STAND UP AGAINST THE WAR AND IMPERIALIST ACTS THAT DISRESPECT THE SOVEREIGNITY OF THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. WE MUST SHOW OUR SOLIDARITY TO EACH OTHER IN THIS NOBLE CAUSE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PURSUIT. I JUST HOPE ONE DAY THAT THE HUMANS SPECIE REALIZE THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD CANNOT BE SOLVED WITH WEAPONS AND BOMBS. BOMBS CAN KILL THOSE WHO ARE SICK, THOSE WHO CAN'T READ, THOSE WHO ARE STARVING, BUT THEY CANNOT KILL HUNGER, THE SICK ONES AND IGNORANCE.

COMRADES OF ALL NATIONS OF THE WORLD LET'S NOT DIVIDE OUR STRUGGLE FOR THIS IDEAL OF CREATING A BETTER AND JUST SOCIETIES. LET'S ALL BE UNITED FOR OUR NOBLE CAUSES. THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!!!
May 3, 2008
8:28 PM
Unfortunatley Cesar it is the corporations that run the world and the world governments. These Corporatocracies make politicall decisions for the world leaders. Yes if all countries spent less to prepare for war and more to take care of the poor and those without healthcare the world would be a much better place. But that is where greed and man comes into play.Those who are in power do not want to share so they create different levels of society for you to live in. But the catch is your are not aloud to be come to successfull or you just might replace the person above you, and people in charge would not like that. Think about it , can you imagine going from being rich to being poor? That is why the ricch exploit the poor in every society. It is modern day slavery, but people are fed this dream of being successfull but only a few are aloud to succede. This is were the rich say see they didi it why not you? You must not be working hard enough , work harder! But the rich and the wealthy control the means of production and they do not want to lose there labor pool so we (the poor) are kept downtrodden and made to feel inferior because we have not succedded since those who control the means of production exp[loit us!
Jun 29, 2008
6:16 PM
Everthing you just said my friend is true, but could we human beings be able someday to achieve the ideal state in which no change will be neccesary?, or are we condemned since the foundation of the world to let things such as poverty and hunger happen? is that God's will?, i'm asking you that because i know you're christian.
You know one thing I don't like about christianism is that it creates imaginary satisfactions which deprive man from finding rational solutions to the problems of humanity.
I hate apathetic churches that are passive about defending the poor and denouncing injustices because in the end such churches make no difference in our societies, they're just there as a way to gather people and collect money,they become empty. The prophets of ancient biblical times were killed and persecuted because they said the truth about the injustices that the common people had to deal with. they saw their inequality of their time, they viewed how the laborers were deceived promising them to pay them for the work they were to do for whatever king or lord they had, remember James chapter 5. in it James totally confronts the wealthy class of his time so they could treat the poor fairly and better. Because of such passion to defend the poor, James was one of the first apostoles to get killed thus becoming one of the first martyrs of the christian Era.
Anyway I don't even know how i got to mentioning about james. I just don't believe that God is indifferent about the miseries of the poor, He is watching from above everything, and someday all those richies will realize that keeping all the wealth for themselves was not worth at all.
Thank you for reading my message, i hope i get an answer soon. Good bye,.
Jun 29, 2008
8:27 PM
Contemporary critics of consumerism and popular prosperity are obsessed with what they see as a paradox. A central theme of their arguments is that economic growth does not make people happier. In their view, the pursuit of mass affluence is at best futile and is probably responsible for making humanity miserable. Often the growth sceptics argue that the pursuit of material goods is akin to a disease: they say the developed world is suffering from ‘affluenza’ or ‘luxury fever’ (1). Typically they conclude we should not attempt to become richer and often they argue for the pursuit of alternative social goals such as mental well-being.
Jul 1, 2008
2:55 PM
But there is reason to question whether breaking the connection between prosperity and happiness is the killer blow that the critics assume. The growth sceptics seem to ignore the possibility that greater affluence could be immensely beneficial even if it does not necessarily make people happier. Nor do they understand that the propensity for human beings to be unhappy with their lot could have a good side. The striving for a better life is an important motor force of progress. The arguments the happiness pundits advance to show that prosperity does not lead to enhanced well-being are also dubious. And the policies they often propose to make people happier tend to be authoritarian.

The idea that there is a paradox inherent in the drive for affluence is one of the key arguments for contemporary sceptics on economic growth. Many of the most influential books on the topic even have the word in their titles (2). There is Gregg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox (Random House 2003), David Myers’s The American Paradox (Yale 2000) and Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice (Ecco 2004). Even those who do not use the word ‘paradox’ in the title often embrace the concept. Frequently it is referred to as ‘Easterlin’s paradox’ after Richard Easterlin, a professor of economics at the University of Southern California. He first drew attention to the lack of a clear relationship between happiness and affluence as far back as 1974 (3).

