Re: [FairfieldLife] Yes, But the Rich Are Different…

2011-08-20 Thread Bhairitu 
On 08/20/2011 10:37 AM, Tom Pall wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:15 PM, do.rflex  wrote:
>
> Read a little history.  Read about the "entitlement" the trade unions felt
> after the war in England.  How there was class hatred, basically from the
> trade unionists who felt they were being ripped off.   Actually, they were
> being made redundant because what they produced, like coal, didn't count
> that much anymore.   So the trade unions got what they wanted.  England went
> socialist.And depressed.  Very depressed. As state before, the problem
> with socialism is eventually you run out of people to rob to support the
> self-proclaimed entitled class.  It was only until the Iron Lady started to
> set things right did some these people on the virtual dole start to realize
> that being productive leads to a successful, prosperous life.   Now we're
> back to the dole.  Generations since WWII on the dole.  No hope except to be
> badasses. You want to talk trash?  There's no cracker in America as trashy
> in outlook and being self-defeating as these badasses, male and female.
> Why is England the state under the most surveillance?Go visit and find
> out quickly enough.  It's not the G20, the G10, the G8.   It's lack of
> opportunity and an a whole lot of people so long on the dole they can't
> envision a better life for themselves, not even  by the joys of holding down
> even a part time job.   So it's the rich, the bankers, eh?   Yeah, there's
> ever a reason why it's his fault and not mine.
>
> We're seeing West Side Story recast as North End Story.

There's nothing wrong with socialism, just the poor implementation of it 
that some countries did.  The Scandinavian countries did a much better 
job.  India's state of Kerala even has a "communist" government but you 
wouldn't know it as it seemed to have some of the most prosperous 
communities of the states that I visited.

Socialism is a helluva lot more fair than capitalism.  The latter is for 
money crazies, materialistic souls and not for the spiritual folk.  
Capitalism is "sink or swim" and a high entropy system.   It is primed 
for gangsters to take it over which they have many times and have again.

Most people probably think that the US had only one depression era.  In 
fact it has had many.  Your school textbooks whitewashed that fact.  
Anyone studying the economic history of the US would conclude that 
capitalism is a piss poor system.  It might be okay in a limited 
format.  Socialism and capitalism can co-exist side by side but you have 
to limit the capitalistic aspect of it.

What we have in this country is a bunch of rednecks and teabaggers who 
are too ignorant to really understand economics and really don't know 
history.  They deserve the kind of government they're going to get but I 
just want to move it and them to Antarctica.






To subscribe, send a message to:
fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
fairfieldlife-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fairfieldlife-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [FairfieldLife] Yes, But the Rich Are Different…

2011-08-20 Thread Tom Pall 
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:15 PM, do.rflex  wrote:

Read a little history.  Read about the "entitlement" the trade unions felt
after the war in England.  How there was class hatred, basically from the
trade unionists who felt they were being ripped off.   Actually, they were
being made redundant because what they produced, like coal, didn't count
that much anymore.   So the trade unions got what they wanted.  England went
socialist.And depressed.  Very depressed. As state before, the problem
with socialism is eventually you run out of people to rob to support the
self-proclaimed entitled class.  It was only until the Iron Lady started to
set things right did some these people on the virtual dole start to realize
that being productive leads to a successful, prosperous life.   Now we're
back to the dole.  Generations since WWII on the dole.  No hope except to be
badasses. You want to talk trash?  There's no cracker in America as trashy
in outlook and being self-defeating as these badasses, male and female.
Why is England the state under the most surveillance?Go visit and find
out quickly enough.  It's not the G20, the G10, the G8.   It's lack of
opportunity and an a whole lot of people so long on the dole they can't
envision a better life for themselves, not even  by the joys of holding down
even a part time job.   So it's the rich, the bankers, eh?   Yeah, there's
ever a reason why it's his fault and not mine.

We're seeing West Side Story recast as North End Story.

[FairfieldLife] Yes, But the Rich Are Different…

2011-08-20 Thread do.rflex 

Yes, But the Rich Are Different…

by Anne Laurie

Earlier this week, the Guardian reprinted a piece by Naomi "Shock 
Doctrine
 " Klein on
"Looting  with the Lights On
 ":


 ... Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and
 thousands of people living in rough neighbourhoods (which had been
 thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed
 foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts
 overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford –
clothes,
 electronics, meat.

 The government called a "state of siege" to restore order;
the
 people didn't like that and overthrew the government.

 Argentina's mass looting was called el saqueo – the sacking.

 That was politically significant because it was the very same word
 used to describe what that country's elites had done by selling
off
 the country's national assets in flagrantly corrupt
privatisation
 deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the
 people with a brutal austerity package.

 Argentines understood that the saqueo of the shopping centres would
 not have happened without the bigger saqueo of the country, and
 that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.

 But England is not Latin America, and its riots are not political,
 or so we keep hearing. They are just about lawless kids taking
 advantage of a situation to take what isn't theirs. And British
 society, Cameron tells us, abhors that kind of behaviour.

 This is said in all seriousness. As if the massive bank bailouts
 never happened, followed by the defiant record bonuses. Followed by
 the emergency G8 and G20 meetings, when the leaders decided,
 collectively, not to do anything to punish the bankers for any of
 this, nor to do anything serious to prevent a similar crisis from
 happening again.

 Instead they would all go home to their respective countries and
 force sacrifices on the most vulnerable.

 They would do this by firing public sector workers, scapegoating
 teachers, closing libraries, upping tuition fees, rolling back
 union contracts, creating rush privatisations of public assets and
 decreasing pensions – mix the cocktail for where you live.

 And who is on television lecturing about the need to give up these
 "entitlements"? The bankers and hedge-fund managers, of
course.

 This is the global saqueo, a time of great taking. Fuelled by a
 pathological sense of entitlement, this looting has all been done
 with the lights on, as if there was nothing at all to hide.

 There are some nagging fears, however. In early July, the Wall
 Street Journal, citing a new poll, reported that 94% of
 millionaires were afraid of "violence in the streets". This,
it
 turns out, was a reasonable fear…

Until I skimmed the Guardian comments, I hadn't realized  that the
Bullingdon  Club   was
still in existence… or that Prime Minister Cameron and  London Mayor
Boris Johnson had been BC members during their youth.  They were 
careless people  ...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/08/20/yes-but-the-rich-are-different/