G. DeMoras: Obama's election brings devastation

It was predicted that if Barack Obama won the past election, America would fall to poverty, food shortages and famine. It is not surprising, since the U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt. Droughts have already plagued the country.

Other countries may not want to lend America any more money to pay the bills. Money does not stay stacked in banks for future use. It is passed around as loans and various payments, such as for cars, rent, food and other bills. Once the money stops circulating, banks go bankrupt.

There are too many seeking financial assistance. That drains assets.

We must all do our part to keep America financially healthy.

Everyone must pay their bills if they want to stay afloat financially, or America would become the poorest nation on Earth.

People also must stop wasting money on frivolities. Forget about the "must have" toys and electronics and concentrate on the necessities of life. People could plant gardens in the spring and learn to can food and dry fruits, etc., just as our ancestors did for their survival.

There is no Joseph in Egypt to save us from the coming famine this time.

Gabrielle DeMoras, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



Jason Theriault's picture

The reality...

The reality is that we are ll the 47%. At some point or another, we will receive government assistance. From student loans to medicare, at some point, we all get help from the government and thats because the government knows the best investment is the American people.

We have to be fiscally responsible, but that cuts both ways. To get to a sound fiscal solution, we need cuts and tax hikes.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Student loans and Medicare

Student loans and Medicare are government assistance? Student loans are not free and neither is Medicare.
"To get a sound fiscal solution, we need cuts and tax hikes." I know where the tax hikes are coming from; where are the cuts coming from?

 's picture

So to review,

I need to pay my bills, stop wasting money on frivolities, and learn how to can food and dry fruits. Excellent. Great advice. Thanks for writing!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You make it hard not to

You make it hard not to laugh.

 's picture

I'm confused

Was that a compliment or a dig?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

It was a compliment. Way too

It was a compliment. Way too nice to be a dig.

Amedeo Lauria's picture


Our country is divided into those who give and those who take, both in the public and private sector.

"We the people" are COMPLETELY in charge. We vote at the ballot box. We vote with our dollars spent. To say otherwise is to admit defeat!

This problem will not be solved by trying to control what other people's needs and wants should be...the invisible hand of capitalism already does that quite well if the government would stop intruding on the process.

It is time for Americans to go back to being selfless, not selfish.

John F. Kennedy is probably rolling in his grave over the current Democrat party. Gone is the "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" ethic. Now we are a society of "What's in it for me?" Instead of trying to achieve a Win-Win solution, we pick winners and losers and hope the winners will vote the "right way" at the ballot box.

It is truly a shame to watch.

 's picture

This letter could have been written in 1785

I'm reading "Unruly Americans" in which the author quotes many Americans between 1780 and 1787 who wrote that American should forego frivolities. The reason was we manufactured almost nothing and were a country of farmers who consumed manufacturer goods from England causing a critical shortages of cash (gold or silver) here in America. The shortage of money caused real hardships because the only means farmers had to pay taxes was the sale of their property. Then the argument made some sense.
Today it demonstrates an attitude completely disconnected from our National situation. Its not frivolities than have created our trade deficit - its the purchase of oil and other energy products necessary to our economic wellbeing. Buy American, yes. Absolutely.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

So, drill, Baby, drill is

So, drill, Baby, drill is good for America's trade deficit? I can't be reading that correctly. You stated that purchasing oil is partly responsible for America's trade deficit. Well, the alternative to purchasing oil is for America to drill its own; all of it. That seems totally out of character for you. What's up?

 's picture

No drill baby drill is not good for America

but yes it is goodfor the Trade Deficit.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Gabrielle, You have hit on

You have hit on many interesting points.
1. “... the U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt.” Many people do not realize how precariously this debt is to the U.S. economic health. To put it into perspective, the Obama administration wants to raise $1.6T in new taxes over the decade, an average of $160B per year. Given that current budget deficits are greater than $1.0T for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will exit this decade with over $20T of debt. Moreover, the aging population will exacerbate this economic catastrophe. Think about it. As the population ages, we’ll consume more resources, decrease tax revenue as people leave the workforce, and put downward pressure on GDP growth as people leave the workforce and cut back on spending. The takeaway is not to expect the U.S. to grow GDP to trivialize the debt. The U.S. is following the path of Japan – stagnation.

