RW> Hi bob,  
    
   RW> On Fri 2012-Jan-06 03:02, BOB KLAHN (1:123/140) wrote to  
   RW> RICHARD WEBB:  
    
  >  
   RW>> insist on the right to strip away the advertising that once  
   RW>> paid for TV and radio, and over-ride established copyrights  
   RW>> by asserting novel bit-rights to the IP of others by fiat.  
   RW>> IOW the economic 99% use antipathy towards the economic 1%  
   RW>> to assault the creative 1%. It's an irresistable tyranny of  
   RW>> majority.  
    
  BK>>  ZZZZZZZZ  
    
   RW> HOw else do we expect people to get paid for their  
   RW> endeavors?  OTher models just don't compensate creators  
    
   It's not that, it's how he said it. Unclear inarticulate things,  
   to emulate a former president.  
    
   ...  
    
   RW>> In the US we cannot get a simple majority or even plurality  
   RW>> to understand the problem with tying one's health care to a  
   RW>> job, in a system where both job and health care are  
   RW>> ever-at-risk.  
    
  BK>>  Ok, now he's making sense.  
    
   RW> Indeed, we can't get the majority of folks to even really  
   RW> get a grasp of the issues.  
    
   Believe it or not, that's why we have organized religion. We  
   need that to deal with the need to avoid thinking about  
   difficult problems, just follow the rules.  
    
   RW>> Likewise, we're fixated on lost factory jobs  
   RW>> in an age when factory jobs globally can only shrink. It's  
    
  BK>>  I do believe he lacks experience in the factory world.  
    
   RW> Indeed, woudl agree there, but still automation etc. means  
   RW> that factory jobs aren't going to be waht they once were.  
    
   True, but still necessary. If you don't produce something you  
   have nothing to sell. By something, I mean material objects.  
    
   RW>> pointless to re-educate people in new, growing fields which  
   RW>> are based on IP (and for that matter health care!): Those  
   RW>> industries are being systematically pinched. Here's a  
   RW>> telling pair of facts:  
    
  BK>>  He's got that one right. The latest employment fad will get  
  BK>> overpopulated and lose earning power quickly enough.  
    
   RW> Of course it will.  As the man points out, tying one's  
   RW> health care to a job whose lngevity is questionable isn't  
   RW> viable either.  
    
   Yep. Unlike when jobs were lifetime.  
    
   RW>> It's controversial that the government saved the auto  
   RW>> industry and over 200,000 jobs; in restructuring GM raised  
   RW>> $23Billion in a new IPO, directly saving 100,000 good  
   RW>> paying jobs.  
    
   RW>> Next year Facebook will raise $10Billion in their own IPO  
   RW>> to support an already profitable enterprise with fewer than  
   RW>> 20,000 employees.  
    
  BK>>  How many of those are in the US? And how much of that $10B is  just  
  BK>> profit to the owners, or expansion money to buy up other  companies?  
    
   RW> That's a good question, and answers we're not getting.  
    
   Info without which we can't reach meaningful conclusions.  
    
   RW>> FB's model is clearly more efficient so those numbers  
   RW>> aren't surprising.  
    
  BK>>  More efficient? Or the latest fad? Another Tulip mania?  
    
   RW> REquires less people anyway is what he's using to gauge  
   RW> "efficient" imho.  
    
   Efficient in doing things cheaper, not in producing a stable  
   society.  
    
  >  
   RW>> So to your refrain: Yes, something's gone badly awry. We're  
   RW>> surrendering the ability to earn even a simple living with  
   RW>> our hands and brains (forget fortunes or the American  
   RW>> Dream), to support an essentially feudal system where  
   RW>> capital is king.  
    
  BK>>  Makes sense.  
    
   RW> I've been making much the same argument now for over two  
   RW> decades.  
    
   So have I, but not in those words.  
    
   RW>> Money rules, you suck. This is the  
   RW>> intentional end of consumerism, driven by an advertising  
   RW>> (not coincidentally, a famous ad exec boiled his business  
   RW>> down to this maxim: You suck, buy this).  
    
  BK>>  I have seen this for so very long.  
    
   RW> As have I.  The main objective is to separate the rube from  
   RW> his money.  
    
   Yep. The snake oil salesman is king.  
    
   RW>> The shocker for me is how willing at least half the US  
   RW>> population is to accept this status quo. The 2010 elections  
    
  BK>>  Too many not getting hurt, yet. But that's changing.  
    
   RW> But will they grasp waht's happening to them soon enough to  
   RW> do anything about it?  To grasp it they need to shut off  
   RW> mtv, quite watching the latest infotainment pap and  
   RW> actually pay attention.  
    
   Turn off Fox News. I have this great fear they will not.  
    
   RW>> and Tea Party are proof of an idiocracy willing to sell  
   RW>> itself out to protect some unattainable imaginary future  
   RW>> fortune.  
    
  BK>>  Or their current pitiful advantage.  
    
   RW> What advantage?  If they only really looked they'd see that  
   RW> waht looks to be an advantage really isn't.  
    
   True, but the mantra has always been, you have it better than  
   those poor schnooks. Like always, centuries.  
    
   RW>> The 2012 elections will be close no matter the  
   RW>> outcome, showing at least half the 99% is too scared and  
   RW>> uninformed to defend or recognize it's own interests.  
    
  BK>>  Which is what Obama said, back in 2008.  
    
   RW> Right, and for all Obama's "audacity of hope" and all this  
   RW> talk about "change" it's still the same old same old.  The  
   RW> same plutocracy still works from the same principle, which  
   RW> is that of separate the rube from his money.  
    
   Only it going as far as turn the rubes into peons.  
    
   RW>> There you have it folks.  I've been saying much the same  
   RW>> now for years.  
    
   RW>> Note for Bob K.  there's your revolution.  IT never got off  
   RW>> the ground, cause it ain't sold at Walmart.  
    
  BK>>  Not yet, but the Arab Spring took a good bit of time to get  
  BK>> started after the earlier revolutions.  
    
   RW> It might have, but is it resulting in stable governments  
   RW> that the people can support?  I know, in many cases it's  
   RW> still too soon to tell.  
    
   In almost all cases. Still, if you keep doing what you always  
   have done...  
    
  BK>>  And the pain is just getting started.  
    
   RW> Imho it will have to get a whole lot worse before people  
   RW> actually wake up to the fact that they're getting  
   RW> screwed.  
    
   When it happens it can happen very fast. I predict, if the  
   republicans win the next elections, and do what they say they  
   are going to do, it will happen very fast.  
    
   RW> IT amazes me to see some geezer cheering on these  
   RW> tea party folks while riding his power chair that medicare  
   RW> bought, after he worked for years in a factory that paid  
   RW> him fair wages and benefits thanks to social justice  
   RW> movements that did the heavy lifting so that his family  
   RW> could have what they have.  Talk about short memory!  
    
   The mass have always been ruled by pointing at "those people"  
   who are trying to take what they have. Now the "elite" keep  
   trying to point the occupy movement toward the government, and  
   away from the banks and investment houses.  
    
    
    
  BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn  
    
  ... A polar bear is a rectangular bear after a coordinate transformation  
  --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]  
   * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)