Classism and the furture of our world.

This may sound at first like a political debate, alltough that is not nessesarally my intent, what I would like to do is open up a diologe about the philosophical furture of the world we live in today. This could also include things that will be done by nessesity as the world changes, or technologies change etc or about evoluntionary changes, even self directed ones. I think its well worth looking at considering how Classism seems to also be on the rise.

Personal autonomy is on the rise in Europe in some places as a current and future life philosophy, paticularly amongst the Dutch.

Is this preferential to other philosophical modalities at work today and is so, in what ways?

The Personal Autominists say:

To be autonomous is to be a law to oneself; autonomous agents are self-governing agents. Most of us want to be autonomous because we want to be accountable for what we do, and because it seems that if we are not the ones calling the shots, then we cannot be accountable. More importantly, perhaps, the value of autonomy is tied to the value of self-integration. We don't want to be alien to, or at war with, ourselves; and it seems that when our intentions are not under our own control, we suffer from self-alienation. What conditions must be satisfied in order to ensure that we govern ourselves when we act? Philosophers have offered a wide range of competing answers to this question.

Many things have been legalized in the Netherlands allowing the people themselves to decide if they wish to partake of them or not.

This has also bled over into the adherence of the people in their country to organized religions...lowering it by a considerable margin (somthing Thorne will love I think..winks to Thorne).

Here is a tidbit from Vince Robertson I found to be a good example of some of what I am talking about, or plan to be talking about, though perhaps with a less direct political sounding vien and with less of a focus on the usa so much as the world:


"I continue to hear accusations that President Barack Obama is making our great country a socialist country. I would like to explore this debate.

Many times over the past 6 months I've heard the argument that Big Government is the precursor to socialism and ultimately communism. This is certainly un-American!

Those making the argument typically take the position that if socialism and communism are on one end of the spectrum, then we who love God and country should run as fast and as far as we can to the other end of the spectrum. In my crude, text-graphic format, this is what the spectrum looks like:

<-----|-------------|------------ ----------------------------------
Communism Socialism Run!!! ->

Let me be clear, I am not making the case for communism nor for socialism, but I believe that clear thinking individuals need to understand the complete argument.

The facts are that there are opposites of communism and socialism, and I propose to you that the opposites are class oppression and slavery.

Class oppression, or classism, is defined as mistreatment on the basis of socioeconomic class. Slavery is blatant abuse and oppression to the benefit of the master.

Understanding this, the spectrum is more accurately represented as:

<---|------------|---------------- ----------------|------------|--->
Communism Socialism Classism Slavery

When this is understood, the question is no longer how far do we as Americans want to get away from Communism, but rather where is the proper balance? I believe this is the heart of the intelligent debate.

I often hear arguments that free markets are the key to prosperity. It has been shown over and over again that some people, when given the tools to succeed, have created wealth for themselves and those around them. But what happens when this is taken to the extreme?

The problem with all-out free markets is that this inevitably leads to bullying, tyranny, and the absolute dominance of the strongest.

You may wonder what is wrong with this. It is after all the survival of the fittest and the most deserving. Or is it the survival of the greediest and most corrupt?

I suggest that it is the later. Without laws preventing all-out free market, we would have forced child labor, monopolies, price fixing, racketeering, extortion, bribery, price gouging, and human slavery. These are all capitalist endeavors, and all have legal restrictions in the United States. Indeed we should stay away from this end of the spectrum as well.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a proponent of Big Government as the Civil War was technically over the Federal Government's right to control individual states’ ability to secede. Outlawing slavery was merely the issue that brought about the desire for the South to secede from the North. I suspect if Abraham Lincoln was President of America today, this conservative President would be accused by Conservatives of moving our country toward socialism.

In the same way, I don’t believe the case has been made that President Obama is trying to make the United States of America a socialist country. He is merely trying to move our country away from the classism and slavery end of the spectrum.

To further this point, it occurs to me that the ones making the most noise about President Obama moving the country toward Socialism are the same ones who constantly argue that our country needs to return to the values of our Founding Fathers. While a great deal of respect is due to this country’s Founding Fathers, many of them regarded slavery as an acceptable practice. Is this what we want to return to?

Personally I believe the proper balance in the spectrum which we need to work for would be for our country to be a place where individuals are likely to succeed if they work hard, where individuals are allowed to fail miserably if they are lazy and choose not to work, and if they work hard and experience hardships that make them fail, they don’t have to worry about losing everything for the rest of their lives. This is not where America is today.

The United States of American going socialist would be a terrible thing, but I believe the angst of this happening today is unsupportable. The likely instigators of such accusations are political wonks, bent on using fear and hatred as a means to political gain."


Could Personal Autonomy as it's practiced amongst the Dutch perhaps be the happy middle ground we all seek on an ideological level?

Yet in it's purest manifestation, Communism and Socialism has resulted in classicism and slavery. There was a book about the Gulag, as I recall...

I've never heard of Vince Robertson, which is fine because I doubt that he has ever heard of me. Class oppression is certainly a great sin, but not certainly not the opposite of Communism and Socialism. Oppression and classicism are in fact tools of Communists. They use them as a rationale to support their own position, then use them as tools to maintain it. As Orwell stated "some are more equal than others". I do agree that everyone should be rewarded for their own work and those who don't are allowed to fail. And I have already stated on another thread that the problem with fully unrestrained capitalists is that it results in too few rather than too many capitalists. Communism takes from the one who earns it and gives it to the one who wants it. Which is, unfortunately, what is happening in this country.

