Capitalism is a value based economy
not a meritocracy
Just because you work hard
Doesn't mean others value your work
The great capitalist game is to get people to buy what they don't need
30 April 2012
Disenfranchise
Word of the day
verb
deprive (someone) of the right to vote:
• (as adj. disenfranchised) deprived of power; marginalized:
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege:
• archaic deprive (someone) of the rights and privileges of a free inhabitant of a borough, city, or country.
Oxford American Dictionary
Longing for a time When elections were decided by informed voters
Actually equating male white landowners with those who are informed
Not acknowledge historic systematic efforts to deny education to women and people of color
verb
deprive (someone) of the right to vote:
• (as adj. disenfranchised) deprived of power; marginalized:
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege:
• archaic deprive (someone) of the rights and privileges of a free inhabitant of a borough, city, or country.
Oxford American Dictionary
Longing for a time When elections were decided by informed voters
Actually equating male white landowners with those who are informed
Not acknowledge historic systematic efforts to deny education to women and people of color
29 April 2012
Emotion
Word of the day
noun
a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others:
• instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge:
ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (denoting a public disturbance or commotion): from French émotion, from émouvoir ‘excite,’ based on Latin emovere, from e- (variant of ex-)‘out’ + movere ‘move.’ The sense ‘mental agitation’ dates from the mid 17th cent., the current general sense from the early 19th cent.
Instinct
noun
an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli:
• a natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking:
• a natural propensity or skill of a specified kind:
• the fact or quality of possessing innate behavior patterns:
ORIGIN late Middle English (also in the sense ‘instigation, impulse’): from Latin instinctus ‘impulse,’ from the verb instinguere, from in- ‘toward’ + stinguere ‘to prick.’
Intuition
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning:
• a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning:
ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting spiritual insight or immediate spiritual communication): from late Latin intuitio(n-), from Latin intueri ‘consider’ (see intuit) .
Our body is always taking everything in. We respond to stimuli without conscious thought
That response is nothing to be ashamed of
Nothing to repress
We actually do ourselves harm by repression
Emotional response is your body telling you something important is happening that you new to pay attention to
Instinct isn't this metaphysical thing.
It's not the same as being psychic
It's just our first response.
noun
a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others:
• instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge:
ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (denoting a public disturbance or commotion): from French émotion, from émouvoir ‘excite,’ based on Latin emovere, from e- (variant of ex-)‘out’ + movere ‘move.’ The sense ‘mental agitation’ dates from the mid 17th cent., the current general sense from the early 19th cent.
Instinct
noun
an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli:
• a natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking:
• a natural propensity or skill of a specified kind:
• the fact or quality of possessing innate behavior patterns:
ORIGIN late Middle English (also in the sense ‘instigation, impulse’): from Latin instinctus ‘impulse,’ from the verb instinguere, from in- ‘toward’ + stinguere ‘to prick.’
Intuition
noun
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning:
• a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning:
ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting spiritual insight or immediate spiritual communication): from late Latin intuitio(n-), from Latin intueri ‘consider’ (see intuit) .
Our body is always taking everything in. We respond to stimuli without conscious thought
That response is nothing to be ashamed of
Nothing to repress
We actually do ourselves harm by repression
Emotional response is your body telling you something important is happening that you new to pay attention to
Instinct isn't this metaphysical thing.
It's not the same as being psychic
It's just our first response.
24 April 2012
Deep Thought
Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people; before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children; before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.
Cory Booker
23 April 2012
Autonomy
Word of the day
noun
(of a country or region) the right or condition of self-government, esp. in a particular sphere:
• a self-governing country or region.
• freedom from external control or influence; independence:
• (in Kantian moral philosophy) the capacity of an agent to act in accordance with objective morality rather than under the influence of desires.
Oxford American Dictionary
1. the right or state of self-government, esp when limited
2. a state, community, or individual possessing autonomy
3. freedom to determine one's own actions, behaviour, etc
4. philosophy
a. See also categorical imperative
the doctrine that the individual human will is or ought to be governed only by its own principles and laws
b. the state in which one's actions are autonomous
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
1620s, from Gk. autonomia "independence," noun of quality from autonomos "independent, living by one's own laws," from auto- "self" (comb. form) + nomos "custom, law"
noun
(of a country or region) the right or condition of self-government, esp. in a particular sphere:
• a self-governing country or region.
• freedom from external control or influence; independence:
• (in Kantian moral philosophy) the capacity of an agent to act in accordance with objective morality rather than under the influence of desires.
Oxford American Dictionary
1. the right or state of self-government, esp when limited
2. a state, community, or individual possessing autonomy
3. freedom to determine one's own actions, behaviour, etc
4. philosophy
a. See also categorical imperative
the doctrine that the individual human will is or ought to be governed only by its own principles and laws
b. the state in which one's actions are autonomous
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
1620s, from Gk. autonomia "independence," noun of quality from autonomos "independent, living by one's own laws," from auto- "self" (comb. form) + nomos "custom, law"
19 April 2012
Emperor of the U.S.A: Education
The foundation of my Empire would be education.
