Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show" channel.

  1. in 1940 the 40 hour workweek was introduced for ALL industries in the U.S. - that was meant to be enough (at least for the male breadwinner, yes gender roles ....) Point being. ONE adult working in manufacturing could support a family which usually included more kids than today. HUGE progress regarding productivitiy (how much one workers creates in output of goods and services in one hour) and technology has happened since. between 1947 till 1970 productivity rose by 1112 %, from 1970 - 2013 * it rose ONLY by 69 % more. Which is interesting in itself: New technologies were established, think DNA sequencing, computers, mobile and smartphones, the internet ..... so in the much shorter era with high taxes for the rich and profitable companies and good wages - THEN productivity increased much more in only 23 years ?? That goes contrary to claims of neoliberal economists and what politicians, and mainstream media wants us to believe. Isn't that weird ? ** Purchasing power of wages (hourly average wages, adjusted for inflation) almost doubled in the Golden Era (until the 1970s), it was plus 97 % plus so just shy of the 100 % for doubling - but in phase 2 (neoliberalism) it only increased by 8 or 9 % (and that can be unevenely spread between the people getting hourly wages, for instance the low paying jobs not growing at all, while the better paying hourly paid jobs had very modest growth). I know the numbers till 2013 by hear, but the same applies till 2019, the trend is intact. The wage growth achieved in 2018 and 2019 was eaten up by inflation. What happened from 1970s on ? Two major global crises due to oilprice spikes, the rich and big biz and FINANCE used the first major unemployment crisis to hit back against the New Deal. (Paul Volckers was appointed by Carter as fed chair and he solved inflation on the back of regular people and the productive economy. He would rather send the economy into a drepression ! than invonvenience the owners of fortune with the fact that their bonds and savings accounts lost in purchasing power. Inflation even somewhat higher one CAN be managed to not harm regular people and inflation is also not the enemy of productive companies or homeonwers paying down their mortgage. But the owners of fortunes if they are not invested in a biz, or real estate are going to lose some purchasing power. Carter was not financed by big finance, but unfortunately he was misinformed and let Volkcer run amock. No wonder Reagan let him in place, he could thank Volcker for making him president, and that (then new policy) was devastating for U.S. labor and the unions. the interest rate can be used to FINETUNE the economy, but not to steer it, it has never worked to deal with major crises (inflation was seen as one. But I would rather have higher grocery and gas bills to pay but everyone has a job. The reason for the prices spikes was wasteful use of energy and over a few years INVESTMENT (machines, gadgets, insulation, construction, research) would have solved that cost problem. Plus it would have made the U.S. immune to future oil price spikes. use of fossil fuel would have been replaced with use of human labor and technology. Yes that costs - but you get the educated, qualified workforce and the jobs as bonus. But those investments (for home owners, and the industries) at the end of Carter's first term would have needed loans, which then cost up to 20 % interest (and still 14 - 15 % for businesses). That was insane, strangled the economy (I know of no other intentionally created depression) and the excessively high interest rates (as "cure" for inflation) was directly opposed to the NECESSARY investments into the future and even normal business and private expenditures and investments. It his like you have funghus on your toe nails. you can and should do something about it, it takes time, but is totally doable to fix that. One could of course also amputate the foot or the leg to get rid of the funghus. The human would survive in both cases - in scenario 1 it is slightly unpleasant and then you return to good conditions. Scenario 2 ... you survived but with massive and LASTING damage. The underlying problem of the U.S. economy ("needing" cheap oil, or product prices would go up) was not solved (Japan and Europe invested to a degree, meaning they are more independent from oil price spikes, fuel is more expensive there anyway, so everyone avoids using too much). continuing to be dependent on cheap oil also meant the U.S. continued to have military adventures to make sure oil prices stayed down. No one ever adds the military spending to the "cheap" gas in the U.S. The federal minimum wage was at its height (purchasing power) in the late 1960s. These things are related: R&D investment is hard to earn back, if people cannot afford to buy (or only by taking on consumer debt). Industries have consolidated (moving towards monopolies) and we have global over capacities for industrial production (even in 2019). ** Yes when you accept neoliberal gibberish. If you do not give in to the _thought stopping clichés and think things through: People had disposable income from good wages so it made sense to innovate companies could sell the stuff at a large scale. Also companies could ONLY avoid taxes if they invested. Which they did, as to not having to give the money to Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam got it anyway: if a company invests they buy equipment (think machines, assembly lines, benfefits for workers, like throwing a lavish Christmas party) or they hire employees and contractors (think research). Either way someone has income or revenue. Someone is going to pay taxes or the money circulates in the economy. Now often 2 adults work in a household and often more than 40 hours - and that is in the most technologically advanced civilzation ever. Workers got most of productivity wins in form of more purchasing power while they continued to work 40 hours per week (often only one adult in the household). In the 1970s when the population had established some wealth (simply furnishing your home with plates, silverware, bedding, furniture) was easier in 1970 than 1947 for the majority - so it would have been time to reduce the worktime WHILE keeping the income = purchasing power the same. If you only have to work 39, 38 hours .... (as productivity will allow) and get the same (inflation adjusted) wage - it equals a pay rise. People would have continued to have a stable income, low unemployment, all would have had a job (but spent fewer hours there). Also chances to integrate working mums w/o wearing them completely down. Companies would have had the SAME COST and the SAME output (not more and more goods with the same staff - OR firing a part of the staff and producing the same output with fewer people. Which creates unemployment if the production processes in the whole economy get more and more efficient over a decade or two. The U.S. had ongoing automation, computers were used more, women got into the work force and a lot of immigration happened. The 1970s crisis just accelarated the ineviatable - more unemployment. The 40 hour workwook was a good fit - for 1940. It would have been time to adjust it after one generation that had seen massive improvement in technology. Instead we have moved in the complete opposite direction.
    3
  2.  @reboot3332  yeah, yeah - i know that comment from another video - I'll abstain from answering. Bernie 2020
    3
  3. btw you can take the Johnson & Johnson it is NOT mRNA, and be done with it.
    3
  4.  @peterclemmins7099  His son i s a grifter - he sucks up to big donors and the Trump voters.
    3
  5.  @truthbearer7891  No they can sell more Lego Kits, if the kids can build only one thing out of it. They would sell the generic building blocks only once. (plus the built thing can be / look more sophisticated with specific parts).
    3
  6.  @win1atime  Why do WE not have time for "sideshows" ? We do not have time for TRUTH - which the war supporting MSM do not tell ??? - Mike Gravel was the most fierce against militarism, insane military spending, war on drugs in 2008. No other candidate then spelled it out like he did. This time Tulsi Gabbard will tell it, Warren and Sanders do "diplomatic" language. But they chose to not "offend" the establishment - which may be a wise move (chosing their battles wisely) but it does not help with INFORMING the public.
