Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@spreadingrumors But the fossil fuel industry now admits that CC is real and caused by humans. (Not that they would DO something about it, but at least no denial). However: dealing with CC would always have needed invervention from big, bad guberment. It might even result in more taxes on the rich. and it would mean "telling people what to do".
Like eating less meat or not driving wasteful vehicles.
There is a streak of "liberterians" which have sugar coated selfishness and glorified it into a political standpoint. Individualism, low taxation, the state has ONLY to defend their property rights (not the rights of other people to live, or be healthy, mind you).
That was of course a project of the oligarchs.
At some point the Republicans decided to not accept climate change (there was a time when it did not seem an urgent problem and they were not as a party so biased). But then they decided this was more of a "liberal" issue and thus is was appropriate to be against it. (they already had groomed the Evangelicals and fished for the votes of racists, so ....)
Now the mind of the gullible has been poisoned, the Frankenstein monster got out of hand (the Republican party is not too happy with Trump either).
These voters do not value education, knowledge or science. I wonder what would happen if their favorite preacher, Trump himself or their favorite blogger or Fox News told them that Climate change is real and caused by burning fossil fuel. Their heads would explode most likely.
Also enough bloggers groom that base, one can make a good living of it. It helps with the branding and audience loyality to appeal to their EMOTIONS and get them annoyed and enraged.
No doubt most of these bloggers believe what they say and they too cannot be bothered to check
potholer54 debunks them and clueless or biased journalists all the time. Highly recommended channel btw, facts, science, well explained, not too long, 10 - 20 minutes.
It does not help much to point out that NOW Exxon and Chevron admit that burning fossil fuel is a major cause of global warming which will lead to major climate change.
2
-
Hitler had a MINORITY GOVERNMENT (35 %) which was expected to fail btw. German Conservatives rolled over every step on the way of the power grab - and the Democratic Party takes that role NOW. The Dems do it to keep the Big Donations flowing (from the people who PAY BOTH parties. - And they are careerists w/o strong convictions so why take the trouble to fight ?
Never mind that in most cases they would need to oppose the donors to do so.
The Conservatives in Germany in winter 1932 - spring 1933 (gladly) cooperated because they had so much contempt for the Left even the moderate Left.
And the Nazis targeted the Left and their rights not them (their civil rights, elected Communist members of parliament were excluded or even thrown to prison for the arson of one member of the Communist Party etc).
Society was much more authoritarian, many were nostalgic for the good old times under the emperor where everyone "knew their place". Now they had to put up with the fact the the unwashed masses had a voice - and those times were very politically active.
In summer 1914 they were (well siutated) citizens in a strong nation (trying to compete with the British empire also regarding military strength) - in 1918 they found the monarchy dismantled and democracy slapped on them by the winners or the war.
Not to help the Germans. Democracy was meant to remove the old monarchy and therefore curb any unifying force for a militarily ambitious Germany.
The U.S. post WW1 economy was doing better Although wages were stagnant while productivity increased vastly. So output grew much more than disposable income of consumers - which ultimately was a strong incentive for speculation. It did not make sense for the rich to invest more in manufacturing, the people could not afford the stuff that was already being produced resp. there were over capacities.
And consumer debt had not yet been invented, but the haves of course insisted that the already existing fortunes should make them MORE money. The only thing that can earn money in a healthy way is economic activities, profitable production of goods and services. So it got unhealthy. But the U.S. population had some tolerable years until 1929.
On the other hand the economy was not doing well in Europe generally. On top of that the Germans had to pay crippling sanctions.
Plus: they had to dismantle most of the army (a Conservative bastion). Another hit against the pride of the nation, and it allowed France in the mid 1920s to invade a region across the common border when Germany could not pay the reparations
The Germans tried to print their way out of that obligation - which caused a quick dropping of the value of the currency = hyperinflation. Tthe allies refused to accept the "paper" money and demanded gold. Well Germany did not even have goldmines and could not pay at least not w/o impoverhishing the population completely. So France invaded the coal and steel region and established martial law there.
