[Jennifer_SFBA]

VOTE GREEN!!!

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF3D5-6DC9-152E-A9F183414B7F0000



Sustainable Developments
November 2006 issue

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology

Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

One of the great challenges of sustainable development is to combine society's desires for economic prosperity and social security. For decades economists and politicians have debated how to reconcile the undoubted power of markets with the reassuring protections of social insurance. America's supply-siders claim that the best way to achieve well-being for America's poor is by spurring rapid economic growth and that the higher taxes needed to fund high levels of social insurance would cripple prosperity. Austrian-born free-market economist Friedrich August von Hayek suggested that high taxation would be a "road to serfdom," a threat to freedom itself.*

Most of the debate in the U.S. is clouded by vested interests and by ideology. Yet there is by now a rich empirical rec-ord to judge these issues scientifically. The evidence may be found by comparing a group of relatively free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social outlays with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social outlays.

Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post–World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.

Friedrich Von Hayek was wrong

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations.

The Nordic states have also worked to keep social expenditures compatible with an open, competitive, market-based economic system. Tax rates on capital are relatively low. Labor market policies pay low-skilled and otherwise difficult-to-employ individuals to work in the service sector, in key quality-of-life areas such as child care, health, and support for the elderly and disabled.

The results for the households at the bottom of the income distribution are astoundingly good, especially in contrast to the mean-spirited neglect that now passes for American social policy. The U.S. spends less than almost all rich countries on social services for the poor and disabled, and it gets what it pays for: the highest poverty rate among the rich countries and an exploding prison population. Actually, by shunning public spending on health, the U.S. gets much less than it pays for, because its dependence on private health care has led to a ramshackle system that yields mediocre results at very high costs.

Von Hayek was wrong. In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness.

*Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this essay misattributed the date of Hayek's suggestion.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

[FDRfollower]

As far as Mr. Sachs' opinion goes, would you trust a person, who was part of the mafia takeover of the Russian economy and the subsequent destruction of living standards?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

I know about Iceland, a very small country with a total population of about 300,000. Though the United States' population is very very much larger, the resource base in Iceland is very very much smaller. That's a hit. You might, for example, google the Central Bank of Iceland where you will find the latest 2006 economic report. I read it, and it's very interesting. Too, you can google "the economy of" for any country, and you can also go to Wikipedia and search "the economy of ... ." What Wikipedia says about the economy of the United States is well put forward.

I hope that will help.

[halg]

As far as Mr. Sachs' opinion goes, would you trust a person, who was part of the mafia takeover of the Russian economy and the subsequent destruction of living standards?
FDRfollower:

Could you cite some primary sources (NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS, PLEASE!) to support your argument that Dr. Sachs was "part of the mafia takeover of the Russian economy and the subsequent destruction of living standards?" I searched the web for connections between Sachs and the Russian Mafia and came up empty; however, I am not saying you are inaccurate. I simply do not have the info. I would appreciate your help to clear this up.

Thanks,
Hal

[halg]

I know about Iceland, a very small country with a total population of about 300,000. Though the United States' population is very very much larger, the resource base in Iceland is very very much smaller. That's a hit. You might, for example, google the Central Bank of Iceland where you will find the latest 2006 economic report. I read it, and it's very interesting. Too, you can google "the economy of" for any country, and you can also go to Wikipedia and search "the economy of ... ." What Wikipedia says about the economy of the United States is well put forward.

I hope that will help.
I just spent about 2 hours reading through many of the resources about Iceland that you cited. I really did not get much from reading the Central Bank reports, mainly because it is written in a very familiar form of governmentese. However, wikipedia and some other googled items do reveal a balanced system of capitalism and socialism, which I will argue is exactly what the US needs.

I have been curious about Iceland ever since I saw a story about it on 60 Minutes back in the 70's; these posts have resparked my interest. It is good to see a working example of a balanced economic and social system: IT CAN WORK!

-Hal

[FDRfollower]

FDRfollower:

Could you cite some primary sources (NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS, PLEASE!) to support your argument that Dr. Sachs was "part of the mafia takeover of the Russian economy and the subsequent destruction of living standards?" I searched the web for connections between Sachs and the Russian Mafia and came up empty; however, I am not saying you are inaccurate. I simply do not have the info. I would appreciate your help to clear this up.

Thanks,
Hal

Sachs was part of the group of western "economists" that went into Russia following the fall of the Berlin Wall and dismantling of the Soviet Union that pushed the radical privitization, looting, and subsequent destruction of living standards during the Yeltsin regime. The mafia takeover could not have happened, but without Sachs and cohorts like Gaidar.

Since its been 10> years since I've looked at my material, it might be hard to locate, but I'll try.

[FDRfollower]

Hi Halg. I just did a quick sweep through the vast ocean of info called the internet, where there's a LOT of stuff about Jeff Sachs.

In two cases, where he directed economic policy, Bolivia, and Russia, less so Poland, there was economic collapse, and the rise of organized crime to dominate the economy. So, with that in mind, he's guilty by association.

His self promotion of him as "Worlds greatest economist" looks rather anemic in light of his destructive ideas.

[halg]

Hi Halg. I just did a quick sweep through the vast ocean of info called the internet, where there's a LOT of stuff about Jeff Sachs.

I never said otherwise; I just said I couldn't find an association.