Actually I dont see the loft goals of any of these governmental systems as being the problem so much as the greedy and evil people who twist them to their advantage.

The world has yet to see Communisim practiced in the full manner in which it was intended too be practiced by its creators at all. At least not outside of a few hippe communes, spiritual retreats and within the confines of the pre "church" christian groups where any who joined gave all of what they had to the group so that each could take according to their need.

And ole Vince is spot on if one actually studies economic philosophy at an academic level...my poly sci teacher recomended him too.

Denuseri, I have chewed on this for some days, and I am not sure where you are going with this. It sounds like something interesting, though. Are you comparing individualism with socialism or the rules of society? And also socialism with kapitalism ? Further questions down below.

Quote:

---

]The Personal Autominists say:

To be autonomous is to be a law to oneself; autonomous agents are self-governing agents. Most of us want to be autonomous because we want to be accountable for what we do, and because it seems that if we are not the ones calling the shots, then we cannot be accountable. More importantly, perhaps, the value of autonomy is tied to the value of self-integration. We don't want to be alien to, or at war with, ourselves; and it seems that when our intentions are not under our own control, we suffer from self-alienation. What conditions must be satisfied in order to ensure that we govern ourselves when we act? Philosophers have offered a wide range of competing answers to this question.

---

This sounds to me exactly like anarchism - complete personal freedom under personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Many things have been legalized in the Netherlands allowing the people themselves to decide if they wish to partake of them or not.

---

Examples?

Quote:

---

This has also bled over into the adherence of the people in their country to organized religions...lowering it by a considerable margin (somthing Thorne will love I think..winks to Thorne).

---

Are you saying that greater personal freedom means less religion, in this case?

Quote:

---

Here is a tidbit from Vince Robertson I found to be a good example of some of what I am talking about, or plan to be talking about, though perhaps with a less direct political sounding vien and with less of a focus on the usa so much as the world:

---

<snipped down here and there>


"Many times over the past 6 months I've heard the argument that Big Government is the precursor to socialism and ultimately communism. This is certainly un-American!"

I take this to mean that there is a fear that socialism or communism must inevitably mean strong central control with enormous loss of personal freedom, as we saw it in the Sovjet Republics.

Personally I do not think it has to be like that. The comminism in China and the Sovjets were the violent result of much suffering among the peoples, and without anybody ever having tried democracy. I believe a democratic socialism is possible, if resposiblitly and power is decentralized as much as is practically possible.

"The facts are that there are opposites of communism and socialism, and I propose to you that the opposites are class oppression and slavery."

This seems to be the case, out on the end of the contiimum.

"Class oppression, or classism, is defined as mistreatment on the basis of socioeconomic class. Slavery is blatant abuse and oppression to the benefit of the master.

Understanding this, the spectrum is more accurately represented as:
[/I]

<---|------------|---------------- ----------------|------------|--->
Communism Socialism Classism Slavery

[I]When this is understood, the question is no longer how far do we as Americans want to get away from Communism, but rather where is the proper balance? "

This is a very good question. Societies with a mixture of puclic economy and power and comercial economy and power will always be on a collusion course with other, a battle that goes back and forth with each election.

I often hear arguments that free markets are the key to prosperity. It has been shown over and over again that some people, when given the tools to succeed, have created wealth for themselves and those around them. But what happens when this is taken to the extreme?

The problem with all-out free markets is that this inevitably leads to bullying, tyranny, and the absolute dominance of the strongest.

You may wonder what is wrong with this. It is after all the survival of the fittest and the most deserving. Or is it the survival of the greediest and most corrupt?

I suggest that it is the later. Without laws preventing all-out free market, we would have forced child labor, monopolies, price fixing, racketeering, extortion, bribery, price gouging, and human slavery. These are all capitalist endeavors, and all have legal restrictions in the United States. Indeed we should stay away from this end of the spectrum as well.."

Indeed! And, as the lates econimical crisis showed us, the banking system and private money can shake or make our societies in ways completely beyond government control. This is, IMO, an economically insane system.

[I]Personally I believe the proper balance in the spectrum which we need to work for would be for our country to be a place where individuals are likely to succeed if they work hard, where individuals are allowed to fail miserably if they are lazy and choose not to work, and if they work hard and experience hardships that make them fail, they don’t have to worry about losing everything for the rest of their lives. This is not where America is today."

This is a good thought, but easier said than done!

There is much to be said here, but let me just for now say that in my part of the world, with a right wing goverment, this public insurance, paid by taxes, has been whittled down to very little, while we still pay enormous taxes. The state is taking our money and not fulfilling the contract.

The other side of the problem is that once the state give us (some of our) money back, it also takes a lot of control over our personal lives, in some cases up to and beyond taking in personal civil rights! Examples are: forcing people to take treatments or surgey they do not want (in some cases as test animals) or loose your sickness pay, rules and rules and rules for what you do in your spare time as well as during (unemployed) working hours, or whether you can go abroad for any reason.

You can also be hired out for your uemployed money, instead of getting a proper job, and communical workers can come shooping to see if you have any lovers visiting.

