We Don't Need Jobs

[matukuul]

I've been saying things like this for a while now, as I'm sure many people here have.. I'm pretty shocked that it's even being hypothetically discussed in the mainstream.. Hopefully times really are a changin'... I still think there is a lot of work that would need to be done before we get to that point. Whether it's gonna happen in our lifetime or not is really hard to say. I think it definitely could, but what do you guys think? Will we as a people make the choices and demands, etc, that are necessary to get it done?

http://online.wsj.com/video/does-america-r...6CBDF1FE5C.html

Personally I was beginning to think it would never happen in our lifetime, but things like this give me hope.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Is this what you meant to link to?

 

[matukuul]

Yea my bad, thanks.

It's fixed.***

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Direct democracy as being presented has some very alluring promises, and it has worked in a variety of global cases (the kibbutzim we're directly referenced in the vid). I think there's a lot of promise in these sorts of models, however:

Absent from this talk are mechanisms of actions...until they are presented in less-than-abstract forms, such ideas are restricted to the theoretical realm. (This is my same beef with the Venus Project).

What's missing entirely from this analysis (with the exceptions of a brief mention of how merchants/royalty were impacted back in the day and an even briefer mention of potential impacts to a finance economies) is the understanding of the entrenched interests in the system that currently exists and their ability to prevent a shift that would benefit all but them.

He makes some good points, but to my mind, none of these points are valid without removing large sections of entrenched infrastructure. Additionally, he fails to address the fact that this model precludes large swathes of modern technology (or fails to explain why international corporations would switch from the "financial tools" that allow them to maximize profit to "financial tools" that would give more power to the people, assuming both of these "tools", in addition to others, were allowed to coexist as he implied).

 

[matukuul]

I see your points, but it's the Wall Street Journal, you can hardly expect them to let someone tell you on their behalf how to take down those infrastructures you speak of. I think this man is just a good person who is trying his best to spread ideas to people on a mass scale who would normally never consider them. You can imagine the ripples endeavors such as this could create in the world around us? Also, what 'swathes' of modern technology are you claiming this model would preclude specifically? If you don't mind.

And from the way I see it, what do these international corporations have to lose? Wealth? No. Power? Certainly not. It would simply enhance the quality of life for the general population of the world and as you said, empower them, but that is not to say that it would dis-empower others by any means.

 

[Apoc]

Hmmmm, I actually don't see much being presented here in the way of change. It doesn't sound much different from what people already do. He isn't suggesting people not work, but merely more of a focus on local economies instead of relying on huge infrastructure. It seems to me people already utilize local economy and local trades.

I wish it were as simple as merely having a couple thousand dollars to create some company on the internet. I'd be rich. I've been looking for a decent way to use the internet to generate cash for 10 years. Nothing has ever really come of it. Sure, I could sell stuff online, but it's a crap shoot. Some people do ok with it, some don't. It's a lot of work, and I always conclude that I'm better off just sticking with my regular job, sucky though it may be, at times.

Of course I'm just rambling and giving my first impressions of that video. This is usually the point where snozz comes and tells me I'm babbling about nothing.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

matukuul -

The two questions you raise are essentially the same question. If corporations are locked into dollars, anything other than dollars that gives greater power to consumers for alternate (inter-communal) trade that the corporation is not a part of is something these corporations have to lose. That's power and wealth right there. In such a model there would be less need for things like corporate text books...you may not see losing such things as a "loss" but corporations would.

Additionally, with regards to technology...we only have the wealth of technical toys that we do because of horrendous working conditions (and sourcing conditions that are even worse - just glance at third world mining practices). Under such a "jobless" model, the market would dictate trimming back on these jobs to a drastic measure...if not, the only plausible scenario is that, again, corporations lose wealth/power as factories become community owned or are forced to raise dollar wages to compete with alternate currencies. If this doesn't happen, the model being presented is not the model you wind up with...thus it would be a mere facade of direct democracy.

Ultimately, there is no room for private tyrannies (corporations) in direct democracy as the two concepts are at odds with each other.

(Apoc, I'm sorry you feel that way)

 

[Apoc]

(Apoc, I'm sorry you feel that way)

lol. It's cool. You have encouraged me to either watch what I say, or not say anything.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

:surprised

That sounds terrible!!

