(http://www.disparatethought.blogspot.com/ is back for a few posts)
Define Work. In terms of physics, generally speaking, energy is the ability to do work. Therefore, you could say work is the input of energy to do something useful. Define useful... Ugh. However, if we transfer the idea of 'work' or 'what works' to my rudimentary knowledge of economics, we come up with an infinite number of theories. We'll take two absolutist theories for sake of time. Laissez-Faire-Capitalist-Masturbators suggest that pure Capitalism is a self-correcting system that rewards effort, innovation and intellect. It is also very capable of being an anti-humanist system that rewards misinformation, a disregard for individuals and questionable ethical practices.
On the other side we have nonsensical nearsighted proponents of Socialism, which doesn't reward anyone and stagnates technological innovation and is capable of bogging down quality of life.
Under the Bush administration, the US economic system became more socialist than Hugo Chavez's Venezuala (Funny how I didn't hear any Tea Baggers' ball-stuffed mouths then). Under the Obama administration, we did this more times over bailing out derivative traders (oh but the Ball Mouthers got so panty-twisted when the autos got some tax-payer cash).
We are only as strong as our weakest link. It is very well-documented that the gap between social classes continues to rise. The inherent problem when a very small percentage of the population controls a very high percentage of the population's wealth is that the wealthy have easier access to the control and manipulation of information. Lobbyists, campaign contributions, radio stations and the subtle bending of information towards one's cause seems to be perpetuating the growth and sustainability of the wealthy few.
Conservatives seem to want their cake and eat it too. Particularly more hypocritical and unpragmatic are libertarians. Has anyone ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons. Bible-thumping missionary-sex'n fornicators are breeding the intellect and rationality out of the rest of us. Get this through all of your govn't phobic minds: FINITE RESOURCES + EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH does NOT equal PROSPEROUS SUSTAINABILITY. At some point we have to step in as a group and look out for the greater good of the populous over a longer time line. I suggest we all get together in a big group and talk about some ideas. Then, we should pick some individuals who have really good ideas and single them out. These individuals can then take turns talking and the group can then get together and take turns saying who they think has the best idea, then that person can lead the rest of the group. Hmm... sounds a lot like something we have now.
Government is not the answer, but remember this too often glanced over fact: we are the government. However, government is ultimately not the answer and the burden lies on personal responsibility. Remember though we are only as strong as our weakest links and as the socio-economic gap continues to rise, our weak links continue to grow. I'm telling you know, the sign of a more advanced society is a social-oriented society with the benefits of capitalism. Decades from now, barring any major global catastrophe, we WILL have a heavily regulated capitalist society with socialist tones intertwined that are heavily oriented towards education and health as intrinsic rights of EVERY U.S. citizen.
We are all goign to have to give up some freedoms for the greater good. Instead of having eighteen kids like that fucking Christ-humping TLC family, maybe it might be a good idea to limit your procreating to three kids. Is that really that bad? My god. Too many adults in our population act like children when they can't have something.
... Ugh.. my disparate rantings have to end for the day and I'm sure there are more punctures in the above content then the Houston 500, but you get the jiz (ha). I'll end on two frightingly pragmatic and intellegent quotes.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in [a] few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones."
"The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists privately control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed most cases impossible for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." Albert Enstein
"Corporations are ubiquitous parts of our lives, and those that own and run them want them to remain that way. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive corporate cars. We buy our fuel from corporations. We borrow from, invest our retirement savings with, and take out our college loans with corporations and corporate banks. We are entertained, informed, and bombarded with advertisements by corporations. Many of us work for corporations. There are few aspects of life left that have not been taken over by corporations, from mail delivery to public utilities to our for-profit health-care system. These corporations have no loyalty to the country or workers. Our impoverishment feeds their profits. And profits, for corporations are all that count." Chris Hedges