2. “People also must stop wasting money on frivolities.” This country has moved past providing a safety net for those who fall on bad times to this concept of equality in economic outcome. That is, taking money from those who have it and give it to those who want it (this includes corporations) to spend on frivolities in the metaphorical sense.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Well stated, Mark. With your

Well stated, Mark. With your permission, I shall attempt to put point #1 in a perspective that might be a bit more familiar to some of the less informed citizens among us. Here goes: For every $7 the government takes in, it spends $11. As they say on TV; "Don't try this at home!"

Zack Lenhert's picture

Mark, you hit on an

Mark, you hit on an interesting point as well. That raising taxes on the wealthy would barely put a dent in the national debt.... Well, where is the opposition's alternative? How much would their proposed cuts reduce the deficit? From everything I've read, the Republicans still have not proposed any specific cuts or loophole closures. I've heard some vague proposals about raising the retirement age and such, but those savings would be a fraction of the President's proposed tax increase. So we're back in the same place.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Isn't increasing taxes on

Isn't increasing taxes on only the wealthy akin to making the hole in the dyke bigger so we can put a larger patch in it to better seal the leak?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

My statement is correct and

My statement is correct and succinct. The opponent's plan is clear, no taxes, cut spending.

Zack Lenhert's picture

"cut spending" is a great

"cut spending" is a great talking point, but unless something specific is proposed to cut, it's only a talking point.

How do talking points help reduce the deficit?

I have a clear succinct plan for the Patriots to win the Super Bowl... Score more points than the other team every Sunday. Don't worry about how though.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Would you support across the

Would you support across the board cuts with no exceptions?

Zack Lenhert's picture

I wouldn't be opposed to

I wouldn't be opposed to letting the sequestration cuts happen... I don't believe in "blind" across the board cuts because some programs I believe to be more important. I'm not opposed to cuts in Medicare and medicaid if they're made sensibly, through streamlining and waste cuts. Social Security doesn't add anything to national debt so I don't think SS should be cut.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"I don't believe in 'blind'

"I don't believe in 'blind' across the board cuts because some programs I believe t be more important."
That's exactly the problem. Everyone has programs which they consider to be more important than the others. We all want to go to Heaven, but none of us wants to die. That's why I believe the only fair way to have cuts is to have a flat percentage across the board where everyone feels the pain and everyone feels the benefits when times return to prosperity.
Why would you favor cuts to Medicare? It's the lifeline of medical care for the elderly. I'm just curious.

Zack Lenhert's picture

"Why would you favor cuts to

"Why would you favor cuts to Medicare"... I don't FAVOR them but I'm smart enough to realize that Medicare is one of the driving causes of the national debt. I'm sure if it's looked at thoroughly there are plenty of inefficiencies and redundancies that could be cut.... BTW the President's proposal cuts approximately $350 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, Republican's are proposing larger cuts.

I would PREFER cuts to the Pentagon and unnecessary corporate subsidies. Cuts that wouldn't directly affect "the lifeline of medical care for the elderly" and the poor.

I also think there are some programs in government that have become obsolete and could probably be eliminated entirely. This is why I don't believe cutting a "flat percentage" across the board is most effective. If a program can be eliminated entirely why cut its budget only 20%, why not go after 100%?... but I guess you're looking for "fair" budget cuts.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Isn't that what oBAMa keeps

Isn't that what oBAMa keeps telling us about raising taxes on the wealthy? "It's the fair thing to do." It's all about being "fair" isn't it.?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I think everyone agrees the

I think everyone agrees the current rate of spending is not sustainable. That said, in the absence of cutting select programs, I’ll settle for across the board cuts.

Geronimo – across to board cuts.