Quote:

---

Could Personal Autonomy as it's practiced amongst the Dutch perhaps be the happy middle ground we all seek on an ideological level?

---

Could you say more about what you mean by that, and put it in context with above?

Well one example is how in the Netherlands and to an even greater extent in Portugal, drugs of many kinds (all drugs if I understand it in Portugal) have been made legal...allowing individuals the freedom to choose for themselves what they wish to do or not where as they are personally conserned.

All without any marked increase of crime (as so many anti-drug legalization proponents feared would happen, in fact if anything having a drug made illegal increases crime) and without a remarkable increase in recreational drug use statistics.

The same kind of thing seems to be working with legalization of prostitution.

Regulating big business is simply nessesary, they should imho be restricted from being able to make a money based influence over politicans that cuases a severe imbalance between the ability of individual voters to influnce, IE in a system where money drives political movements no real equality for individuals can exist. Equal political influence of One vote, one person is only an illussion if large corperations and the wealthy are allowed to basically buy off politicans and public servants at will as they do here in the US and other places.

The statistics also show that with an increase in personal liberties that allow people to feel free to leave behind the trappings of organzied religious doctrine and yet still retain individualized faith, adopting what the wish for their own personal ethos and excluding those more fundamentalists stances that corrupt religious officals have all too often used to keep people controled through fear of retribution in the next life and manipulation towards social exclussion of minorities in the past.

In other words, discrimination also statistically seems to be reduced in societies that embrace the legalization of more individual liberties that put choice over what one can do into the peoples hands and take it away influence from the wealthy.

Communism never got a chance to really become what its inventors desired becuase of greedy corrupt officals who took over to maintain their own power over that of their rivals (IE Stalin and Mao) .

With all the large corperations sitting as proxy controling factors driven by the elitest wealthy 1% it is allmost like watching all the same civil inequities taking place in some countries all over again that led to the wave of revolutions that took place to oppose tyranny in the late 1700's across america and europe.

And I agree thir it is "Easier said than done" to change this dreaded cycle of the little people being forced by nessecity into rising up to overthrow their rulers who became corupt over time as they gather more control away from the people and abused their privelege.

But wouldnt it be nice if mankind could evolve into a more equitable and peacful homeostasis where as these kind of things are conserned?

"Communism never got a chance to really become what its inventors desired becuase of greedy corrupt officals who took over to maintain their own power over that of their rivals (IE Stalin and Mao) ."

Hardly! It became EXACTLY what the inventors desired. All "good socialists" and "good communists" know better than the common folk how the people ought to live, what to do, where to work. That's what "government" is for...to dictate to all people how to live, what to do. Allow their "betters" to rule them and enjoy the fruits of the people's labor. The only time it was tried in this country was during the first years of the Plymouth Colony. They almost starved to death because the universal truth rang out -if you have confiscate the products of labor of the ones who work and give it to the ones who won't, the workers will sit down. "Who is John Galt?"

"The statistics also show that with an increase in personal liberties that allow people to feel free to leave behind the trappings of organzied religious doctrine and yet still retain individualized faith, adopting what the wish for their own personal ethos and excluding those more fundamentalists stances that corrupt religious officals have all too often used to keep people controled through fear of retribution in the next life and manipulation towards social exclussion of minorities in the past."

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Those who live according to what statistics predict will live in fantasy. And likely starve to death!

"Regulating big business is simply nessesary, they should imho be restricted from being able to make a money based influence over politicans that cuases a severe imbalance between the ability of individual voters to influnce, IE in a system where money drives political movements no real equality for individuals can exist. Equal political influence of One vote, one person is only an illussion if large corperations and the wealthy are allowed to basically buy off politicans and public servants at will as they do here in the US and other places."

Protection of the populace to prevent "companies too big to fail" is advisable. To suggest that all politicians and all jurists are functioning under the influence of bribery brings a recommendation that someone should sue to recover their tuitions. Apparently the socialist "educational" (i.e. brainwashing) system has been way too effective.

Sophistry and personal attacks wont help your argument Snark.

Don't worry though I am not purposing in any way that we suddenly adopt communisim, I only was pointing out the fact that comunism never really got to be applied in actual practice in the manner in which it was philisophically presented by Marx to function. The only way it as a system of philosophy can work is if everyone involved with it can remain hionorable and not take advantage of their fellows.

Which is something we as a specieis are apparently unable to accomplish as a whole as yet.

The "Communists" failed to adjust for a criticall flaw in their choosen system of thought and didnt develope any checks or balances to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of ambitious individuals who became just as bad if not worse than the tyrants they revolted against initially.

Our own Founding Father's were acutely aware of the possibility existing that our new governemnt would need some way of vigilently monitoring the people in charge to prevent this phenomena from occuring for as long as possible or failing that set the diferent governing bodies in a state of cooperative opposition to one another, hence our system of checks and balances with the "church" being set to one side with no direct role in governemnt and making allowences for the people to have freedom of speach and the means to protectect themselves from said governemnt if neccesity arouse by means of arms.

They knew that if they didnt set things up just right that greed and corruption would become the norm once again as it eventually did with every other form of rule they knew of in history.

It's also one reason they modeled their new governemnt to a large extent on the longest lasting republic in history.

They knew that humans have an apparent natural inclination (no matter what type of government system) to become docile under prosperous conditions that allows for those individuals who are more explotative to rise to the top and manipulate things to their own advantage over that of the peoples.