    3
  7. + Jones - money is easy to come by. - the "shareholders" and investment funds are NOT NEEDED to develop, create, distribute and consume goods and services. - What we need is a skilled workforce and people with management skills . Well trained scientists and engineers. Patents * Manufacturing plants or research labs.- well with MONEY those can be set up. The most important ingredient in an economy is the knowledge, a good work ethics in general, functioning infrastructure, some kind of entrepreneurial spirit or "can do" attitude would be helpful, and a safe environemnt (with a working legal system, a working public administration, not too much corruption, no war). ** with partents there is a problems because the "haves" and Big Biz have tried to use their wealth to monopolize patents. The U.S. military pays for a LOT of development and research. When they come up with something promising (and have done the heavy lifting cost and risk wise) politically connected Big Biz takes over. - see the clip with Noam Chomsky The role of the military is misunderstood. The MIT - heavily military funded - had the all the electronics companies on campus. NOW it is pharma. There is of course no logical reason why those pharma reserach results could not be handed over to non-profits, or companies that can reinvest much more because they are NOT meant to create even more income for already wealthy shareholders. The overwhelming majority of shares are the property of rich people. The odd regular person having a fund or having them in their retirement fund - that does not make a dent. * As for management Example: In the co-ops the workers hire their management - To bring out the best in the people, to hold together the team and coordinate their efforts, and partially also for the expertise - although the manager must not/should not even be the best expert in the team. All of that WOULD be their job in a capitalistic run company as well. As opposed to lording over the workers. - And the "boss" is the highest ranked manager. But in practice: in a co-op I cannot see a manager constantly bullying the workers, or sexually exploiting the females. Not giving them toilet breaks (they pee into bottles in Amazon warehouses) or making unreasonable demands for how they should dress (high heels for waitresses that were demanded in some restaurant chain, which can lead to problems with the feet over time). Such leadership would not be accepted. The thing with the skilled and engaged workforce - they recognize a good manager/leader when they see one. So the hasty word, and a no-nonsense attitude might be tolerated. Meanness - not. And it is mobbing, bullying and abuse of hierarchial power that can lead to people getting sick because the stress at the workplace. Plus it cause constant change in the group, because those who have alternatives will leave. Managers in such co-op settings do have some power in the everyday work - but that power is conditional. Retaliatory firing if a worker does not put up with mistreatment ? - aint gonna happen.
    3
  8. + Starforge The tensions in groups can arrive in for-profit and in non-profit groups - this has nothing to do with capitalism, co-ops, schools, NGOs. Except that some forms of harrassment by management are much les likely in worker-run co-ops. School was a mixed bag. There is group culture and there are teachers who care and shape that culture - or others that ignore obvious bullying. Or they are the bullies. Actually I have experiences with managers and medium sized business owners (the capitalistic model) who work a lot with the carrot (and rarely with the stick). It works excellently - and effortlessly for management !! - if the boss/manager/leader knows whom NOT to hire (trouble makers, psychopaths, truly lazy and incompetent people). And if they are not so much into people pleasing or denial of conflict that they ignore serious tensions. Modragon that huge Spanish co-op btw has a trial period. If you want to join you work as employee (which they also have), after 1 year or so a person can apply for owenership and becoming a co-worker. (they pay in an amount like 2000 USD - they get that back when they leave). And then there were the companies where the group process was messed up, sometimes the leadership was to weak or disinterested to deal with it - or one got the impression they even fuelled the tensions - or managment was the problem. Most people are in the middle when it comes to being competent, socially accomodating, mature, diligent. You place them in a toxic environment (police, school, NGO, army, workplace) - they will either suffer, adjust to the bad standards (silent resignation or joining in the destructive behavior) - or they will leave - if they have other options. On the other hand if you enter a group and the rules are: we do not mob, we are polite, we don't do lazy, we are on time, we keep promises (you will get the report by ...) - then even the average people will orient towards the higher standard. - The group - much more than management - will maintain good and nurturing standards. In human groups mobbing can happen and it can start with little things and get out of hand. Again a good leader can intervene and shape the culture. Or the group has established a good culture - often with some opinion leader within a group that has no formal power but a good standing with the peers. (we don't do mobbing here and we also don't do gossipping beyond a certain level). Exampel: 3 person company, then 25 - 30 persons, then they expanded beyond that. Some long-time employees feel like insiders and feel entitled to decide that they do not like some new employees - just because. (They essentially treat the workplace like it was their circle of friends. Now it is good to be identified with the company - but at the workplace you also must get along with people you would not invite to Christmas - like collegues, customers, ...). So it is not like they would state any objections in the regular meetings - there is nothing of substance they could object to. And not everyone shares their stance. The management (in that case identical with the owners) noticed the tensions, thought they could let it run it's course. Then they were alerted by other workers that the meanness and the backstabbing got more intense. So there was an intervention. That learning process (management, plus members of the group speaking up for someone else) was part of the growing pains. There were later some more attempts (few) to single someone out - and that time it was immediately counteracted. The people that were prone to do "mobbing" were not bad folks, nor were they incompetent in their work. Immature or very tribal, yes. So it is necessary to have a counterweight to that - either top down or - and that is even more effective - by a good group culture. If the group does not tolerate the slackers or unfairness (and there are many ways to excert social pressure) then the leadership or managment does not need to deal with that shit. The group does have ways to straighten out members, and that power exceeds that of managment (except for the power to fire someone, but that can be a loss to the company as well). Tensions WILL come up - the question is what you do about them. In capitalistic (and other) companies or groups often such tensions are gladly ignored. The seemingly diligent and capable manager bullies the workers or drives away a lot of good people - or makes females quit because of sexual harrassment. That causes costs too, but they are never explicitely written down, and some of the costs are on the back of the employees. Higher management often painfully avoids "noticing" that they have unusually high rates of people leaving. And the brash attitude of a manager is taken for an no-nonsense but efficient and company serving attitude. I worked in a company where I learned later that a manager had sexually harrassed female employees for which he was responsible. He had a falling out with higher management - for other reasons - so he went away. But not w/o making one competent and ambitious female quit. She could have been his daugther - so outside the workplace he would have to live with the fact that he does not play in her league when hitting on her. The other woman I know that he harrassed was older and longer with the company - she hoped for the best - and was lucky. And that was in the course of 2 years so I wonder how many females he had harrassed in his maybe 15 years in the company. That shit would not have happened in a co-op. And apart from that manager the climate was supportive and good.
    3
  9. No one would have paid attention because of a little bit of "bitching" about the political opponents. It was the unethical dealings that were embarassing. Also I think only people paying very close attention KNEW the details, and likely it did not change many people's mind. I think the Bernie Sanders supporters were not much surprised , they already KNEW what was going on - based on actions. And still voted for HRC knowing full well what the DNC had done, holding their noses. The DNC played "dumb" - like "We rigging the debate schedule in the primaries ? - we would never do that, it is all coincidence". (Scheduling debates on days where people usually do not watch as much TV) And then the leaked emails showed - of course it was intentional - as everyone in their right mind already knew. And this was one of the more harmless examples.