They left after some time, I think the conditions were softened a little bit. During the hyperinflation time the wages had to be constantly adapted, at the worst time twice a day. Which of course irritated and scared people and did not indicate stable times.
That said everyone who had machines or goods or could produce was on the good side of inflation, so there was also an incentive for EMPLOYMENT.
After that they had AUSTERITY - then they had deflation and real problems with unemployment.
Hyperinflation was not that bad for blue collars, people with small to medium savings (as opposed to real estate, things, machines) lost their nest egg, rich people had of course ways to protect their fortunes in money. And usually also houses etc. to soften losses. Plus these were the "elites" that could have prevented the war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1 - the unquestiond 40 hour workweek: In the U.S. the 40 hour workweek for all was introduced in 1940. (Some branches or large corporations had it before, for instance railway workers, or FORD). - If your commute is not too long a 40 hour workweek allows you to enjoy your income, you have free time. That is especially true if the adult wage earner and maybe parent (usually a man) with the salary could finance a middle class life, and a wife as stay at home mum and homemaker (as it used to be at least for white Americans in the 50s - 70s. She would take care of the clean house, the kids, the warm meal, and all the other conveniences. - I am not for that 50s model BTW - another model would be that men and women could make a nice living with 20 hours each (or 30/10 or 40/0 or whatever). So both genders would test and improve their skills in the work force (and have that boost for self confidence and self reliance) and both could also have time for the unpaid work at home and time to spend with the kids, etc.
So 40 hours was was perceived as O.K. - but there is no LAW of nature that we MUST work HARD or LONG hours, or even "only" 40 hours in PAID LABOR. Actually productivity has dramatically improved since the 1940s and 1950s (in Europe the 40 hour week came a little later)..
In the U.S. from 1947 - 1970 productivity grew by 112 %, the plus with average wages was 97 %. so we can say approximative ! that purchasing power almost doubled and that most of the gains of productivity landed in the pockets of the workers. The advantage for the businesses was 15 % in 23 years.
Pro business advocates might find that unfair - but all philosophy aside - it worked splendidly for the economy (and thus the entrepreneurs !) The ever increasing output could be soaked up by consumer demand because the wages = disposable income kept up with the output in produced goods and services.
Industrial mass production requires mass consumption - and that needs an income for the consumers (which are WAGES).
Since 1970 productivity has risen again: by 69 % if I remember correctly until 2011. But this time wages have only improved by 9 %. (The wages in both time periods are adjusted for inflation of course).
So the working time WITH the SAME income (purchasing power in the 70s) could have dramatically shortened, that would mean unemployment would stay low, people could enjoy their life better, more customers for holidays, etc.
Even more important the BALANCE of POWER between employers and workers would have been upheld. (Things went well for businesses after WW2, not only for workers).
People could avoid doing unpaid overtime (unpaid but even paid) if it easy to find another job. And wages WOULD not be lowerd, if the businesses have to make attractive offers ot the workforce to convince them to become employees and help them make a profit.
Instead the 40 hour workweek was not questioned when unemployment rose in the late 1970s (for several reasons), and the higher unemployment meant that the bosses got the upper hand.
Villifying the unions was part of the plan to reverse the New Deal, and later "free" "trade" agreements - which are a scheme to pit the workforce of wealthy and poor countries against each other. The "trade" provisions include that no prohibitive tariffs can be slapped on such imported sweathshop goods and that the plants and investments of Western Big Biz in the exotic countries would be proteced.
These protections for Big Biz ) are valid 20 - 30 years AFTER such a trade deal would be abolished. This applies also and especially to the very important protection from import tariffs of the wealthy nations - Big Biz (whether it is owned by Western fat cats or Chinese) have to sell most of their stuff in the wealthier countries, the underpaid workers do not have enough disposable income.
Politicians (Bush1 and then Bill Clinton) on behest of Big Biz made sure even future governments would lose the ability to reign in Multinationals and protect their workforce. They made sure the successful model after WW2 would NOT be applied to the developing countries, that the workers of these countries could be exploited, their environment polluted, and unions kept down there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Punitive states doing jobs programs - not sure about that. In order to help their buddies they might make it as unpleasant as possible. To spare the employers the COMPETITION on the job market. That competition kept wages good until the oil crises in mis 1970. Then automation, computer use, immigration, women in the workplace led to more competition for the workers. It really showed with the economic crisis because of the oil price shock. and stagflation = high inflation and high umemployment (which was not dealt with correctly - the rich countries were not very proficient in dealing with the crisis everywhere).