When we eliminate our middle class in favor of concentrating wealth in the top 1% and allow gross misconduct to not only go unpunnished by our wealthy but reward them further for their misdeeds as is directly eviedenced by the entire bail out situation and its aftermath... its surely a bad sign of the handwritting being on the proverbial wall. For students of history it directly harkens straight back to the corruption that brought the Roman Republic to it's own demise.

Fortunately we can still do something about it, we have an elastic cluase provided for us by our wise progenitors that allows us to grow and change as needed, we just have to be willing to do so.

And examination of new ideas like "Personal autonomy" isn't something that should automatically be tabled as being off limits, unless your proposing that we only do and think or even discuss what our "beloved corperate masters" would approve of?

Legalization of drugs hasnt hurt the fine people of Portugal and the Netherlands has it?

The reduction of "moral" laws governing peoples behavior in the bed room (ie legaliztion of prositution, allowing gay marriage, removing laws against the mixing of races, ie granting more personal liberties so long as they dont directly harm anyone) hasnt turned the people of Europe who have adopted them into monsters or anything has it?

Heck with this being America, the land of the free and all, one would think we should have came up with the idea to begin with huh?

And in keeping with the threads topic...which isnt a poltical discussion btw people:

I found this link in another thread and thought it bears closer examination as it brings up even more philosophical questions about the direction iof humainity and how classism is going to effect us all in the near future in ways we may not even be able to stop:


http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm

The first communist attempt at Plymouth Colony was about as "pure" as you're going to find. It failed miserably. All the rest have tried to "purify" the country by negating the influence of those who either disagree or who were clearly successful without government assistance. They were either slaughtered or moved to "educational camps"- as practiced in the USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, North Vietnam, and Cambodia. The current "purist" form of communism is the worker's paradise of North Korea. Notice how all communist countries claim that the fences around them are to keep invaders out? Of course, the barbed wire at the top is slanted in.

The only thing in North Korea worth firing a .22rf short are the printing presses that turn out bogus US $20 bills by the ton. We certainly don't need the nuclear technology; we can make a bigger firecracker. In short, the idea that the communist theory has never been given a "real chance" is as bogus as a North Korean 20.

Decriminalization of drugs is one of the more intelligent things that I'm afraid won't happen. There is too much at stake within the DEA, Homeland Security and the like for those budgets to be cut.

The middle class is not being "crushed" by "evil, greedy corperations." Those companies are in the business to make goods and sell them or provide services. They NEED a strong middle class to sell them to.

For over 35 years I have dealt with companies from tiny to huge, domestic and foreign, nationally and internationally. I have been a representative, a supplier, a customer and a competitor. Except for a few notable paranoid examples such as Andy Groves at Intel and Bill Gates at Microsoft; large companies aren't concerned with small companies. They are either a potential supplier or a potential acquisition. They offer about as much a competitive threat as a mosquito does to a Cape Buffalo. There are a few people who have gotten wealthy through nefarious means - Bernie Madoff comes to mind, several at Goldman Sachs (and hopefully they are going to get a government sponsored vacation) but the vast majority of those who make or have made large sums of money have done it by working harder, smarter and better than others. They have earned it. They didn't take it from the poor. The poor don't have anything to take. THAT'S why they are poor!

In NC it cost $50 to start a company. Other companies don't stand in the way. The greatest restriction on getting ahead is from government regulation and interference. Is some necessary? Sure. But Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy holds fast -In every group there will be two components; a: Those who strive to effect the goals of the group and b: Those who strive to increase the power and authority of the group. The second component will always take over the group. So regulation becomes a goal into itself, not to accomplish the ideal. People come to this country for the opportunity. There is still more opportunity here than any other country on earth. But the larger the government becomes, the more of the available capital and resources it sucks up.

Government produces NOTHING! And confiscating assets will do nothing to improve things. The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. THAT is why they put fences around communist countries and why socialist countries have such strong laws about currency export. They don't want the money to escape. Ian may be familiar with the "booming 70's and early 80's" when tax rates were %90 in GB and everything was nationalized. Of course, the only "boom" was the sound the economy made when it crashed into the ground.

The framers of our constitution and government wanted desperately to restrict the size of the national government and did NOT want a standing army. That was the reason for the 2nd Amendment. A militia is not the US Army National Guard. It is comprised of volunteer soldiers who bring their own firearms to respond to the call of a governor and to fight the national government if necessary. It took Woodrow Wilson and both Roosevelts to expand the government and corrupt the commerce clause so that big government could become dominant. (Throw in LBJ and Jimmy Carter and there wasn't a chance. And NOW...) The 16th and 17th Amendments were the among the most devastating acts of legislation inflicted on this country. Communism and socialism worked so well that China couldn't stand all the prosperity and allowed capitalism. (That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.)

The most successful system in the world is a capitalistic republic. Government interference restricts job creation, government policies encourage poverty, increases government dependence while sucking up the capital resources required to create jobs in the first place. If you hate wealthy people, try getting a poor person to give you a job. If the government keeps punishing success with taxation, the successful will leave. Costa Rica, anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Well one example is how in the Netherlands and to an even greater extent in Portugal, drugs of many kinds (all drugs if I understand it in Portugal) have been made legal...allowing individuals the freedom to choose for themselves what they wish to do or not where as they are personally conserned.

