Chinese Manufacturing

[Baron Von PWN]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

[Chariot of Fire]

Please don't stop buying shoddy China-made goods or I won't be able to fritter all my time on CC as has become my custom whilst the cheques keep coming in. Thank you.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

You pretty much summarized Deng Xiao Ping's justification for decreasing the central planning over market activities.

[Baron Von PWN]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

You pretty much summarized Deng Xiao Ping's justification for decreasing the central planning over market activities.

My god that's awesome.

[PLAYER57832]

It is my belief that as the developing nations raise their wealth to levels more on par with ours we will then see manufacturing shift more evenly around the globe. I also believe that the cold war was responsible for these distortions in economic wealth.

The problem is this utterly ignores the environment, which, once destroyed is NOT easily restored and, once destroyed cuts into people's ability to make money outside of the repressive industrial system.

This is what angers me and many others. All this talk of "freedom" is about taking away individual choices from those who have NOT decided to become investment bankers, wallstreet tycoons, etc, because we value time with our families, health, good food, etc, etc, etc.

Really, its about saying " I am jealous of you... I want not just the money I have, but I want to make sure you have no choice but to take the very bottom levels of my system or make the same choices I do. Worse, the cuts in educaton ensure that even fewer people who want to change/move up, who have the innate ability, will actually be able to do so.

Oh yeah.. and if you want to blame me for the damage I CAUSE.. too bad. I set the rules and since you cannot clearly come up with a definitive list .. or, well, keep that list short enough to keep my attention.. then too bad. Economics is just much, much more important. (never mind that the "ecnomics rule" argument is ONLY about the top levels "winning".. not society as a whole).

How are your statements related to my statement?

are you just rageing at capitalism in general? Do you dislike seeing foreigners becoming more prosperous? do you dislike the idea of wealth levels evening out across the globe?

please clarify because I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Becuase unless you take the whole picture into account, you lose site of the true picture. JUST looking at wages and company profits is part of the big problem. The Chinese employees may be making more money, may even get better working conditions, but if that means (as it does) that their neighbors in and folks downstream of the water sources are facing pollution, illnesses, etc.. if it means that these people no longer have real time to spend with their kids (that is not such a huge deal in China right now), etc.

Also, if they get more wages, but then have to go buy a water purifying system, etc, etc... economically, well that means more products to buy. The wages are higher, so the "standard of living" is higher.. all "good". Except, you are talking about people living with unclean water (and yes, I realize that many places in China already have unclean water) .. and ignoring any impacts not fixed by putting a water filter on a faucet. (to simplify in the extreme).

It's not capitalism, per se that is the problem.. any more than socialism, per se is the problem. The problem is pretending that it has to be either or and that looking at just one is some kind of solution. What we need is a little of each (or "none of the above", perhaps... given that so many people insist on staying strictly with one or the other as the real goal.. maybe we just need a third definition that avoids EITHER extreme!).

Ok. However I would point out that those pollution problems have existed for a long time, and when taken in terms of output to pollution were much worse in more communist times. Back in the day they were polluting more for less economic output.

I don't want to diver this thread further, so I will just say you are essentially correct. However, the kinds of pollution we see now may well be worse than what we saw earlier, even if it is much less in volume, is less obnoxious superificially. Some of the worst toxics don't smell or taste.. and can kill in very minute quantities.

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

This whole idea that is in any regards OK to even temporarily ignore the world around us is what has caused the downfall of many nations historically. That we now have a lot of fancy gimgaws that allow us to pretend its not happening now is a problem, not part of the solution.

Though these are mostly propaganda the Chinese government has been making efforts to improve the amount of pollution put out by its economy. This at least means there is a long term goal of reducing pollution, a goal far more achievable if the Chinese have money to carry it out.

This is because, despite the harm coming to us, China really does take a long view. The problem is that "long view" has to do with making China successful, not worrying about the US.

To contrast, the US population has been brainwashed into thinking that our needs should just be subverted for the good of the big corporations because those coporations will provide jobs .. or more specifically will save us all.

Finally we here in the Americas have gone through a simmilar process. It was not too long ago that a river in the USA caught fire due to all the chemicals in it or that the entire area around a Canadian city was pure black rock because the pollution had killed all of the plant life. Once we had the resources to care about this stuff we dealt with it (more or less). It will likely be the same with the Chinese.

