Friday, July 21, 2017

The "First Casualty" In Any War Has Been Famously Described As The Truth

That this sort of thing inevitably gets one to start considering the history of propaganda makes it almost too intimidating to even begin to consider (see here and here just for starters). But we must because the stakes are much higher than the outcome of a certain, current, political crisis.

I bring this up because the divide in perception illustrated by the Atlantic article linked below (via Digg) is still truly astonishing: On the one hand people seeing not only a looming Constitutional crisis, but also seeing our sovereignty as a nation being sold cheap. And on the other people seeing all of the events, and the hoopla surrounding it, as simply incompetence mingled with a whole lot more overblown, partisan blather, from a political faction that lost an election.

And in discussing this, lets forget for a moment who is right or wrong on the principle issue of Russian election interference, or the criminal, and/or impeachable, offenses that certainly seem to a very significant number of Americans to be true. What I want to talk about here is how we came to this pass, and what we can possibly do about it; because no matter which side of this issue you are on, the one thing both sides ought to be able to agree on is the terrible question it begs of us by its very existence: How can a democracy survive if its electorate is so fractured, and fragmented, of view, in what ought to be a certain, limited number, of core consensus understandings; understandings that make us a viable, cohesive social grouping. So disconnected from such understandings, in fact, as to make even determining what is important, and what isn't, nearly impossible, let alone making decisions as to what actual courses of actions should be implemented to address any particular priority.

The other, not so surprising, revelation one makes in thinking about this, is that we have been "at war," in one sense or another, for quite a long time now; perhaps never really stopping after WW 2 at the very least, and perhaps even before that with WW 1. And in this you have your usual suspects certainly: The Cold War in particular to Russia. The war on Communism in general. The economic warfare that may well have started with Colonialism at its very beginnings, and which now has morphed into very high tensions over markets, resources, and who controls what vital lands, or sea ways. Do that for enough decades and of course religion will form a big chunk of the stakeholders, as well as all of the non spiritual ideologies that would argue from various perceptual starting points.

So it would seem that history has bequeathed us with a motherload of causality for why one might want to start being quite paranoid indeed about how we are to proceed with the process of determining a social consensus for those "certain, limited numbers, of core consensus understandings." And make no mistake here. This is no trivial concern. Because many of the current players in this game would like nothing better than to have this situation carried to its quite terrible, but also quite logical, outcome: that the ultimate social chaos that will inevitably come to pass here will make it seem quite proper for a "strongman" (the term for a dictator, whether he be so from a Fascist's point of view, or from a Communist's point of view, which I wish the media would stop using) to come in and just settle the matter by "might makes right."

The bottom line here, of course, is that we all have a point of view. And our interests, and desires, affect those points of view. If you have a very strong interest, as well as a desire, you are understandably going to want to argue as persuasively as you can for the point of view that these factors create. Getting rid of Capitalism, certainly, isn't going to change any of that. We started, after all, as very tribal entities, struggling under great deprivation, to survive. That scarcity, and that struggle, are huge parts of why so much of what history has bequeathed us has been nothing but a big feces sandwich, for so much of the world. And Capitalism was simply one way to organize to allow us to at least rise materially above that scarcity. In doing so, however, it also laid the foundation to make finding consensus about "truth" fundamentally more difficult. It did that because it first made it possible for individuals to have unprecedented amounts of power to work their personal "interests." And it then also created the technological changes that would allow message to be "amplified" way beyond the notion of simply being louder, or spread further (bringing in the notions of psychological engineering, and message consistency over both time, and a host of new communication channels).

What we need to be asking ourselves here is this: How do we come up with an organizational framework that both levels the playing field as far as "messaging" goes, but also makes it more structurally demanding that we find ways to continue to cooperate with each other. In that, it seems to me, creating more situations of ever more competitive self interest to hold sway is not going to be very helpful at all. Any more than leaving too much power in the hands of too few has ever been a very good idea.