All without any marked increase of crime (as so many anti-drug legalization proponents feared would happen, in fact if anything having a drug made illegal increases crime) and without a remarkable increase in recreational drug use statistics.

The same kind of thing seems to be working with legalization of prostitution.

Regulating big business is simply nessesary, they should imho be restricted from being able to make a money based influence over politicans that cuases a severe imbalance between the ability of individual voters to influnce, IE in a system where money drives political movements no real equality for individuals can exist. Equal political influence of One vote, one person is only an illussion if large corperations and the wealthy are allowed to basically buy off politicans and public servants at will as they do here in the US and other places.

The statistics also show that with an increase in personal liberties that allow people to feel free to leave behind the trappings of organzied religious doctrine and yet still retain individualized faith, adopting what the wish for their own personal ethos and excluding those more fundamentalists stances that corrupt religious officals have all too often used to keep people controled through fear of retribution in the next life and manipulation towards social exclussion of minorities in the past.

In other words, discrimination also statistically seems to be reduced in societies that embrace the legalization of more individual liberties that put choice over what one can do into the peoples hands and take it away influence from the wealthy.

Communism never got a chance to really become what its inventors desired becuase of greedy corrupt officals who took over to maintain their own power over that of their rivals (IE Stalin and Mao) .

With all the large corperations sitting as proxy controling factors driven by the elitest wealthy 1% it is allmost like watching all the same civil inequities taking place in some countries all over again that led to the wave of revolutions that took place to oppose tyranny in the late 1700's across america and europe.

And I agree thir it is "Easier said than done" to change this dreaded cycle of the little people being forced by nessecity into rising up to overthrow their rulers who became corupt over time as they gather more control away from the people and abused their privelege.

But wouldnt it be nice if mankind could evolve into a more equitable and peacful homeostasis where as these kind of things are conserned?

---

I cannot offer much discussion here, as I agree with everything you say!
;)

OOOO I like it when we can find common ground thir! HUGS.

It's also nice to have someone read whats written without letting the koolaide they serve on the Glen Beck show control their responces.

I think as we encounter a world where dependency on unrenewable natural resources (as discussed in the futruist link provided) continues at ever increasings rates beyound the ability to keep up pace with demand we will wish we did something about classism and its negative influence on society now rather than waiting until the last minute.

Wal-Mart wins the battle for No. 1 for the second year in a row, knocking out its chief competitor for the title of America's largest company, Exxon Mobil.



The retail champ earned its place at the top with a staggering $421 billion in sales. And despite softness in the U.S. market and a nagging class action suit alleging sex discrimination that's currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Wal-Mart's earnings jumped more than 14%, to $16.4 billion.
But while Wal-Mart has bragging rights, the real moneymaker is Exxon Mobil, no. 2 on the Fortune 500 this year. The oil giant rode soaring global oil prices to an astonishing $35.6 billion in profits — the most of any company on the list.
Fellow oil giant Chevron rounds out the top three with $196 billion in revenues, up 20%. More good news for Chevron: In March the company learned that it wouldn't have to pay billions in compensation to Ecuadorian citizens' groups who had sued Chevron's precursor company, Texaco, for environmental damage.
Berkshire Hathaway jumped four places on our list, to No. 7. Revenues at the giant holding company rose by 20% to $136.2 billion. This should be some consolation to CEO Warren Buffett, who faced unaccustomed bad press recently after it emerged that heir apparent David Sokol had bought stock in a company that he then urged Berkshire to acquire. (Sokol has since resigned his post at Berkshire.)
There was also action farther down the list, as pharmaceutical stalwart Pfizer moved up nine places, to No. 31. Pfizer's earnings dropped 4.4%, though, and the company's board abruptly replaced CEO Jeff Kindler in December after five years of sluggish stock performance. With its patents for Lipitor and other blockbuster drugs about to expire, Pfizer needs to crank up its innovation engine.
DirecTV (No. 110) jumped six places on the list as revenues rose by almost 12%, to $24.1 billion. Driven by rapid growth in its Latin America division, the pay-TV provider's profits more than doubled. CEO Mike White announced that DirecTV added 1.9 million net new subscribers in 2010, its second-best year ever.



This year's list has a few oddities: Automaker General Motors rose to No. 8, despite having emerged from bankruptcy only in November. And two homebuilders made the list despite a national foreclosure crisis. Then there's that destitute ward of the government, Fannie Mae, which lost more than $14 billion last year but sprang to No. 5 on the 500, ahead of General Electric. Why? Mostly due to new accounting rules.
All told, the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. But guess who didn't benefit much from this giant wave of cash? Millions of U.S. workers stuck mired in a stagnant job market.
Sure, these corporate profits derived partly from productivity gains, including workforce reductions. And many 500 companies are growing faster overseas than in the U.S. Nevertheless, we've rarely seen such a stark gulf between the fortunes of the 500 and those of ordinary Americans

Here is something interesting I found posted by someone named Karma:


"I was sitting on a bench during my ten-minute break from work when I was approached by a young black man with dreds. His clothes were shabby and his eyes were damaged and baggy from the level of exhaustion that usually only comes with the assistance of drugs.