Richard Layard, an adviser to New Labour and a professor at the London School of economics, uses it as a central concept in Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (Allen Lane 2005). The opening paragraph states that: ‘There is a paradox at the heart of our lives. Most people want more income and strive for it. Yet as Western societies have got richer, their people have become no happier. (4)’

Although there are variations on the theme, the way Layard puts it is the most common form of the argument. Based on opinion poll data in many developed countries over half a century, the conclusion is that affluence does not make people happier. Once people have the necessities of life they do not appear to become more contented as a result of rising average incomes. In any given society the rich are, on average, happier than the poor. But the trend in individual happiness is more-or-less flat once society passes a threshold of perhaps $20,000 (£10,000) per person a year (5).
Jul 1, 2008
2:56 PM
For many of the happiness gurus such evidence is decisive. As Michael Savage has previously pointed out on spiked it is difficult for anyone to present themselves as being against happiness (6). From the sceptics’ perspective only an unadulterated misery-guts could reject the happiness agenda.

Before examining how the happiness advocates explain this paradox it is important to remember that humanity is immensely better off thanks to growing prosperity. The sceptics tend to downplay or even ignore this crucial point. Whatever our subjective feelings, the rise of mass affluence in the developed world has had huge objective benefits. Such gains are also starting to spread to the developing world as it, too, becomes wealthier. Prosperity gives us the resources to live longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives.

Fortunately a new book by Indur Goklany, an American economist, examines the data in great detail. Its title clearly sums up the argument: The Improving State of the World: Why we’re Living Longer, Healthier More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet (Cato 2007). Goklany’s book takes a similar line to The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge 2001) by Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish statistician, which infuriated environmentalists when it was first published (7).

There is an immense amount of detail in Goklany’s book but some of the key statistics are worth reiterating:

* Life expectancy, which for much of human history was 20-30 years, increased from a worldwide average of 31 in 1900 to 66.8 in 2003. For the high income countries it has reached 78.5 years.
* Infant mortality (death of infants before the age of one per 1,000 live births) was typically over 200 before industrialisation. That is over a fifth of babies died before reaching their first birthday. The worldwide average has fallen from 156.9 in the early 1950s to 56.8 in 2003. In the developed world the average is 7.1.
* Improving health. The onset of chronic diseases is typically happening several years later than in the past. For example, white males aged 60-64 in America are two-and-a-half times more likely to be free of chronic disease than their counterparts a century ago.
* Air quality. Despite the common prejudice that economic development leads to air pollution the evidence in the developed world overwhelmingly suggests that air quality is improving. For example, the traditional pollutants have declined in America for several decades.
Jul 1, 2008
2:56 PM
The fact that the trend is improving does not mean that everything is perfect. There are many instances, particularly in the developing world, where things could be far better. But to the extent there are still problems they constitute an argument for more development rather than less. If the developing world could reach the current living standards of the developed world, that would be a start. Billions of people would be much better off.

Nor is it true that the developed world has reached the stage where it can no longer benefit from increasing prosperity. For example, there is considerable angst about a ‘demographic timebomb’ in which the working age population can no longer support an increasingly large ageing population. But as long as society continues to become richer there is no reason why it cannot support a larger number of dependents (8). To the extent that climate change is a problem the solution is also more development rather than less. Economic growth combined with technological development should provide the means for humanity to have greater control over the environment.

However, although defending the objective benefits of prosperity is a vital task, it is not enough to defeat the sceptics. Some will even recognise the gains associated with affluence while still arguing that it makes people miserable. Gregg Easterbrook, an American journalist and author, is one of the most prominent writers to take such a line. The sub-title of The Progress Paradox, his book on the subject, tell the story: ‘How life gets better while people feel worse’. Easterbrook argues strongly that affluence has brought enormous benefits while at the same time pointing to widespread misery in American society.

Although there are many variations of the argument, the sceptics’ explanation of the paradox most often hinges on inequality. Although they do not generally put it so baldly, they essentially argue that it is futile to pursue absolute increases in prosperity because relative inequalities will always exist. From such a perspective, to strive for greater prosperity can only make people more miserable as society will remain unequal. The most common solution they put forward is to use taxation to curb the consumption of the wealthy.
Jul 1, 2008
2:57 PM
The sceptics’ argument on inequality takes two main forms. The first is that there are certain ‘positional goods’ that are inherently scarce for social rather than physical reasons (9). For instance, in principle there need not be any shortage of land for growing food because farmland can be made more productive. An area of land that once fed, say, 10 people could, with improved agricultural techniques, feed 100. But a plot of land used as a pleasure garden for one family cannot be divided up between ever-growing numbers of people (10). Similarly, someone who owns a Rembrandt often does so at least partly because of its scarcity value. It cannot be divided among more than one owner.

A parallel example is that places at top universities are inherently limited. Only a certain number of people can get into Harvard or Oxford. It may be one person rather than another who is successful but overall the number of such coveted places is limited. Competition for such places is a zero-sum game with some people winning and others losing but no overall benefit to society. A similar principle is also applied to top jobs and in many other areas (11).