    3
  10. Even in the deep red states approx. 35 % of those that vote do not vote Republican. It is safe to assume that many Democrats do not even bother to go to polls. - Many states are red because they have a few precent more. There MUST be some other citizens. Maybe they fly under the radar and dare not speak up ;) Of course under the non-Republicans you will have the neoliberal to the progressive spectrum.
    3
  11. + Paul George aternative facts much ? 80 % of those who voted for Sanders in the primaries, voted for Hillary in the G.E. (which was a MUCH higher percentage than Hillary primary voters supporting Obama in the GE in 2008. (see Twiter of Dr. Brian Schaffner). There were articles end of August 2017. Those Sanders primary supporters who went to Trump showed that they WERE very unlikely Democratic voters to begin with. They voted for Sanders DESPITE the fact that he came under the Democratic ticket and despite the fact that they gave Obama low grades. (I guess they went for an economic populist message). So Sanders had a cross over appeal that Hillary did not have at all. See for instance - "Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?" By John Sides August 24 - The WaPo and John Sides are not likely to be positive about Sanders, still the reporting (and the facts) contradict your claim. As for the Sanders people "tucking their tails", well YES - they fell in line, holding their nose THIGHTLY and voted for HRC. HRC - despite that undeserved support still managed to lose to Donald Trump. ("We are getting 2 moderate Republicans for every blue collar we lose". Chuck Schumer summer 2016 on the Rust Belt strategy. And something like: "I do not need to campaign in the Rust Belt now that the primaries are over, after all they voted for Obama" - never mind that Bill Clinton thought they should do more in those states, or that local Democratic organizations asked for funds and they were concerned - they saw the bumper stickers, yard signs, felt the mood. - At the very end the campaign must have gotten some warning pollings - Obama and I think also Michelle went there days before the election - it was too little too late. - Michael Moore sensed the shift earlier and predicted the win of Trump, Bill Clinton had enough political instinct - but not the "Annointed One" and her hoards of consultants and staffers. Right now Sanders supporters of 2016 are not "tucking their tails" - many of them are trying to either REFORM the Democratic party or hope fervently that Sanders will declare to run as an independent (and they support Progessive candidates on every level). Sanders would eat Trump alive (in case you haven't noticed Trump chickened out of debating him last year). And with some good preparation to go rhetorically against neocon B.S. talking points Sanders could dismantle Pence as well. Pence would of course sit well with the usual Republicans (but he is not believeable regarding economic populism - pro TPP, plus he is very hawkish). Sanders on the other hand would massively increase turnout and activate non-voters. NOW that he has the name recognition, he polls very well also with women and minorities and crushes it with young people (all races, ethnicities). Which is important because young people are a free social media army and are notorious for their low participation in elections.
    3
  12. Well the members of the Syrian army (which has soldiers of all confessions) did not exactely ask to be dragged into a war. A conflict that is not a civil but a proxy war, funded from the outside, fought by mercenaries and Islamic extremists (of whom many are foreigners sent by Saudi Arabia and the US). I think many of the Syrian army soldiers see their country under threat (they are right) - and they deserve to live as well as the Syrian civilians. It also seems that the people of East Aleppo felt Aleppo was liberated (not "Aleppo has fallen"). The population is reported to be friendly with the Syrian and the Russian soldiers. They are demining East Aleppo (special teams from Syria and Russia - not sure they get help from any other nation). They found chemicals, some quite toxic, bomb building materials, stock piled food - usually in basements used by the rebesl. The rebels and their families are said to have made up 25 % of the population in occupied East Aleppo. The rest of the people were held hostage, they were prevented from leaving and when food came in THEY did not get enough of it. In order to avoid a house to house battle and the genocide of the hostages, the government gave an amnesty to all Syrian rebels that laid down their weapons (not sure the amnesty was also granted to foreigners). They and if present their families could leave before the last part of East Aleppo was taken over by government forces. That exit was negotiated and observed by the UN - giving the rebels the security they would acutally be allowed to leave the buses drove them to Idlib (is that under fire now ?) That meant that those of the rebels who wanted to defect could then do so - many of them may have been also some sort of hostages. Not all were religious fanatics, some might have done it for the money, even out of economic desperation. Well they sure could not leave as long as their respective group - Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, FSA = moderate terrorist etc. etc. were in control. If found out they were shot - if they were lucky. ISIS was ruthless about punishing "defectors" or "wrongdoers" from their own group. The people that refused to leave were the most extreme, maybe also the leaders (Islamists or not). During the final fighting one escape route out of town was left open - again to give an incentive to flee rather than fight in a house to house battle till the end. Those "rebel" troops made it to Palmyra. Quite visible in the desert. No civilians around. Russian and Syrian soldiers had their hands full with Aleppo and other settlements and the US ...... was doing nothing. The US military might have for the longest time disagreed with Obama on his "Syria must be regime changed by a proxy war" - maybe because of the danger of getting into a fight with Russia. With the prospect of Trump coming in they might be able to do now, what should have been done long ago. (When ISIS was on the rise, their troops from Raqqa in Irak were allowed to move to Syria through the open desert. What did the US do ...... It is almost as if they wanted ISIS to get stronger, the civilians in Iraq and Syria be damned. Indeed it is so. It seems there exist an audio with Kerry admitting exactely that - it is longer - until now I heard only a part. It is discussed on the Alex Jones channel (who knew), and there you can find links. In September 2016 New York Times and CNN made fluff pieces by using parts of a leaked audio. The audio covers a meeting of Kerry meeting representatives of the Syrian "opposition" at the UN (between official meetings) who wanted a no fly zone and of course US boots on the ground. CNN made the error to embed the complete leaked audio, it got downloaded, CNN removed it meanwhile (security concerns of involved persons), the article is still online. And the audio - in improved quality - was re-uploaded onto youtube.
    2
  13. Is Mark Blyth an US citizen ? (He is from Scotland as everyone can hear). P.S.: that weakling of Senator would not stand a chance - I also think Blyth was sort of favouring Sanders although he never spoke about it.
    2
  14. + Maxwell Montgomery Nice try: Jane and Bernie Sanders have got a new house (no. 3) in exchange for the house that Jane inherited (and which they sold). They have a home in Burlington (of course, he was mayor there). Also they have a row house in Washington D.C. which makes sense since he has been in Congress since 1991 and in Senate since 2007 (a lot of rent saved ;) ). One would think his salary (and before the salary as mayor) would explain how to pay for such real estate WITHOUT BRIBES. And the 600k vaccation home they bought last summer can certainly be considered a luxury. But then his books might sell well and at least a good part of that was financed with Jane's heritage. On top of that Jane had an income as well (in the last decades) to help pay off the 2 other houses.