In two cases, where he directed economic policy, Bolivia, and Russia, less so Poland, there was economic collapse, and the rise of organized crime to dominate the economy. So, with that in mind, he's guilty by association.


Ah. There you go. Thanks.

So, does this mean that he wasn't originally part of the Mafia, and only cut a deal with them to get some of the loot after his ideas were implemented? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just trying to figure out your original statement.

BTW, I am not sure if I will vote for him (yes, he is actually running for president!). I am just curious about this person, that's all.

[FDRfollower]

Sachs role has been that of the economic hitman see Perkins (http://www.economichitman.com/) than being a member of the lower class theives called the mafia.

But, I can't see much of a difference in the morality of someone like Sachs and your average mob boss.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Below is an interview reported to be between Amy Goodman and John Perkins. It is different than the one on the "Democracy Now" website. That may be because the interview below is said to include "rush transcript," whatever that may mean.

http://vtcommons.org/node/382

Vermont Commons

Rob Williams Blog

INTERVIEW: DN's (Democracy Now's) Amy Goodman Speaks With An "Economic Hit Man"

Submitted by Rob Williams on Mon, 03/20/2006 - 11:32am.

Self-Described Economic Hit Man John Perkins: “We Have Created the World’s First Truly Global Empire”

Wednesday, February 15th, 2006

To read thw whole interview at DEMOCRACY NOW'S web site, click here ( http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/1436221 ).
John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," joins us in our firehouse studio to talk about his former work going into various countries to try to strongarm leaders into creating policy favorable to the U.S government and corporations. Perkins describes himself as an economic hit man. [includes rush transcript]

John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, formerly worked for an international consulting firm and describes himself as an “economic hitman”

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to someone on the inside who decided to speak out, and he is John Perkins, has written the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. He came into our studios to talk about his former work, going into various countries to try to strong-arm leaders into creating policy favorable to the U.S. government and corporations, what he called the “corporatocracy.” John Perkins says he was an economic hit man. I began by asking him to explain this term.

JOHN PERKINS: We economic hit men, during the last 30 or 40 years, have really created the world's first truly global empire, and we've done this primarily through economics, and the military only coming in as a last resort. Therefore, it's been done pretty much secretly. Most of the people in the United States have no idea that we've created this empire and, in fact, throughout the world it's been done very quietly, unlike old empires, where the army marched in; it was obvious. So I think the significance of the things you discussed, the fact that over 80% of the population of South America recently voted in an anti-U.S. president and what's going on at the World Trade Organization, and also, in fact, with the transit strike here in New York, is that people are beginning to understand that the middle class and the lower classes around the world are being terribly, terribly exploited by what I call the corporatocracy, which really runs this empire.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, before we move further, your experience with it? Explain the vantage point you come from. What does it mean to be an economic hit man?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.

AMY GOODMAN: And you worked for?

JOHN PERKINS: I was recruited by the National Security Agency, the one that's in the news so much today because of spying on people, and I was tested by them, recruited by them --

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean you were recruited by them?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, while I was a senior in business school at Boston University, they came to me and suggested that I take their test. I had connections through my wife with people in the agency, and they put me through a series of tests, personality tests, lie detector, several days, and concluded that I would make a good economic hit man, and they also discovered a number of weaknesses in my character, which they could use then to hook me into the business, and then I ended up working for a private corporation.

AMY GOODMAN: Why didn't you work for the N.S.A.?

JOHN PERKINS: Because these days it's not done that way. Nobody wants to be able to connect the dots. So the N.S.A., the C.I.A., these types of organizations often recruit economic hit men and the jackals, the assassins, the 007 types, but they will recruit us, maybe train us, and then turn us over to a private corporation, so that you really can't make the connection, so that if I were caught at what I was doing in one of these countries, it would not reflect on our government; it would only reflect on the corporation that I worked for.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



AMY GOODMAN: And who did you work for?

JOHN PERKINS: I worked for a company called Charles T. Main, a big consulting firm out of Boston.

AMY GOODMAN: And your job?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”

The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”

AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain actually how that plays out, because it's not really in this pocket and that.

JOHN PERKINS: No, it’s – what I'm saying is that, you know, I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened to Torrijos, for example, in Panama, and what did you have to do with it?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, this was back in the ‘70s, and Torrijos was making a lot of world headlines, because he was demanding that the Panama Canal be turned back over to Panamanians. I was sent down to Panama to bring him around, to convince him that he needed to play the game our way. And he invited me to a little bungalow outside of Panama City, and he said, “Look, you know, I know the game, and if I play it your way, I'll become very rich, but that's not important to me. What is important is that I help my poor people.” Now, Torrijos wasn't an angel, but he was very committed to his poor people. So he said, “You can either play the game my way, or you can leave this country.”
And I talked to my bosses, and we all decided I should stay. Maybe I could bring him around. In the meantime, we could make some money, and so I stayed. But I knew the whole world was watching Torrijos because of this Panama Canal issue and that if he didn't come around, the jackals would be likely to come in. [inaudible] A man like Torrijos [inaudible] not only would we lose Panama, but he would set an example that others might follow. So I was very concerned. I liked Torrijos, and one of the reasons I wanted to bring him around was not just because it was my job, but because I wanted to see him survive, and because he didn't come around, sure enough, he was assassinated.

AMY GOODMAN: How?