This is but one more reason why we are at a pivotal moment in the course of human development. This brand new operating environment carries not only the ills that history has left us with, but with with an old operating system mutated way beyond what its originators ever conceived. So some very big choices confront us. If we don't make them thoughtfully they will be made for us by those who have only the most narrow of interests in mind.

What Congressional Republicans Really Think About Trump and Russia






Thursday, July 20, 2017

Without Having A New Economic System To Operate In...

...Such Socialist Reforms can never hope to be implemented as needed, or expected to survive for very long, even if some form of them could be adopted in the first place.

Until you accept that we have to start from completely new assumptions, in addressing any of the interrelated systemic problems our current form of economic organization has, you are just spinning your wheels over the same ground as Socialists before you. The full breadth, depth, and reach, of our combined instrumentality now has created a completely new operating environment. One that demands integration, and holistic thinking within many dimensional, interactive matrices. Something that is now the complete antithesis of the old factory mentality of segmented linearity; which is just more McLuhan speak for Capitalism.

Obviously the existing system isn't working. But the fact of the matter is that it is unable pay a living wage for a reason. And that reason is its inability to value anything in terms that balance human need with material practicality. It never really had that ability in the first place, but this was both obscured, and made up for, by the fact that, early on, human skill quickly became a quite competitive commodity. And it would stay that way until steam, and electricity, made first distance to become ever less of a cost factor, and eventually to make even human skill, not nearly so competitive any more as well.

And so all that you are left with, for the most part, is to continue to argue over what first constitutes a "living wage," and then who will be on the line to pay for it. Even as you continue to struggle to find out who will pay for all of the other problems we have neglected to the point now where they are ready to really bite us all in the ass.

We simply need to have the debate about starting over. Nobody wants to acknowledge this, but that is truly the way it is.


COLD HARD CASH, NO STRINGS ATTACHED


But to become a reality, it needs to get detailed and stop being oversold.




Which Is Why Bernie Sanders Should Stop Caucusing With A Party...

...That is as out of date as the economic operating system the Dems still think they  can reform, and make behave. A sentiment that is nearly as absurd as thinking the GOP would ever abandon greed as one of their essential party platforms.

The fact of the matter is that a completely new party must be formed. One that breaks away from any further reliance on Capitalism as a main component of its founding principles. A party that combines the best aspects of both Libertarianism, and Socialism, to work a better Democratic ideal for the majority of working people in America. And I can think of no better person, at the moment at least, to lead that party than Mr. Sanders. I can only hope that those of you out there who still care will do all you can, at every juncture of you social interactions, to give this idea some much needed momentum, and some legs.

As I have stated before, none of this is up to me. I am just trying to articulate a better ideological place to start from. If you want real change, however, then you will need to get up off of you butt and do something about it. Nothing will come of nothing otherwise.


'SIMPSONS' DID IT


Lessons learned from 2016 seem to be few and far between among establishment Democrats.





Maybe Guided Missile Defense For ICBM's Isn't The Answer

Maybe the more effect way could also be the inexpensive way.

This is another example of how useful a tactical platform Air Trains, composed of hybrid dirigible blimps, could be; especially in an always on station approach to air defense that such potentially large scale, flying lift units could be if not only linked together, but able to be specialized as to what each individual dirigible blimp unit might carry to support the mission as my design would allow.

My main point of their defensive contribution here, though, would be in their ability to support very large numbers of the inexpensive, flying claymore mine drones I've talked of before being used for platform self defense. And as incoming warheads as anti air threats aren't that much different than ballistic warhead coming down from a higher angle (except for the speed of course), at least as far as it concerns running into already placed mines very near the approach vector. The down side of which, of course, being that you do have to have very large numbers of circulating mines at the ready to make proximity detonations a reasonably high probability. If they're cheap, however, and easy to crank out in large numbers, the quantity requirements should be manageable. The real trick is to design the tethered, flying recharge stations, to be able to do recharging cycles fast enough via multiple, simultaneous recharging drogue lines, that each recharging station would have to support so that the total throughput from each station would be able to keep thousands of mines flying; doing so at least without the requirement of ridiculous numbers of the tethered stations having to be pulled along by each dirigible blimp unit (big though they are, I don't think you're too likely to get more than a few dozen for each unit, and still be able to maneuver without too much difficulty, but that would have to be one of the aspects we would have to determine as a part of the system's development).