He offered me a quarter to use my cell phone. This reminded me of my boyfriend, who looks a little like a “terrorist.” We had an argument once because he walked a mile home to use the phone rather than asking a person on the street to use theirs. He told me that it never works and people usually get scared or annoyed. He would rather walk the mile than ask.
So it ocurred to me that it wasn’t easy for this man to approach me.
I also thought of all of the things my racist and classist culture has taught me: that he must be desparate and willing to do anything, that he is jealous of my luxury and riches and will not hesitate to hurt me in any way if it is to his benefit.
That I am willing to admit this thought even entered my head is only through years of analyzing class systems. I truly believe that most middle and upper class people only think, “he might steal my phone.” And then they make up a white lie (so aptly named!) to cover their racism (really, more classism, few are intimidated by a black man in an expensive suit.) that everyone else can see right through.
This angered me. What is more likely, that this guy needs to use a phone or that he
is part of some con to score a bunch of crappy, beat-up cell phones and resell them for a fraction of what they are worth? I have loaned my phone out to many people on the street, in retrospect all of them black women at the bus stop. This is less of a coincidence and more owing to 1) most black men wouldn’t bother to ask me for reasons stated above and 2) most white women have cell phones.
Additionally, I have borrowed many cell phones from random people. I never hesitate to ask because I am a white woman which equals harmless and demure.
I have never loaned my phone to a man, much less one that looked like a drug addict (now there’s another stereotype: so many drug addicts look as wealthy as they are. Cocaine, alcohol, pills, weed — desparate housewives live in fear of the crackheads and meth-heads sport these addictions of their own.). I admit I hesitated long enough to think all of these things before I handed it to him, which really only took a few seconds.
Ultimately it ocurred to me that I would rather my cell phone be stolen (which is unlikely, and besides I can outrun this guy) then contribute to the cycle of fear that racism and classism neccessitate, and this was the deciding factor. I gave him my phone and went back to reading my book. He was done in less than three minutes. A car showed up — I suppose he was giving them directions. He made sure to look in to my eyes when he gave the phone back.
He told me that it meant a lot to him that I wasn’t afraid.
He returned minutes later on a bicycle that is much too small for him. Then he told me that this bike may not look like much but it saves him from having to walk three hours to work. I told him that I also ride my bike to work but I don’t even look at jobs that aren’t in biking distance. He responded that with “the dreds and the skin color” jobs aren’t so easy to find. I admitted that things are tough; I have a bachelor’s degree and I work in retail. He took a moment to appreciate that as a sign for how fucked up the economy truly is: even a white girl with a diploma works in a shop and hasn’t had health insurance for years.
I know that our little exchange meant a lot to him and truthfully it meant a lot to me too. We each had to take a risk. Such a small risk, something so inconsequential, at least among people of the same race/class, becomes powerful and imbued with meaning simply because we come from different upbringings. We exchanged names and he promised to spit some poetry when next we meet.
I am truly looking forward to it."

Here is an interesting report from Daniel Bukszpan , CNBC.com:

In May 2011, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg bought a $7 million home in Palo Alto, Calif. He doesn’t move in for a few months, so the address remains a closely guarded secret until the current occupants move out. However, a few details have emerged -- the 5,000-square-foot home has five bedrooms, five bathrooms and a pool. It’s not quite on the same level as Bill Gates’ 50,050-square-foot Washington mansion, but it’s not a bad start for a man whose last few homes were rentals.

Zuckerberg’s new home is beyond the reach of the average person’s checkbook. However, it’s downright modest by the standards of some powerful American CEOs. Some of the biggest names in executive leadership live in extravagant mansions with 25 bathrooms, four-story guest homes and sweeping vistas of the Pacific Ocean, all visible from a garden dotted with flora grown by celebrity botanist David Bellamy.


Steve Jobs, Apple, Inc.
Estimated Price: $2.6 million
Location: Palo Alto, Calif.
Beds/Baths: 7 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 1 half bathroom
Square feet: 5,678


Like many tech giants, Apple CEO Steve Jobs lives in Northern California. When he’s not dreaming up the next generation of technological marvels, he relaxes in the 5,678-square-foot Palo Alto mansion that he calls home. Built in 1920, the single-family property is located on over half an acre of land, and has 7 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms and one half bathroom.
Jobs was once the owner of a 17,000-square-foot mansion in Woodside, Calif. It was designed by architect George Washington Smith and built in 1925 for mining pioneer Daniel Jackling. In 2004, Jobs tried to have it demolished to make space for a new, contemporary home. After a dispute with local preservationists, the house was torn down in February 2011.
Bill Gates, Microsoft Corp. / Cascade Investment, LLC
Estimated Price: $122.4 million
Location: Medina, Wash.
Beds/Baths: 8 bedrooms, 25 bathrooms
Square feet: 50,050


Microsoft founder Bill Gates is the richest man in America. He used to be the company’s CEO, but in 2000 he stepped down and handed the executive reins to Steve Ballmer. Don’t worry, though, Gates is still the software giant's chairman. He's also currently CEO of Cascade Investment, a holding company whose interests include Berkshire Hathaway, Coca-Cola and Microsoft.
Gates’ 50,050 square foot estate in Medina, Wash., has 8 bedrooms, 25 bathrooms and 6 kitchens. It also has a 1,000-square-foot dining room, a swimming pool that pipes in underwater music, and a domed library with concealed bookcases, according to Forbes magazine.
Michael Dell, Dell, Inc.
2010 Tax Assessor’s Value: $18.5 million
Location: Austin, Texas
Beds/Baths: 8 bedrooms, 8 full bathrooms, 13 half bathrooms
Square feet: 33,000