JOHN PERKINS: Fiery airplane crash, and afterwards, there was no question that – he had been handed a tape recorder as he got on the plane that had a bomb in it.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know this?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I know the people that did the investigation afterwards, and this is pretty well-documented in many places also, but I, personally, was aware of what went on, and, of course, you know, our official line here was that, of course, that wasn't what happened. The plane simply blew up and hit a mountain. But there was no question, and in fact we were expecting this to happen.
Three months before this, another president, Jaime Roldos of Ecuador, who I also was involved in trying to bring around, he very strongly opposed our oil companies. Not “oppose,” isn't the right word. What he said is, “Oil from Ecuador has to serve the interest of the Ecuadorian people. Therefore, the oil companies are going to have to pay a lot greater share to the Ecuadorian people or we're going to nationalize them.” And he’d run on a very, very strong anti-American campaign, and we knew that if he didn't change his ways, that something would happen to him. We were in his office making the same promises. You know, here we’ve got a couple of million dollars for you. Here we’ve got a bullet for you, basically. It’s done a lot more subtly than that, but that's the short version. And three months before Torrijos, his airplane also exploded.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did the investigation reveal in that case?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, if you're talking about F.B.I. investigations, it revealed that there was an airplane that exploded in both cases. If you’re talking about local investigations and investigations that were done by many international journalists, there were explosives on those planes, both of them. And, you know, it's relatively easy to get to assassinate one of these presidents who has a security force that's well armed, that surrounds him all the time, and in the case of both Roldos and Torrijos, those security forces had been trained primarily at the School of the Americas, a U.S. training camp for South American armies. It’s well known that when --

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



AMY GOODMAN: Which used to be in Panama, actually?

JOHN PERKINS: Used to be in Panama, right, and it's well known that people that are trained this way stay pretty loyal to their trainers. And they didn't make a lot of money, and so if one of their trainers went back and said, “Hey, would you mind handing this tape recorder to Jaime Roldos?” And the security guy may very well know that there's a bomb in it, and I'm going to pay you several hundred thousand dollars or maybe in this case it's only $100,000, because these guys were not very well paid, or, “simply look the other way while we plant something on the plane.”

That's an easy thing to do, and incidentally, we also tried to do that to Saddam Hussein. When he didn't come around, the economic hit men tried to bring him around. We tried to assassinate him. But that was an interesting point, because he had pretty loyal security forces, and in addition he had a lot of look-alike doubles, and what you don't want to be is a bodyguard to a look-alike double and you think it's the president and you accept a lot of money to assassinate him and you assassinate the look-alike, because if you do that, afterwards your life and your family's isn't worth very much, so we were unable to get through to Saddam Hussein, and that’s why we sent the military in.

AMY GOODMAN: Although Saddam Hussein was in the pocket of the U.S. for many, many years.

JOHN PERKINS: He was and – but we wanted that final deal, similar to the one we’d struck with Saudi Arabia. We wanted to get Saddam Hussein to really tie in to our system, and he refused to do that. He accepted our fighter jets and our tanks and our chemical plants that he used to produce chemical weapons that we knew were being used against the Kurds and the Iranians. He accepted all that, but he wouldn’t quite tie into our system in such a big way that he would bring in the huge development organizations to rebuild his country, as the Saudis did, in a Western image. And that's what we were trying to convince him to do and also to guarantee that he would always trade oil for U.S. dollars, instead of Euros, and that he would keep the price of oil within limits acceptable to us. He would not go along with those things. If he had, he would still be president, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: As a consultant, you did work in Saudi Arabia, John Perkins?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, yes, in fact I put -- I was one of the ones responsible for putting together the main deal there in the early ‘70s. As you may recall, Amy, OPEC decided that they were going to clamp down on us, shut off our oil supplies. They didn't like our policies towards Israel, and so in the early ‘70s, the supply of oil was cut way back in this country. We had long lines of cars at the gas stations, and we were afraid we were going to go to another depression like the one that started in 1929, so the Treasury Department came to me and some other economic hit men and said, “Look, this is unacceptable.” And I give all the details of this in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, but the short version is, they said, “Make sure that this doesn't happen again,” and we knew that the key to stopping this sort of thing was Saudi Arabia, because it controlled more oil than anyone else and the Royal House of Saud was corruptible.
So again, the short version is we put together a deal whereby the House of Saud agreed to send almost all of the money it made from selling oil all over the world back to the U.S., invest it in U.S. government securities, the interest from those securities was used by the Treasury Department to hire U.S. companies to rebuild Saudi Arabia, power plants, desalinization plants, in fact, entire cities from the desert, and in the process, to westernize Saudi Arabia, to make it more like us. And the other part of the deal was the House of Saud agreed to keep the price of oil within limits acceptable to us, and we agreed to keep the House of Saud in power, and that deal still holds. It's been holding for a long time. There's a lot of blowback right now that's occurring around it, but from our standpoint as economic hit men, it was an extremely successful deal, and it’s the one we tried to replicate with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. We’ll continue with our conversation in a minute.

BREAK

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. I asked him if he was the first person to coin the term “economic hit man.”