Medicare and Social Security have an estimated $60T dollars in unfunded liabilities. Two more programs that are not sustainable. Both need changes, cuts as you call them.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Congress can do nothing and

Congress can do nothing and spending will be cut this January. I can support that.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot sez we'll all be

The parrot sez we'll all be wearing hard hats as protection from pigs on the wing before we'll ever see the U.S. Congress get serious about spending cuts of any magnitude. But, hey, he just a dumb bird.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Perhaps not that dumb of a

Perhaps not that dumb of a bird after all, execpt for being a Demorcat, that is a bit dump.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Oh, he isn't a democrat; he's

Oh, he isn't a democrat; he's a liberal. I know that's stretching the conventions of credibility, (a liberal who isn't a democrat) but he has no party affiliations, although he did take the piratical oath when he was a chick. A lot of the things he says may not sound like the words of a liberal, but one must remember; he's a parrot. He repeats stuff he hears.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Are you trying to insinuate

Are you trying to insinuate that I can't think for myself?..

...and to your point, I've probably voted for more Republicans than you've voted for democrats.... Just an assumption, but one that would make me a moderate.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If your post is in response

If your post is in response to mine of 12/7 13:27, I'm afraid you're the one who may be insinuating. Fact is, the 4 posts directly above yours are chronologically connected and have absolutely nothing to do with you; nothing. Your are not the "parrot", although you'd probably like him, since he is a liberal.
Your assumption about you having voted for more republicans than I've voted for democrats is also incorrect. I was a card carrying democrat all my life until they nominated Carter for a second term.
By the way, voting for republicans and being a liberal doesn't make you a moderate, it makes you a liberal, a sensible one I must say, but, a liberal nonetheless.

 's picture

Equality of economic outcomes????

We have the largest wealth gap in US history today. Much worse than the 1920's and even the 1880's. A gap that all the founders agreed made "republican" government impossible. Those that have wealth, now, have spent 30 years rigging the game so that wealth was re-distributed from those who built the country - workers and the middle class - to those who are parasites on the economy.
Not surprising the same debate occurred in the 1780's as extremely high taxes were passed to pay the interest and principle that went to speculative bondholders (those who held war debt.). Shay's Rebellion and other uprisings in all the states reflected public outrage at this immoral re-distrrbution of wealth. We should be equally outraged by those who have destroyed the middle class with similiar re-distribution schemes now.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

One last comment. Labours are

One last comment. Labours are simply grunts albeit necessary grunts that implement someone else's vision. The simple fact of being a labours shows they lack vision and initiative to reverse the role between labor and management.

Betty Davies's picture

It is you who lack vision

Also, you're a lousy speller. The word is "laborers."

And, ten to one, when those "labours" join together in a union to employ their "vision and initiative to reverse the role between labor and management," you're the first to shout anti-union slogans.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

We all have faults - spelling

We all have faults - spelling and laziness to proof.

Let’s take your example and see how that worked out for the 18,000 Hostess employees.

Oh wait, it turned out horribly for the workers, a contemporary example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Unions have run their course for now, and they are contributing to the labor costs and therefore outsourcing. Let’s face it. It is time that America adjusts to world stand of living; we no longer live in a protected economy.

 's picture

The World standard of living

Now I do know you live in a alternative universe.
Thw World's standard of living is based on no US Constitution. A two tiered society - the Rich and the abjectly poor. High rates of disease, $100 a year poverty, dictatorship, violence, hatred, and division. That's not a standard of living I aspire to.
I aspire to elevate the World to US standards of politics, economics, and culture if they will accept them.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Like most Americans, you live

Like most Americans, you live in a bubble; your view of other countries is defined by what you see on TV. I regularly travel to China, India, Thailand, Mexico City, and Costa Rica. Their middle class is exploding. Since you do not get out much, I suggest you research car sale statistics – a fair economic indicator of a population with a growing (or contracting) middle class.

A great economic leveling is occurring. The US has enjoyed being on the top for decades. It only makes sense that our standard of living will decline somewhat as other’s rise.

You can deny this phenomenon but the evidence is all around you.