Michael Dell is the CEO of his namesake company, Dell, Inc. The second-largest PC manufacturer in the world, it sits at number 41 on the Fortune 500 list, and according to The Austin American-Statesman, almost half of the revenue taken in by the city of Round Rock, Texas, comes from sales taxes generated by the company’s headquarters, which are located there.
Dell lives in a residence befitting a man who has brought so much revenue to his state. Built in 1997 at the height of the tech boom, his 33,000-square-foot Austin mansion is located on 20 acres of land, and in addition to its 8 bedrooms and 8 full bathrooms, it has 13 half bathrooms, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, and a conference room.
Evan Williams, Twitter, Inc.
Estimated Price: $2.4 million
Location: San Francisco
Beds/Baths: 5 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 1 half bathroom
Square feet: 3,001


Evan Williams is the founder and former CEO of Twitter, a social networking site that currently boasts well over 100 million users. He lives in the heart of San Francisco.
Williams recently relocated from a penthouse in the SoMa district to a property in the upscale Noe Valley neighborhood. The area is noted for its modern Victorian architecture, of which Williams’ home is a good example. The home, which Williams purchased for $2.4 million, occupies just over 3,000 square feet, and includes a yard and a guest house.
Hubert Guez, Ed Hardy
Price: $23.5 million
Location: Holmby Hills, Los Angeles
Beds/Baths: 7 bedrooms, 13 bathrooms
Square feet: 17,171



When Michael Jackson died in June 2009, he was renting a 7-bedroom mansion for $100,000 a month. His landlord was Hubert Guez, better known as the CEO of the Ed Hardy brand, and even though Jackson was a mere tenant and not the homeowner, he was truly renting in style.
The mansion is located in Holmby Hills, an affluent Los Angeles neighborhood. It was built in 2002 and modeled after a French chateau. Guez bought it in 2004 for $18.5 million, and he originally listed it for $38 million. Despite the swimming pool, wine cellar, guest house and 12 working fireplaces, Guez simply couldn’t get a buyer at that price, and it was lowered to $28 million, and then $23.5 million. The listing remains active today.

It is now a well-established part of the mythology of American capitalism that Warren Buffett still lives in the same modest brick colonial in Omaha, pictured above, that he bought in 1958 for $31,000. (According to Forbes magazine's annual survey of billionaires' houses, here, Buffett's home had a 2003 tax valuation of $700,000.) Intuitively, we believe that the relative modesty of Buffett's home tells us something about his values and priorities, just as we all probably make certain assumptions about the values and priorities of the occupants of the truly execrable miniature Versailles mansions that have sprouted in recent years on the far-flung fringes of most American cities --even Cleveland, for God's sake!



According to Kevin M. LaCroix:

In one of the more interesting and entertaining articles I have read in a long time, Crocker Liu of the Arizona State University Business School and David Yermack of N.Y.U. Business School take a look at what else the size and valuation of CEOs' homes might tell us. In their March 2007 article entitled "Where Are The Shareholders' Mansions? CEOs' Home Purchases, Stock Sales, and Company Performance" (here), the authors' "central research question concerns the association between CEO real estate purchases and subsequent performance of their company."

The authors developed their hypotheses by questioning whether a CEO's home purchase more nearly indicates the CEO's commitment to their company and its community, or rather represents the CEO's "entrenchment," particularly if the CEO is unconcerned about liquidating their assets (especially their holdings in company shares) and investing in an expensive home so as to provide "a public signal about the executive's status and security."

In order to determine which hypothesis is accurate, the authors undertook some rather creative detective work to identify the homes of the CEOs of the S & P 500 companies (including, among other things, each home's location, size, valuation, date of acquisition, and method of financing). The authors ultimately were able to identify the homes of 488 of the CEOs, 164 of which the CEOs had acquired after taking office.

What the authors found out about the CEOs' homes is fascinating. The median CEOs' home is more than 5,600 square feet, and sits on over one and a quarter acres. The median 2006 market valuation of the CEOs' homes is $2.7 million (although this may be understated because some of the homes are sufficiently unique that there are no ready market valuations). 12% of CEOs' homes are on the waterfront, and 8.5% are on golf courses. The median distance from the office for CEOs' homes is 12.5 miles, but 16 of the CEOs live more than 1,000 miles from their company headquarters and another 16 live between 250 and 1,000 miles from their office.

With respect to the question about the correlation between the CEO's home purchase and company performance, the authors found that when a CEO buys a home, "future company performance is inversely related to the CEO's liquidation of company shares and options" to finance the transaction, even if the stock sales are small relative to the CEO's holdings. The authors also found that "future performance deteriorates when CEOs acquire extremely large or costly mansions or estates," regardless of the method of financing. The authors found a "significantly negative stock performance following the acquisition of very large homes by company CEOs," a negative trend that persists for several years after the home purchase.

The authors' assessment of this finding is that the CEO who purchases his or her home without selling shares is perhaps signaling their commitment to the company and expectation of future stock returns. The CEO who liquidates his or her shares to finance their home purchase , or buys a very expensive home, is signaling his or her perception of his or her status and security, and therefore the purchase represents a proxy for CEO "entrenchment."