JOHN PERKINS: I think I may have been the first to use it in print, but we used it back in the ‘70s. We called ourselves -- and it was sort of a tongue-in-cheek term. Officially, I was chief economist, but we used that sort of tongue-in-cheek, because it described was we did. Since the book came out on hardback – yes, and there’s a new epilogue in the paperback, which covers a lot of the new material -- a lot of people have stepped out of the shadows and approached me and talked to me, high people in governments and other economic hit men and jackals and wanted to share their story. A lot of them want to do it anonymously, which is a little tricky for a writer these days, as you know, but it's been fascinating to me how many have stepped out.

I also have seen, Amy, I think, a tremendous change in attitude around the world. We're seeing people really rebelling and saying, you know, we understand what's going on. And to be honest with you, I attribute a great deal of that to your show and other shows like it. You're reaching people. The internet, for example, is working wonders. And there’s a lot of books, there’s a lot of movies like Syriana and Hotel Rwanda and Good Night, and Good Luck and so on and so forth. So, the information is getting out. And I think once Americans understand what we're doing in the world and how much hatred this is generating, we will demand change. And I think history has proven that when we demand change in any area, eventually -- it takes a little time -- but we do get it. So I’m very hopeful.

AMY GOODMAN: And these people who have come forward, are they active today?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, yes, very much so. One of them – you know, there was a president elected, the President of Ecuador, Gutierrez, a few years ago and he ran on a very, very strong anti-U.S. ticket. And he said that if he was elected, he would make sure that the people of Ecuador get the fair proceeds from Ecuadorian oil. As soon as he was elected, he was visited by an economic hit man, whom I know personally, and read the Riot Act, told the things we mentioned earlier, you know, “I’ve got money for you or a bullet.”
Within a month, he came to Washington. There was a famous picture shown all over Ecuador of him sitting, holding hands with George Bush. And very soon after that, he went against everything in his campaign promises. He cut sweet deals with the oil companies. He went back on the indigenous peoples, whose lands in the Amazon area he had promised to protect. And the Ecuadorian people went wild. They took to the streets. They protested and demonstrated and eventually threw him out of power.

So this particular one backfired. But what -- the economic hit man did his job right. Gutierrez came around, and then the Ecuadorian people understood what was going on. I have good friends in Ecuador who called me shortly after that and said, “You know, when we elect someone democratically to do something and he doesn't do it, democracy requires that we throw him out. Why don't you the same thing in your country?”

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, what about Evo Morales? You talk about Gutierrez.

JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, I spent a lot of time in Bolivia. In fact, at one time, I was offered the job as president of Bolivian Power Company, which is the second most important job in Bolivia, actually, behind the President. And Bolivia has this – and it was an American-owned company, incidentally. Bolivia has this long record of giving into the I.M.F. and the World Bank, privatizing their resources, like their power company and their water company. And the people of Bolivia were fed up with this. They had been exploited and exploited and exploited. And so Evo Morales ran on this ticket that said, “I’m not going to put up with this anymore.” And, of course, he's getting a bad name in the U.S., because we want to portray him as a cocaine-raising farmer who's all in favor of Castro and socialism and communism and cocaine. The fact is he did raise coca. He was a coca farmer. Coca's a very legitimate product in Bolivia that is not just used for cocaine. It's used for many other things.

AMY GOODMAN: Like?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, for example, high altitude sickness. Coca tea is perfectly legal in this country, too, and it's very effective against high altitude sickness, and derivatives of coca are used for many medicines. They're very effective. But the reason he was elected had nothing to do with any of that. It simply has to do with the extreme frustration and anger of the Bolivian people, of how they've been exploited and how the I.M.F. and the World Bank have insisted that they turn their resources over to foreign corporations. And also, you know, part of the World Trade Organization policies is that we insist that countries like Bolivia not subsidize their local industries and products, but that they accept our subsidies of them, and that they not erect any barriers against our goods coming in there, but they accept the barriers that we erect against their goods. And people around the world, Amy, are getting fed up with this. 300 million Latin Americans -- South Americans out of 360 million, over 80% have voted for these types of candidates.[

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



AMY GOODMAN: Not to be ethnocentric about it, but America is a tremendous power, especially military power. It has been diverted now to dealing with Iraq. President Bush declaring war on Iraq, not exactly officially declaring it, but engaging in it. Do you think that that has something to do with what is happening in Latin America, not to take power away from the people and what they are doing there?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, certainly, I think that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela might not have survived his presidency. His presidency might not have survived had we not been in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we were so diverted. We -- the economic hit men tried to overthrow him, you know, a few years ago and were successful for about 48 hours. But then he had control over the oil company, and he was very, very popular. So he got back into office. At that point, had we not been involved in Iraq, I strongly suspect that we would have done something much more aggressive, as we've done so many other times. When the economic hit men fail, we take more drastic steps. Because we were so involved in Iraq, we didn't do that.

This gave great support to all of the other movements in Latin America. And these other candidates, people like Evo Morales, really looked to Hugo Chavez as an example of someone who’s had the staying power. He’s been able to stay there, despite the fact that the administration has spoken so strongly against him and is so angry.

The other side of the coin is that Brazil is a world power. It's one of the largest economies in the world, and it produces a tremendous number of military weapons that are used worldwide. And Lula, of Brazil, he’s backed off a bit. And there’s an interesting story that I know behind that.

AMY GOODMAN: What?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I'll get into that. But he's backed off a bit. But he still – he’s made alliances with Chavez, with Kirchner of Argentina, with Morales of Bolivia. They’ve all agreed that if the United States does anything drastic, they'll stand together and oppose us. So there is this coalition that's happening. It's quite loose. But nonetheless, there's a tremendous amount of support there.