I never intended to have a chilling effect on Nexus speech...oh man

 

[matukuul]

But don't you think the only real loss of power and wealth would be on paper? For all practical intents and purposes, I think the infrastructures which produce all of our goods, services, and resources, etc, would retain a very real level of power and wealth that would be just as satisfying if not more than the current situation to those who currently manage and own them.. All they really need to do is change the way they see things, by shifting from a 'me' attitude to a 'we' attitude. Then I think that these tyrants, the seeming powers that be, could actually have a change of heart by learning the joys of liberating their fellow brothers and sisters here on planet Earth.

......Wishful thinking I know.

And I see your other points.

What do you think are the appropriate solutions to dissolving all tyranny, while still retaining a good number of the goods, services, and resources, etc, that we all love, but still discarding many of them also like the ones that we find unnecessary, and simultaneously allowing everyone in the world to have access to those that still remain? And is this possible if we decrease the number of jobs in the world by 60-90% and/or spread the work out evenly so we all work less, as in very little or close to not at all?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

But don't you think the only real loss of power and wealth would be on paper? For all practical intents and purposes, I think the infrastructures which produce all of our goods, services, and resources, etc, would retain a very real level of power and wealth that would be just as satisfying if not more than the current situation to those who currently manage and own them.. All they really need to do is change the way they see things, by shifting from a 'me' attitude to a 'we' attitude. Then I think that these tyrants, the seeming powers that be, could actually have a change of heart by learning the joys of liberating their fellow brothers and sisters here on planet Earth.

......Wishful thinking I know.

As you acknowledged it as wishful thinking, I won't really go into it but, to corporations, profit is the only thing that matters and everything else is considered an externality. Externalities have no place in corporate business schemes, so even though CEOs are perfectly aware of climate change, they are forced to treat it as irrelevant. The real sad part is that as a result of this systemic view, if one CEO at a company decides to change this (without support of the board and rest of the company) he/she can be replaced very easily, so there is an incentive to keeping your mouth shut with regards to externalities in general. The system is inherently tyrannical.

What do you think are the appropriate solutions to dissolving all tyranny, while still retaining a good number of the goods, services, and resources, etc, that we all love, but still discarding many of them also like the ones that we find unnecessary, and simultaneously allowing everyone in the world to have access to those that still remain. And is this possible if we decrease the number of jobs in the world by 60-90% and/or spread the work out evenly so we all work less, as in very little or close to not at all.

This is the question, isn't it? First let me ask a few questions:

Which of our goods/services/technologies are truly crucial and critical and can be maintained/sustained as far as production in a sustainable society? Does this include manufacturing or is this by making due with the produced equipment we've got? Which communication technologies are worth keeping and for what ends?

There are a bunch more that follow in that vein...this is something I've been grappling a lot with recently, to no avail. I think that it becomes fairly apparent that the two main driving forces behind technology (healthcare and military) will have to lose out on much of their toys, but how can that be done in such a way that quality healthcare can still be provided. In short...I think in a truly sustainable society, a LOT of high tech industry is going to have to fall by the wayside, there's no way around this when you consider where all of the components come from, where the technology is constructed and who pays for the majority of it (taxpayer subsidies).

Now, I personally feel the circumstances you have presented are impossible. The population is too large...for the entire world to live at the level of Canada would require the resources of three Earths...the conclusion being that some people are going to have to go (and are going through wars and increasing disasters and will no doubt continue to perish as global conditions worsen) and at the same time, the level of extravagance people are used to is also going to plummet. Work really isn't the problem...we have a global population that is living according to an unsustainable model...finding jobs for all of these people, as stated in the video shouldn't be the goal. The thing is, there can't be a reform of society as we know it...there needs to be an entire restructuring...the entire system needs to change and, as I've said in other threads, due to the entrenched and immensely powerful business elite that dictate American and global policies, there is no way to achieve this short of violent revolution (or the realistic threat of it at the absolute minimum, but I think it will need to be more than mere threat).