The other main variation of the argument is that people judge their well-being by their relative position in society (12). Those at the top tend to be happier while those lower down are generally more miserable. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that everyone should stop striving for more. Even if the acquisition of more material goods gives us a temporary boost it does not lead to lasting happiness. We may initially be delighted if we acquire a new BMW or a plasma screen television but we soon end up adapting to our new standard of living. The cycle then continues with a drive to acquire ever more ridiculous material goods. Humanity, in this view, is engaged in a pointless ‘rat race’, or, to change the metaphor, walking a ‘hedonic treadmill’, which can only make everyone more miserable. Human well-being is therefore undermined by affluence.

Although the arguments on inequality may sound convincing, they are open to question. Even if some things are inherently scarce it does not follow that they are not worth pursuing. Competition to get into a top university, for instance, may help raise the standards of all high school students. In addition, the increase in resources that is associated with economic growth could help increase the standards of all universities. Even if inequalities persist there can be gains from competition and from greater resources.
Jul 1, 2008
2:57 PM
Neither are the arguments on pleasure gardens or Rembrandts as clear-cut as the sceptics assume. The creation of new products or the public provision of existing ones can both help to solve the problem. One piece of land may be owned by a particular family but, in principle, it would be possible to raise the quality of all inhabited land. Land that one day is part of a slum or farmland could be converted into an area of outstanding beauty. Alternatively, parkland could be created so it can be enjoyed by more than one family. Similarly Rembrandts could be put in a museum or new works of arts could be created for people to enjoy.

As for the poor comparing their living standards against the rich, the practice is entirely rational. Since the wealthy tend to have more possessions, better technology and higher quality healthcare their lifestyles give an inkling of what can be achieved. The typical pattern is for the wealthy to be the first to adopt new types of material goods. No doubt the first people to own cars, computers, mobile phones and virtually every other type of good were generally rich rather than poor. As a result the rest of society could clearly see what was potentially possible.

Coveting what the rich have should not be dismissed as unhealthy envy. On the contrary, the fact people are dissatisfied with their lot can be seen as a healthy motive for change. Humanity has historically progressed by constantly trying to improve its position. As a result people are better off than ever before. In this sense unhappiness should be welcomed. It is a sign of ambition and a drive to progress rather than one of inherent misery. In contrast, the essentially conservative message of the happiness gurus is that people should be happy with their lot.

From here it should be clear that there is no paradox of prosperity. The rise of mass affluence is an incredibly positive development. It has bolstered the quality of people’s lives enormously. But there never was any guarantee that such progress would bring happiness. One of the most positive qualities of human beings is that they often want more than they have got. They typically want the lives of their children and grandchildren to be better than their own. The growth sceptics would have us stay where we are or even retreat to living a life of lower living standards.

If popular prosperity is such a positive development it begs the question of why it is so widely questioned by the sceptics. I have already discussed the key factors in a previous essay on spiked on growth scepticism (13). However, some of the main points bear re-examination.

One of the most important is the decline in the rate of economic growth in the developed world. The idea that growth should be a key national priority was only prevalent from the late 1940s to the late 1960s (14). Before that the emphasis was on ensuring economic stability following the experience of the great depression of the 1930s and the Second World War. From the 1970s onwards the benefits of affluence were increasingly called into question as economic growth began to slow. During the 1950s and 1960s the steady rise in living standards had bolstered the legitimacy of both the American and British states. But as growth faltered in the 1970s, and unemployment surged, it became harder for the economy to deliver such benefits consistently.
Jul 1, 2008
2:58 PM
Another factor was the defeat of the left and the demise of 1960s radicalism. As the left was defeated from the 1970s onwards it became increasingly susceptible to anti-growth and environmentalist ideas. In addition, the 1960s counter-culture increasingly took on an anti-consumerist and ecological outlook. The forces that, in the past, could be expected to fight for popular affluence became increasingly sceptical about economic growth.

These developments were bolstered from the 1980s onwards by a new set of factors. The end of the Cold War strengthened the idea that there is no alternative to the market. Progress was widely discredited as an idea. Striving to realise the human potential was increasingly seen as creating problems rather than being a worthwhile goal.

In addition, society has become increasingly anxious about risk-taking. Social atomisation and the breakdown of traditional institutions have created an intense risk aversion (15). There is a growing fear of the potential dangers that the future holds.

These last two factors are important as they also help explain a growing fear of the future. What the growth sceptics identify as a lack of happiness can, at least in part, be more accurately described as social pessimism. There is no longer a sense that the future can be better than the present. On the contrary, potentially positive developments, such as technological or scientific advance, are routinely viewed with foreboding. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that survey data sometimes appears to indicate that people feel miserable. The happiness pundits themselves have taken on the idea that, at least in material terms, the future cannot be better than the present.

The fact that the sceptics are wrong on the supposed paradox of affluence should not be dismissed as simply an academic error. On the contrary, their views and the policies they often advocate have at least two sets of dangerous consequences.
Jul 1, 2008
2:58 PM
1-10 of 12 1 Next > >|
Select Language
Americas Europe Eastern Europe Asia Pacific