Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

"If there are no jobs available it would make no difference if all the people had a college degree or not".

This, for me, contains the kernel of the inadequacy of your world view.

In a later post you say

All our laws should be to protect everyone equally in their pursuit of happiness, not to provide it.

Ok, so the example of Detroit and the external forces bearing down on that city (with disastrous consequences for availability of jobs) during the post WW2 reindustrialisation of Japan and Germany
doesn't dent your faith in the ability of local communities to make their way in the world, regardless of unique circumstances, such as dependence on one industry, or one commodity, eg as is the case with Venezuela.

So let's try this one, closer to home and the present time..

Heard on the radio today; employees of the Carrier Air-conditioning Company.

No.1 "We voted for Mr. Trump because he led us to believe he would save our jobs, but most of them are moving to Mexico anyway".
No.2 "all my mates voted for Trump, but I knew he was full of shxx all along".
No.3 "today the American dream has been destroyed for me; I won't be able to decently support my family, nor look forward to a comfortable retirement".

Now I realise you can't see any connection between the destruction of Detroit and the recent G20 riots in Hamburg (hint: a dysfunctional global economy that is supposed to generate prosperity, without any international trade oversight mechanism.
[Those 1 million citizens of Detroit might have made the right decision, as you so eloquently put it (!) , but that's not open to entire nations].

But do you persist with your claim that those Carrier employees currently have "equality in their pursuit of happiness" cf with the more fortunate among us?

Unlike employee no.2, my views on Trump remain to be formed, but he is increasingly beginning to look like just another employee of the Koch brothers.

 

Are you implying that the word 'protect' should apply to keeping ones job?

Not at all.

Detroit posted an unemployment rate of 12.3% in January of this year, 12% in February, 10.3% in March, 8.4% in April, and the last I found data for was 7.5% in May. Going back to 2000 their lowest unemployment rate was 5.1% in April 2000, with a high of 28.4% in June of 2009. Obviously not everyone in Detroit became unemployed, or is that likely to occur in a Nation.
Carrier is a private business, and Trump has, nor should he have any control over how they run their business.

Absolutely, no more or less than they had to begin with.

And I too remain open on Trump, but I question your linking him to the Koch brothers. Why not Soros, Gates, or Buffett?

 

The term "general welfare" is not defined in the Constitution. The writers believed the public would be intelligent enough to understand it without elaboration. So what does it mean? It means general welfare. Do you see an area in which we are not faring well? Then the government is not providing for it in that case, but it should.

Regarding the cause and nature of the divisions in society, we should examine history. And we can look back to the beginning of the craziness. And that was when the Tea Party formed and gained followers thanks to the funding of the very wealthy like the Koch brothers. That group was responsible for planing the seeds of insane politics. They picked up some existing nutty ideas like birtherism and guns at rallies, and made those ideas more popular, creating divisions based on obvious lies. And as the Tea Party began to lose popularity they merged with the Republican Party and infected it with their nuttiness. And to all this the center and the left rebelled and objected. Divisions increased, and they increased in response to the insane, extreme ideas of the right which were originally instigated by the extremists of the Tea Party. And now it has culminated in the unfortunate election by the electoral college of the Chief Child with all his emotionally disturbed behavior and likely crimes of him and his gang.

So make no mistake, the right lurched extreme right, creating division, and the response to it cemented that division in place. But the right created it just like the right is also the source of class warfare, which this division is part of.

 

Yes I do, the massive debt and high cost of living future generations will have to bear while reducing their ability to compete in a world market system.
I agree, government is not provided our young and those yet born an environment in which they can prosper greater, or even as well as their forebears, and it should.

 

Ok. Good. So government is failing its obligation given in the Constitution in this area. I think it is failing in several areas, but the government (three branches), in spite of what it may want you to believe, is first and foremost about maintaining economic stability as much as is possible, providing a legal framework to support that goal, and providing for the enforcement of that body of laws to support an environment conducive to the continuance of this economic system of capitalism. And it is becoming more and more difficult to carry out that duty because capitalism, itself, is in crisis. Hence more extreme measures, some of which conflict with or violate the Constitution, are needed and are actually necessary to preserve this status quo. And that puts the preservation of the economic system and all the violations of the Constitution ahead of the Constitutional obligation to "provide for the general welfare".

 

I would think any rational thinking persons would recognize that when the fixes our government has been applying, and continues to apply, to problems which has only made them become larger problems, affecting a larger portion of the population that perhaps the problem is the government. I disagree totally with your interpretation of how the words "promote the general Welfare" in the preamble, and "provide for the general Welfare of the States" in Article I, Section 8 were meant to be understood.

 

Not deliberately. Most politicians go in to the job with some idealism, ie, with a desire to improve the world for all of us.

Politicians, like the rest of us end up in 'left' or 'right' camps, depending on what they/we perceive as serving OUR OWN best interests.

We need a system that can at least serve a minimal degree of interest, or justice, for all of us, in the pursuit of happiness. Such a system needs to evolve continually, as the world evolves.

For example.......

