The Future Economy

[dennis tooth]

I'm not really intelligent enough to join in here with all the speak of socialism and communism,

 

Yes you are sir

[TheBitch]

Yes you are sir

 

Since joining this forum, I have actively sought out ways and means of learning more about this. Its what I love about this place. Every days a school day.

 

Socialism

Communism

Right wing (Not *F related)

Left wing (see above)

AC slatering

Bumming

 

The diversity astounds.

[Section_31]

I'm not really intelligent enough to join in here with all the speak of socialism and communism, I'm just a spark at major chemical producer in Runcorn.

 

No apprentices coming through, plant closures and its pretty much guaranteed we'll be out on strike within 2 months because they're fucking our pensions. When I finished my apprenticeship it was pretty much guaranteed you had a job for life and top drawer pension to boot.

 

There'll always be a need for electricians (I hope) but the way things are going you just never know! I do feel sorry for all the apprentices coming through now, they're basically fucked because there's no jobs for them at our company and they're up against people with far more experience if they have to start applying elsewhere, it used to be that you finished your apprenticeship and walked into a job.

 

Just thought I'd say like.

 

Doesn't surprise me at all mate. It's the same up and down the country.

 

Makes me laugh when people call this 'brand' of capitalism a wealth creator, when in actual fact it's a wealth destroyer. My grandad was a guard for British Rail, I've been to uni and have a decent job, but I'm on less in real terms than he was 30 years ago. I've got no pension like he had, and no hope in hell of owning my own gaff.

 

There is wealth created, but it's all centralised, it's not in people's pockets. If it was, they wouldn't have to go round buying shit on credit cards. It's basically just a form of slavery we're sleepwalking into, a generation of people on temp contracts with no security at all, no pensions, having their wages and conditions constantly undermined (I've had it written into my contract that I can be forced to take a three month unpaid break from work, while people at the likes of British Ariways are being asked to work for nothing, I mean seriously, what the fuck?!!) - while the corporations juice the place, take a massive shit on the country before off-shoring to India, China or Brazil.

[Catch22]

You make some excellent points Catch as ever, but I think neither me nor Monty are what you'd call socialists, and both see a place in the 'system' for a free market, just not with the power and influence on human life it has gathered in the last twenty years.

 

 

 

 

I think in this case you're ignoring the massive power wielded by such corporations. Murdoch has got his tendrils into everything, publishing, newspapers and broadcast, and he has an undeniable influence on the political setup of this and other countries - yet he, and his organisation, exists to maximize profit. Like other major corporations, it has the power to squeeze out rivals.

 

I've said many times how the high street is the perfect example of how 'consumer choice' simply doesn't exist to the extent it once did because the firms which already have a foothold are so powerful. Waterstones is the only book shop in town, Dixons is the only electrical shop, Argos is the only catalogue shop, HMV the only music shop. You're talking about a major European city here. If people don't want to shop there where do they go? Will new stores ever emerge to challenge them? A definitive no.

 

There are three supermarkets now when there used to be 8-10 when I was a kid, and last year they were accused of price fixing on dairy products. Soon there will be a handful of car producers.

 

The market always outshone Communism because of the wealth of diversity it said it offered, but it doesn't now. How long before there's one shop? One car manufacturer? With price-setting to match? Thatcher called Socialism an Orwellian nightmare, but is such corporate domination not also an Orwellian nightmare? Especially when you work for one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this, is that capitalism has no 'duty of care'. It thinks like a psychopath, it says "what makes money, what doesn't, get rid of what doesn't. The public sector (should) put people first, a none-profit NHS will put the patient before cost, the education system will continue to educate a child with special needs, even if she or he stands little chance of passing an important test which will bring a few quid to the provider from the LEA.

 

It's not capitalism I have an issue with, it's the brand of capitalism which has developed between here and the USA in the last 20 years, the brand of capitalism which nearly finished us all off but looks to be carrying on regardless. The brand which chooses not to balance profit with decent wages and the lifestyles of its workers, but the one which pushes profits as the be all and end all.