Not quite. The damage that is happening now is compounding past damage, so that it does not take as much pollution to cause very, very real problems. Also, though the stuff happening now may not be as obvious, it is often really worse than what happened back then.

Even take that burning river bit (and there were plenty of burning rivers back then, not just in Chicago). That sounds bad and was bad. BUT... the toxics were largely burned off. Folks did have to breath it, but there were also a lot of forest territory and untouched sections of streams. Note.. I am not saying the problems were not real. Believe me, I can walk out my door and see more damage than most of you probably even think about. But the real damage I see had to do with changing the basic systems. Changing watercourses, removing water so they no longer function as they ought (cannot clean themselves well).
It is more pleasant to live today than back then, don't misunderstand. Its just that you cannot be complacent because the stuff that is not obvious can actually be far worse (or just as bad, but harder to rally people over).

Just one example. I just saw a report about PCPs. These are found all over the world, even in polar bears. Turns out that kids, particularly young kids who have evne small amounts in their bodies have significant reduced immune responses. Add in lead... and well, its amazing that we as human beings even can conscience this paradigm that says "its OK to make money unless someone can PROVE its bad". The onus should always be on the producer to PROVE their product is safe, but that is not what happens, even for just basic human safety. Nor is the onus to understand how things impact the world around in broader ways. In fact, we lack understanding of much of how the world works.. yet allow big companies to just go in and do what they will because the proof that it might be harmful is lacking.

Anyway, that IS getting off topic. My basic point is that we have to do much more than look at the superficialities. In any stretch, China is doing that internally, but the US only pretends.

[PLAYER57832]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

The problem is in claiming that this is an "either or" situation. The question is not whether markets or design is better, the question is which is appropriate where. Also, we tend to forget that China's origin is very different from ours. China, like Russia was originally not just a fuedal system, but a system of absolute control from the top. People could not, were not even minimally taught to think independently. It took the rise of communism and expansion of education and health to get China to where it could actually operate in any kind of free market. I don't agree with a lot of what China did, but no one can deny the success. The question si whether the cost in personnal liberties, cultural losses, etc was truly worth that success.

[Woodruff]

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

You pretty much summarized Deng Xiao Ping's justification for decreasing the central planning over market activities.

My god that's awesome.

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

[Baron Von PWN]

It's interesting to note the rise of the middle classes in India and China after they adopted more market-friendly policies (i.e. stepped toward the economic system of capitalism and away from socialism).

You know I had an amusing theory about why the chinese adopted market principles. Essentially the communists realized they were doing a crappy job of developing the proletariat so they decided to let the capitalists back in so that the global revolution could one day come to be.

You pretty much summarized Deng Xiao Ping's justification for decreasing the central planning over market activities.

My god that's awesome.

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

Nor did any other "communist" country. IT was all "socialism in one country" which makes sense as that is far more in the interests of a state than constantly antagonizing the neighbours by trying to overthrow them,

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

Nor did any other "communist" country. IT was all "socialism in one country" which makes sense as that is far more in the interests of a state than constantly antagonizing the neighbours by trying to overthrow them,

Whoa, wait a second...

are you saying that the Soviet Union's foreign policy was not interventionist?

They seemed to the take the internationalist aspect very seriously... so did Cuba.

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

Not by that name, but yes, of course... and that is why a larger entity, usually the government, good leaders are needed to come in and either explain why people have to look at the longer picture OR outright force them. The talent of a good leader is to convince people to do what they need to do whether they really want or not.

And.. government policies can be oriented to ensure that the two cooincide. This is typically done through taxes or permitting or just plain rules. Except.. when people are being fed this "gotta support the big guys if you want JOBS" garbage, then they forget that.

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

Nor did any other "communist" country. IT was all "socialism in one country" which makes sense as that is far more in the interests of a state than constantly antagonizing the neighbours by trying to overthrow them,

Whoa, wait a second...

are you saying that the Soviet Union's foreign policy was not interventionist?

They seemed to the take the internationalist aspect very seriously... so did Cuba.

China's international policy is and always has been China first, then everyone else. Russia's policy was Russia's leadership first. That is the difference.