In any case, though, the fact that you would already be leveraging the utilization of this platform for both civilian, and military, logistics gives you a degree of confidence that stretching platform use roles won't add any unnecessary risks to established roles. You would just be looking into further applications that might be applicable.

AIR FORCE REPORT WARNS OF GROWING MISSILE THREAT TO US HOMELAND || WARTHOG 2017


As a side Note:

Air Trains might be able to make a big difference in fighting forest fires as well:
Only the Brave Trailer #1 (2017) | Movieclips Trailers








Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Imagine Doing A Task...

...Whatever task might be needed to keep your community going (and it is indeed a huge matrix of services, process operations, and management), and you had a wearable tech combination that allowed you to understand not only what was going on around you, in quite specific detail if required (with both audio, and visual aids to help with an intuitive understanding), but exactly what was needed to be done next, in whatever task you might be talking about (with the exception, of course, of situations where a great deal of learned, hand eye coordination is involved, or other, learned, coordinated faculties, are concerned; especially in time sensitive situations; but then, there's AI that may be able to do most of that as well, isn't there).

Imagine what might be possible because we, the working majority of Americans, were in charge of it all, and could, then, do a lot of very useful things; for no other reason than they made practical sense to a consensus majority of either a particular community (or City State, because I like the sound of that a lot better) itself, or significant portions of the Federated City States. Not because more money could be made. Not because it could be used to cut the legs off of another competitor. No. Just because it made sense, and would help the community prosper.

What a concept, huh?

Just imagine being able to standardize things across a whole host of interaction activities, and channels. Standardizing components of all kinds; how their made (and whether by automation or not), as well as what their particular features might have.

This is where modularity comes into play so that as many larger assemblies, of whatever end use item you might want to talk about, could be put together simply by snapping (so to speak) whatever combination of them that gets the job done, as we could possibly manage.

I bring this up because it would present tremendous opportunities to make work within such, more controlled, and optimized, physical environments, a great deal more coordinated, and easier for non experts to understand. And in particular here you would have the capability to implant not only diagnostic sensors for the physical aspects of the entity, but for the process it was currently involved in as well (if possible), but the chips to organize what was being sensed, and the further ability to divulge that information upon (say RFID) request. Thus, no matter your individual expertise of how something works is, your wearable AI assistant would be able to query all queryable aspects of what was going on, in any particular moment, so as to inform you of what might be needed; checking in, of course, with all relevant, higher level, management assistance AI, and the citizens tasked with being a part of that higher task loop.

Things would probably not run as quickly as they do now, at least until all of got used to working with such assistance, but they would get done, and we could all participate. We could do the shifting between doing, say street maintenance for two weeks, to doing maintenance on one processing plant or another, for another two weeks, and then on to say elderly care for the next period, etc., with some confidence that we'll be able to jump into whatever is currently going on without too much delay (which could be further helped, of course, if we staggered this job hopping so that at least one person has already been there for a week to help the next new guy with his/her first week back in this task).

This is why the electrification of experience retrieval is such a big deal. It simply changes everything; especially if you have access to a clean, infinitely abundant source of energy, which, of course, we do (via liquid hydrogen produced at sea with my version of Yen Tornado wind turbines). Because of this we can set things however we want to without money, or absolute dependence on specialization. Specialization isn't going to go away, of course, but we can de emphasize it significantly; to the point at least for which the alternative that I have outlined would work.