 's picture

Excellent, now we have some meet to work with

You are right. I don't get out much. Certainly not internationally.
Deny it. Hell no. I've dealt with it particularly in reference with India. IBM moved much of its Java programming to India years ago (found US programmers trained in batch programming adapted poorly (10% succeeded) to new programming model like JAVA). And I dealt with the inferior code, the lack of application understanding, cultural differences, lack of business understanding that was typical of early outsourcing.
I'm well aware of the development of a middle class in India as evidenced by the development of the programming industry (I'm called weekly by American branches of India programming firms).
The rise in third world wealth is obvious. And is very typical of the initial stages of capitalist development everywhere. China - 700,000 people die each year perhaps more now thats a figure about 5 years old from air pollution. Literally fall down dead in the streets. Cause - no regulation of polluters - cause corproate bribery and conflicts of interest. The use of melamine in heart drugs because producers are paid by nitrogen content that killed American heart patients. The list of criminal behavior by the capitalists of China is long as my arm. Thankfully, the Chinese government has executed a few to make a point.
But the development of an international middle class is at the expense of the American middle class by the concious desisions of American corporate elite. It didn't just happen. And it didn't have to happen the way it has so far. And nothing is a better justification of government regulation than the process of industrialization that has happenned in China. In fact, China may be a the perfect example of how not to industrialize.
International industrialization is good. Unregulated industrialization is bad. Leveling is not a natural process. Its a result of human decisions

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Outsourcing is here to stay

Outsourcing is here to stay with all its faults and perceptions.

Betty Davies's picture

3rd world wages = the conservative dream for America

I figured as much. Some "golden egg."

 's picture

Right you are

We now know where Mark is coming from. I bet he thinks he's a realist accepting the laws of nature ruling economic development. His experience tells him all those gross oversimplifications and capitalist platitudes are true. And under unregulated (Mafia) Capitalism he's right. But we should know better. We've already gone trough these stages of Capitalism. We know its strengths and weakness. We know the social impact. We know the arrogance and corruption that it builds into the corporate elite. We can use our trade agreements to influence the development of capitalism in other countries so that they don't make the mistakes we did. We do not need to sacrifice our middle class to the exploitation of the poor in other countries. There is nothing "natural" about the development of Capitalism. Its all human decisions and all human decisions can be changed.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. Just like diversity

1. Just like diversity improves survivability of a species, economic diversity enhances economic robustness. Take for example a bad decision from a central planner (i.e. federal government). A bad decision form central planning has an amplifying effect on the economy.

2. Power granted to a central planner increases corruption, as seen in many socialist and communist governments over the centuries. The favored are treated well, and the rest get to fight for the crumbs and hand over their earnings to the central planner. Not unlike your claim of the republican party. However, I think you continually fail to realize that his behavior (favoritism) is an artifact of being human and has nothing to do with political affiliation.

3. You overstate America’s ability to influence other countries through trade policy. First, in open markets influence can be applied bidirectional to the detriment of both parties. The same fallacy is frequently exhibited on the left when they think they can legislate behavior – they cannot.

4. We have sacrificed our middle class if you have not noticed.

5. Capitalism is indeed a natural phenomenon. People for millenniums have been trading labor or goods they have in surplus for what they need. That is an individual decision the can never be control centrally or collectively.

 's picture

Let's work in reverse

5. This is a classic logic error. Once something exists like Capitalism the assumption is that everything before it was capitalistic. Capitalism in America started with the Civil War. But I bet you can find a majority of economists that place its begins before the Revolutionary War. You place it back to the trasition from hunter-gatherers to settled agrian villages maybe ten thousand years ago. No the exchange of goods is not capitalism. Bartering is not capitalism. Capitalism requires an industrial economy, a financial system, money, and banks .
4. Not yet. I suggest in the fiscal cliff negiotiations that the left throws in the requirement that all government and all private employees be required to join a union. Irrelevent to the discussions but just as valid as Social Security or Medicare reform since they also had nothing to do with the National Debt.
3. All legislation changes behavior. Its the whole point and it works well. What you can't legislate is morals, feelings, and ideas.
2. Socialism has only existed since about 1848 and was only systemtized after the 1850's so there is no over the centuries.Socialism was first tried in 1917 in Russia and collapsed into a dictatorship by 1923. That's not even a century. The few isolated attempts since are too small a sample to draw any conclusions. Wait until a United Europe has been functioning for say 50 to 100 years around 2300. Central planning does not increase corruption. The private enterprise that is unregulated is the most corrupt environment on the planet see the Mafia and similiar institutions for excellent examples. Central planning though does have a very bad record. Think its only worked fairly well in WWII. I do not support or suggest central planning.
1. Agree.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“All legislation changes

