It is very simple history before the cold war era all everywhere was third world conditions. During the cold war the threat of communism on the western elites and republics forced the elites and republics to give ground. So workers gained rights, higher wages, 40 hour work week to have time to spend money on the weekend. The basic economic unit is the worker/consumer the worker makes money to spend. If worker makes enough to spend as a first world consumer and tax payer you have a first world country if you have enough of these workers/consumers, it is really that simple. To have this first world level worker/consumer needs enough political force to enable their existence in enough numbers to have a first world country. Hence the need for a balance of political economy. Take the average republic in the world today, most are third world or heading that way, by this evidence the common man simply dose not have enough political force or strength to enable a balance of political economy. During the cold war era the elites and their whore republics were in great fear to lose the world to communism, this OUTSIDE fear coupled with inside the western republics the union type of social movements enabled a semi balance of political economy during the cold war era. Today we have a partial replacement of the political force of the cold war era via modern communications, first radio, TV, cell phone and internet. The elites have lost some of their power and control type "information control".
Elites largely have replaced old socialism by new socialism via spending money everywhere. Old socialism was mostly we all get together for collective rights. New socialism is all the minorities and the majority all fighting each other for bread crumbs, in reality the "majority" has no meaning these days in numbers, the "majority" being white male is vastly outnumbered by all the minorities put together.
As things stand now the elites lost partial control the control type "information". This in of itself does not mean a way forward toward a better system of government or a way to balance political economy. So far all it means in many countries which many of these are some kind of republic is a faster rate of revolution. Republic=third world always at the edge of revolution. This is largely the norm over much of the world. So the western republics going to this norm is not a surprise.
Some danger, as like what lead up to WW2, too many revolutions mean too many strong men getting into power, usually in a single political party ran republic of some flavor. Communist, Fascist etc. It is a numbers game get ten of these and you bound to get snake eyes and get a mad man bent on war. A Hitler or a Stalin etc.
The forever war against terror is a political force to help ensure global third world, it will help ensure a new kind of dark age forming up. The forever war against terror weakens the political strength of the common economic unit worker/consumer. This unit being poverty means no first world economy or tax base for the country or republic in question, at the same time the elites have a weaker power base due to the erosion of the control type "information". This clearly leads to a faster rate of revolution, Egypt is a good example. A country staggering from one failed republic after another never ending.
Clearly a focus on newer better democracy design is a possible solution.
Of course for mankind to survive into the future there is a strong need for pollution control and population control. I myself figure mankind will use up all the fossil fuels and kill himself in the process no matter what, so in reality, no much chance human kind's long term survival.
However in the short term, the world needs a new way to balance political economy to get some relief from the coming dark age.
Similarly Brown v. Board included blacks in integrated schools because the US was losing a propaganda war. But BRICS does pose an emerging alternative of gvt- endorsed prosperity that will be compelling for Europeans. In the US the millenials are likely to have asset stats similar to blacks.
Brics are not a replacement in terms of the political force on the western republics to make them "straight" enough in terms of political economy. By meaning "straight" or balanced enough I am saying the basic economic unit worker/consumer has enough political power in order to make enough money as a worker to support a first world level tax base and consumerism.
The general trend for Bric countries and all the other world's republics into the future is third world chaos as the conditions of political economy stand today. I must say though the new tech of communications has been a partial replacement in terms of positive political force for the people of the world. But it is not enough to date.
Of course such problems are not that simple, for many places of the world over population has made it impossible for first world stability due lack of resources.
It is pretty simple if you want first world stability in a nation you must work for it. Need a fair balance of political economy between working people and the upper powers. Need population control, need pollution control, need a good circular sustainable system of economy.
The path toward a balance of political economy is one of two ways or maybe both at the same time. Simple answer is more political power for the common working people. Better democracy design is the best long term plan to achieve this I think. Otherwise remake the cold war in some fashion, IE a competing form of government and or economic system that puts terror in the elites to lose the whole world to it, sort of like what communism was in the past during the cold war.
No matter how great a system you put into place for government and economics if a nation can't control pollution and population you will have third world conditions and by default it will be always at the edge of revolution. If you want stable first world conditions you must work on it in a realistic fashion. Even the most stupid farmer won't put an unlimited number of cattle to feed in a grass field, understand? Political correct or not, too many people in a area means little for all and third world chaos.
Ever wonder why republicans instinctively reject global warming, likely they don't know why themselves and just fall into line.
It is really simple. If global warming is real and caused by CO2 created by man then something must be done to stop it. But the whole system of economics and elite power and money depends on never ending growth of electronic and paper currency. By default this also means a need for forever growth of economy and by further default a never ending growth of population on a finite planet. Of course it also must mean a never ending growth of pollution to some degree..... So the Republican's can't ever, ever admit to global warming because by default the answer to it must be some kind of socialism--to their minds. So only when the day comes a republican can fry an egg on their forehead out in the sun in about a minute they MAY admit to global warming.....
I actually wonder how many republican heads actually know why they reject global warming or just fall in line???
In any case the simple answer for semi stable first world conditions in the future is to make a better balance of political eocnomy in a nation or nations. Long term much more must be done.
However, given human nature I doubt we will stop using fossil fuels until all gone and that will do in the planet's Eco system.