After the crisis was over it would have been time to go green energy AND use the still increasing productivity to reduce worktime (with the SAME wage). Before (1947 - 1970) the gains in productivity (most of it) was paid to the workers in form of higher wages (plus productivity 112 %, plus average wages adjusted for inflation 97 %, so purchasing power almost doubled, which was important because it meant the ever increasing output of goods was matched by disposable income = wages)
So in the 1940s it was the 40 hour week for one adult in the family, in the 70s it was time to consider to switch to 2 jobs (man and wife) with maybe 30 or 25 hours.Or an eventual journey to 20 hours.
Instead the ruling class used the crisis and the shock to undermine the New Deal completely. It helped that the workers had profited from the boom after WW2 - but did not completely understand how it worked. - the unions were already under attack.
The ruling class stroked the vanity of people, the attitude "everyone is on their own", and that they would proudly attribute their success to good work ethics and negotiating well with your employer. And a certain disdain for unions was cultivated (I am sure some unions or their leaders were corrupt).
The honest American blue collar did not need no unions to do well, he made it all on his own.
Well - no.
As soon as the negotiation power of the workers went away (higher unemployment for the first time, creating anxiety) - the haves hit back.
And unleashed the think tanks to train the regular people to accept neoliberal economic policies that would only profit the top 20 or 30 % of the country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
3 - the unquestiond 40 hour workweek: Both genders could have it all. - There are a few cases where CEOs share their leadership position (? was it Ikea or H&M, a German subsidiary of those Multinationals (headquarters I do not mean shop management) - both were young parents, a woman and a man, I think they talked about 25 - 30 hours for each of them).
Of course that means a culture of COOPERATION. If you have a corporate culture where one sociapath (living for nothing but work and professional success) tries to get the upper hand of the other sociopaths in order to rise to the (extremely highly paid) top, SHARED LEADERSHIP will not work.
If it is more about power and prestige and less about getting things done it will not work.
Of course the current system encourages leaders that lust for power, prestige and no salary will ever be high enough (on the surface it may look like a good thing if such a bully is "our bully" , but all that grandstanding and the intrigues are costly and cause a lot of inefficiencies - those costs are just not obvious from the books and more indirect - so they are hardly ever calculated, estimated, or considered).
From real live experience: shared jobs at the lower ranks but still with a demanding and qualified work (4 hours before noon, and 4 hours in the afternoon) CAN work.
But you need intelligent, flexible, well organized, co-operative people who can think "around the corners" and who consider details.
Meaning they are able to deal with the requirement: "What do it need to tell my co-worker when I hand over the shift, what information do I have (and these are usually smaller things) that I must not forget telling him or her ?"
You must have the ability to think along for the other person as well.
And you must be very well organized. The reward for the company is that the performance in 4 hours will be higher than in 8 hour days. And that such skills will be trained (because they are necessary) and there will be a strong incentive to BE COOPERATIVE - and there is nothing like a cooperative, capable and motivated, supportive ! workforce to solve problems.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2 - the unquestiond 40 hour workweek: Reduced worktime with the SAME wage: for the businesses the situation would stay the same as in the 70s. Disadvantage: not more profit than in the 70s, and they would have no chance to squeeze the workforce.
Advantage their would be a solid base for consumer spending w/o credit card debt of consumers ! And in that climate of confidence it would be easy to start new businesses. - In the late 70s consumer debt on the credit card became a thing - it bridged the gap between output of goods and stagnant disposable income. That "solution" is maxed out now. (and of course it was never a good or sustainable or honest solution).
Advantage for the state and society: confidence, the good life for all, a healthier not as stressed out population, having time to participate in grassroots, charity, inform themselves about politics.
Low welfare costs !