    2
  15. Europe here, some food for thought: No, the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TAKE OVER in a non-profit public healthcare system (as Feinstein claims. Watch the Corporate Democrats embrace RIGHT WING TALKING POINTS. (Sanders has changed the discussion and now they have to desperately grasp for any lame argument to justify their support of a healthcare system that profits first and foremost their donors). All other wealthy countries with a WELL FUNCTIONING PUBLIC NON PROFIT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM have a PUBLIC AGENCY. It that has to obey strict privacy laws and it deals with the other players in the system (usually it is a mix of private for profit and non-profit entities). The public agency collects the contributions that fund the system, negotiates the contracts (doctors, pharma industry, hospitals, pharmacists), gets and pays the bills - the patients do not get any bills. The government is involved in passing the laws resp. amending the laws when necessary (a few years ago in my country Austria stricter regulation regarding lobbying of the Pharmaceutical industry. Or if they need more funding - either to allocate budgets from the tax revenue or to raise the percentage employers/employees have to pay from the wages - which would be a huge political issue). Ctizens see the ageny as "sort of government related" - while that is not exactely true in the legal sense, it is helpful for accounability. It would put a lot of political pressure on the system if it did not work well or would get too expensive. Example: in Austria and Germany most family doctors, dentists, x-ray providers, .... are like small familiy businesses. I would not call them "entrepreneurs". They are for-profit - the profit is the income for the doctors, and it also pays for the costs of the practice , and the few employees they have. Their revenue comes from the contract with the Public Agency. Of course all doctors have the same contract and conditions. And each town with a certain number of inhabitants will have a maximum number of doctors with a contract. The doctors do not get that much for each patient or treatment, but there is enough business for each of them to make a good living. There are doctors without a contract who then of course have no regional restrictios or protection but they are a minority. Usually they have a speciality to offer, or they would not have enough patients to make a living (TCM, sports medicine for professional athletes, maybe hypnosis or weight loss). That quota system is cost-efficient (every doctor has enough patients to make it economically viable), there is an element of competition (patients are free to go to their doctor of choice - usually folks have a doctor nearby where they live and stay with that doctor, but you can drive to the next town if you want.) Same with hospitals, they are spread all over the country (there are almost no for-profit hospitals), some are run by the muncipalities, others by non-profit groups which are usually church related. Often you can go where you please (broken arm for instance). In other cases you will be refered to a hospital, that is especially the case for some planable procedures or very specialized surgery. It means the hospital will have a lot of cases, they will have a lot of experience - that means good outcomes and cost efficiency. The car accident, the heart attack, stroke, the broken arm - here it is often about getting quick help, it will be the nearest or most convenient hospital - whereever you are. Again, the hospitals have all the same contract with the public agency. So it does not matter in which hospital you end up. Not like in the U.S. where they will hit you with a huge bill when you get treatment at a place that has no contract with YOUR healthcare insurance company.
    2
  16. Maybe the party establishment thinks they use him, might well be the other way round. And for him accepting the "outreach" position in the DNC (which they created so they did not have to give him a CONVENTIONAL position of power withing the party) may have been very smart. It leverages where HIS POWER really lies - communicating the change to the people. As Dem outreach he is now naturally invited to the TV networks (also using him for ratings, go figure). And while on TV he stubbornly says stuff the Corporate Dems would rather like to NOT REACH the ear of the unwashed masses. NOW single payer has become a thing that is widely discussed. - Watch Nancy Pelosi using Republican or even Right Wing talking points to justify in a townhall meeting why she will not ! support Medicare for all "now" - because it is government take over and stuff. - And IF he ever wants to go Third party he could - and the people would follow him - no problem with the web. (and not even MSM could bury that story it would threaten the existence of the Democratic Party)
    2
  17. The massive use in the 2004 bombing in Fallujah was detected by German radioctivity detectors a few days later (they have them at some distance from the nuclear power plants). They of course checked if there was a problem with the power plant - nope - part of that dust goes eventually into the atmosphere.
    2
  18. If we would make a BOLD EFFORT (think Manhattan Project or Race to the Moon) for research on different types of ENERGY STORAGE we could switch the system around in 10 years.Think of the costs of the World Wars or Vietnam. The sad thing. such bold spending is only undertaken when it is about WAR, not peace and wellbeing of citizens and domestic jobs. HARVESTING solar or wind energy has become CHEAP, it is the STORAGE solutions we yet have to come up with. Potential solutions where research and testing has been done: solar to methane, solar to hydrogen, artificial photosynthesis. Or batteries to store electricity (I hope there will be a non-metallic solution in the future unlike the conventional batteries used now, with Lithium etc.) Nations with a lot of sunshine could produce a surplus. Even in the colder, wetter, more clouded areas of the planet the sun sends us HUGE AMOUNTS of energy (in a few days the planet receives as much solar energy as the whole world uses in one year). A part of energy demand is electricity - running machines but also for cooling, a part is oil for transport (could be switched to electricity). A considerable part (? one third) is for heating usually fossil fuel (oil and gas). Now here one could use solarthermie * (that technology to heat water is older than photovoltaic which is used to produce electricity). Even for countries in the moderate climate zones like Germany a home can cover 80 % of it's annual warm water demand from such a not very large panel. They also work in winter, one clear sunny day (even if it is cold) will certainly get you warm water for one day.
    2
  19. Greetings from Europe - both systems work. The financiers of the US for-profit institutions employ the administrators to skim the profits (incl. whole departments of people whose job it is to deny coverage or make people pay extra. Must be a job from hell).
    2
  20. + Lara S. - so are you a neocon apologist ? - There is no rational !!! reason for Assad to launch a poison gas attack - especially not at that area 10 km behind the front lines. Unless you assume that Assad is just crazy and enjoys killing people (or that part of the military has gone rogue and enjoys gassing people just for the fun of it). - All humanitarian considerations aside: It Does Not Make Sense. Not in the military or strategic or diplomatic sense. - The Syrian government was winning the conflict (in a military sense). Assad had a lot of reasons NOT to use chemicals weapons. And the neocons and regime changers and the losing rebels have a lot of very rational (evil) reasons to perform a false flag operation. If that was so - they were succesful - Trump did a U-turn - publicly. 2013 poison gas attack also blamed on Assad: Mother Agnes Mariam presented a report - the videos with dead little children seem to use the same children for several videos (allegedly "proofing" death on several locations and times). And parents claim that these children were kidnapped before - by the rebels. Mongo Local780 has an excellenct comment about the strategic and military plausibility in this thread. My take on the matter: Peace talks were coming up. Trump says that "Assad has to go" is no more on the table. And he obviously wants better realationship with Russia (if only to enrich himself - whatever). The Military Industrial Complex absolutely wants a new Cold War with Russia, and the Deep state (and Israel !) absolutely want regime change and the breaking up of Syria. No one cares if the Islamic fundamentalists take over and if the fractions of a former Syria are at each other's throat - that means constant weapons sales and no political or military power. Another nation that is not an U.S. puppet neutralized. Divide and conquer. I do not think that Russia will drop Syria but if the "international community" acts as if they are convinced that Assad once more is the monster killing babies - then Syria becomes somewhat of a liability to Russia. Why would Assad do that - to "test with how much he can get away with" (some suggest that) ?? Both countries are under sanctions that they would like to see lifted (they are especially harmful to Syria, even medical drugs are included). A poison gas controversy is not helpful. I think the Deep State finanlly - finally wants a war escalation in Syria. Without U.S. intervention the regime change will fail for sure. The upcoming war has to be sold the the voters and tax payers somehow. (And Iran would be next - mark my words).