The only thing missing here is the recognition, first that the current economic operating system is no longer relevant in any way for this new operating environment, and secondly that an alternative is not only conceivable, but quite within the realm of possibility to be implemented. And that is where you come in. You need to be talking about this wherever you can; in personal interactions during the day, and on the web. Because something needs to be done, and quickly.

GOOGLE GLASS 2.0 IS A STARTLING SECOND ACT






Monday, July 17, 2017

Lead The Change From This Obsolete Economic Operating System Or Be Crushed By It


A MORE PERFECT UNION


With memories of our parents' union jobs, many of us have borne the brunt of the decline in employment quality.






We Can't Allow This To Be A Choice Only Between Having Automation And Terrible Inequality...

...Or simplify not having automation at all.

Automation may well be one of the main factors for humanity to help end the economics of scarcity, but not if we stay consumed with the notion that an obviously obsolete operating system is the only way for humans to organize themselves. Something that the need to be worried about this very issue ought to make abundantly clear, as most everything in that obsolete system revolves around a very cruel, and destructive, zero sum game; the whole point of scarcity in the first place.

And the only thing that will stop it is if each and every one of you start talking about the need for an alternative to Capitalism everywhere you can.

Robots and AI are going to make social inequality even worse, says new report







Sunday, July 16, 2017

It Wouldn't Be If We Were On The Road To Doing Something About Climate Change

And interestingly enough, the same obsolete economic operating system that makes having children too expensive for most of us, even if we can afford to get married (which many of us can't any more), is the same obsolete system that has been making doing something about climate change too expensive as well.

Shouldn't that be telling you something quite important indeed about this obsolete economic operating system? I would certainly think so.


ALONG FOR THE TERRIBLE RIDE


The dark picture of the future raises a key philosophical question: Is it morally acceptable to create new people to suffer all this along with us?






Saturday, July 15, 2017

So Why Can't We Have These Robots To Help Us, Instead Of Replace Us?

The thing is, having one situation or the other is a choice. A choice we haven't been looking at much before because no one's had the opportunity to do so quite like we've had for the past few decades. But now that we can, and someone has, it's long past time to start considering it.

On the one hand knowledge is owned, like pretty much everything else is owned, one way or another, so it must be made to be either very scarce, or not scarce (relative to demand), depending on whether we want to buy, or sell. Labor is something, usually, that we want to buy, so we make that not scarce. Things we induce people to want we try to keep in the sweet spot of just enough scarcity to keep demand from getting too worked up, without big profits taking too much of a hit.

In my view it ought to be obvious to working people now that our status as "commodities to be kept in the not scarce" category is no longer a very good deal. Made especially more so precisely because much of what we need (even without inducements) can made to be so profitably scarce (just think of any kind of treatment you might need to keep you alive for starters).

On the other hand, though, if we decided to come up with a different way to do production, and distribution, and maintenance, so that we could preserve, not only the best parts of Democracy, and rule of law, but also make shouldering the burden as equitable as the distribution of the output of all of our efforts, things would only be as scarce as practical circumstances, and our consensus will, would have them be.

I have outlined a way to do that in my two blogs, as well as from what was on my original web site (Oldsoftyconcerns.com or Oldsofty.com which is still the email domain name that I use). The bigger point here, though, is that you can think of all that I am trying to do as just a way to start a much needed national debate. And the point of that debate, of course, is to talk about the right of the working majority of Americans to make the choice I started out with in this post. And further that a sober reflection on current circumstances in the world today would mandate that a choice to a better alternative must be taken. We just need to start negotiating on what the alternative would be, and how we would go about implementing it.