Even people who are a little bit off track or did not do so well in school would have a chance to be and remain a part of the workforce, they would HAVE A PLACE in society. And the problem of the inner cities could be solved.
Work time unfortunately was not shortened in the 70s - the 1 % and the haves had their chance to get their revenge for the inconveniances they had to "endure" because of the New Deal . Which were higher taxes for them, and they had to put up with a confident and selfassured workforce, the destinction of rank (those who mercifully "give" jobs vs. those who do the work) got fuzzy in an economy where it was easy to change a job, or make (organized) demands on employers.
On the contrary: the 40 hour week was practically ABOLISHED in the U.S. and to some degree also in Europe (many contracts include unpaid overtime, people are forced to make unpaid overtime or unpaid internships even in professions and positions with low(er) pay .
Or their workday is splitted. Starbucks got some backlash for that some years ago - in the wealthy European countries the workers are protected from the bosses monopolizing the time of their employees.
Like that you have to be 10 hours available just in case they need you, but your acutal PAID shift is much shorter (with a lot of unpaid breaks inbetween when business is expected to be slow).
Or that people do not know how their shifts will be in 1 or 2 days.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kristallnacht WAS government sponsored - of course. The police was INSTRUCTED to look the other way AND to hinder any citizens taking the side of the prosecuted. Hindering the firefighters. No doubt they would have killed any Jews defending their property. The police chased away shocked regular citizens (witnesses).
The Nazi government put their civilian ground troops to good use, at that time they had enough time to consolidate their power. That "spontantanous" show of the "disgust" of the "Aryan" German people against Jewish PROPERTY was OF COURSE planned and well organized by the regime. (the Germans are not into rioting, they like things to be orderly and the law to be followed. that is why the government created the illusion that normal "citizens" did it. But they were not bad rioters, no - so they also avoided to have people killed, and the police was engaged to make sure that there were no non-Jewish witnesses.
In this display they restricted it to systematically destroying property. It was a sign to the Jewish people, but also a sign for anyone who would dare to show support for them, or anyone who disagreed with the regime. And they waited with that until after the annexation of Austria.
The Nazis took over as minority government in fall 1932 (35 % of the vote - in summer it was 45 % so that was seen as a good thing. The summer election had to be repeated, none of the parties could find coaltion partners to get the practically necessary majority of plus 50 % - there were 6 - 8 parties in parliament. The Nazis were the only party which could have prevailed with only ONE coaltion partner - but no one wanted to work with them).
In 1928 they had polled at a few %. But the small recovery of the post war misery after 1916-1918 was crushed with the Great Depression that rippled over from the U.S. to all other nations.
Their decline in fall 1932 showed they also got a lot of the protest vote. The result was met with a sigh of relief, but among the many parties and the split vote they were still the strongest party.
Hindenburg the president (a staunch conservative, fan of the gone monarchy, but with a lot of standing in ALL of society) did not like them. But he let Hitler's party try to form a government - expecting them to fail.
The rich German industrialists covertly funded the Nazis - covertly because they ran under "being for the little people", that is why they used Socialist (National Socialist) in their name.
So I gues the Conservative party would not openly form a coalition government with them, but they were maybe expected to do the dirty work for them - crushing the left, the unions. It is possible that the party leadership got a stand down order.
Anyway: Hindenburg was on his deathbed a few months later, if he had wanted to he could have stopped the power grab of Hitler.
The Nazis had successfully infiltrated the police and to some degree the justice system. That helped.
And in the course of approx. 6 months the conservatives in parliament and in society went along whenever the Nazis made the next move to undermine the institutions, passing laws, how they were enforced.
The Nazis needed the votes to hand over all powers of parliament to the government - and they got it. Hitler could not have gone against the military. (Germany had to drastically reduce the military. But the officers of WW1 were very much respected, even if veterans. Hitler could not have taken the Republic only with the hooligans. And the military man were drilled to obey their leadership (which was the president not the chancellor of the active government).
The military fell in line when the "legal" coup was finished - a violent power grab by Hitler and the Nazis would have been another thing. And of course not nearly all of the 35 % that voted for them 6 months earlier would have followed them in a violent uprising.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2