AMY GOODMAN: Lula, what do you know?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I was one of the speakers at the World Social Forum in Brazil in last February, and a man asked to meet with me who was a very high advisor to Lula. And he said, “You know, what you say in your book is all very true, but you just -- that's just the tip of the iceberg.” He said, “You know, from the time I was a very young man, I was quite radical. And it was interesting to me, as I was going through university, how much sex, drugs, booze were available to me in the parties that I was invited to, and so on. And now that I’m in this position of power, I discover that somebody was taking pictures of all those things, that there's a record of this.”

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



And he says, “You don't realize how all-pervasive your Secret Services are. It's recruiting, in their own way, young people, even those that are extreme socialists and communists. Your people befriend us from very early ages and get a lot of information on us. So when we become high up in the government, they basically –” And I said, “They blackmail you?” And he said, “Well, you could use the word ‘blackmail,’ but I think I would prefer that’s ‘modern U.S. diplomacy.’”
And I asked him, I said, “Well, is Lula a part of this?” And he obviously didn't really want to answer this question. He hesitated, and he said, “Let me just say that nobody gets to power in Brazil these days without being very willing to make compromises to your corporations and your government.” He said, “I think Lula’s a very, very good man, but he also has to deal with reality. And certainly, he's been watched all of his life, and I’m sure he's had the same temptations I did.”

AMY GOODMAN: And he’s also engulfed in a major corruption scandal, which, for many of his long-time supporters, Brazilians and outside, are raising a lot of questions.

JOHN PERKINS: And I think the fact that the scandal has come out and has been blown into such proportions is an indication that someone is sending Lula a very strong message. Incidentally, the jackal – I’ll call him – that was working with Gutierrez of Ecuador said to me, “You know, this isn’t limited to other countries. This happens in your country, too. Don't you think that the assassination of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and John Lennon and others like that, and the many senators that have died in airplane crashes and other things, has sent a strong message to your politicians? And don't you think that –”

AMY GOODMAN: Who said this to you?

JOHN PERKINS: The same economic hit man/jackal who visited Gutierrez and read him the Riot Act.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you care to share his name?

JOHN PERKINS: No. I'll let him do that at some point, if he feels it's appropriate. Right now, he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate. He's still in the business. And so, many of these people are still very -- even the ones that have retired are getting pensions, and they’ve got loyalties, some of them. So, they’ll talk to me on the side and say, “I want you to put this in your book, but I’m not ready to talk.” A couple of them I am working with to write a book, and my literary agent is working with them. So hopefully some of them will come clean. But it's a slow process in making that happen.

AMY GOODMAN: And these people you know, who you call economic hit men, who are the first to move in to these men who gain power, where does -- what do you know about Evo Morales now? He's just been elected President?

JOHN PERKINS: Well, I have no doubt that he has been visited by at least one of these men, who's known him beforehand. These are not strangers that walk in. They’ve been hanging around Bolivia for a while, as I did. And so, once the President is elected, they walk into his office and shake his hands and say, “Congratulations, Mr. President. You won. We launched a strong campaign against you, but now you've won. And now, I want to tell you the facts of life and make you --”

AMY GOODMAN: And you know someone who has talked to him in this way?

JOHN PERKINS: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was -- according to you, what was President Morales's response?

JOHN PERKINS: Morales was very diplomatic about the whole thing, but absolutely stood firm and said, “You know, my people have elected me for a reason, and I intend to honor that.” This is what his initial response was. But what I will say is we can't imagine the pressure now that’s being exerted on a man like Morales, as is true with all these other presidents. They know what's happened before their time. And they – you know, the pressure will be put on them tighter and tighter and tighter.

And imagine being in that position. Imagine being an integritous person and really wanting to help your country, being elected with a majority – Morales got 54% of the vote, which is unheard of in Bolivia; he was up against many opponents -- and then, wanting to implement the policy, and somebody walks into your office and reminds you of what happened to all these other presidents.
And perhaps the most scary one was Noriega, who did not get assassinated. He wasn't a martyr. Instead, he had to stand by and watch several thousand innocent Panamanian civilians bombed, slaughtered, burned to death. And then he was dragged off to a U.S. prison, where he has been pretty much in solitary confinement every since. Imagine thinking that might happen to you.
And so, Evo Morales, the story has just begun for him. I sympathize with him very deeply. And I think from our standpoint, Amy, as American citizens -- and I look at myself as an extremely loyal American citizen. I believe in the principles of this country, which I think that in the past few decades, increasingly, we've put them way in the back burner. But as good Americans, we need to insist that our government and our corporations honor democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
www.democracynow.org

[Jennifer_SFBA]

John Perkins was actively involved in pursuing U.S. corporate globalist policies thoughout the entire Carter, Nixon and Ford administrations. Just how possible is it that the U.S. Congressional RepubliCratic Party of America did not know?

Register and vote Green Party!

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There were two interviews between Amy Goodman and John Perkins on the Democracy Now website, one in 2004 and one in 2006. That's why I saw a difference.

2004 interview:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

[halg]

I think the original idea that was posited here was something like ...


Are higher taxes and strong social "safety nets" antagonistic to a prosperous market economy?