    2
  21. 4/4 The "empire" building strategy is of course highly lucrative for the high-income people. The advantage of being one of the top-predators: you can make pretty much every scenario work for you, and the empire building strategy certainly favours LARGE corporations and corporations who want to loot the resources of poor countries. It would have been interesting if Sanders would even have tried (let alone succeeded) in reigning in the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned about. Which has now become the Military Industrial Surveillance Intel Complex.
    2
  22. Russia and China are building the NEW SILK ROAD - connecting Europe, Russia and Asia with a high speed freight train infrastructure. The US complete dominance over all ocean transport routes becomes less relevant if land transport is possible. Plus the US strategy is to PREVENT WESTERN EUROPE (especially GERMANY with it's 80 million citizens and good technology) to JOIN forces with RUSSIA (lots and lots of natural sources). What do you think the Ukraine conflict really was about ?? Apart from the fact that the port on the Crimea is really important for Russia, they had a treaty with the Ukraine for that naval base and paid for it. Russia did not tolerate the (very real) danger to lose access to that port (within a few years) because of the US supported coup that installed an US friendly right wing/NAZI friendly government. The US dominated NATO had offered Georgia membership in 2008, and I think the same offer has been at least discussed for the Ukraine recently. Well in the case of Georgia NATO members Germany and France VOTED against that project (and luckily there must be 100 % consent of the existing members). Even the spineless very US freiendly conservative German government recognized that it is not a good idea to have even MORE NATO members directly at the doorstep of Russia. This is not about "defense" this is about provoking Russia. Imagine Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Canada would enter a military pact with Russia. Which would give Russia the option to install strategic weapons there at any time. Like Russian nukes or a "defense shield" that curbs or nullifies the US nuclear strike capability. What would the US do in that scenario (we know what they did during the Cuban crisis in the 60s - they went ballistic).
    2
  23. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Every financially stable EU-country (except Britain and Sweden) participates in the EURO. There are of course ripple effects for the non-participating members. German industry has an advantage over the British industry because of the EURO (and their beggar thy neighbour policies), this affects not only sales in Europe but all exports worldwide - of British and German corporations. I recommend Heiner Flassbeck on the Euro crisis, he is a German economist but i think he has articles in English as well. A currency is a major, major part of every national economy. A currency should fit any national economy like a tailored suit. That was the problem with countries like Greece - the EURO was way too hard for them, that is the problem for Germany - the EURO is way too weak for them. It allows the Germans to play export champion, they have an insane export/import imbalance thanks to their "beggar thy neighbour" policies. That means you restrict the wages of your work force, let the workforce not participate in the economic growth. Add to that a currency that is much weaker than it used to be (the imbalance started to emerge after 2000 only after the "reform" of the labour market in Germany and after the EURO was implemented).
    2
  24. Yes the German export industry USED to pay good wages - not anymore. Partially they produce in countries like Romania (low wages, trained workforce, EU protection for their intellectual property - not like in China). At home they vastly hire via subcontractors (it is called leasing of workers, and it is often referred to as "slave trade"). Whole companies with 400 - 600 workers that used to pay good wages and were very competitive even with the disadvantage of the hard German Mark, now are run with sub contractors. That totally undermines the unions of course. The older members of the workforce still have the good contracts but they evetually retire. New employee have to accept "flexible" respectively time-limited contracts and usually substantially lower pay. These reforms were enacted around 1999 by a "Social Democratic" government (Social Democratic in name only), nothing like a left sell out to screw over the workforce and dismantle the social contract. It goes without saying that the proponents of that "labour reform" got cushy jobs within in the "slave trade industry". Germany still has a good healthcare system and they did not dare to completely dismantle the welfare system or the masses would already be out on the streets. The Germans are so used to think of themselves as developed and rich nation and it did not hit evey region or profession in the same way. So part of the population is ashamed to admit that they are falling out of the middle class, while another part of society is blissfully (and willingly) ignorant about the cracks in society. That said things are still better the in UK let alone US.
    2
  25. We do not have functioning democracy in our nations, we never had - but with the internet we are better able to know what is going on. If our national goverments start to resemble an oligarchy the EU cannot be better - but it can be worse. Take mass surveillance in Germany for example - how could that happen in a functioning ! democracy? ideally the members of the national parliaments should work for the citizens but in the US the representatives are beholden to the political donors, in Europe with state funded election campaigns one does not have a political carreer without the party, so it is "party before electorate". So it is pretty easy for corporate power to get a handle on the top of the parties and then they can shape the society to their liking.  Now with the EU it is the same on steroids. Washington used to be the lobbying paradise - now it is Brussels. In the old day you had to deal with France, Germany, NL, Sweden individually, now the lobbyists have a nice leverage - and the EU has 500 mio. citizens, the US only 316. If the politicians in Germany are detached from their voters, the persons making the decisions in Brussels are WAY more detached. There is not much accountability of national politics to the citizens and with the EU it is almost non-existent. Yes we have a EU parliament and the rules are carefully crafted to make sure they cannot really interfere with the commission. Recently the commission stated that they would not "allow" a vote of national parliaments on CETA (TTIP in disguise). Of course not, a national parliament might acutally vote in the best interest of the citizens - not big biz. Democracy is overrated anyways. P.S: Sometimes the EU does good. It is also obvious that our politicians hide behind the EU when they do not dare to introduce legislation on the national level. They play then the helpless victim of EU and engage in a little EU bashing to soothe the angry electorate.