 

It's that philosophy which sees our TV stations churning out reality TV shite, because it's cheap and has a high return. It's the reason serious journalism is dead, because it's not cost-effective. The money is not made by improving the product, it is made by cutbacks and by short changing the people involved in their production at every single opportunity, and by covering up the cracks with some PR spit and polish.

 

 

Most markets have a strong bias away from monopoly due to the effects of consumer choice.

This is certainly true in the media industries in which Murdoch involved & has been heightened by the internet.

 

The arguments that you make here are ultimately defated by your own actions.

I would guess that you actively avoid Murdoch products out of a combination of a dislike for the man, the S** issue & genuinely thinking that his products are crap.

There are many other consumers like you who the market will provide for.

 

The biggest news organization on the 'net is now the BBC, which is state-funded & has slight biases accordingly.

The Guradian is in a far better position than it was 10 years ago as it is now actively read across the globe, rather than just in the UK.

 

Similalrly on the issue of 'reality shows', you & i may not like them but if other people do, it is not our business if they choose to watch them.

 

Moreover as the general media gets dumbed down, then certain people will demand higher content & pay for it.

A good example of that is the Economist which has seen circulation & revenue soar over the last 10 years.

 

An excellent example is the holiday threads on the GF.

People actively seek out to pay for certain holidays which other people on here would regard as a prison sentence: both Ibiza & the camping thread have seen that.

 

Hi-street retailers shows the 'creative destruction' of capitalism at work.

A new method of retailing ('net) emerged which ultimately cuts costs & therefore prices which increases our prosperity.

In the interim there is some dislocation, but that is part of the process.

 

400 years ago we would all be working in a field; 100 in a factory.

 

The process of switiching into higher-productivity areas requires unemployment in the interim as the old industries shed workers 1st.

 

Without the cleaning process of short-term term unemployment & cyclical downturns, you do not get the growth that delivers the prosperity we all benefit from.

[Catch22]

Who is this comic book left you are referring to? Markets don't provide freedom for all. They provide freedom for some. And let's not pretend that slavery is a job choice either, it's offensive and probably only understandable when coming from a Nike PR rep.

 

I'm comparing Cuba to 1/5 of the US. You are saying markets provide prosperity. I'm asking you where the district of Columbia's prosperity is and why it's lagging behind a socialist country that has been embargoed for years (I'd say it's fair to assume Cuba's performace would improve, even if only slightly, with that embargo lifted).

 

Why are markets not providing 20% of the US with prosperity?

 

Who is working under slavery?

 

Lo-paid Nike jobs in the Phillipines are still better paid than the alternative thyat they have right now.

19th century factory jobs in the UK are worse than we have now but better than 17th century agricultral work.

 

The workers in those factories have slightly more money thanthey did before which theh increases the domestic market, which leads to slightly more jobs.

And so the process begins.

 

Capitalism leads to economic growth; do you want to enjoy the fruits of that but deny the 3rd world the opportunities?

 

So you think the lowest 20% of the developed world (the bottom 20% in any other country do better than in the US) as being a valid comparison to the best average in the Socialist world?

 

& even then the people in the US are richer!

(the life expectancy is down to diet, not health spending: the poorest 20% in Japan have less money & less health spening than the richest 20% in the UK or USA but life a lot longer as they are far less obese)

 

Noone ever risked their life to move to a Socialist country.

From the Berlin wall to Vietnamese boat people to the inhabitants of Taiwan to Cubans themselves, they will risk their lifes to leave it.

 

I think that tells you everything about the material advantages & freedom which Socialism provides.

[Stu Monty]

Who is working under slavery?

 

Lo-paid Nike jobs in the Phillipines are still better paid than the alternative thyat they have right now.