4 comments:
It is very simple history before the cold war era all everywhere was third world conditions. During the cold war the threat of communism on the western elites and republics forced the elites and republics to give ground. So workers gained rights, higher wages, 40 hour work week to have time to spend money on the weekend. The basic economic unit is the worker/consumer the worker makes money to spend. If worker makes enough to spend as a first world consumer and tax payer you have a first world country if you have enough of these workers/consumers, it is really that simple. To have this first world level worker/consumer needs enough political force to enable their existence in enough numbers to have a first world country. Hence the need for a balance of political economy. Take the average republic in the world today, most are third world or heading that way, by this evidence the common man simply dose not have enough political force or strength to enable a balance of political economy. During the cold war era the elites and their whore republics were in great fear to lose the world to communism, this OUTSIDE fear coupled with inside the western republics the union type of social movements enabled a semi balance of political economy during the cold war era.
Today we have a partial replacement of the political force of the cold war era via modern communications, first radio, TV, cell phone and internet. The elites have lost some of their power and control type "information control".
Elites largely have replaced old socialism by new socialism via spending money everywhere. Old socialism was mostly we all get together for collective rights. New socialism is all the minorities and the majority all fighting each other for bread crumbs, in reality the "majority" has no meaning these days in numbers, the "majority" being white male is vastly outnumbered by all the minorities put together.
As things stand now the elites lost partial control the control type "information". This in of itself does not mean a way forward toward a better system of government or a way to balance political economy. So far all it means in many countries which many of these are some kind of republic is a faster rate of revolution. Republic=third world always at the edge of revolution. This is largely the norm over much of the world. So the western republics going to this norm is not a surprise.
Some danger, as like what lead up to WW2, too many revolutions mean too many strong men getting into power, usually in a single political party ran republic of some flavor. Communist, Fascist etc. It is a numbers game get ten of these and you bound to get snake eyes and get a mad man bent on war. A Hitler or a Stalin etc.
The forever war against terror is a political force to help ensure global third world, it will help ensure a new kind of dark age forming up. The forever war against terror weakens the political strength of the common economic unit worker/consumer. This unit being poverty means no first world economy or tax base for the country or republic in question, at the same time the elites have a weaker power base due to the erosion of the control type "information". This clearly leads to a faster rate of revolution, Egypt is a good example. A country staggering from one failed republic after another never ending.
Clearly a focus on newer better democracy design is a possible solution.
Of course for mankind to survive into the future there is a strong need for pollution control and population control. I myself figure mankind will use up all the fossil fuels and kill himself in the process no matter what, so in reality, no much chance human kind's long term survival.
However in the short term, the world needs a new way to balance political economy to get some relief from the coming dark age.
Similarly Brown v. Board included blacks in integrated schools because the US was losing a propaganda war. But BRICS does pose an emerging alternative of gvt- endorsed prosperity that will be compelling for Europeans. In the US the millenials are likely to have asset stats similar to blacks.
Brics are not a replacement in terms of the political force on the western republics to make them "straight" enough in terms of political economy. By meaning "straight" or balanced enough I am saying the basic economic unit worker/consumer has enough political power in order to make enough money as a worker to support a first world level tax base and consumerism.
The general trend for Bric countries and all the other world's republics into the future is third world chaos as the conditions of political economy stand today. I must say though the new tech of communications has been a partial replacement in terms of positive political force for the people of the world. But it is not enough to date.
Of course such problems are not that simple, for many places of the world over population has made it impossible for first world stability due lack of resources.
It is pretty simple if you want first world stability in a nation you must work for it. Need a fair balance of political economy between working people and the upper powers. Need population control, need pollution control, need a good circular sustainable system of economy.
The path toward a balance of political economy is one of two ways or maybe both at the same time. Simple answer is more political power for the common working people. Better democracy design is the best long term plan to achieve this I think. Otherwise remake the cold war in some fashion, IE a competing form of government and or economic system that puts terror in the elites to lose the whole world to it, sort of like what communism was in the past during the cold war.
No matter how great a system you put into place for government and economics if a nation can't control pollution and population you will have third world conditions and by default it will be always at the edge of revolution. If you want stable first world conditions you must work on it in a realistic fashion. Even the most stupid farmer won't put an unlimited number of cattle to feed in a grass field, understand? Political correct or not, too many people in a area means little for all and third world chaos.
Ever wonder why republicans instinctively reject global warming, likely they don't know why themselves and just fall into line.
It is really simple. If global warming is real and caused by CO2 created by man then something must be done to stop it. But the whole system of economics and elite power and money depends on never ending growth of electronic and paper currency. By default this also means a need for forever growth of economy and by further default a never ending growth of population on a finite planet. Of course it also must mean a never ending growth of pollution to some degree..... So the Republican's can't ever, ever admit to global warming because by default the answer to it must be some kind of socialism--to their minds. So only when the day comes a republican can fry an egg on their forehead out in the sun in about a minute they MAY admit to global warming.....
I actually wonder how many republican heads actually know why they reject global warming or just fall in line???
In any case the simple answer for semi stable first world conditions in the future is to make a better balance of political eocnomy in a nation or nations. Long term much more must be done.
However, given human nature I doubt we will stop using fossil fuels until all gone and that will do in the planet's Eco system.
Revolution in Europe yes, not in the US. Perhaps the short answer to question why NATO still exists.
Post a Comment