The fact that Sachs, or anyone else, made that utterance does not deter from the truth (or falsity) of the underlying claim. OK, it does look like Sachs may not be a good example of someone supporting the above position, but I do agree with it.

After looking at Iceland's economic situation, seems like they are doing OK (did I miss something Jennifer?). At least they don't have a war-based economy like us. I don't mind a little less to eat, and driving a car that actually gets some gas mileage. Macroeconomic dependence on war and consumerism has not been a stable basis for our own economy here in the US, given the wild fluctuations in employment every 5 years or so and long-term (since 1979) increasingly depressed buying power of worker income.

Capitalism, and the claims of its success, in this country has ALWAYS relied most heavily on war making. If you do not believe this, then read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the U.S." -- I don't think you can call him a false progressive.

I guess what I am wondering is ... Jennifer, you began by posting the Scientific American story. Was the point about economic truth, or about whether Sachs (the author of the story) can be trusted, given his background?

Thanks for the clarification.

-Hal

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, halg. Curious about FDRfollower's comments about Sachs' possible dishonesty or lack of credibility in his Scientific American economic assessment article I posted that FDRfollower linked with John Perkins, I went back to interviews between Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and John Perkins to see if I might find a link found there in a form more simple than an entire book. I didn't find one in the interviews and took the next step to post what I did find since I had gone the distance to research it.

For most of my life, I have watched with great interest and enthusiasm the scandinavian countries, particularly Iceland. I already knew that what Sachs had written about those countries was true. What was striking to me was that a major American news source, Scientific American, was saying it.

For most of my life in America, I fought hard against war, racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, religiosity and ignorance among other American failings. I will say that those of us in that fight did make some very significant progress, though not enough. My views being what they are, I would have had it easier living in a Scandinavian country, but where I was needed, and where I needed to be, really, was right here in America. It hasn't been easy for me living in America, and it continues not to be easy for me here going against the cultural grain as I do - I oppose the death penalty, war, rampant capitalism and materialism, bigotry against groups, etc., and I support Democratic Socialism such as exists in those Scandinavian countries Sachs wrote about.

There is alot of value in what FDRfollower interjected and that I posted from interviews with John Perkins. That stuff is really happening, and it just should not be - Damn, more in America to fight against!

The thing is, I'm getting close to retirement, and America belongs much more to the younger people living here now. It's up to them to commit to and fight for the America they want.

Who knows? It may be I will retire in Iceland. Time will tell. It would be interesting to experience that society before I die. Even so, I have lived long enough to know there is no system that is perfect in any absolute sense, and that, I am quite sure, includes Iceland's. Half the fun and excitement in life is finding where improvement is needed and contributing, with others, to making and accomplishing those improvements.

[halg]

Ah, finally, I am reading you. Thank you for clarifying your position; I already thought that was it, but I just wanted to make sure I understood you.

I agree with your position about the scandinavian countries, as they have been socialist models for decades. The real shame is that even in those countries, there are forces trying to privatize their otherwise decent systems. Closer to home, we are seeing attempts to do this in Canada. The new righty govt there is trying to privatize their health care system, which was working OK last I heard. (Some people claim there are problems with it, which is hard to understand, compared to the US system which does not work at all unless you are a zillionaire. Don't even get me started.)

Anyway, were you at the GNC this year? Did we meet?

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, again, halg. I am perhaps the newest member of the Green Party. I changed my voter registration from Democratic Party to Green Party 12/21/2006 after having spent most of my voting life casting my ballot for the lesser of evils running on the Republican and Democratic Party tickets. Finally, having seen NAFTA put through under Democrat Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, and Cecil Rhodes connection to secret societies, and Clinton, who we now see is best friends with Bush '41' who is a member of The Order of Skull & Bones and attendee at Bohemian Grove along with Bush '43;' a huge number of FEMA concentration camps having been built in America under both Republican and Democratic administrations with FEMA only and directly under the control of the Whitehouse and responsible for the whitewashed 9/11 Report; horrendous individual and social mind control, etc., I concluded that there is no way to work within the major political party system to effect change given that time is now so short before plans for world corporate and secret society domination becomes reality.

I did make a recommendation for the Green Party platform on this site, namely, to outlaw secret societies from the Green Party with provisions for removal if discovered after the fact. That issue needs to be taken seriously and acted upon within the Green Party lest the Green Party find itself highjacked at the point that it becomes a politically viable force in Federal government! I also recommended on this site that the Green Party work to draft Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for President on the Green Party ticket.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Below is a report on world wealth ownership based on a study produced by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University, Helsinki, Finland; another successful Democratic Socialist country.


Published on Friday, December 22, 2006 by OneWorld
Richest 2 Percent Own Half the World's Wealth
by Aaron Glantz

The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University.

The study's authors say their work is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken. They found the richest 1 percent of adults owned 40 percent of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10 percent of adults accounted for 85 percent of the world's total.

In contrast, the assets of half of the world's adult population account for barely 1 percent of global wealth.

"It reflects the extreme nature of inequality around the world," one of the study's authors, New York University Professor Edward Wolff, told OneWorld. "Yes, we are richer than Africa and Latin America and most of Asia, but how much richer is what hadn't really been established until our study came out," Wolff added.

According to the report, the average American's wealth amounted to $144,000 in the year 2000, more than 100 times higher than the average Indian or Indonesian, whose assets totaled $1,100 and $1,400, respectively.