That is, of course China's leadership put themselves above "the masses" (very much at times), but they truly did work to build up the whole. They did not look outside China until they were ready to do so on a fairly equal basis. They just went about quietly building power, amassing what they wanted in knowledge, technology, etc.

The soviet, by contrast, had an elite that was vested in gaining power. They saw the world as their "stage", and support of the individual population basically secondary to their personal gains.

[Woodruff]

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

Not by that name, but yes, of course...

Not by that name? Seriously?

and that is why a larger entity, usually the government, good leaders are needed to come in and either explain why people have to look at the longer picture OR outright force them. The talent of a good leader is to convince people to do what they need to do whether they really want or not.

What? How is that relevant to the point?

And.. government policies can be oriented to ensure that the two cooincide. This is typically done through taxes or permitting or just plain rules. Except.. when people are being fed this "gotta support the big guys if you want JOBS" garbage, then they forget that.

When you finish with your non-sequitors, it would be nice if you could mosey on back to the actual point that was made. When you have time, that is.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

Nor did any other "communist" country. IT was all "socialism in one country" which makes sense as that is far more in the interests of a state than constantly antagonizing the neighbours by trying to overthrow them,

Whoa, wait a second...

are you saying that the Soviet Union's foreign policy was not interventionist?

They seemed to the take the internationalist aspect very seriously... so did Cuba.

Believe it or not that was the more staid laid back version. You should read up on the crazy shit the Bolsheviks tried to do (like invading and annexing poland). They also did stuff like have big "how to overthrow the capitalist world" conferences. They put such a high priority on this that much of the wealth left over from the Tsars was frittered away on hair-brained revolutionary schemes. It wasn't until Stalin they came to a more pragmatic approach.

It would be as if Iran were to host a big conference and openly invite every Islamic terrorist organization to drop by and talk shop.

This isn't to say Soviet policy was not interventionist. Merely that they did not expect global revolution to erupt in the near future. As a result Soviet efforts followed more traditional state means of intervention. In effect socialism in one country represented a conclusion by the politburo that global revolution would require more than a little help, they would have to create it.

To be fair this deserves an amendment. Socialism in one country was strongest, and most appropriately used to define, in the period when Stalin took power and the beginning of WW2. Following the war Soviet policy makers were likely confident enough in their power they were willing to be more interventionist and Socialism in one country came to mean that each nation is responsible for developing socialism (conveniently taking the Soviets off the hook for global communism).

[Baron Von PWN]

I'd add one adjustment on that "global revolution" part. That was big back in Mao's day, but the Party really just wanted to develop its own economy.

After retaking Tibet, the Chinese never took the Internationalist struggle seriously.

Nor did any other "communist" country. IT was all "socialism in one country" which makes sense as that is far more in the interests of a state than constantly antagonizing the neighbours by trying to overthrow them,

Whoa, wait a second...

are you saying that the Soviet Union's foreign policy was not interventionist?

They seemed to the take the internationalist aspect very seriously... so did Cuba.

China's international policy is and always has been China first, then everyone else. Russia's policy was Russia's leadership first. That is the difference.

That is, of course China's leadership put themselves above "the masses" (very much at times), but they truly did work to build up the whole. They did not look outside China until they were ready to do so on a fairly equal basis. They just went about quietly building power, amassing what they wanted in knowledge, technology, etc.

The soviet, by contrast, had an elite that was vested in gaining power. They saw the world as their "stage", and support of the individual population basically secondary to their personal gains.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

Were the Soviet elite self serving? of course. Does that mean they were only in it for themselves? no don't be ridiculous.

Soviet leadership was so in it for themselves, they nearly took the whole system down on multiple occasions to pursue purely ideological goals. Collectivizing agriculture was an incredibly painful and potentially explosive policy. Such a course of action is not taken by elites who just want to live off the fat. If that were the case N.E.P would have been maintained.

In less than 20 years they took a backwards illiterate agricultural society and turned it into a mighty industrial powerhouse capable of putting a stop to the Nazi war machine. 20 more and they had men in space and were capable of turning the USA into plate glass.

If Khrushchev was just interested in his personal comfort he would never have taken the risks he did to reform the Soviet System.

Brehznev almost started ww3 in pursuit of perceived Soviet security interests. Is that something a guy just looking out for himself doese?