19th century factory jobs in the UK are worse than we have now but better than 17th century agricultral work.

 

The workers in those factories have slightly more money thanthey did before which theh increases the domestic market, which leads to slightly more jobs.

And so the process begins.

 

Capitalism leads to economic growth; do you want to enjoy the fruits of that but deny the 3rd world the opportunities?

 

So you think the lowest 20% of the developed world (the bottom 20% in any other country do better than in the US) as being a valid comparison to the best average in the Socialist world?

 

& even then the people in the US are richer!

(the life expectancy is down to diet, not health spending: the poorest 20% in Japan have less money & less health spening than the richest 20% in the UK or USA but life a lot longer as they are far less obese)

 

Noone ever risked their life to move to a Socialist country.

From the Berlin wall to Vietnamese boat people to the inhabitants of Taiwan to Cubans themselves, they will risk their lifes to leave it.

 

I think that tells you everything about the material advantages & freedom which Socialism provides.

 

No, as I've said before, it points out that the American dream is sold well. People do the lottery every week, that doesn't mean they are going to win it. That should actually be free markets' advertising slogan "It could be you".

 

This 20% isn't the bottom 20% either. It's the bottom 20% of states, those states contain the very rich and the very poor, but these states still, with their capitalism. Where is the district of Columbia's prosperity Catch? Where is the black community's prosperity? They are, after all, waiting for markets to help everyone and not just some.

 

I love the way you say 100 years ago we would have been working in factories and completely miss the fact that quite a lot of people would like to work in a factory now. But they've all been moved over to India as it's easier to use bonded labour and modern slavery.

 

Ooh but the slaves get treated so well, they should be grateful. Shameful shit Catch. The dissapeared Union reps haven't done so well. If you cannot see that unregulated markets are exploitative then there really is no hope for this conversation. Do you think that factory owners years ago would have voluntarily stopped mangling up kids without the Factories act? Of course not. It was cheaper not to give a fuck about the staff, and that hasn't changed.

[Catch22]

No, as I've said before, it points out that the American dream is sold well. People do the lottery every week, that doesn't mean they are going to win it. That should actually be free markets' advertising slogan "It could be you".

 

This 20% isn't the bottom 20% either. It's the bottom 20% of states, those states contain the very rich and the very poor, but these states still, with their capitalism. Where is the district of Columbia's prosperity Catch? Where is the black community's prosperity? They are, after all, waiting for markets to help everyone and not just some.

 

I love the way you say 100 years ago we would have been working in factories and completely miss the fact that quite a lot of people would like to work in a factory now. But they've all been moved over to India as it's easier to use bonded labour and modern slavery.

 

Ooh but the slaves get treated so well, they should be grateful. Shameful shit Catch. The dissapeared Union reps haven't done so well. If you cannot see that unregulated markets are exploitative then there really is no hope for this conversation. Do you think that factory owners years ago would have voluntarily stopped mangling up kids without the Factories act? Of course not. It was cheaper not to give a fuck about the staff, and that hasn't changed.

 

 

The Nike factory jobs are better than working in a rice field.

They cant just jump to our standards of living thru a governement decree, as they dont have the capital we have

(Take away our machines for a day & we are a lot less productive)

 

Initially there is very little capital & a lot of labour.

So the price of labour is extremely cheap.

 

As time goes by, some of the increased output is saved.

So there is a little more capital relative to labour.

So the price of labour rises relative to capital.

(New factories are opened & have to slightly bid up for the staff)

 

This is the natural capitalist process & need not have any governement regulation, nor any social alturism to happen.

 

It is presently happening in the Chinese region nearest to HK (forgot which one that is) & in Indian call-centres.

Both of which have seen significant wage rises in the last generation, without any need for any Factory acts.

 

The capitalist process leads to growth which leads to saivings which leads to more capital which drives down the price of capital relative to labour.

That is development!

[philyhamann]

A computering degree seems useful to have in this crazy new world.

