Our Socioeconomic Position is at Risk

Well, I have explained this but I'll try yet again solely for your enjoyment.We means all members of a given society. For example, when speaking of the current state in the US, we would refer to all those living in the US including citizens and non-citizens, voters and non-voters.The economic and societal life in the US is determined to a great extent political decisions made at local, state and federal levels. Those decisions are made by individuals who are voted into office.We, as a people, decided to consolidate media control, to place "News" reporting under a capitalistic based system where "News" became what people would pay to see or hear as opposed to what people need to hear.We, as a people, decided to place education within a capitalistic based system where education would be what business and the students wanted, not what they needed to learn.We, as a people, decided to commit our resources to wars of aggression where the return on investment was almost nil.We, as a people, decided to deregulate utilities and transport and thereby move investment in infrastructure and maintenance from the asset side to the liability side.We, as a people, decided not to point out that the decades following WWII were an aberration.The results were pretty obvious to anyone that thought about it even fifty plus years ago.The world we live in is the one we created for ourselves.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then why didn’t you do something about it? Then a large portion of this collective we seem to have little or no influence at all. Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to? Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to? Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to? Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to? Did you decide this? Are you not part of the grand collective we you keep referring to? Then why didn’t you do something about it or do you think these things occurred at the behest of those with more influence than people such as yourself? And yet we cannot find anyone, including you, who claims to have wanted any of these things. So how did they occur? Someone must have wanted them mustn't they?

I did do something about it. I spoke out, I tried to explain what the results would be, I was not believed and so I made arrangements to make sure I'd likely live through the consequences with as little pain as I could.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So your entire point in this thread is to make it clear to the rest of us that you are a wise old bird who saw the woes of the world coming where those less enlightened than your good self failed to do so. Well congratulations. You must be very pleased with yourselfBut this hardly detracts from the fact that those with power and wealth have a significantly greater influence than the average voter. Nor does it detract from the fact that those under a certain age have simply inherited a situation over which they haven't even had a chance to assert any influence. Except that this is not true for many included in that pointlessly all-encompassing "we" you keep referring to.

Aw, tough.No the point of all this is to point out that the world is the result of our collective actions and if we do not acknowledge our past errors we will likely continue to commit them.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Fine.But do you acknowledge that some individuals have significantly more influence over the future shape of the world than others?

Because we made decisions that allowed and in fact created that situation.It was our choice that that should be true.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But was it? Or did any meaningful definition of "we" inherit that situation? Just how far are you backdating "we" to? No "we" didn't.

Whatever.Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you are going to post some trite nonsense everytime you are confronted with a question you don't like you will achieve nothing except self satisfaction. Is that your aim here? But by any meaningful definition of "we" you must acknowledge that "we" inherit a given situation where not all influence and power is equal? So just how far are you backdating "we" to? No "we" don't. Then you are a naive fool.

Some kids just never get tired of blaming their parents.Oh well; guess they'll be getting the world they're after.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

They inherited a far from ideal world too. As did their parents before them. And so on. My parents were hippies who thought they could change the world with peace and love. Turns out "the world" had other ideas. Well if we want to follow jar's example we need to be able to foretell the woes of the world 50 years in advance and take appropriate personal action even as our warnings of doom fall on deaf ears. Or, to those without the prerequisite 50 years of adulthood behind them and access to a functioning crystal ball, there is the option of revolution. Looks like you have found your true calling in life Jon. So I guess our revoloution will have to wait?I'll have a coffee to go.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wow, you almost failed to misrepresent my position there, but you pulled it out in the end.Of course people should be able to see the long term effects of their actions.You complain that there is limited access to the media and that it is controlled by only a few entities.Guess what, there were laws in place that prevented (at least in the US) consolidation of media and that required multiple points of view be presented.There were laws in place that assured that basic infrastructure would be maintained.There were laws in place that set the tax rates on a progressive basis to try to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and to prevent the rise of a "Moneyed Class".It was pretty obvious that neither Afghanistan or Iraq carried out the 9-11 attacks and that invading either would only tie us down for decades, likely bankrupt us and in general make the US even less popular.It did not take any 'crystal ball' to foresee the long term results of repealing those social safeguards or of entering those two wars.What it does take is a little intelligence and a slight knowledge of history, economics and engineering; what should be a basic education.Another point is that only a fool when faced with a mob of folk making really stupid decisions that will have long term negative impact does not then try to at least minimize the pain and suffering for those he loves and can help.Revolution is always an option, not often effective and generally extremely painful. Admittedly, it is often the path chosen, but very seldom well thought out or implemented. It is almost always reactionary and dealing with yesterdays ills instead of tomorrows needs.There is another choice, but it is far more difficult and thus most unlikely. That would be to actually elect statesmen, find us a bunch of extremely well educated folk like the oft mentioned "Founding Fathers" who can minimize as much as possible the current pain while building a basis for future growth. As with the founding of the US, it will likely need to be a non-democratic process that imposes some order while the needed steps (create an educated and enlightened electorate first) to achieve a better and sustainable future.The biggest hurdle will be telling and convincing the general public that the next twenty-five to fifty years are gonna hurt a little.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Sorry, we don't sell coffee. Can I interest you in some Starbucks instead?

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

All well and good. But none of this justifies your continual, simplistic and trite assertion that "We live in the world we create". As humans we obviously live socio-economically in the world as created by "ourselves" in terms of it being created by our fellow humans. But the actions being taken now will arguably have far greater consequences for our children than ourselves. A less catchy but more accurate phrase would be something along the lines of "We inherit what we are given, we make some incremental changes to that position, almost certainly overly influenced by a powerful minority and then we pass the situation on to the next generation".The generic "we" you keep using is just a pointless and tautological all-encomapssing nothing. That is why I am objecting to the stance you have thus far taken in this thread. All the laws you speak of - Yes they were in place. But who wanted rid of them? Were there mass demos screaming for biased media coverage or was it spun to the public as necessary for "freedom" by those with power and influence seeking to benefit? Indeed. But lesser change is gradual and incremental and necessarily made from the starting point handed to us by prior generations. We don't "live in the world we create" by any meaningful and non-tautological use of the term "we". And where will the rich white old men that primarily promoted and benefitted from those decisions be in 50 years time?Try telling people like my 4 year old son who will really reap the true consequences of these decisions that ""We live in the world we create". If he wasn't a polite and innocent little 4 year old he would perfectly justified in telling you to go fuck your "we" on the basis that he has no part of it.