I mean...if you had that wealth and power and upbringing (replete with the indoctrination/propaganda that goes with it), what would it take to get you to give up your stake in this unsustainable system? What would be needed to open your eyes to the global suffering you are helping to cause? Would you really sacrifice all your material wealth and upper class benefits so that the people of the world could be free?

 

[matukuul]

What do you think are the appropriate solutions to dissolving all tyranny, while still retaining a good number of the goods, services, and resources, etc, that we all love, but still discarding many of them also like the ones that we find unnecessary, and simultaneously allowing everyone in the world to have access to those that still remain. And is this possible if we decrease the number of jobs in the world by 60-90% and/or spread the work out evenly so we all work less, as in very little or close to not at all.

This is the question, isn't it?

Yes, it is indeed the question..

Which of our goods/services/technologies are truly crucial and critical and can be maintained/sustained as far as production in a sustainable society? Does this include manufacturing or is this by making due with the produced equipment we've got? Which communication technologies are worth keeping and for what ends?

There are a bunch more that follow in that vein...this is something I've been grappling a lot with recently, to no avail. I think that it becomes fairly apparent that the two main driving forces behind technology (healthcare and military) will have to lose out on much of their toys, but how can that be done in such a way that quality healthcare can still be provided. In short...I think in a truly sustainable society, a LOT of high tech industry is going to have to fall by the wayside, there's no way around this when you consider where all of the components come from, where the technology is constructed and who pays for the majority of it (taxpayer subsidies).

While I personally don't feel like taking on the task of pondering such things right now, I will say that I think these things could be figured out.

Now, I personally feel the circumstances you have presented are impossible. The population is too large...for the entire world to live at the level of Canada would require the resources of three Earths...the conclusion being that some people are going to have to go (and are going through wars and increasing disasters and will no doubt continue to perish as global conditions worsen) and at the same time, the level of extravagance people are used to is also going to plummet. Work really isn't the problem...we have a global population that is living according to an unsustainable model...finding jobs for all of these people, as stated in the video shouldn't be the goal. The thing is, there can't be a reform of society as we know it...there needs to be an entire restructuring...the entire system needs to change and, as I've said in other threads, due to the entrenched and immensely powerful business elite that dictate American and global policies, there is no way to achieve this short of violent revolution (or the realistic threat of it at the absolute minimum, but I think it will need to be more than mere threat).

I agree with everything you said here besides the point about the population being too large. I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. Yes maybe it is too large to be living at the level of say Canada, but even that doesn't seem too impossible to me. I don't think people would be too worried about how big their living space was assuming their needs were provided for, meaning everyone has their own space, with free water, food, clothes, and electricity, their own computer, and their own cell phone, as well as the means to travel freely. I really don't think such a world would be that hard to create if people made the effort. Where there's a will, there's a way, as they say, but like you stated, I agree there is almost no way to achieve this that's actually going to happen.

I mean...if you had that wealth and power and upbringing (replete with the indoctrination/propaganda that goes with it), what would it take to get you to give up your stake in this unsustainable system? What would be needed to open your eyes to the global suffering you are helping to cause? Would you really sacrifice all your material wealth and upper class benefits so that the people of the world could be free?

I don't think that it would require me to shed my material wealth and upper class benefits, necessarily, and yes I would see what I could do. I don't think I would be truly happy if I did not. I do see your point though about how there is a large incentive to have vested interest in the ongoing game.. As Ram Dass says.. Even with such obstacles, I would still do what I could.

 

[polytrip]

Material wealth is a burden, rather than a bliss. It's addictive and like with every addiction never gives any satisfaction.
When you're addicted to something, you never have enough of it. So, the more luxury we actually have, the more we will feel that we have.....too little luxuries in life.

Look at western europe: people are mad as hell that they no longer get free money from the governments when they want to retire at the age of 50. The fact that their governments simply don't HAVE the money anymore and that they're perfectly able to just work for their money like before they became 50 doesn't matter to them...they are so convinced that getting free money at 50 is a basic right...that they just don't care that the governments have ran out of money..it's just their right and they should have it and don't you dare to disagree with them.

Europe, japan and america are economically about to collapse as the result of the addiction to luxury of their inhabitants. Despite the fact that europeans, americans and japanese are well aware of the unsustainability of their lifestyles, they can't manage to detox. They're no longer in control of themselves.