    2
  26. So the sheepdogging of Sanders is the reason that he still annoys the heck out of the party establishment ? - you realize that he uses the position "outreach for the Dems" FOR NOW, do you ? He is invited NOW to appear on TV - gives him the opportunity to mention his main talking points and build his "brand" and name recognition. No matter the question - a part of the answer will be single payer, inequality, student debt, etc. - like a broken record. lol If he decides to go independent and run again the Democrats and the GOP would shake in their boots. I am less than happy with his foreign policy comments - not that it matters what he says, and it is possible that he "choses his battles wisely" and just goes along with the crowd. (What is it with Russia ? - even Sanders made some statements of their alleged intervention in the U.S. elections - although he does not obsess with it like the rest of the Corporate Democrats. There is no pragmatic advantage in starting a fight with the powerful Israeli lobby. On the other hand he said some reasonable things about Palestine and two state solution. He just cannot bring himself to condemn Israel (which would not change anything as long as he is Senator). As President - would he threaten the Cuba agreement or tthe Iran deal ? Escalate the situation with Russia in Syria ? Embarrass the U.S. in the way he behaves when meeting with foreign leaders ? He was very critical of Reagan intervention in Latin Amercia. It is likely the U.S. agencies fuel and support VIOLENT opposition supporters in Venezuela - hoping to get a regime change in the country, then usher in a U.S. approved neoliberal government that would sell out the assets of Venezuala, preferably to U.S. oligarchs. Would he stop the money flow and try to help Venezuala to sort itself out - a humanitarian crisis there is NOT in the interest of the REGULAR U.S. citzens (although it could be profitable for U.S. special interests).
    2
  27. The Hamptons are not a defendable area :) - which is why our cherished elites got mass surveillance, militarized police and harsh anti-riot and anti "terrorism" legislation. In the old days the pitch forks and rifles put the citizens at par with the state military - no more the case. They have devices to detect persons behind thick walls of concrete, steel, brick, wood (detecting the breathing movement or the body temperature). All for the fight against rioters and terrorists - of course !!
    2
  28. 10 % pro "preemptive" strike IS A START * - be prepared for some PICTURES of poor North Korean CHILDREN in the next time while they ramp up the the war rhetorics. (We will later learn they were staged and shot in South Korea, after all real footage is hard to come by because NK is so closed off) Now with this survey the Think Tanks have something to work with. Rom wasn't built in a day - they also had to work diligently to build the war mood for both wars against Iraq (2003 and 1991). In 1990/91 the Bush administration AND the military absolutely wanted war. The happy pretext to use the war machinery: Iraq invaded Kuwait. They wanted to test the war equipment under real life conditions, use the power vacuum in the Middle East since the Soviet Union had STEPPED DOWN VOLUNTARILY from the COLD WAR, they wanted to expand the influence of the U.S. empire. You bet the spy agencies and the Pentagon and the profiteers of the Arms Race were not pleased when the S.U. quit the arms race - and without much prior notice. How do you justify the bloated military and spy agencies budgets without a good and relyable enemy ?? The U.S. population was not too enthusiastic about war in 1990, only 50 % supported war, and such an operation takes time to prepare. The war mongerers put the time of preparation to good use. However, a lot of the public was like: so Iraq wants control of some Kuwaiti oilfields - whatever - sure it was a precedent - but on the other hand als long as they SELL the oil, who cares WHO sells it. Let's not risk Amercian lifes for it. So an U.S. PR firm engaged the daugther of the Kuwaiti ambassador in the U.S. for an emotional fake testimony before the UN (incubator lie, The Iraqi army allegedly ripped early born Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators and left them on the floor to die. During the testimony she claimed to be an ordinary Kuwaiti girl, her name was not given) That helped to stir up the war mood - it was a VERY successful propaganda act. It changed public opinion dramatically - no doubt the media was as complicit then to promote the propaganda as it is today. THAT LIE helped to relieve the Bush administration from the pressure to seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution for the crisis. There are indications that the Bush admin led Saddam Hussein into a trap anyway, letting him belief the U.S. would tolerate his taking over of some Kuwaiti oil. S.H. complained that Kuwait - with the help of Western technology of course - engaged in horizontal drilling - sucking out oil from fields ACROSS the border. Also I think the Gulf States were egging Iraq on to go to war with Iran, I think they did not live up to their promise of financial support for the slaughter that took much longer than expected and brought Iraq no gains regarding territory or more oil fields. Plus I think Iraq had major problems with oil revenue due to technical problems - a huge pipeline problem or with extraction or something. Meaning: while of course unacceptable, the Kuwaiti invasion did not come out of the blue, it was not completely irrational- or like he had gone mad and unpredictable. He was a useful - brutal - dictator, he was good for the proxy war against Iran from 1980 - 1988 - which Iraq ! started with the happy, if covert support of the West - but I think at that time - in 1991 - the U.S. wanted him gone.
    2
  29. Interesting story - greetings from Europe
    2
  30. Exactely my thought - the nomenclatura functions the same way everywhere - in Germany in UK and in the US Democratic Party. I do not think they will or even have the intention to learn. Watching these groups - especially the Labour MPs in UK really gives you a lesson in the structure, workings and psychology of clinging to power and to the status quo. Bonus package: some insights in the establishment media. As for the Dems: This campaign and the win of HRC became part of their identity (also for many voters) - the loss damaged their egos. They (well many) definitely feel morally superior and more enlightened than the Trump camp. More insight means higher responsibility. Instead of that they are sell-outs. I think a part of them may be self-aware enough to know what went wrong - and they don't give a shit anyway. They have to save face of course and spread some made up explanations while making sure they have cushy posts as backup. They do not need to rely on party members fees, they have their corporate masters / donors. Although I think some donors may not be very pleased with their investment in the Dems right now.. Who knows what Donald is going to do? Maybe even something that damages profits?
    2
  31. 1:43 So is her name on the ballot or not ???? or is it a write in ?? 3:20 Seems to be a write in - she meantions that people are getting a stamp to just put it on the ballot. Of course a visual would have been helpful - and to train people to write her name correctly - stamps can go missing.
    2
  32. + Timothy Hansen It is called grey energy - what you need to produce a device. You will get much more energy out of a wind turbine than you have to invest to produce the device. Anyway, fossil fuels are too valuable to be used in combustion engines. As a lot of energy is released in form of heat, less than 30 % of the energy can be used. If one uses fossil fuel for electricity production and uses the released heat for warm water or heat homes one can reach 60 % efficiency. If we only used fossil fuel as raw! material for manufacturing goods we would not have any problems with peak oil , oil wars and transportation. We would need much less of that crude oil. As for polycarbonates I would assume it is even possible to produce them from a different source than crude oil (even though I expect that to be more expensive, the Carbonhydrates have to be synthesized somehow.
    2
  33. as for safer transportation of crude oil: I also heard from a former clean-up worker* that the corporations INTENTIONALLY ignore smaller leaks. They wait for the big spill that is covered by the insurance including missed profits when they have to close down the pipeline for repairing. (For preventive care of for the smaller leaks = maintanance nothing would be paid even when they needed to disrupt transportation. Long story short they have a clear incentive to wait for the big bad spill. * DAPL's Worst Nightmare: Big Oil EXPOSED By Whistleblower TYT Politics he used to work in the oil spill team, the name is John Bolenbaugh
    2
  34. FGM is NOT a Muslim tradition, it is a African (especially a North African tradition). Most of these countries were converted to Islam, but in Ethiopia the predominantely Orthodox Christian population does it as well. It is typical for very paptriarchal, rural, backwards societies. Mistreatment of women in such societies is quite commong (see India, HIndu and Muslim).