Yes, but obviously the effort require to survive by, eg Bill Gates' children, is entirely different - in fact light years away - to that of the effort required by those 8 persons found suffocated to death in a people smuggler's truck, in San Antonio yesterday. The effort they were forced to take by their personal circumstances in their pursuit of happiness, and which no human being should ever have to face in the modern world, with its capacity for almost unlimited production of the necessities for decent survival, resulted in their deaths. Life of course is risky, but it's an entirely different thing to face the risks one might choose in becoming an astronaut, compared with the risks faced by lack of opportunity to gain employment.

(Note: I am just now, while writing this, listening a radio program examining of the nature of psychopaths - the inability to empathise or feel sympathy for the feelings (as opposed to the instincts) of others. May be relevant to this discussion)

"Fittest"? Those who are by nature are endowed with the greatest ability to compete in this 'dog eats dog' world that still exists, despite the potential capacity of the present global economy to supply the basic necessities for everyone.

In other words, essentially nothing more than that which might upset the state of your personal comfortable existence.

I get the picture; that's what life has always been about since the beginning of technology in the economy, with eg, its reliance on slavery for thousands of years. But times are changing, and the possibilities are unlimited, if we grasp them.

No, its not the government that's the problem, the problem is in all of us, endowed as we are by the instincts necessary for personal survival in a predatory natural world that predated the evolution of the cerebral cortex -seat of reason - in homo sapiens.

But reason enables us - at least some of us - to perceive the pernicious and potentially catastrophic operations of instinct alone, in human affairs.

 

Perhaps some, but most quickly find their existence in any meaningful positions as well as support in future elections is based more so on how they represent their political party than how they represent their constituents.

Bill Gates children as well as the children of others with great wealth should in my opinion be viewed as an asset, meaning they present us with a source from which others can acquire income by producing things which they will purchase.
The 8 people you refer to above were NOT forced, but instead made a very bad choice to accept a high risk in pursuit of what they felt would provide a very high reward.

Are you trying to imply that those who disagree with your posts have an inability to empathize and/or sympathize with others and are therefore psychopaths?

As I see it, competition is constantly being made more difficult as a result of inflation, which government spending and debt has made a necessity for its own survival.
Increasing life expectancy and population growth also has an enormous impact which has resulted in more and more government spending making us less competitive in world trade as government subsidies to the unemployed and retired is consuming a growing portion of our actual production, with GDP becoming more relative to spending than any real production.

I agree that the problem is in all, or at least a great many of us, but as a result we have allowed the government to become responsible for what we as individuals should ultimately be responsible for, our individual lives and the success we achieve while living them.

 

"We have allowed the government......" wrong again.

The problem is in all (each) of us, ie, we all instinctively act out of preservation of self, and often unconsciously serve our own self interests (though sometimes consciously ... "greed is good".....), with the result that in community we resist sensible management of the world's resources, resulting in continuation of unnecessary poverty, war, and criminality.

Through government, we need to eliminate these scourges first - and through education, foster the necessary sense of personal responsibility in maintaining one's own health and success, and also development of one's responsibility to the community.

Everyone has a right to experience an environment which promotes the development of a sense of responsibility.

Step one: guaranteed universal participation in the economy, at above poverty level wages.

Your placement of equal responsibility on all individuals, regardless of circumstances, with minimal community involvement by those who are most advantaged, is part of the problem.

In the absence of sensible global management of resources (labour, materials, know-how), we are reduced to fighting amongst ourselves.

"It's the economy, stupid"......and a very dysfunctional economy it is.
Politicians are reduced to arguing over 'trickle down' or 'trickle up', and meantime the natives are getting restless....

 

Obviously we disagree, and of course my response to your opinions without need to state it openly would be "wrong again" also.

Actually, I see the community as probably where the most sensible management of resources can be applied.

I disagree with the view of government having a responsibility, much less the ability to rationally accomplish such goals productively efficiently and cost effectively.

Let's see how you think that should be accomplished.

How might government guarantee a productive need for all to participate in the economy other than simply being a consumer? Jobs which are worth little to perform simply do not become worth paying more to perform as a result of inflation.

Minimal government involvement, NOT minimal community involvement would more accurately relate to my view, recognizing the fact that government has NOT solved, but only exacerbated, most every problem it tries to solve.

Are you a proponent of a "One World Government"?

I don't see the economy as being dysfunctional at all. Most every economic problem is rooted in population growth and increasing life expectancy. Perhaps a major war might become the only reasonable solution, allowing the survivors to prosper as a result of the need to rebuild the ruins brought about? And no, I'm not suggesting that, simply noting that it is a possibility as we seem to become more and more divided as Left/Right, Democrat/Republican, Liberal/Conservative, Black/White, Non-religious/Religious, LGBT/heterosexual, Female/Male, Poor/Rich, etc. by government and activist studies of one group or another which does not unite but only divides us further from one another.

 

I now understand how you might say "I don't see the economy as being dysfunctional at all" ....when you still suggest a major war might the only reasonable solution to "population growth and increasing life expectancy".

Firstly, the matters of population growth and increasing life expectancy, in so far as these are unsustainable, have other solutions which I have thoroughly discussed previously;
and secondly, the "solution" you suggest is the opposite of "reasonable"; and I have already explored the underpinnings of such a nihilistic outlook.