[Section_31]

A computering degree seems useful to have in this crazy new world.

 

In 20 years Google will have its own Marine Corps, you heard it here first.

[aws]

In 20 years time Google will be called Skynet.

[Section_31]

In 20 years time Google will be called Skynet.

 

Nah it'll be Weyland-Yutani, while Facebook will be like the Borg group mind.

[Guest Slim(fast)Shady]

Any of you clever lot know what will be the next "landmark" in unemployment rates..

 

eg the amount yesterday was "worse for 14 years"

 

what is the next " in years goal"

 

Just wondered like

[TheBitch]

Worst in 15 years?

[dennis tooth]

The Nike factory jobs are better than working in a rice field.

They cant just jump to our standards of living thru a governement decree, as they dont have the capital we have

(Take away our machines for a day & we are a lot less productive)

 

Initially there is very little capital & a lot of labour.

So the price of labour is extremely cheap.

 

As time goes by, some of the increased output is saved.

So there is a little more capital relative to labour.

So the price of labour rises relative to capital.

(New factories are opened & have to slightly bid up for the staff)

 

This is the natural capitalist process & need not have any governement regulation, nor any social alturism to happen.

 

It is presently happening in the Chinese region nearest to HK (forgot which one that is) & in Indian call-centres.

Both of which have seen significant wage rises in the last generation, without any need for any Factory acts.

 

The capitalist process leads to growth which leads to saivings which leads to more capital which drives down the price of capital relative to labour.

That is development!

 

The capitalist process leads to plunder. Why have wages stayed roughly the same for the past 30 years while the cost of living has increased? Debt has risen expodentially mostly by faithful consumer whores buying things they can't afford with money they don't have. The banks turned to creating the concept of personal debt in order to continue to make silly profits to chase growth as business debts weren't enough to create this hdieous tumour growth you lick.

'Growth' for whom?

Under capitalism the consumer cigarette will seriously harm you and other tumour growth around you.

The system requires most people performing cheap labour permanently, not as a means to an end it just seeks it out better than other systems. That is what you have a system that is efficient in creating poverty. A large addictive fruit machine, every now and then you pull a jackpot and it keeps you going the rest of the year whiles someone is empty his machine every night and you play with your son on your lap. It was the best way to set the majority to work for the minority, you don't enjoy a blockage in the straw that you suck up the congealed soup of the masses with. Guess what, there was no such thing as poverty before capitalism cos we were spoon fed dependant jukie babies and could look after ourselves. The thirst for 'growth' will burn us all.

[dennis tooth]

Most markets have a strong bias away from monopoly due to the effects of consumer choice.

This is certainly true in the media industries in which Murdoch involved & has been heightened by the internet.

 

The arguments that you make here are ultimately defated by your own actions.

I would guess that you actively avoid Murdoch products out of a combination of a dislike for the man, the S** issue & genuinely thinking that his products are crap.

There are many other consumers like you who the market will provide for.

 

The biggest news organization on the 'net is now the BBC, which is state-funded & has slight biases accordingly.

The Guradian is in a far better position than it was 10 years ago as it is now actively read across the globe, rather than just in the UK.

 

Similalrly on the issue of 'reality shows', you & i may not like them but if other people do, it is not our business if they choose to watch them.

 

Moreover as the general media gets dumbed down, then certain people will demand higher content & pay for it.

A good example of that is the Economist which has seen circulation & revenue soar over the last 10 years.

 

An excellent example is the holiday threads on the GF.

People actively seek out to pay for certain holidays which other people on here would regard as a prison sentence: both Ibiza & the camping thread have seen that.

Hi-street retailers shows the 'creative destruction' of capitalism at work.

A new method of retailing ('net) emerged which ultimately cuts costs & therefore prices which increases our prosperity.

In the interim there is some dislocation, but that is part of the process.

 

400 years ago we would all be working in a field; 100 in a factory.