Gorbachev, the bumbling fool, cared so much he tore the whole thing apart under the stress of reforms.

my god what rubbish.

[Chariot of Fire]

The success and failures of the Soviet and Sino communist regimes don't warrant comparison, simply on the strength of economic ties with US & Europe. One spent all its resources on military hegemony over a vast domain during a lengthy Cold War (despite sitting on the greatest wealth of minerals available to man), whilst the other has been propped up since the mid 70s by trillions in aid and trade. Had it not been for this latter scenario I have absolutely no doubt I'd still be crossing the border into China and hitting dirt roads, just as I had been in the early 80s.

As for the Chinese cadres....by far the most corrupt officials to have ever graced this Earth ('the best force money can buy' as the saying goes), who hold themselves far less accountable than their Soviet counterparts ever could.

I think people may not realise, even in the 21st Century, just how much is suppressed on the mainland and what element of fear exists to ever speak out about the gross inequities that divide a vast people.

[PLAYER57832]

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

Not by that name, but yes, of course...

Not by that name? Seriously?

and that is why a larger entity, usually the government, good leaders are needed to come in and either explain why people have to look at the longer picture OR outright force them. The talent of a good leader is to convince people to do what they need to do whether they really want or not.

What? How is that relevant to the point?

Because right now, those in "leadership" are convincing the populace of the opposite.. that their best interest lies in supporting what the big companies want. The couch it in a lot of rhetoric, but that is what they really promot.

Just as an example, contrast the words of today with those of wartime leaders rallying folks toward their causes. We need that kind of leadership. And, this actually is a more dangerous war for the rest of us than most armed conflicts. (which is to minimize war impacts.. in fact more war is a direct result of not paying attention the real long term needs of individuals).

And.. government policies can be oriented to ensure that the two cooincide. This is typically done through taxes or permitting or just plain rules. Except.. when people are being fed this "gotta support the big guys if you want JOBS" garbage, then they forget that.

When you finish with your non-sequitors, it would be nice if you could mosey on back to the actual point that was made. When you have time, that is.

We need to put protection of our ecosystem at the forefront. Without it, we lose everything. But, the only "solutions" are to get bogged down in "debates" over whether plastic or paper bags are better.. when the real answer is not do away with both and use cloth, except in very limited circumstances. (if at all). Folks feel good about recycling, but still wind up throwing away more than folks 50 years ago ever imagined. We have a very safe food system, but big corporations have taken over vast swaths of the industry to all of our downfall.

The further down these paths we go, the more beholden we are to the big companies, the harder it is to divest ourselves.

The issue is that people WILL do what is "good for all" when they are convinced it really is in their own/their children's own self-interest or that there just is no other reasonable choice.

And... despite your cynacism, most people actually are more motivated to do for others than to do for themselves, once they have their basic needs met.

[Woodruff]

Its that kind of thinking that CAUSES the problem. This idea that you can just ignore the environment until ... "things are better", "we can afford to do so", etc means that by the time anyone notices, the damage is already past repair.

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

Not by that name, but yes, of course...

Not by that name? Seriously?

and that is why a larger entity, usually the government, good leaders are needed to come in and either explain why people have to look at the longer picture OR outright force them. The talent of a good leader is to convince people to do what they need to do whether they really want or not.

What? How is that relevant to the point?

Because right now, those in "leadership" are convincing the populace of the opposite.. that their best interest lies in supporting what the big companies want. The couch it in a lot of rhetoric, but that is what they really promot.

Just as an example, contrast the words of today with those of wartime leaders rallying folks toward their causes. We need that kind of leadership. And, this actually is a more dangerous war for the rest of us than most armed conflicts. (which is to minimize war impacts.. in fact more war is a direct result of not paying attention the real long term needs of individuals).

And.. government policies can be oriented to ensure that the two cooincide. This is typically done through taxes or permitting or just plain rules. Except.. when people are being fed this "gotta support the big guys if you want JOBS" garbage, then they forget that.

When you finish with your non-sequitors, it would be nice if you could mosey on back to the actual point that was made. When you have time, that is.