The authors contend that these facts suggest an investment strategy, essentially shorting the shares of companies whose CEOs who acquire very large and expensive homes, but maintaining long positions on the companies whose CEOs acquired their homes without selling company shares. According to the authors, both ends of this strategy would substantially outperform the companies taken as a whole.

I find the authors' work intriguing, but I wonder whether the apparent link between the CEO's home valuation and corporate performance might not be a manifestation of what a former colleague of mine poetically calls "multicollinearity." That is, is the inverse correlation between CEO home valuation and corporate performance simply the quantification of another phenomenon - for example, the level of CEO compensation?

For the record, Buffett's home was not among the houses the authors studied, since Berkshire Hathaway inexplicably is not a part of the S & P 500. The authors' data set also does not include Bill Gates' $140 million, 66,000 square foot home, since he is no longer the CEO of Microsoft. Steve Ballmer's $8 million, 4,100 square foot home was included, however.

I am hoping that the authors' next article will compare the valuations of CEOs homes to those of the leading securities class action plaintiffs' lawyers. I suspect it would provide even more interesting analysis.

Cool "Thought for the Day".

Are we talking classism here or racism? Both are insidious, and white conservative middle-class males are primarily responsible for both, but they are not the same thing.

Sometimes one does however drive the other does it not MMI?

By contrast too all those rich people mentioned above and their over the top houses:

Anup Shah had this to say:

• Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the 41 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (567 million people) is less than the wealth of the world’s 7 richest people combined.
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.
• 1 billion children live in poverty (1 in 2 children in the world). 640 million live without adequate shelter, 400 million have no access to safe water, 270 million have no access to health services. 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (or roughly 29,000 children per day).

Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their governments? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But deeper and more global causes of poverty are often less discussed.
Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.
In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.


The poorest people will also have less access to health, education and other services. Problems of hunger, malnutrition and disease afflict the poorest in society. The poorest are also typically marginalized from society and have little representation or voice in public and political debates, making it even harder to escape poverty.
By contrast, the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to benefit from economic or political policies. The amount the world spends on military, financial bailouts and other areas that benefit the wealthy, compared to the amount spent to address the daily crisis of poverty and related problems are often staggering.
Some facts and figures on poverty presented in this page are eye-openers, to say the least.


Cutbacks in health, education and other vital social services around the world have resulted from structural adjustment policies prescribed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank as conditions for loans and repayment. In addition, developing nation governments are required to open their economies to compete with each other and with more powerful and established industrialized nations. To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade.


Around the world, in rich or poor nations, poverty has always been present.
In most nations today, inequality—the gap between the rich and the poor—is quite high and often widening.
The causes are numerous, including a lack of individual responsibility, bad government policy, exploitation by people and businesses with power and influence, or some combination of these and other factors.
Many feel that high levels of inequality will affect social cohesion and lead to problems such as increasing crime and violence.
Inequality is often a measure of relative poverty. Absolute poverty, however, is also a concern. World Bank figures for world poverty reveals a higher number of people live in poverty than previously thought.
For example, the new poverty line is defined as living on the equivalent of $1.25 a day. With that measure based on latest data available (2005), 1.4 billion people live on or below that line.
Furthermore, almost half the world—over three billion people—live on less than $2.50 a day and at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day:


Over 22,000 children die every day around the world.
That is equivalent to:

• 1 child dying every 4 seconds
• 15 children dying every minute
• A 2010 Haiti earthquake occurring almost every 10 days
• A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring almost every 10 days
• An Iraq-scale death toll every 18–43 days
• Just under 8.1 million children dying every year
• Some 88 million children dying between 2000 and 2009

The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage.


Meaningful long-term alleviation of hunger is rooted in the alleviation of poverty, as poverty leads to hunger. World hunger is a terrible symptom of world poverty. If efforts are only directed at providing food, or improving food production or distribution, then the structural root causes that create hunger, poverty and dependency would still remain. While resources and energies are deployed to relieve hunger through technical measures such as improving agriculture, and as important as these are, inter-related issues such as poverty means that political solutions are likely required as well for meaningful and long term hunger alleviation.


Food aid (when not for emergency relief) can actually be very destructive on the economy of the recipient nation and contribute to more hunger and poverty in the long term. Free, subsidized, or cheap food, below market prices undercuts local farmers, who cannot compete and are driven out of jobs and into poverty, further slanting the market share of the larger producers such as those from the US and Europe. Many poor nations are dependent on farming, and so such food aid amounts to food dumping. In the past few decades, more powerful nations have used this as a foreign policy tool for dominance rather than for real aid.


Food and agriculture goes to the heart of our civilizations. Religions, cultures and even modern civilization have food and agriculture at their core. For an issue that goes to the heart of humanity it also has its ugly side.
This issue explores topics ranging from the global food crisis of 2008, to issues of food aid, world hunger, food dumping and wasteful agriculture such as growing tobacco, sugar, beef, and more.

We often hear leaders from rich countries telling poor countries that aid and loans will only be given when they show they are stamping out corruption. While that definitely needs to happen, the rich countries themselves are often active in the largest forms of corruption in those poor countries, and many economic policies they prescribe have exacerbated the problem. Corruption in developing countries definitely must be high on the priority lists, but so too must it be on the priority lists of rich countries.