 

The process of switiching into higher-productivity areas requires unemployment in the interim as the old industries shed workers 1st.

 

Without the cleaning process of short-term term unemployment & cyclical downturns, you do not get the growth that delivers the prosperity we all benefit from.

 

Let me start on the highlighted bit, does cutting cost ever increase 'our' prosperity unless I'm mistaken you are not in the top 1% with the good shit. It gives the fat cat the cream you can't get nothing when costs are cut but more work and less workers to do it with and a company focussing on image rather than delivering what they are making out becuase they can't 'grow' after a certain point and have to 'cut costs' in order to keep 'growing'. That's what happens to most of them. It's all about image as you seem to have been sucked in, you mentioned the Guardian, do you know who owns it?

The BBC is dependant on the government who can revoke it's licence, look what happened when they went a bit 'too far' with Tony Blair, the top man lost his job.

I'd be interested what you think will happen when there's nothing left? Will capitalism still work, or does it depend on the Earth being an imaginary unlimited thing like a cheese moon or something?

 

"400 years ago, niggers where slaves, so they should be grateful to live in the Ghettoes in the dark corners."

Discuss. (Terrible argument.)

[dennis tooth]

Let me take an example from the top of your hed.

 

Dennis Stevenson, Baron Stevenson of Coddenham

He sits on the cross-benches in the House of Lords.

"Credit crunch

He became Chair of Halifax plc in 1999 and when they merged with Bank of Scotland he became Chair of the merged group, HBOS plc, from 2001 to 2008. In September 2008 he led HBOS with Andy Hornby to near-bankruptcy and the bank agreed to be taken over by rival Lloyds TSB. In October 2008 he was forced by the government to resign his position after the merger. At a meeting of the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons on February 10, 2009, he admitted to having no qualifications in banking. Like the other sacked or retired bankers present, he also apologised for the financial crisis.[2]

He was also Chair of Pearson PLC. (Pearson plc (LSE: PSON; NYSE: PSO) is a London-based education and media conglomerate. It is the largest book publisher in the UK, India, Australia and New Zealand, and the second largest in the US and Canada.)

He joined as a non-executive director in 1986 and moved up to the chairman’s office in 1997, before resigning in 2005. He was replaced by Glen Moreno, who is now temporary chairman of UK Financial Investments Ltd, a company set up by Her Majesty's Government to manage its shareholding in banks subscribing to its recapitalisation fund."

 

Other

 

He is Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (The House of Lords Appointments Commission is a non-partisan, non-statutory, independent body in the United Kingdom. It has three roles:

to recommend people for appointment as non-party-political life peers;

to vet all nominations for membership of the House of Lords, including those nominated by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety;

to scrutinise certain candidates added to the Honours Lists, such as those nominated for political services as well as anyone added at a late stage.)and Chancellor of the University of the Arts London."

 

 

("THE financier who has been appointed to protect taxpayers’ money in Britain’s bailed-out banks is a former trustee of a secretive Liechtenstein bank accused of facilitating massive tax evasion.

 

Glen Moreno, who chairs the powerful body that oversees the government’s £37 billion shareholding in the banks, was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds during a nine-year association with Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT), a private bank based in the tax haven. Moreno is also chairman of Pearson, the media group that owns the Financial Times, and was previously chief executive of Fidelity International. He worked for 18 years at Citi-group, the US banking giant.")

 

 

Current members of the board of directors of the Economist Group are: Sir Robert Wilson (non-executive chairman), Helen Alexander CBE, Sir David Bell, Rona Fairhead, John Gardiner, Philip Mengel, John Micklethwait, Nigel Morris, Simon Robertson, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, and Chris Stibbs.