The study defined wealth as physical and financial assets--like personal savings and home, land, and stock ownership--less debts.

Besides the United States, only Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000.

Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, many former Soviet Republics, and most of sub-Saharan Africa showed average personal wealth of under $2,000.

Conflict-ridden countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Sudan did not report data.

"This is a reminder that most people do not live the way middle class Americans live," David Rauchman of the Washington, DC-based Center for Global Development told OneWorld. "That comes out of two centuries or more of history where North America and Europe have experienced steady and fairly rapid industrial development. Meanwhile, places like Asia and Africa haven't so much."

Rauchman said foreign aid programs and philanthropy would go part of the way toward closing the international wealth gap, but trade and immigration policies are also important.

"If we make it easier for clothing manufacturers and farmers in Bangladesh or Mali to ship their goods to the United States so Americans can buy them, that will help and it will be good for us too," he said. "Same thing for immigration. It's good for Mexico if Mexicans can come to the United States and send money home. If we make it easier for people to come and participate in our economy, it's actually good for economies in the rest of the world."

But unfettered free trade tends to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, says Anuradha Mittal of the California-based Oakland Institute, a think tank that specializes in social, economic, and environmental issues. She says the rise of free trade has increased the wealth gap, both internationally and inside many countries.

Mittal cites as an example the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed in 1992 by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. "Instead of Mexico being able to export its food to the United States, what's really happened is that U.S. corn exports to Mexico have tripled, pushing 2 million Mexican corn farmers out of business. And those are the very people who then migrate [to the United States]."

Those migrants then work for low wages inside the United States, Mittal argues, pushing wages for all workers down.

In addition, says Mittal, "when you talk about the ability to export you're talking about big plantations, which creates further inequities inside of countries. You're not going to be talking about [improving livelihoods for] small farmers in Mexico or Honduras or India."

One solution put forward by the authors of the United Nations University report is expanding access to microcredit--small loans given to poor people who are not able to get traditional lines of credit from regular banks. The loans, which are often used to help establish or improve small businesses, have proved to be quite safe, with many lenders experiencing repayment rates close to 100 percent.

This month, Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering microcredit program. Yunus shared the award with the Grameen Bank, which he founded 30 years ago. The bank gives small, unsecured loans to nearly 7 million impoverished Bangladeshis--almost all of whom are women.

Yunus started by lending 42 people a total of $27.

"The excitement that was created among the people by this action got me further involved in it," he said in his Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo. "If I could make so many people so happy with such a tiny amount of money, why shouldn't I do more of it? That's what I have been trying to do ever since."

"Grameen Bank gives collateral-free income-generating loans, housing loans, student loans, and micro-enterprise loans to poor families and offers a host of attractive savings, pension funds, and insurance products for its members," Yunus added.

But despite its benefits, Mittal notes that microcredit alone is unlikely to put a significant dent in the international wealth gap.

"Research shows that more than 55 percent of borrowers after eight years of borrowing are still using their loans to buy food," she said. "So while microcredit is a good survival strategy, it is not a solution for development."

[halg]

Hi, again, halg. I am perhaps the newest member of the Green Party. I changed my voter registration from Democratic Party to Green Party 12/21/2006 after having spent most of my voting life casting my ballot for the lesser of evils running on the Republican and Democratic Party tickets. Finally, having seen NAFTA put through under Democrat Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, and Cecil Rhodes connection to secret societies, and Clinton, who we now see is best friends with Bush '41' who is a member of The Order of Skull & Bones and attendee at Bohemian Grove along with Bush '43;' a huge number of FEMA concentration camps having been built in America under both Republican and Democratic administrations with FEMA only and directly under the control of the Whitehouse and responsible for the whitewashed 9/11 Report; horrendous individual and social mind control, etc., I concluded that there is no way to work within the major political party system to effect change given that time is now so short before plans for world corporate and secret society domination becomes reality.

Interesting. I might agree with you on most of what you say here.


I did make a recommendation for the Green Party platform on this site, namely, to outlaw secret societies from the Green Party with provisions for removal if discovered after the fact. That issue needs to be taken seriously and acted upon within the Green Party lest the Green Party find itself highjacked at the point that it becomes a politically viable force in Federal government!


Very interesting. I almost balked a moment ago after first reading this. But then, in an instant's further reflection, I decided to be open to this notion.

I suppose the Green Party could get hijacked, as you say. In a sense, it may already be hijacked. There are a lot of people out there trying to posture as being "Green," when in fact they are nothing of the sort. I don't care to get into an argument about semantics (for anyone listening in on this public board). All I mean is that there is huge chasm between true Green and so-called progressives pretending and trying to attract the truly Green.

For this reason, I think all (true) Greens everywhere must be on a constant lookout for false prophets of Green wisdom. If every Green does that, then there is less of a tendency for surreptitious infiltration by undesirables.

One thing is a sure clue: The truly passionate and genuine types who are members of the GP tend to be participators, not talkers. I am proud to say that my small local is a group of very, very dedicated people who are working toward very Green social goals. It would be hard for a criminal to bust this group I think.


I also recommended on this site that the Green Party work to draft Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for President on the Green Party ticket.


Hmmm. I don't know if I will buy that or not. After reading Zinn, I get the feeling that JFK and RFK were not quite as progressive as one might be led to believe. OTOH, I know that picking at issues surrounding the revered Kennedy legacy is a sore point for many dedicated, old school Dems who just can't give up on the idea that JFK and FDR were to be esteemed and admired. Read Zinn for a awful, long, political cold shower.