Luxury is like a ball on our chain. It pulls us down, we can no longer swim, we'll drown because of it.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Which of our goods/services/technologies are truly crucial and critical and can be maintained/sustained as far as production in a sustainable society? Does this include manufacturing or is this by making due with the produced equipment we've got? Which communication technologies are worth keeping and for what ends?

There are a bunch more that follow in that vein...this is something I've been grappling a lot with recently, to no avail. I think that it becomes fairly apparent that the two main driving forces behind technology (healthcare and military) will have to lose out on much of their toys, but how can that be done in such a way that quality healthcare can still be provided. In short...I think in a truly sustainable society, a LOT of high tech industry is going to have to fall by the wayside, there's no way around this when you consider where all of the components come from, where the technology is constructed and who pays for the majority of it (taxpayer subsidies).

While I personally don't feel like taking on the task of pondering such things right now, I will say that I think these things could be figured out.

I would say that he who is unwilling to ponder this should think twice before making statements as "these things could be figured out." I haven't heard of anyone offering a solution to this problem and I've been digging into this for the better part of three years...this is a major problem, not something to be written off as a "we'll cross that bridge when we get there"...we're already here...if we don't figure this out in the immediate future, there's not going to be an opportunity to figure this out.

Now, I personally feel the circumstances you have presented are impossible. The population is too large...for the entire world to live at the level of Canada would require the resources of three Earths...the conclusion being that some people are going to have to go (and are going through wars and increasing disasters and will no doubt continue to perish as global conditions worsen) and at the same time, the level of extravagance people are used to is also going to plummet. Work really isn't the problem...we have a global population that is living according to an unsustainable model...finding jobs for all of these people, as stated in the video shouldn't be the goal. The thing is, there can't be a reform of society as we know it...there needs to be an entire restructuring...the entire system needs to change and, as I've said in other threads, due to the entrenched and immensely powerful business elite that dictate American and global policies, there is no way to achieve this short of violent revolution (or the realistic threat of it at the absolute minimum, but I think it will need to be more than mere threat).

I agree with everything you said here besides the point about the population being too large. I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. Yes maybe it is too large to be living at the level of say Canada, but even that doesn't seem too impossible to me. I don't think people would be too worried about how big their living space was assuming their needs were provided for, meaning everyone has their own space, with free water, food, clothes, and electricity, their own computer, and their own cell phone, as well as the means to travel freely. I really don't think such a world would be that hard to create if people made the effort. Where there's a will, there's a way, as they say, but like you stated, I agree there is almost no way to achieve this that's actually going to happen.

These statements just don't equate to anything...the fact that it would take three Earths to sustain the global population at Canada's level of living isn't debatable...it's a fact. You dismiss all of this stuff, talking about cell phones and electricity for all as though that's an assurance that can be made regarding such a society. How are you going to provide these free supplies? Do you realize that things like potable water are disappearing from and predicted to be completely gone from entire regions of the middle east over the next months to years (in areas where it hasn't already disappeared)?

My question to you is HOW? There's really no point in discussing this topic in a less than pragmatic manner, as there are numerous other fantasies to be had that are infinitely more fun to play with. This is a real issue that is going to be have to dealt with, if not immediately, than within the immediate future. As I stated with regards to the presenter, so I will state again with you...mechanisms of actions are everything...if you can't present a viable option for employing a strategy, the strategy is pretty useless, imo.

I mean...if you had that wealth and power and upbringing (replete with the indoctrination/propaganda that goes with it), what would it take to get you to give up your stake in this unsustainable system? What would be needed to open your eyes to the global suffering you are helping to cause? Would you really sacrifice all your material wealth and upper class benefits so that the people of the world could be free?

I don't think that it would require me to shed my material wealth and upper class benefits, necessarily, and yes I would see what I could do. I don't think I would be truly happy if I did not. I do see your point though about how there is a large incentive to have vested interest in the ongoing game.. As Ram Dass says.. Even with such obstacles, I would still do what I could.