“All legislation changes behavior” is not the same as saying you cannot legislate behavior. As proof, look at the US incarceration rates or just see how many people actually drive the speed limit, or not.

 's picture

What's your point

Some people break the laws. US incarceation rates are more a function of our drug laws than anything else. But thats why laws that do change behavior also have to be supported by regulators (police in this case) who enforce the laws. No regulator and only the responsible people abide by the laws.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Have you ever broken a law?

Have you ever broken a law?

 's picture

other than traffic

none that I know of.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Never exceeded the speed

Never exceeded the speed limit?

 's picture

As I wrote "other than traffic"

I drive at 45 mph by default. Its where my vehicle feels confortable and then adjust to conditions (one condition being if a police officer is watching). If the speed limit is 25 so be it.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

How come you're not insulting

How come you're not insulting Albrecht for having some "meet" to work with. Oh, that's right; he's of your ilk.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Abraham Lincoln disagrees

Abraham Lincoln disagrees with you

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. "
-Abraham Lincoln

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You are right about one thing

You are right about one thing - Capital and labor are independent variables. I can raise capital without labor - a loan, bond sale, or stock sale.

You can have capital and limited labor, which is favorable for labor.

You can have capital and a surplus of labor, which is not favorable for labor.

Globally, we are experiencing the later. You argued that there is a shortage of skilled labor; however, the fact that many once U.S. Manufacturing jobs and technical jobs are now done in developing countries is sufficient proof that your assessment is lacking some critical points.

America's Mr. Right

Zack Lenhert's picture

"You argued that there is a

"You argued that there is a shortage of skilled labor".... hmmm. no I didn't. Never said anything of the sort.

" your assessment is lacking some critical points" This was a quote from Abraham Lincoln.... not my assessment, but Abraham Lincoln's.

To your point. You "could" raise capital without labor, but without the backing of labor that capital loses its value. You could take a loan or sell a bond, but unless you're creating something of value with that capital how will you pay that loan back? What would happen to a stock price if employees aren't creating anything? Sometimes the labor is outsourced.

The US government has the ability to create capital, "print money"... but if that capital is not used to create value(such as infrastructure projects, growth of business) we experience inflation.

 's picture

Shortages constantly changes with technical developments

The surplus of unskilled labor may be constant. But as technical developments improve functions that previous required skilled labor change requiring less skilled or differently skilled labor. As I stated yesterday, many factors contribute to the ability to outsource jobs only one of which is labor. Take programming, at one time programming was done by connecting wires on a curcuit board. Can't outsource that and you needed a very skilled person to do it. Programming languages changed the needed skill set and the programmer could be remote from the computer but not from the organization. Internet allowed the programmer to be remote from the organization. Development of progamming frameworks changed the skill set again. The successful programmer of 1975 was obsolete in 1995 and had a 10% chance of changing his skills to be a successful programmer in the new environment.
What you describe is a very oversimplified and inaccurate.
Capital is labor abstracted. They are not independent as Mr. Lincoln noted. One of the reasons the US became the most power Nation in the world is that our infrastructure was never destroyed from 1815 to now while the rest of th industrialized world went through repeated wars that destroyed both human and constructed infrastructure leaving them bankrupt while America added to its inventory of productive assets.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Just a note regarding human interaction....