We need to put protection of our ecosystem at the forefront. Without it, we lose everything. But, the only "solutions" are to get bogged down in "debates" over whether plastic or paper bags are better.. when the real answer is not do away with both and use cloth, except in very limited circumstances. (if at all). Folks feel good about recycling, but still wind up throwing away more than folks 50 years ago ever imagined. We have a very safe food system, but big corporations have taken over vast swaths of the industry to all of our downfall.

The further down these paths we go, the more beholden we are to the big companies, the harder it is to divest ourselves.

The issue is that people WILL do what is "good for all" when they are convinced it really is in their own/their children's own self-interest or that there just is no other reasonable choice.

And... despite your cynacism, most people actually are more motivated to do for others than to do for themselves, once they have their basic needs met.

FINALLY, your last phrase actually reaffirms the point that was made (basic needs being met first), and yet somehow all you did was mention that was the issue and didn't at all actually address that point as it was made. It's no wonder everyone gets so frustrated with trying to hold a conversation with you.

[Baron Von PWN]

The success and failures of the Soviet and Sino communist regimes don't warrant comparison, simply on the strength of economic ties with US & Europe. One spent all its resources on military hegemony over a vast domain during a lengthy Cold War (despite sitting on the greatest wealth of minerals available to man), whilst the other has been propped up since the mid 70s by trillions in aid and trade. Had it not been for this latter scenario I have absolutely no doubt I'd still be crossing the border into China and hitting dirt roads, just as I had been in the early 80s.

As for the Chinese cadres....by far the most corrupt officials to have ever graced this Earth ('the best force money can buy' as the saying goes), who hold themselves far less accountable than their Soviet counterparts ever could.

I think people may not realise, even in the 21st Century, just how much is suppressed on the mainland and what element of fear exists to ever speak out about the gross inequities that divide a vast people.

Indeed. China's success is a direct result of the Sino-Soviet split and American raproachment towards then in order to take advantage of that split.

[thegreekdog]

RAPPROCHEMENT!

I never thought I'd ever see that term after I graduated college. BvP gets fourteen internets.

[Baron Von PWN]

RAPPROCHEMENT!

I never thought I'd ever see that term after I graduated college. BvP gets fourteen internets.

Thanks for the internets, I'll be here all week.

[PLAYER57832]

No. Surely, you've heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, haven't you? Baron's statements go directly and accurately to that heirarchy...from the individual's perspective, the individual's survival comes first, period.

Not by that name, but yes, of course...

Not by that name? Seriously?

and that is why a larger entity, usually the government, good leaders are needed to come in and either explain why people have to look at the longer picture OR outright force them. The talent of a good leader is to convince people to do what they need to do whether they really want or not.

What? How is that relevant to the point?

Because right now, those in "leadership" are convincing the populace of the opposite.. that their best interest lies in supporting what the big companies want. The couch it in a lot of rhetoric, but that is what they really promot.

Just as an example, contrast the words of today with those of wartime leaders rallying folks toward their causes. We need that kind of leadership. And, this actually is a more dangerous war for the rest of us than most armed conflicts. (which is to minimize war impacts.. in fact more war is a direct result of not paying attention the real long term needs of individuals).

And.. government policies can be oriented to ensure that the two cooincide. This is typically done through taxes or permitting or just plain rules. Except.. when people are being fed this "gotta support the big guys if you want JOBS" garbage, then they forget that.

When you finish with your non-sequitors, it would be nice if you could mosey on back to the actual point that was made. When you have time, that is.

We need to put protection of our ecosystem at the forefront. Without it, we lose everything. But, the only "solutions" are to get bogged down in "debates" over whether plastic or paper bags are better.. when the real answer is not do away with both and use cloth, except in very limited circumstances. (if at all). Folks feel good about recycling, but still wind up throwing away more than folks 50 years ago ever imagined. We have a very safe food system, but big corporations have taken over vast swaths of the industry to all of our downfall.

The further down these paths we go, the more beholden we are to the big companies, the harder it is to divest ourselves.

The issue is that people WILL do what is "good for all" when they are convinced it really is in their own/their children's own self-interest or that there just is no other reasonable choice.

And... despite your cynacism, most people actually are more motivated to do for others than to do for themselves, once they have their basic needs met.

FINALLY, your last phrase actually reaffirms the point that was made (basic needs being met first), and yet somehow all you did was mention that was the issue and didn't at all actually address that point as it was made. It's no wonder everyone gets so frustrated with trying to hold a conversation with you.