I'm not talking about you...I'm referring to the .1% that actually control all the wealth and resources within the US...is that you? I highly doubt it...that's why I asked you to put yourself in the shoes of the Rockefellers...the Buffetts...the Bushes...the Murdochs...these people are the ones who TRULY have power, wealth and control in quantities even more disproportionate than the top 1% or even 10% of the american populace. If you're not even in the top 10% you have no control over what goes on and relatively, you have no resources or power. These individuals have no incentive to stop what they are doing; this is the life they know replete with luxury and control over the global population, why would they ever surrender that?


Great points poly

 

[christian]

Look at western europe: people are mad as hell that they no longer get free money from the governments when they want to retire at the age of 50.

-I can completely understand those western european people being mad. A system was created that they worked in . The system turned out to be a lie. Now some of these people have to work till they are 70. Ridiculous!

-It annoys me to think that i will possibly be enslaved to work till this age. In the west, unless you have got a "game plan" sussed, you are enslaved to work your lives away, and the money you make goes back to those governing swines through taxes and social securities.

-Quality of life in the west, well in one sense yes, but we have to work for it, all our adult life. And is the resultant free time worth the slog i ask???, what for, reality tv and repetative routine-ummm!!:?

 

[polytrip]

Look at western europe: people are mad as hell that they no longer get free money from the governments when they want to retire at the age of 50.

-I can completely understand those western european people being mad. A system was created that they worked in . The system turned out to be a lie. Now some of these people have to work till they are 70. Ridiculous!

-It annoys me to think that i will possibly be enslaved to work till this age. In the west, unless you have got a "game plan" sussed, you are enslaved to work your lives away, and the money you make goes back to those governing swines through taxes and social securities.

-Quality of life in the west, well in one sense yes, but we have to work for it, all our adult life. And is the resultant free time worth the slog i ask???, what for, reality tv and repetative routine-ummm!!:?

Being mad because you feel you are entitled to luxury's that no longer exist is like barking to the moon.

When i was a kid, one day i was riding my bike against the wind. The wind was pushing me back real hard. So i started shouting and screaming....didn't help.

 

[christian]

Polytrip, what i meant was that i feel sorry for those people. Life was different in the past. We didn't have gadgets, but we at least could retire early. So did have free time to look forward to. Now we will mostly be working our lives away till we die, mostly for people in jobs that we dislike. That to me is like hell on earth tamed down, by the gadgets we use to passify our minds, such as tv, and computers. Nowdays it seems that the purpose of bing born is to work from the ages of 17-70 , monday to friday, 9am-5.30 pm. And if you don't do thisa then you are of no use to "society"...makes me wanna be a squirrel!!--never seen one wearing a suit and clocking in..:lol:

--That's why i say to people, if you are good at saving money- do so, and travel where it's cheaper and you can retire young, coz it doesn't happen where i live.

 

[matukuul]

Which of our goods/services/technologies are truly crucial and critical and can be maintained/sustained as far as production in a sustainable society? Does this include manufacturing or is this by making due with the produced equipment we've got? Which communication technologies are worth keeping and for what ends?

There are a bunch more that follow in that vein...this is something I've been grappling a lot with recently, to no avail. I think that it becomes fairly apparent that the two main driving forces behind technology (healthcare and military) will have to lose out on much of their toys, but how can that be done in such a way that quality healthcare can still be provided. In short...I think in a truly sustainable society, a LOT of high tech industry is going to have to fall by the wayside, there's no way around this when you consider where all of the components come from, where the technology is constructed and who pays for the majority of it (taxpayer subsidies).

While I personally don't feel like taking on the task of pondering such things right now, I will say that I think these things could be figured out.

I would say that he who is unwilling to ponder this should think twice before making statements as "these things could be figured out." I haven't heard of anyone offering a solution to this problem and I've been digging into this for the better part of three years...this is a major problem, not something to be written off as a "we'll cross that bridge when we get there"...we're already here...if we don't figure this out in the immediate future, there's not going to be an opportunity to figure this out.

Hey man, if you're dead serious about coming up with a real solution, and courses of action, which we will together act on, then I'm down to really put effort into pondering such things, but until then like I said I don't really feel like bothering, because in the end it would be pointless. No change would come. I have been pondering these things for a while now as well, not for three years or anything, but definitely a year and a half. I'm not writing it off as "we'll cross the bridge when we get there". I just don't feel like taking on the task, here right now, if nothing solid will come of it, which in all likelihood will be the outcome.. Yes I probably should have refrained from making the topic if I was unwilling to do so, and for that, my bad.. I just got a little excited when I saw something like this in the mainstream. The excitement wore off though when I came back to the realization of how hard it would be to much such a life a reality.