The readers of these pages will make up their own minds, and will determine the outcome of this race between instinct and reason, which is the continuing human story.

 

The only thing I would call dysfunctional relating to the economy is government subsidizing a large and growing portion of the population to participate in the economy. While government seems incapable of eliminating or even reducing most problems other than by means of subsidization I simply stated as fact that a major war would/could achieve results which would lessen many problems.

A race between instinct and reason? To procreate or not?
Like a great many words today, we each seem to have our own definition of reasonable.

 

the human story is about freedom versus govt. The last 500 years exceeded the previous 100,000 because Jesus created individual freedom on earth. Do you understand?

 

What do you think of the idea of a minimum income?

 

It would be a problematic concept to implement in the presence of large amounts of immigration.

 

NO SATISFACTION

I think it stinks to high-heaven, particularly because at present it is stuck at $7.25 an hour ($15080 per year) when the Poverty Threshold is set at $24K/yr. So it is not even two-thirds of the Poverty Threshold.

We are thus condemning people to perpetual lives of poverty.

Do you think that is fair and equitable in "the Greatest Nation on Earth"?

I don't ... and is only one reason (of many) why Income Disparity is one of the worst in the Western World:


So, what do we do about it? Not much we can do. Foolishly we elected Donald Dork to the presidency. So, any necessary change is on the Wait List.

The poor of a America will get NO SATISFACTION FROM THE REPLICANT PARTY.

None, zilch, rien, kiene, niente, tipota - they are too busy hogging most of the renewed prosperity* for themselves by lowering upper-income taxation ...

*Worse yet, these were the same a**holes that refused Obama stimulus-spending when he asked for it in 2010 from the HofR (where the Replicants were in control because we, the sheeple stoopidly voted for them). The country then spent the next four years creating NO NEW JOBS. Don't believe that? See for yourself here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

PS: When you wanna see what's wrong with this country, look in the mirror. It's a warped democracy and we, the sheeple, voted for the dorks who now totally control government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial)!

 

SLAVE LABOR

Bollocks.

Just double the minimum wage to $15/hour and watch people spend the money that further boosts the economy. Yes, your BigMac will cost a quarter more. BFD!

Besides, too many BigMacs leads to the obesity that is rampant in the US ...

Besides, what-the-hell do the migrant "people" have to do with the matter? They represent barely 3% of the total population. And they work for even less than the Minimum Wage in a country where job-availability has become very tight. Which some people call 21st century Slave Labor!

 

And from what I've found, that is disingenuous. Do politicians make corporate decisions like whether to move auto manufacturing offshore for cheap labor? Do they make decisions to move them at all? Are they responsible for the decline of the auto industry in the US?

Americans living in Detroit made those auto manufacturers great and rich. And when those executives saw a bigger opportunity elsewhere, they pulled up stakes and ABANDONED those worker who made the company great. NO LOYALTY.

 

Landowners will just take it all. The small, short-term experiments don't show this effect, but if it is universal and long-term, the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem will transfer it all to landowners.

 

The unions -- especially medical insurance and defined-benefit pensions -- had bankrupted the automakers. That is economically inevitable. The ideal labor union forces increases in wages and benefits just steep enough to keep layoffs in pace with workforce attrition, and bankrupt the employer on the day the last union worker retires.

 

What, in my post are you claiming to be disingenuous?
I posted two facts relative to population and government of Detroit. Disingenuous?
I commented that when no jobs exist, a college degree is no help. Disingenuous?
I asked a question related to something you posted, "You mention external forces being brought to bear upon the city, am I to assume there were no internal forces such as municipal debts involved?" Disingenuous?
I commented that 1.1 million people took it upon themselves to react in a positive way to resolve a problem they faced. Disingenuous?
And finishing with "G20 riots? In Detroit?", more or less asking if destruction is an acceptable means of creating jobs? Disingenuous?

Politicians make decisions which have effect on both individuals and businesses. The decision to move is usually made by the individual or business, but politics/politicians and the environment they have created is often partially, if not wholly responsible for the decisions individuals/businesses make.
So YES, politicians bear some responsibility for not only the decline of the auto industry in the U.S. but for a great many other things as well.

A businesses PRIMARY responsibility is to its owners/investors NOT its employees who are paid to perform a function. And, while employees who invest in the business may find the employment no longer required and have to seek and find new employment, keeping the business profitable assures they profit from their investment.
"NO LOYALTY", Of course not, a job exists ONLY when a need exists, when the need no longer exists the job ceases to exist. Employees are paid to perform a need of their employer. That is all.

 

No they didn't. Those who run the business bankrupted it.

 

Obviously, they retained more people on the payroll than they needed.

 

This is why America needs Universal Healthcare and non-profit run pension funds.

Take that burden away from corporations because they suck at them anyway and put it where it belongs which is what happens in all of the other westernized nations.

Then unions can negotiate for just living wages and decent working conditions and reach a reasonable compromise with employers.

 

Nonsense!

The executives are 100% responsible for running the corporation. If it fails they are 100% responsible.

Blaming workers is a disingenuous cop out.