    2
  35. There is this Chinese saying: "May you live in interesting times" - It is a CURSE.
    2
  36. 2/4 The plan of the neocons exists for decades, it began being put into action for real under the Cheney / Bush administration (using 9/11 as a pretext). And Obama continued to carry out that agenda - makes you wonder if it matters who is playing the front puppet in the White House. (Sanders does not seem to like war very much, and although he carefully avoids to go after the Military Industrial Complex in his statements, he might in private be aware of the fact that the desire to have a WORLD EMPIRE is highly expensive. It is so costly that a nation with that narcissistic ambition will not be able to take good care of the majoritiy it's own population. The US could bomb and further destroy Afghanistan but could they restore a functioning civil order? Michael Moore: The brother of the president is the big guy in the drug business, if we bribe them enough, they are willing to put up the facade of order and cooperation with the US. Women in Afghanistan are hardly better off than under the Taliban. Iraq is not doing well either. The costs for these wars: estimates are between 4 - 6 TRILLION USD (incl. veteran care).
    2
  37. 3/4 So what does THE NORMAL US CITIZEN GET FOR THESE GIANT WAR AND MILITARY COSTS ? Parts of Big Biz certainly did profit from these wars, the normal US citizen has to endure 24/7 surveillance now, terrorist threats, and has to pick up the bill for the giant (lucrative) surveillance industry and the war costs, . Plus the US military is not even in a position to control Afghanistan and Iraq (that would need a lot of boots on the ground for many, many years) and would be extremely expensive. The war industry is NOT interested in creating STABILITY (be it with democracy or an authoritarina regime). They want to manufacture, use and RESTOCK the MILITARY TOYS and with a very good profit. And they want the tax payer to finance that stable niche without much competition or risk. And as large corporations avoid paying taxes of course. They will endure the hardship that they usually pay somewhat better wages and will not be able to outsource a lot of jobs into poor countries - which makes workers and unions sort of hostages to the war economy.
    2
  38. MUST WATCH. Jimmy said this town hall meeting was in 2005. - One hell of a statement from Belafonte and well commented by Jimmy et al. Edit: Just found a longer video (16 minutes) of the same event. "Harry Belafonte wrecks the Establishment #Bernie2016 "
    2
  39. No the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is the US in collaboration with the Saudis. The biggest terrorists are the US.
    2
  40. Is there evidence Russia or Putin wants to destabilize the Baltic countries ? The neoliberal austerity economies enforced by the EU on these relatively weak economies hit them harder (even harder than the rich countries). All over Europe fringe parties are on the rise - in most cases they are right wing, nationalistic and also usually anti EU. The Baltic states had seen a mass exodus of the young and educated people, the Baltic states are crashing their welfare and healthcare services for those citizens who remain. Historically the Russians are not liked (too much baggage from WW2 and after). So Putin / Russia would have a hard time over there. What is more, even the more fringe parties would not likely accept Russian money or messaging, if not out of patriotism than out of the insight that they simply could not sell it to the electorate. Russia did not object to the Baltic states joining NATO. Neither did they object when Hungary, Tschechia, even Poland a neighbour state joined. And they agreed to the unification of Germany, meaning that the Soviet nukes where removed from there and that part of Germany became NATO area, too. All these states have suffered from Soviet invasion during or after WW2. So it is understandable they think being part of NATO would make them safer if ever Russia or another ex Soviet state wanted to violate the integrity of their border. Then NATO membership was offered to Georgia. This is when Russia said Njet. And then the US with the help of the EU (or more precisely some very high ranking EU officials and administrators) under guise of a so called economic agreement - with military clauses never publicly mentioned tried to alienate Ukraine from Russia. Russia was a very important economic partner for Ukraine they sold them cheap gas (unsure how it is now), there was a lot of trade going on, cultural bonds, mixed families - they are alike but have different languages, a lot of ethnical Russians live in the Ukraine. AND Russia has a naval base on the Crimia (former Ukraine), which is very important for Russia, they had a treaty with Ukraine about it and paid well for that right. So trying to separate Ukraine from Russia does not make sense, unless you want to stick it to the Russians (which seems to be a BIG BONUS for EVERY US government) and if you want to give US corporations access to untapped fracking sites in Ukraine (search for son of Joe Bidens if you want to dig deeper). So when the coup in the Ukraine happened (and make no misttake, it was a coup helped by infiltrators, the US officially spent 5 billions to promote "democracy" ) Russia acted and secured Crimea. BTW the referendum result of the citizens of Crimea is plausible (and there were foreign observers there). On the Crimea live a lot of ethnic Russians and even before the crisis the right wing groups or even NAZI groups (that are now in the US sponsored government) had been very hostile against the Russian ethnicity in Ukraine. Let alone that if in doubt the Russian economy is much stronger, sanctions or not. If I had lived on the Crimea, I would have voted pro Russia, and I am by no means a fan of Putin. This may have been the reason Russia, who had already invaded Crimea allowed an orderly (to avoid the word "fair") and open referendum (as confirmed by international observers). They knew they would win it - in a situation where war was to expect. Holding it in a way as an election should be held, gave it legitimacy. I assume the people on the Crimea feel that they narrowly escaped a desaster (while fearing for friends and familiy on the other side).  I am getting angy as I write about it - like in the Middle East the US RUTHLESSLY undermines peace, they unleash war without any thought about the civilians or the long term consequences. Everything - EVERYTHING including supporting covertly or not so covertly Islamic fundamentalists with ambitions to create a Sharia theocracy, to make sure they can dominate all over the world. Russia is an obstacle to complete world dominance, so is China. And the EU - especially the important EU countries Germany, France and (still) UK help with that or at least do not call them out on it.
    2
  41. Yes EURO means the currency, and he is right to be against it. The currency should fit each single eoncomy like a tailored suit. The EURO is too weak for countries like Germany and way to strong for countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain.
    2
  42. Our dear "elites" currently negotiate or are about to implement the TTIP, TISA, CETA etc. In January 2014 then EU trade commissioner Karel de Gucht was confronted by a German camera team about a study (ordered and paid for by the EU!) This study estimates that TTIP will result in an additional growth in GDP of 0,5 % - in TOTAL and AFTER 10 years. YES half a percent total for 10 years - that's within the margin of error. The commission would not even dream of promoting that shit if lets say Merkel or Hollande or Cameron spoke up and said: "For this we are supposed to give up the rights of our parliaments to pass laws to protect the environment, our food, workers rights - for lousy 0,5 % growth ?? For this we should accept a private justice system where corporations can sue nations - not the other way round - if they assume legislation might reduce their profits. Not on my watch". That critique of course will never happen. (Sanders on the other hand is strongly oposed to TPP the Asian counterpart to TTIP, prettey sure Corbyn is strongly against TTIP as well). The political elite is heavily lobbied by the economic elite. And some big corporations are going to profit from these "free" "trade" agreements. (They are not about trade!). And those corporations - and only those corporations - have the ear of the political class. Well if you have a medium sized business or if you are a farmer or a plain citizen/consumer/employee you will not be able to offer ex-politicians or their relatives a cushy job or other favours. So why should they consider your interests ?? If the voters acutally had a choice because a politician appeared on the scene that seems trustworthy and honestly concerned about the worries of the regular citizens. Don't you think the political class would hate them with a vengenance (especially those who belong to a party that claims to be for the little folks while having sold out to special interests). Don't you think the mainstream media who is owned by very rich people would ridicule of vilify those non-establishment politicians. Sanders and Corbyn provide interesting case studies.