Now, I personally feel the circumstances you have presented are impossible. The population is too large...for the entire world to live at the level of Canada would require the resources of three Earths...the conclusion being that some people are going to have to go (and are going through wars and increasing disasters and will no doubt continue to perish as global conditions worsen) and at the same time, the level of extravagance people are used to is also going to plummet. Work really isn't the problem...we have a global population that is living according to an unsustainable model...finding jobs for all of these people, as stated in the video shouldn't be the goal. The thing is, there can't be a reform of society as we know it...there needs to be an entire restructuring...the entire system needs to change and, as I've said in other threads, due to the entrenched and immensely powerful business elite that dictate American and global policies, there is no way to achieve this short of violent revolution (or the realistic threat of it at the absolute minimum, but I think it will need to be more than mere threat).

I agree with everything you said here besides the point about the population being too large. I'm not sure if that is necessarily true. Yes maybe it is too large to be living at the level of say Canada, but even that doesn't seem too impossible to me. I don't think people would be too worried about how big their living space was assuming their needs were provided for, meaning everyone has their own space, with free water, food, clothes, and electricity, their own computer, and their own cell phone, as well as the means to travel freely. I really don't think such a world would be that hard to create if people made the effort. Where there's a will, there's a way, as they say, but like you stated, I agree there is almost no way to achieve this that's actually going to happen.

These statements just don't equate to anything...the fact that it would take three Earths to sustain the global population at Canada's level of living isn't debatable...it's a fact. You dismiss all of this stuff, talking about cell phones and electricity for all as though that's an assurance that can be made regarding such a society. How are you going to provide these free supplies? Do you realize that things like potable water are disappearing from and predicted to be completely gone from entire regions of the middle east over the next months to years (in areas where it hasn't already disappeared)?

My question to you is HOW? There's really no point in discussing this topic in a less than pragmatic manner, as there are numerous other fantasies to be had that are infinitely more fun to play with. This is a real issue that is going to be have to dealt with, if not immediately, than within the immediate future. As I stated with regards to the presenter, so I will state again with you...mechanisms of actions are everything...if you can't present a viable option for employing a strategy, the strategy is pretty useless, imo.

I can imagine things like portable water are disappearing from third world countries, but do you really think that means we are running out of water? We could easily supply the world with water. Water shortage is a hoax, IMO. Also, do you really think those things couldn't be provided for if the world didn't just put their heads together? I mean really, c'mon, not that they're going to but that's all it would take IMO. Believe what you want, but I think it could be done. As for mechanisms of action, like I said if you really want to ponder such things together, and then actually take action, then I'm totally down man. I just recently met some people at a festival and got to talking with them about how we'd all be down for a violent revolution, and if one ever gets started to sign us up, lol. Even a non-violent one, sign me up. Unfortunately, there are obviously people who are down to take action, but at this point in the game I think our numbers would be too small, and resistance would be futile, as well as draw attention to ourselves making us targets for all kinds of awfulness. If you can find a way of resistance that is without danger, then let me know.. I'll join now even with our small numbers.

As the saying goes: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

But if you're asking me to speculate about such things and not take action, then I'm sorry, I don't really feel like doing so, and I'm sorry for making the topic.

I'm also not so sure that this is going to have to be dealt with immediately or in our near future. I mean I wish that were true, hellyea, I'd love for shit to hit the fan one day. That would mean things actually have a chance to change, things would actually be exciting.. But no, to me it seems like we could be stuck here for quite a long time. Things have never really changed in hundreds of years, they just look different.

What exactly do you think is going to happen that will make it so there is no opportunity to figure this out? Because I personally have a little more faith than that, and I don't really fall for all the climate hype. Our earth is fine, and always will be, IMO.