 

 

(The Economist Group is a group of companies that sell publications and services under The Economist brand, such as The Economist (called a newspaper for historical reasons, but to all appearances a weekly news magazine), )

Edited August 13, 2009 by dennis tooth

[Scrump]

Think tank calls for major overhaul of Britain's economy to end the polarisation of wealth and poverty

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/thinktank-calls-for-major-overhaul-of-britains-economy

[Scrump]

Full article

 

A radical overhaul of Britain’s economy as far-reaching as Labour’s post-war reforms and the Thatcherite revolution in the 1980s is needed to address the UK’s chronic failure to raise the standard of living of millions of workers since the 2008 financial crash, according to a major report.

 

In a damning verdict on the state of the UK economy, the IPPR commission on economic justice, which includes the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, senior business leaders and economists, found that the UK is being held back by a business culture dominated by decades of short-term profit taking, weak levels of investment and low wages.

 

It argues that the shareholder-driven model of capitalism is outmoded and partly to blame for Britain slipping down international league tables for investment and productivity, which measures the output per hour of each worker and is seen as the cornerstone of economic progress because it drives up wages.

 

Achieving prosperity and justice together is not only a moral imperative – it is an economic one – Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

 

Without the investment needed to cope with developments such as automation and the adoption of digital services, the commission warns, the UK is likely to face another decade of stagnant wages, rising household debts and deteriorating infrastructure. Although Britain is experiencing record levels of employment, low wage growth and persistent inequality have been widely cited as reasons for the Brexit vote.

 

The commission’s report has been launched by the IPPR thinktank days before the 10-year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers crash. The firm’s on 15 September 2008 triggered the financial crisis and the commission claims its consequences have yet to be fully addressed. It accuses successive UK governments of only making tentative steps to address these shortcomings, which the report says is holding the UK back from a place in the top rank of developed nations.

 

Ten points for a better Britain – Institute for Public Policy Research

Proposals from the IPPR formed much of Labour’s agenda under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown when it took office in 1997. However, since then the left-leaning thinktank has become more detached from Labour’s leadership. It set up the commission two years ago after the Brexit vote, with its members drawn from across the political spectrum, including the head of the trade union umbrella body the TUC and one of Britain’s best known fund managers, Dame Helena Morrissey.

 

Among the report’s 73 recommendations are an increase in the minimum wage and devolving economic power across the UK.

 

 

 

The proposed reforms include:

 

An immediate increase in the minimum wage to the real Living Wage of £10.20 in London and £8.75 outside the the capital.

A requirement that workers on zero-hours contracts be paid 20% above the higher real Living Wage rate.

An industrial strategy to boost the UK’s exports, backed by a new national investment bank that would raise £15bn a year to push public investment to the G7 average of 3.5% of GDP.

Major changes to how UK companies are governed, such as: enshrining a broader purpose in directors’ duties; the inclusion of workers on company boards; a rise in the headline rate of corporation tax and a minimum rate of corporation tax to tackle tax avoidance by multinationals.

Taxing work and wealth on the same basis, with a single income tax for all types of income (meaning the abolition of capital gains tax and dividend tax), and the replacement of inheritance tax with a lifetime gift tax, levied on recipients rather than estates.

A new “economic constitution” for the UK, devolving more economic powers to the nations and regions.

Speaking ahead of the report’s launch on Wednesday, Welby said: “For decades the UK economy has not worked as it should, with millions of people and many parts of the country receiving less than their fair share. The widening gulf between rich and poor, and fears about the future among young people and their parents, have damaged our nation’s sense of itself.

 

“Our report shows that it doesn’t have to be like this. By putting fairness at the heart of the economy, we can make it perform better, improving the lives of millions of people. Achieving prosperity and justice together is not only a moral imperative – it is an economic one.”

 

The commission argues that reducing inequality and including workers on boards – an idea that Theresa May ditched last year – will improve the status, engagement and wellbeing of employees and with that improve productivity.

 

It says: “If Britain is to rise to its productivity challenge, then a stronger relationship must be forged between management, workers and shareholders. It is now widely recognised that employee engagement in decision-making is a key contributor to improved productivity and innovation in modern companies.”