Reading, writing, and arithmetic for everyone
The focus would be autonomy, self-sufficiency, charity, and critical thinking
Focus on knowledge and skills needed to take care of yourself and your community.
Businesses take responsibility for training their people.
On the Job training and apprenticeships
Turn schools into library/learning centers
With all media and tools needed for learning
Children/parents would determine what they wanted to learn. When they wanted to learn it.
Teachers would become facilitators.
Showing people where to get information.
How to research.
How to use the scientific method.
How to discern information.
How to present information through writing, speaking, art and other mediums.
How to resolve conflicts
*originally posted Nov 2011
05 April 2012
Climate change
I'm agnostic about this
I haven't studied it
I can only go by the media
The world lives in cycles.
Climate change is naturally inevitable.
Our actions increase co2
increased co2 emissions trap heat
Causing weather changes
Species may not be able to keep up with that change and may become endangered or extinct
A study says high co2 helped end the ice age.
co2 is fertilizer for plants
Increased co2 may not be a problem if we hadn't drastically destroyed plant life
I haven't studied it
I can only go by the media
The world lives in cycles.
Climate change is naturally inevitable.
Our actions increase co2
increased co2 emissions trap heat
Causing weather changes
Species may not be able to keep up with that change and may become endangered or extinct
A study says high co2 helped end the ice age.
co2 is fertilizer for plants
Increased co2 may not be a problem if we hadn't drastically destroyed plant life
04 April 2012
Spread the Wealth
I think liberals and conservatives are divided on how to create economic growth.
It seems like Conservatives embrace supply-side economics (trickle down economics or voodoo economics). This theory proposes that economic growth comes when you give corporations incentives to produce goods and services. The incentives usually come in the form of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy. The idea is that these businesses will then create more jobs, increase wages and lower their prices. Everyone would benefit.
Liberals embrace a sort of bottom up theory. Decrease taxes for the consumer and worker. Increase their wages. This will put more money in their pockets. They will buy more things. This will increase demand and therefore increase production. Increased production will prompt companies to hire more people...yada yada yada.
Now, liberals would say that supply side economics actually increases the income gap. When companies see big profits, those profits actually go to the shareholders and the executives of that company. Not to the blue collar workers. And consumers actually don't see any real relief in prices. When the wealthy get more income, they save it. They usually invest it but those investments don't necessarily benefit the workers and consumers of the products they invest in.
Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth". Apparently, he would revoke the Bush tax cuts given to the wealthy and give more tax breaks to the middle class. It is said that he wants to enact policies that would decrease the wealth gap.
Conservatives believe this would cause businesses to cut jobs and raise prices.
Now, some reject Obama's policies because they believe it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth. It's not fair to take someone's hard earned income and give it to people who haven't earned it.
Others believe that Bush was already redistributing wealth when he enacted his tax cuts for the wealthy. Hell, they can even take it back to Reagan. That supply side economics is a redistribution of wealth... in favor of the wealthy.
What do you think about the differences between conservative and liberal economic theories?
I don't see how either theory really works.
They both seem to lead to the same point. The corporation's cash flow. Neither system really encourages the corporations to spread the wealth to their workers, hire more workers, or give better deals to the consumer.
There really is no way to encourage corporations to do any of these things. We could discourage them from hiring overseas by making it more costly. But they may end up taking their business overseas.
But, I'm a little biased because I advocate for abolishing income tax. (yeah, I know... in a pig's eye. Whatever)
I am a bit conservative because I don't think government is really the solution to our economy. Both sides have shown that they are not able to regulate our economy.
Government spending doesn't redistribute wealth, it just creates debt because the corporations have found ways to avoid taxation.
I still think the bailout was a horrible idea. Corporations own the government.(i.e. plutocracy) The government is the middle man between the wealthy elitist and the working class citizens. Govt. makes sure we get just enough so we don't revolt.
This is capitalism right? And capitalism is supposed to strive in a competitive environment? But people forget that in all competitions someone has to win. That usually looks like corporate take overs. And less competition along the way. Higher prices for consumers.
If we want a share of the wealthy's profits, We have to compete for them on the market.
Redistribute wealth by taking away their profits. This means taking their customers.
So what can our nation do to promote competition? My idea is to create incentives for people to open more small businesses. Put the 'mom and pops' back in charge of the economy. Our emphasis should be on more local economies.
We need more worker owned businesses.
If workers want to see their wages increase, they have to fight for it themselves. Workers must set their own wages. We can't expect government to effectively fight for us.
Redistribution of wealth is not about getting something handed to you.
It's not about taking from someone who earned their money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
It's about actually being paid what you're worth.
It's addressing the issue of productivity increasing (that means the Workers work harder),
profits increasing because of that extra work,
CEOs get higher salaries and bonuses because of that work,
Yet, the workers who created that profit see an increase in workload, a stagnant wage, and dwindling benefits.