I mean...if you had that wealth and power and upbringing (replete with the indoctrination/propaganda that goes with it), what would it take to get you to give up your stake in this unsustainable system? What would be needed to open your eyes to the global suffering you are helping to cause? Would you really sacrifice all your material wealth and upper class benefits so that the people of the world could be free?

I don't think that it would require me to shed my material wealth and upper class benefits, necessarily, and yes I would see what I could do. I don't think I would be truly happy if I did not. I do see your point though about how there is a large incentive to have vested interest in the ongoing game.. As Ram Dass says.. Even with such obstacles, I would still do what I could.

I'm not talking about you...I'm referring to the .1% that actually control all the wealth and resources within the US...is that you? I highly doubt it...that's why I asked you to put yourself in the shoes of the Rockefellers...the Buffetts...the Bushes...the Murdochs...these people are the ones who TRULY have power, wealth and control in quantities even more disproportionate than the top 1% or even 10% of the american populace. If you're not even in the top 10% you have no control over what goes on and relatively, you have no resources or power. These individuals have no incentive to stop what they are doing; this is the life they know replete with luxury and control over the global population, why would they ever surrender that?

Dude, I was referring to myself as if I was the .1% that actually control all the wealth and resources within the US, as you asked me to do above in bold.

Look at western europe: people are mad as hell that they no longer get free money from the governments when they want to retire at the age of 50.

-I can completely understand those western european people being mad. A system was created that they worked in . The system turned out to be a lie. Now some of these people have to work till they are 70. Ridiculous!

-It annoys me to think that i will possibly be enslaved to work till this age. In the west, unless you have got a "game plan" sussed, you are enslaved to work your lives away, and the money you make goes back to those governing swines through taxes and social securities.

-Quality of life in the west, well in one sense yes, but we have to work for it, all our adult life. And is the resultant free time worth the slog i ask???, what for, reality tv and repetative routine-ummm!!:?

Exactly. Well put.

Being mad because you feel you are entitled to luxury's that no longer exist is like barking to the moon.

When i was a kid, one day i was riding my bike against the wind. The wind was pushing me back real hard. So i started shouting and screaming....didn't help.

Oh, so people are never suppose to be mad? :roll:

Polytrip, what i meant was that i feel sorry for those people. Life was different in the past. We didn't have gadgets, but we at least could retire early. So did have free time to look forward to. Now we will mostly be working our lives away till we die, mostly for people in jobs that we dislike. That to me is like hell on earth tamed down, by the gadgets we use to passify our minds, such as tv, and computers. Nowdays it seems that the purpose of bing born is to work from the ages of 17-70 , monday to friday, 9am-5.30 pm. And if you don't do thisa then you are of no use to "society"...makes me wanna be a squirrel!!--never seen one wearing a suit and clocking in..:lol:

--That's why i say to people, if you are good at saving money- do so, and travel where it's cheaper and you can retire young, coz it doesn't happen where i live.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[polytrip]

I didn't mean that people are never supposed to be mad.

The current anger of europeans is childish though. It's the anger of a junkie who ran out of heroin, a spoiled child who didn't get that very expensive toy he wanted.

Tell and indian, an egyptian or kenian that the world aint fair because the government no longer gives away loads of free money when you're 50 and still have dozens of healthy years ahead of you....
I don't know if they'll understand, but at least you've made them laugh.

 

[christian]

I didn't mean that people are never supposed to be mad.

The current anger of europeans is childish though. It's the anger of a junkie who ran out of heroin, a spoiled child who didn't get that very expensive toy he wanted.

Tell and indian, an egyptian or kenian that the world aint fair because the government no longer gives away loads of free money when you're 50 and still have dozens of healthy years ahead of you....
I don't know if they'll understand, but at least you've made them laugh.

-I disagree. Us Europeans have battled ourserlves into strong positions many years ago. A system was constructed, and we worked very hard in that system. Because of bad governments we have lost our control that we once had. We have reason to be angry, because our Governments tell us that we MUST do as they say, or else. Yet they are not living up to their promised words. We have worked hard and still do, we deserve better.

-I can't speak about Egyptians or Africans, but when i was in the Gambia it didn't look anything like manic workaholic europe to me.....so i guess they prefer to work easy all their lives than us fitting it in shorter years for a early pension as part of our system of retirement?....