 

 

The fingerprints of individual commission members can be seen on the report. Academic economist Mariana Mazzucato is a champion of state intervention to promote technology, which she argues is the foundation of success among technology firms Apple, Facebook and Google. Much of the report urges ministers to adopt a more robust industrial strategy in collaboration with universities and employers.

 

Another commissioner, the businessman and Labour donor John Mills, has spent a lifetime arguing that the success of the financial sector has kept the pound artificially high and damaged British exporters. Proposed reforms of the bonus culture in the financial sector, higher taxes on wealth and limits on property price inflation are designed to discourage the flow of funds into London that push up the value of sterling.

 

Before he joined the commission Welby, a former oil executive, was known to have strong views on welfare and poverty, but it was a surprise when he signed up to consider the broader question of economic justice. Last year following the commission’s interim report he said Britain’s economic model was broken and that the country stood at a watershed moment “where we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need”.

 

Other commissioners included the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Frances O’Grady; Legal & General fund manager Helena Morrissey; the head of the City of London Corporation, Catherine McGuinness; Dominic Barton, McKinsey’s Global managing partner; and Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of artificial intelligence firm DeepMind.

 

O’Grady said: “It’s time for a once-in-a-generation rethink of our approach to the economy. Working people have had enough of stagnating living standards and massive inequality. And no one’s buying the idea that there’s no alternative. A better deal for a working people is possible, and will allow us to build a stronger, fairer economy.”

[KopOut]

The truth is out there.

Food for thought, and are we really wasting our time with renewable energy from solar & wind???

"Germany’s Renewable Energy Nightmare –  Wind & Solar Deemed ‘Ecological Disasters’

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/08/14/germanys-renewable-energy-disaster-part-2-wind-solar-deemed-ecological-disasters/

[Jose Jones]

I doubt there’s a lot of truth on that blog page KopOut.

[Red Shift]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2009 at 4:59 AM, Section_31 said:

Where do people see it going and what will it mean for society as a whole?

 

In the David Simon interview I posted on the Wire thread, he reckons that in the post-industrial world, people, especially working class people, are becoming more and more worthless, and I have to say I completely agree.

 

 

This interview in the Guardian struck me too:

 

Interview with Claire Enders: 'I'm not an advocate, I'm a sceptic' | Media | The Guardian

 

 

If the growth of the virtual economy is going to make people even more useless, where the fuck are they going to work?

 

I've often mused as to how the likes of HMV charge less for things which are sold online, in a concerted effort to steer you away from the highstreet shops so they can eventually shut them down and lay everyone off. Are we going to end up in a country where only academia, high-tech firms and some semblence of a state apparatus are employers?

"Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better."
 

In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein, author of the global bestsellers The Shock Doctrine and No Logo, tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth.

Klein exposes the myths that are clouding the climate debate.

We have been told the market will save us, when in fact the addiction to profit and growth is digging us in deeper every day. We have been told it’s impossible to get off fossil fuels when in fact we know exactly how to do it—it just requires breaking every rule in the “free-market” playbook: reining in corporate power, rebuilding local economies, and reclaiming our democracies.

We have also been told that humanity is too greedy and selfish to rise to this challenge. In fact, all around the world, the fight for the next economy and against reckless extraction is already succeeding in ways both surprising and inspiring.

Climate change, Klein argues, is a civilizational wake-up call, a powerful message delivered in the language of fires, floods, storms, and droughts. Confronting it is no longer about changing the light bulbs. It’s about changing the world—before the world changes so drastically that no one is safe. 

Either we leap—or we sink.

Once a decade, Naomi Klein writes a book that redefines its era. No Logo did so for globalization. The Shock Doctrine changed the way we think about austerity. This Changes Everything is about to upend the debate about the stormy era already upon us.

 

https://thischangeseverything.org/book/