Come again?

You said, basically, that people won't look at the greater picture because they are only concerned about themselves. I said they can be motivated to do so. NEED to be motivated/educated to do so.

Part of the issue, though is what constitutes a "basic need". One thing good leaders do is refocus that. In wartime, many people were encouraged (forced) to go without or severely limit things like sugar, meat, etc. They got by without them, did not seriously rebel because they believed it was for the greater good, etc. They saw Germany, etc as real and tangible threats to their security.

That is what has to happen here, with the environment. People have to realize that this IS about their personal security. It is, but folks want to pretend it is not because the impact is not immediate and not immediately obvious to all. The problem is that by the time it does become immediately evident to all, most solutions will be well past any point of return.

Its sort of like that old poem... when they came for x, I did not worry because i was not x... etc until in the end "there was no one left". Little impact, loss of health here, limits to species there, etc, etc... it all adds up. But, as I think you know, even though the earth is very resilient, it is not without limits.

[Woodruff]

And... despite your cynacism, most people actually are more motivated to do for others than to do for themselves, once they have their basic needs met.

FINALLY, your last phrase actually reaffirms the point that was made (basic needs being met first), and yet somehow all you did was mention that was the issue and didn't at all actually address that point as it was made. It's no wonder everyone gets so frustrated with trying to hold a conversation with you.

Come again?
You said, basically, that people won't look at the greater picture because they are only concerned about themselves.

Nope. That's not even close to what was said AND I wasn't even the one that said it. <sigh>

Part of the issue, though is what constitutes a "basic need".

Nope. "Basic need' is pretty clearly defined, actually. Again, I will refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (known to you by some other name, apparently).

[PLAYER57832]

Nope. "Basic need' is pretty clearly defined, actually. Again, I will refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (known to you by some other name, apparently).

If someone is hungry, TRULY hungry, or cold, etc, then attending to those needs occupy one's entire focus.

But that is utterly irrelevant when talking about US politics, most world politics, in fact, because even the poorest here are not truly in that desperate of straights. HOWEVER, folks with even much, much more sometimes act as if they are... becuase they don't know any differently.

This is just one place where education can and needs to take a fore. It is where we need real leadership. Obama is taking the wealthy to task.. needed. The Republicans are claiming to take average people to task (basically), but neither is being truly effective because their real agendas lie outside of what really represents long term success of our society. That is, I know full well they believe that this is what they are fighting for. But, the failure is obvious when it comes to anything to do with the environment, but also many other areas (education, etc). AND.. I say that even wihtout disputing that most people who supported No Child left Behind actually believed it would do good. But.. that is a classic example of what is wrong. Our leaders are vested in finding the quickest solutions to appease an internet age and business mindset that cannot be bothered to really and truly look at the real, in -depth problems and long term solutions.

Here is the thing. We have some very smart people in this country. A lot of them now operate in business. BUT, they are not forced or even encouraged to work effectively with people who deal with externalities of any sort. As a result, they make what might seem to be intelligent, beneficial decisions, but which can create enormouse long term harm. Fracking is just one small example, as is the whole drilling in the deep Gulf. Education, too. Concentrating on rote learning does boost test scores in the short term, but winds up producing kids who cannot think.. to all of our detriment in the long term. I pick 2 fields where I know you have some awareness, but the same can be said for any field.

The only way to break this is to have truly strong leaders. Except, the problem is that right now, even the modes of communication are so vested in the current system that even just getting that information out is probably impossible.

[thegreekdog]

RAPPROCHEMENT!

I never thought I'd ever see that term after I graduated college. BvP gets fourteen internets.

Thanks for the internets, I'll be here all week.

The political science professor who taught me that word always said it with a French accent. He was such a douche (which he also said with a French accent).

[Woodruff]

Nope. "Basic need' is pretty clearly defined, actually. Again, I will refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (known to you by some other name, apparently).

If someone is hungry, TRULY hungry, or cold, etc, then attending to those needs occupy one's entire focus.

But that is utterly irrelevant when talking about US politics, most world politics, in fact, because even the poorest here are not truly in that desperate of straights.

It's literally impossible to keep you on topic, isn't it?