The production process in the High Tech world has changed over the years. Something that many people might not realize, is how different electronic components are manufactured. The process for the most part still needs "Human" eye's involved. What the industry needs is people who are able and willing, to learn new skills, not necessarily electronic in nature. There are many, many levels of production involved in most electronic circuit boards, micro chip's and semi conductors. Granted robots actually perform the sometimes hundreds of levels of production, Humans are required to, at least at this time, move the material around from one process to the other. Also Robots can and do make mistakes. Depending on the level of production already completed on a particular product, it may be repaired. That was my department in the Semi Conductor industry. I worked in "CMP" chemical and mechanical planing. Sometimes being able to remove a mistake, not even visible to the naked eye, can save a product worth many thousands of dollars. Trust me that takes human intervention. Don't forget repairing the different robotic components, that can't be done by remote computers.
By the way, you can teach an old dog new tricks, I started in this industry at the tender age of 47, after many years of driving truck. Even though I did have college training, it wasn't entirely necessary. My ability to learn went a long way, and I found many companies are willing to give me the chance. The most frustrating problem I ever had in this job was printing out reports. I would hit the print button, only to find out someone has changed the default printer for that computer. that meant an hour locating the lost report and the new default printer.......

 's picture

Good, very Good Zack.

This doesn't suggest the discredited Labor Theory of value. It does state that capital is the byproduct of labor and as such should not dominate the conversation.

 's picture


Mark, your statement is not a fact, but what is a fact is the contempt that working people are held in by the ignorant elite. The elite think that their "vision", their initiative makes them morally superior to the rest of us. In fact, they are only different. A difference which if harnassed by society can benefit every one and if not can lead to the worst periods in history.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

It is always someone else’s

It is always someone else’s fault for people’s lack of success with you. Feeling morally superior is not just reserved for the wealthy – perhaps a quick look in the mirror is in order.

In a free society, no one should be harnessed. We used to call that slavery. In my opinion, those who look to others as a reason for their shortcomings are searching for answers in the wrong places.

Take yourself for instance. Why do you work for an employer? Why not contract your skills to the highest bitter. When you answer that question for yourself, perhaps then, you will understand why some individuals are wealthy and some are not. We all have equal rights, but unequal abilities.

 's picture

Just to make you feel good, I own no mirrors.

"In a free society,no one should be harnessed". You can't believe that. It would defy all our history and all human experience. We'll ignore your boiler plate black/white world view.

Contracting your skills to the highest bidder isn't to be admired. It contradicts your last sentence. We are people who don't yet but should have equal political rights given that we do not have equal abilities. Unequal abilities demands that if we are to maximize our productivity each of us finds the situation the best fits those abilities. Contracting your skills does not produce the best fit for all. I've known many programmers who have contracted out their services usually because their jobs have been oursourced who quickly find the experience terrible. I've seen many contractors (as I not too recently saw working for the State of Maine) who were terrible performers. And I've seen many consultants/programmers companies whose performance was miserable. Look to the DHHS consultants to find the perfect example of private businesses whose performance is an embarassment to the profession.

MARK GRAVEL's picture


Bitter – bidder .

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. "those who have destroyed

1. "those who have destroyed the middle class" It sounds like you have a suspect in mind. Perhaps you should put a face on the suspect since there are many, many good people who work hard and become wealthy.

2. I still don't think you understand the impact of globalization and automation has on the middle class. You cannot fault developing countries for attracting manufacturing.

3. I would recommend you and others put more effort into making the US an attractive business climate. Your venomous approach will hurt many innocent people. That in itself as evil.

 's picture

Of course there are.

Some wealthy Americans have been among the "best and the brightest" who put country above profits. I'm thinking of the many industrialists like Kaiser who worked for victory in World War II for one dollar. Great men who volunteered. One of our many troubles today is that is a breed of American who seem to have disappeared over the last 50 years. Who? The Republican Party generaly; the right wing corporate elite for another. Norquist as a prime agent. The list is long. Anyone who supports the re-distribution of wealth from those who have earned it - the middle class generally - to those that haven't - the wealthy. Union busters, outsourcers, tax cutters, those that believe its good for the country to repeal Social Security and Medicare.
2. No I can't. But I do understand globalization and automation having been in IT for manufacturing companies for 45 years. The corporate elite is not sitting there passively. They are promoting legislation and policies that make moving overseas profitable , that make global corporations ungovernable, who bribe, corrupt, and overthrow third world governments so that they can frustrate the normal development of these countries as they industrialize.
3. My approach isn't venomous at all. Its recognition of "so-called" human nature and how it has impacted people since the end of World War II and the perspective that studying the period before Capitalism gives. An attractive business climate does not include worshipping business people and allowing them unfetterred freedom to destroy/build the county (which is what they had in the late 19th century when the Fiskes, Rockefellers, Vanderbuilts, and Morgan put the whole process of the development of Capitalism and with it National strength at risk) but in realistically regulating them so that their activities are in the interest of the Nation. It was a Republican who first warned against the unfetterred power of the industrialists (Theodore Roosevelt) and Democrats (Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt) who implemented the solutions to the problems that their unfetterred power created. We have to go through another cycle to re-learn the lessons of the 1930's and before.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. It is unfortunate that you