And where might we start? How about we talk about doing an employee buyout of the entire American economy (with a super paper instrument of some sort that would have us as both owners and holders of the debt, which however crazy it might sound is still no crazier than issuing a trillion dollar coin to just hold in vault so that you suddenly have spending power for your government). How bout we talk about using a big chunk of that buyout to compensate the top whatever percent that wants to be compensated outright (with a big cash payment upfront, and current gold price equivalent payments of commodities, of whatever sort our newly formed nation might produce as national production; for which, however, they would renounce their citizenship. The rest of us pay ourselves back for this debt -- servicing it in other words -- by paying for all health care; by paying the difference between minimum wage, and a living wage, and by providing the all the material needs of both our City States, and our nation, and ourselves. All of this at least until we can structurally accommodate not having money anymore). Then we can talk about how each community can have broad latitude in setting up their version of shared community operation, figuring out what we will keep in our current constitution (especially as relates to the bill of rights) to become a new Federation of City States.

This is not rocket science. Nor is this sneaky Socialist ideology. It is simply what adults do when recognizing that what we have been doing isn't working anymore; what you have to do to come up with something that is demonstrably better for the working majority of Americans; which is why you see both Libertarian, and Socialist, in the phrase by which I described my political ideology. And more to the point, why it has to be something that is demonstrably better because the majority of working Americans won't vote for it otherwise.

Think about it. Start talking about it wherever you can in your online social interactions. It is that important.

These Five Robots Do Some Very Dirty Jobs So Humans Don't Have To

Thursday, July 13, 2017

How Much Continual "Disruption" Of The Fabric Of Our Communities Is It Going To Take...

...Before we say enough is enough? The commoditization of everything. The supremacy of profits over real needs. The market as the only arbiter of value. Haven't you had enough of this?


NEW IN TOWN


Living the dream has never been easy in the West's most beloved adventure hamlets, where homes are a fortune and good jobs are few. But the rise of online short-term rentals may be the tipping point that causes idyllic outposts to lose their middle class altogether — and with it, their soul.





Commoditizing Ever More Social Interaction As A Whole...

...The economic behemoths thus created now stand between the rest of us, and those who still believe in the idea that an institution needs to exist to keep people informed; so they can be responsible wielders of the right to rule by majority vote of the people. And because they are no longer so directly connected, they must carefully walk, more than ever, their own balance between doing the informing, and still presenting a revenue generating product. Because product competition is getting pretty tough now you know. So what do you do? You organize and try to negotiate from whatever strength control of your type of product might give you.

The irony here is that organized labor, who used to be past masters at this (after paying a tremendous cost in life, limb, and material well being), isn't doing nearly so well with it anymore. And that's because it's just too easy now to go get whatever product type you might want, somewhere else; precisely because so many everywhere are fighting for their market share of everything.

And so the traditional purveyors of information, albeit very important information much of the time, find themselves competing in a now vast, multi dimensional matrix of information creation I like to call the infosphere. The problem though, I think, isn't that they can't compete (the current, political scandal related increase in popularity aside), but that it is becoming ever more difficult all of the time; and not just because of competition alone (formidable as it is becoming with everyone creating their own personal product as tweets, or video, or personal commentary), as information manipulation for both economic, and/or political gain, come into the picture. And in that latter context it starts to become something a good deal more sinister, as being able to turn a profit becomes meaningless when some other, bigger economic entity, suddenly decides your message is inimical to their survival.

What really troubles me in all of this, aside from the obvious sinister aspects, is that nobody seems willing to stop and and say: Wait a minute here. Maybe it's time to do a reality check. Maybe we're driving ourselves crazy trying to solve impossible situations when we should be asking why has everything become so impossibly crazy in the first place? And in that, perhaps, we could begin to see that the original, underlying assumptions, of this current operating system, have been mangled beyond all recognition. And that it just isn't working properly any more. More to the point, it absolutely cannot be made to work properly any more. And we're only going to make ourselves crazier still if we keep trying.

We have to start over.

That being said, what normal people usually do, when they decide to reconfigure the way they operate, is that they sit down and reconsider where they are at now, what they face now, and what their needs are. You figure that out then you can get around to thinking about the best ways, now, to achieve meeting your needs. And the best part about this is, in accepting the formidable burden of starting afresh, you at least get the opportunity to really look at things differently. To take advantage of new possibilities so as to beak out of old constraints.