    2
  43. I usually avoid the word "elite" - it used to imply excellence. If you dig into politics you can see the dealings of the ruling class / the 1 % everywhere. And they are selling out the rest of us. I think BREXIT was a protest vote, many Brits know that they are being screwed, they just do not challenge their UK political class and the neoliberal economic agenda enough. Removing the EU will of course not solve problems of British society. The political class in the UK (and everywhere else!) will still be willing to betray the majority of the voters for special interests. And they will still be willing to accept and sprout neoliberal and free market talking points long after they have been disproven. Austerity anyone?
    2
  44. as for a non-profit (solidarity) healthcare system with premiums based on income (or tax financed): the wealthy ! European countries who all have a good !! system for everyone with full coverage and no deductibles have per capita costs between USD 5,000 and 5,500 (vs. the US with more than USD 9,000 and that was in 2014).  See "World Bank, per capita healthcarecosts, data 2014".      The British NHS (National Healthcare Service) had costs of only 3,900 - but they seem to be underfunded, in their case the allegations of lesser qualitiy or at least of waiting lines seem justified.  The NHS is different than other European systems - it is tax funded and has no private players (even the family doctor is a state employee).         But for USD 5,000 - 5,500  every First World country (small or large) should be able to organize good healthcare for everyone. (Canada was in that range as well, Australia had costs of USD 6,000).
    2
  45. + Derp Jesus - the period you describe lasted from 1921 - 1929. My assumption: in that time many people joined the high income class - I do not have numbers - but they are called it the Roaring Twenties and one thing is clear: a huge bubble developped in that time. Of course there were people who had a lot of income from productive activities (manufacturing, retail, services - as opposed to speculation), but many advanced on the ladder partly or completely because of the bubble. Advanced to the plus 100k bracket. As long as the party lasted, the normal economy seemed strong because a wider segment of the population felt wealthy and employed those on the bottom for services. (Same was before the housing bubble in 2007 popped - as long as it lasted it supported the economy in general, but of course that was not healthy or sustainable).   On the other hand the policies started under FDR - high taxes for the wealthy, more corporate tax AND good wages for the workers was applied between 1933 and the early 1980s. The top marginal tax rate rose to 94 % in 1944 (WW2 entry of the U.S). With some exemptions one paid 85 % of every Dollar over 2,7 million (in todays ! money). Income tax stayed high after WW2 - 80 % in the 50s - Nixon and JFK debated 74 % effective tax rate. In that time the middle class was built. Real purchasing power almost doubles between 1947 and 1970 (real wages + 97 %, productivity + 112 % - so most of the gains of productivity landed in the pockets of workers/consumers). Positive side effect: high taxation favors investing in your biz, the long term strategy regarding biz, and it encourages ethical behavior - what is the point of acting illegally when the state will take 80 % of the gains while your run the risk. Interestingly in the 1920s there was a considerable increase in productivity that did not lead however to an increase in wages. Real wages which were stagnant (unions had been crushed). That meant more and more output, but not more disposable income from wages paid to workers. The virtual gains of the bubble took care of the opening gap - until 1929. (Like the credit card financed consumer debt took care of the gap that opened from the 80s on).
    2
  46. Let me add: Bank of England: Money creation in a Modern Economy - I highly recommend reading the pdf - it is for the layperson, very understandable and will turn your ideas about "money" on the head.
    2
  47. +Classique Liberal - that was a trap to exclude single payer. Of course the GOP does NOT want Single payer. (see the explanation on the web, some 3D chess ! , Sanders led the effort to downvote it).
    2
  48. I a gree with the USD as global currency and your explanation. Not completely with Germany - it is the export champion - those fools supply good products against relatively worthless USD. With the EURO the German "elites" who are either economic illiterates or lunatics are playing a dangerous game. Their enforced austerity (many nations swear by austerity but no one promotes it like the Germans). Again economic illiterates - they have never heard from the New Deal, FDR - and they learned nothing from the rise of the right wing fascists in impoverished Europe in the 1930s - nor are they able to see what is going on in Europe right now. Unfortunately the kitchentable economics sprouted by the elites* is not challenged by MSM - on the contrary. The leading European media are all "worked" by the Atlantic Bridge and other neoliberal or neoconservative US NATO friedly think tanks. The hegemon does not neglect the opinion leaders of the vasalls. * Never let a good crisis go to waste - the last was used to dismantle the welfare state - it is a little difficult in the wealthy Europan nations because they had a strong welfare net and the idea of solidarity is part of the social contract - but our dear elites are dilegently working at it - with the help of the media.
    2
  49. You are mistaken, they have separation of state and religion. Doesn't matter what flavour of Islam the ruling class or the population in Syria has. The population is of course more conservative and religious than in let's say Europe or even the US ;). Sort of like the NATO member Turkey (before Erdogan - he tries to some extent to undo the secular achievements - and to hollow out democracy as much as possible as well !) BTW the Christians and other minorities in Syria (religious and ethnic) are scared to death of Assad being overthrown. So he is willing to allow terrible things in order to crush his enemies but they have much more to fear of the "moderate rebels". It is like the IRA conflict. The conflict parties belonged to different flavours of Christianity (Anglican state church = protestants or Catholics). The dividing line was very clear but religion had nothing to do with the conflict. Now the citizens of Northern Ireland are still very religious (compared to citizens of other modern nations), but the IRA conflict did not break out in the 1970s because of religion and was not solved with the help of religion.
    2
  50. +Dallas the point is - in a REAL emergency the rescue team does not KNOW WHICH chemical was released (in which "quality"). So it makes sense to err on the side of caution, no? Because it does not help anybody if the rescuer drops down dead or harmed as well. And let's say they did not have the protective suits available that a professional rescue team would use if there is the POSSIBILITY of something like Sarin used (these suits cost only 5 USD upwards). And they had only these DIY style masks ? So surely they at least have GLOVES - and the TRAINING TO USE them ? Even ordinary household rubber gloves would be better than nothing. After all they usually do not forget to use their signatory white helmets. Given their funding one wonders (100 million USD all from foreign nations) - WHY NO GLOVES.
    2