And they're lucky if they don't get laid off.
CEOs used to get around 40 times that of their average worker. Now they bank 300 times more.
Redistribution of wealth means giving a worker a living wage
Making sure they can afford housing, healthy food, health care, education, transportation.
and making sure someone who works hard doesn't get exploited.
Making sure someone who works hard doesn't have to worry about losing their house or worry about their medical bills.
Govt. policies and lack of oversight have almost destroyed economic competition in this nation.
I think globalization is our problem. It's just another name for corporate imperialism.
We need to take the conglomerates down a notch or two. I think these big bloated nationwide (now worldwide) corporations are what's killing our economy.
*original post Nov 2009
It seems like Conservatives embrace supply-side economics (trickle down economics or voodoo economics). This theory proposes that economic growth comes when you give corporations incentives to produce goods and services. The incentives usually come in the form of tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy. The idea is that these businesses will then create more jobs, increase wages and lower their prices. Everyone would benefit.
Liberals embrace a sort of bottom up theory. Decrease taxes for the consumer and worker. Increase their wages. This will put more money in their pockets. They will buy more things. This will increase demand and therefore increase production. Increased production will prompt companies to hire more people...yada yada yada.
Now, liberals would say that supply side economics actually increases the income gap. When companies see big profits, those profits actually go to the shareholders and the executives of that company. Not to the blue collar workers. And consumers actually don't see any real relief in prices. When the wealthy get more income, they save it. They usually invest it but those investments don't necessarily benefit the workers and consumers of the products they invest in.
Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth". Apparently, he would revoke the Bush tax cuts given to the wealthy and give more tax breaks to the middle class. It is said that he wants to enact policies that would decrease the wealth gap.
Conservatives believe this would cause businesses to cut jobs and raise prices.
Now, some reject Obama's policies because they believe it's not the government's job to redistribute wealth. It's not fair to take someone's hard earned income and give it to people who haven't earned it.
Others believe that Bush was already redistributing wealth when he enacted his tax cuts for the wealthy. Hell, they can even take it back to Reagan. That supply side economics is a redistribution of wealth... in favor of the wealthy.
What do you think about the differences between conservative and liberal economic theories?
I don't see how either theory really works.
They both seem to lead to the same point. The corporation's cash flow. Neither system really encourages the corporations to spread the wealth to their workers, hire more workers, or give better deals to the consumer.
There really is no way to encourage corporations to do any of these things. We could discourage them from hiring overseas by making it more costly. But they may end up taking their business overseas.
But, I'm a little biased because I advocate for abolishing income tax. (yeah, I know... in a pig's eye. Whatever)
I am a bit conservative because I don't think government is really the solution to our economy. Both sides have shown that they are not able to regulate our economy.
Government spending doesn't redistribute wealth, it just creates debt because the corporations have found ways to avoid taxation.
I still think the bailout was a horrible idea. Corporations own the government.(i.e. plutocracy) The government is the middle man between the wealthy elitist and the working class citizens. Govt. makes sure we get just enough so we don't revolt.
This is capitalism right? And capitalism is supposed to strive in a competitive environment? But people forget that in all competitions someone has to win. That usually looks like corporate take overs. And less competition along the way. Higher prices for consumers.
If we want a share of the wealthy's profits, We have to compete for them on the market.
Redistribute wealth by taking away their profits. This means taking their customers.
So what can our nation do to promote competition? My idea is to create incentives for people to open more small businesses. Put the 'mom and pops' back in charge of the economy. Our emphasis should be on more local economies.
We need more worker owned businesses.
If workers want to see their wages increase, they have to fight for it themselves. Workers must set their own wages. We can't expect government to effectively fight for us.
Redistribution of wealth is not about getting something handed to you.
It's not about taking from someone who earned their money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
It's about actually being paid what you're worth.
It's addressing the issue of productivity increasing (that means the Workers work harder),
profits increasing because of that extra work,
CEOs get higher salaries and bonuses because of that work,
Yet, the workers who created that profit see an increase in workload, a stagnant wage, and dwindling benefits.
And they're lucky if they don't get laid off.
CEOs used to get around 40 times that of their average worker. Now they bank 300 times more.
Redistribution of wealth means giving a worker a living wage
Making sure they can afford housing, healthy food, health care, education, transportation.
and making sure someone who works hard doesn't get exploited.
Making sure someone who works hard doesn't have to worry about losing their house or worry about their medical bills.
Govt. policies and lack of oversight have almost destroyed economic competition in this nation.
I think globalization is our problem. It's just another name for corporate imperialism.
We need to take the conglomerates down a notch or two. I think these big bloated nationwide (now worldwide) corporations are what's killing our economy.
*original post Nov 2009
01 April 2012
Foundation
Life
liberty
The pursuit of happiness
Which translates as property in the constitution
I translate the pursuit of happiness as love
liberty
The pursuit of happiness
Which translates as property in the constitution
I translate the pursuit of happiness as love
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)