Sounds pretty simple when stated that way. Easier said than done of course. But we could do it. The first, biggest step, is to simply accept that it must be done.


STRANGLED BY THE BIG TWO


A consortium of newspaper publishers has just asked Congress for the ability to negotiate collectively with Facebook and Google.





It Was Never About Creating Jobs In The First Place

Oh sure, you tout job numbers when you need to sell concessions to a community, or you're fighting any and all attempts to tax you in any way, but for the most part, jobs were just a necessary part of the costs of doing business; and for which you put effort into limiting, as you would any other cost.

Any more now the real face of economic development shows itself with greater and greater unconcern for the optics of what it might seem like when more and more emphasis is placed on the simple fact of just making more money. This is why we see financials of all sorts of variations becoming ever more popular; setting up ways to create ever more speculative instruments that can create money in their own markets, without a lot of workers involved. Indeed, any more, you simply find ways to creatively crunch numbers so that you automatically create more numbers; as in the new block chain fads, or in amassing ever more computers to game either time variations in price quotes, or to simply game information correlations so that minute commodity swings can be constantly profited from; of which, of course, the increasing variations of paper instruments are but a part of.

In so much of all of this, naturally, little of actual substance is created. No new factories built. No new physical process enhancements that would make us more productive in general. All that is actually created is just more numbers in computers everywhere so that the smoke and mirrors of computerized count can make a few ever more rich and powerful. Precisely because we play along with it.

This is where a big part of Capitalism is today and it is growing. And once automation really starts to show what it can do you have to wonder what kind of growing liability the rest of us are going to be eventually seen as. Status symbols for those who can afford the best collection of slaves? Simply a good source for the cannon fodder their rapacious appetites for more resources, and their need to protect themselves, are going to demand? Only your imagination is the limit to that kind of conjecture.

What we are talking about here is just another aspect of the reality of a mutated economic operating system never intended to operate within an environment where skill retrieval no longer requires a human to nearly the degree it used to. Which ought to make it clear, even to the terminally obtuse, that we cannot rely on  this system any further.

The only remaining question, then, is what are you going to do about it? Just more nothing as the very economic ground you stand on is pulled out from under you? That is certainly what they want you to do.

The disappearing startup









Wednesday, July 12, 2017

This Could Definitely Be Big

Some of the important questions remaining, though, will be not only cost, and durability, but the watt hours per kilo of weight. In that vein, will such batteries be better than the combination of, say liquid hydrogen stored (with its cryogenic containment), and the added weight of some form of generator? It will be interesting to see; especially when you also factor in total lifetime costs and all (do we know yet, in point of fact, how difficult recycling these batteries will be?).


BATTERY PACKING A PUNCH


Tesla plans to build a lithium-ion battery array capable of storing 129 megawatt-hours of energy. Wait... 129 mega-whats? What is a megawatt hour, and just what could you do with all that energy?








Whether It Is Or Isn't Taking Over Isn't The Really Pertinent Question

The real question is twofold: First, why you would want anyone player, in what used to be a very broad competitive market, to be in total control; whether it provides cheap prices now or not. And secondly, what does that say about a economic operating system whose only main operating criteria now seems to be: whoever can win should win; no matter what the collateral damage might be (because "disruption" looks great when the numbers focused on represent "success" so disconnected from true costs, and basic social needs).

But this has always been the case when too much power gets placed in too few hands. And it always amazes me how little criticism comes through in the reporting of how well such new found giants are doing. All despite the fact that thousands upon thousands of retail jobs are disappearing as I write this, leaving folks not only with fewer avenues with which to purchase something with, but with diminished prospects of employment to purchase even goods at a cheaper price.


Is Amazon Taking Over the World? These Charts Will Give You a Hint


See Also:

PRIME RESISTER


It’s a valuable service and one that returns more value than its $99 annual cost, I’m not disputing that at all. But Prime has a lot of undesirable effects too, and those are the things I wish to avoid.