1. It is unfortunate that you view everything through your Republican colored glasses. One just has to look ad Jim Sinegal (ex-costco ceo) or Warren Buffet to see how democrats too work the system. Why don’t you work for $1? Perhaps for the same reason others don’t.

2. You should focus on our political system and not on corporations.

3. Greed is human nature. We are living a global environment of excess labor. Like it or not corporations have the upper hand. BTW, a corporation based outside the US does not have to obey US law. It only has to be concerned with the laws of the host country.

While I agree there needs to be limits on corporations, one must trade jobs for regulations in today’s global economy. Take your pick.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Greed is not human nature.

Greed is not human nature. Self interest maybe.... but some of us can see beyond a shortsighted view of self interest and realize that we as a society do better when we work together, not against each other.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

If greed (and envy) is not

If greed (and envy) is not human nature, what the he'll is it? An Ann's nature? A cat's nature? What is it?

Zack Lenhert's picture

From Wikipedia: "Greed is

From Wikipedia: "Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power."

I think of greed as self interest "gone-haywire". Maybe that's not what you meant? You chose the wrong word perhaps?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The debate was whether greed

The debate was whether greed is or is not a nature of the human condition. I’m not sure why you are getting off track. I still say it is. Can a rabbit be greedy? Can my goldfish be greedy? Can I be greedy?

JOANNE MOORE's picture

I was taught

I was taught greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Then you should have been

Then you should have been taught that to sin is human. If not, then greed and envy would not be two of the seven deadly sins.

If greed and envy are sins, and to sin is human nature, then greed and envy are human nature using the transitive property in logic.

 's picture

When your logic results in an absurd conclusion, test your

assumptions. Sin does not exit. Survival is the basis of "human nature" if it exists. Greed is individual survival at the expense of his fellow members of the human species. Since 3 million years of human experience has shown our individual chance of survival improves as the effectiveness of our societies improve, greed is self defeating which maybe what sin means.

 's picture


Which is why the Republican War on the middle class has been so destructive of the soul of our society.

 's picture

Mark, Mark, Mark

1. "Why don’t you work for $1?" That's not the point. Good, patriot business people worked for $1 in a National emergency because they had values that placed the National interest above private interests. Where are they now. Gone.
2. Power is money. Power is corporation. Power is politics. Corporations are created by a political process. Markets are created by political process. The political system is partly corporation. an't separate the two.
3. "Global environment of excess labor". You jest. Ours is an age of labor scarcity - trained, educated, efficient, motivated labor is the rarest thing in the world. Why do you think US immigration laws allow degreed aliens such free access here. Only in the untrained, uneducated labor of countries with little or no infrastructure - China for example - is in excess. To exploit it, corporations need access, labor peace, transportation, and market conditions more favorable than their home countries. To get those conditions they bribe, corrupt, and overthrow the governments of these third world countries like China. Which is why we have laws now to prevent the exploitation of these countries. They also need favorable trade policies (treaties). All of that is fine if the people of both countries benefit. Not true today.
4. No such trade-off is necessary. The conditions that promote outsourcing are complex and ever changing . In fair trade deals the trade-off is not between jobs and regulations. The Problem today is the trade deals are no fair, both countries don't benefit. And te reason they don't is corporate power.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...