Tuesday, July 11, 2017

The Two Main Elements In Healthcare Costs In America

The article linked below from BuzzFeed, via Digg, has a quote that says a great deal about the first element: the fact that at every node of transaction in American life, a profit must be made, and a wage must be paid:
"...But any structural reform of the US health care system would be immensely difficult and controversial. By definition, lowering costs for one group means taking money away from another.
"One person’s health care costs is another person’s income or profit," said Jost. "It’s a very, very hard thing to pull off.”
Slowing the growth of doctors' salaries would mean drawing the ire of doctors. Reforming drug patent law would mean taking on the pharmaceutical industry. Breaking up provider networks or imposing price controls would mean battling with the hospital industry. Introducing single-payer health care would be an existential threat for the insurance industry and the hundreds of thousands of people it employs..."
The other element has to do with the overhead inherent in all insurance plans: the unbelievably complicated process of balancing what a doctor orders for a patient as necessary treatment, as opposed to what is acceptable for treatment under the terms of a patient's insurance plan. Something for which I have seen from first hand experience.

This seemingly innocuous discrepancy sets up unbelievable extra flows of effort, and information flow, as charges bounce back and forth between hospitals, nurses and doctors, and the payment clearing houses; a whole lot of extra effort and information flow as one side argues with the other on permissibility, and charge responsibility. Whole armies of people are employed, in fact, to do nothing other than chase these contested charges down so that someone, ultimately, becomes responsible for it. And let me just say, the waste inherent in that effort, in my opinion, is at least as bad as the extra we get saddled with in the excesses of profits, or the less likely excesses in wages.

In my mind what this should tell us is very basic indeed: that there are things involved with human need that simply must not be about livelihoods, or capital formation. But to truly accept and deal with that truth as a reality is to come to terms with just how inappropriate Capitalism has become as means to mediate the critical interactions of a society. And that is where our real problems lay in a nutshell.

No One Is Talking About The Things That Would Actually Make Health Insurance Cheaper

US politicians are locked in an ideological battle over health care. But they're not really debating how to bring costs down — they're just shifting how to pay for them.
Posted on 






Monday, July 10, 2017

Because They Thought They Could Have Rung Up Even More Payout...

...Than just the tax cuts alone would have given their corporate masters. Which of course makes the vulgar audacity of it all a great deal more breath taking.


THE RIGHT MOVE


Just as the House Republican bill to slash much of the Affordable Care Act moved forward, some lawmakers started trading health care stocks.

The Only Thing You Can Rely On With Big Money...

...Is that no matter how much you sacrifice to lure it to your area, and keep it there, it will stay only as long as it continues to make the same kind of profits that made their money big in the first place. And of course, the longer it stays, the longer it makes you more dependant on it alone; whereupon you are literally forced to continue to sacrifice, even if, in the long run, it won't make any difference.

So we get these situations where a deep pocket competitor can come in, destroy whatever little, organically grown local businesses that might have been there to serve the locals, and then not care in the least about what the effect will be on the community once the profit picture turns sour. Could you come up with a better way to gut a community? A method where, in fact, you are actually able to get the locals to participate in their own destruction? Perhaps, but you would be very hard pressed in any case.

This is not just cruel. This is not just crazy. It is the height of absurdity made manifest. Why are we staying with a system that can do this to a community? Why on earth would we ever again trust the vagaries of markets, let alone the arbitrary nature of what is deemed profitable enough? Why would we put the very survival of our towns, and counties into the hands of people who have absolutely no real connection to the people who live where these Big Money people want to make profits?

The real question now is: Who is more to blame? Is it them? Doing what they've always done best (which is looking out for their own interests). Or is the fault ours? Ours for not coming, at long last, to the conclusion that enough is enough. The destructiveness of this mutated economic operating system has become far too amplified now that it has gone electric. It must be stopped and we are the only ones who can do it.

What happened when Walmart left