I do appreciate your comments.

[FDRfollower]

Hi Halg. Kudos for trying to keep the discussion at a level moderated tone. When a conservative comes around, it tends to become impossible to keep it that way.

I've found that, in the stable of historians that one can choose, Zinn ranks very low. Having had the unpleasant experience of reading his "work", I am reminded of how the neo-cons suckered everyone into this war, with their use of cherry-picked "intelligence", stovepiped through the office of special planning. His agenda is simply to present the United States in the worst possible light, and finding every bad thing that happened to make his case. I find that boring. There's plenty in our history to present as a paradox to the two sides of what has made up the United States. Those who sided with the European oligarchy and their philosophy, in subjugating the US to the status of colony, and those who had the opposite outlook and fought to make the nation a "Beacon of Hope and Temple of Liberty" for all mankind.

[Jane of Arc]

Okay FDR ... ya' know I love ya' ... but it's time to go to the mats! :eek:

I need more than your opinion when you vaguely attack Howard Zinn saying, "His agenda is simply to present the United States in the worst possible light."

For once a celebrated, brilliant scholar comes up with a new perspective, a ground-shaking, much fairer perspective than ever before and you trash him? A People's History of the United States is a breath of fresh air that needed, desperately needed to be written. Don't we have enough history written from the one-sided view of rich European men? How about history from the pespective of the women, the African slaves, the Native Americans and every other group that got stomped on by rich European men.

I need some facts, quotes and examples, dear, as to why you judge Zinn as ranking low.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

A huge issue on my political agenda is the elimination of depleted uranium military munitions as a matter of international law. There are already many horrific examples in Kosovo, Iraq and the United States of genetic damage to infants caused by exposure to exploded depleted uranium munitions. To go along with that, is clean up and elimination of land mines also as a matter of international law. Too, I strongly advocate for the creation of a fully funded United States Department of Peace to exist independantly of the United States Department of Defense that Kucinich and Lee support, among others in Congress.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Taken from the Democracy index I posted in another thread in this Press Room, the following is the rating of all countries that have "Full Democracy with the United States rating positioned between Spain and the Czech Republic:"



THE WORLD IN 2OO7 Democracy index 3
Table 1

Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006

Category scores

Overall I Electoral process II Functioning III Political IV Political V Civil

Rank score and pluralism of government participation culture liberties

Full democracies

01. Sweden 1 9.88 10.00 10.00 10.00 9.38 10.00

02. Iceland 2 9.71 10.00 9.64 8.89 10.00 10.00

03. Netherlands 3 9.66 9.58 9.29 9.44 10.00 10.00

04 Norway 4 9.55 10.00 9.64 10.00 8.13 10.00

05. Denmark 5 9.52 10.00 9.64 8.89 9.38 9.71

06. Finland 6 9.25 10.00 10.00 7.78 8.75 9.71

07. Luxembourg 7 9.10 10.00 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71

08. Australia 8 9.09 10.00 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00

09. Canada 9 9.07 9.17 9.64 7.78 8.75 10.00

10. Switzerland 10 9.02 9.58 9.29 7.78 8.75 9.71

11. Ireland 11= 9.01 9.58 8.93 7.78 8.75 10.00

12. New Zealand 11= 9.01 10.00 8.57 8.33 8.13 10.00

13. Germany 13 8.82 9.58 8.57 7.78 8.75 9.41

14. Austria 14 8.69 9.58 8.21 7.78 8.75 9.12

15. Malta 15 8.39 9.17 8.21 6.11 8.75 9.71

16. Spain 16 8.34 9.58 7.86 6.11 8.75 9.41

17. US 17 8.22 8.75 7.86 7.22 8.75 8.53 (Note: 8.53)

18. Czech Republic 18 8.17 9.58 6.79 7.22 8.13 9.12

19. Portugal 19 8.16 9.58 8.21 6.11 7.50 9.41

20. Belgium 20= 8.15 9.58 8.21 6.67 6.88 9.41

21. Japan 20= 8.15 9.17 7.86 5.56 8.75 9.41

22. Greece 22 8.13 9.58 7.50 6.67 7.50 9.41

23. UK 23 8.08 9.58 8.57 5.00 8.13 9.12

24. France 24 8.07 9.58 7.50 6.67 7.50 9.12

25. Mauritius 25= 8.04 9.17 8.21 5.00 8.13 9.71

26. Costa Rica 25= 8.04 9.58 8.21 6.11 6.88 9.41

27. Slovenia 27= 7.96 9.58 7.86 6.67 6.88 8.82

28. Uruguay 27= 7.96 10.00 8.21 5.00 6.88 9.71

Defining and measuring democracy

There is no consensus on how to measure democracy,
definitions of democracy are contested and there is an
ongoing lively debate on the subject. The issue is not
only of academic interest. For example, although democracy-
promotion is high on the list of American
foreign-policy priorities, there is no consensus within
the American government on what constitutes a democracy.
As one observer recently put it, “the world’s
only superpower is rhetorically and militarily promoting
a political system that remains undefi ned—and it
is staking its credibility and treasure on that pursuit”
(Horowitz, 2006, p 114).

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



Although the terms “freedom” and “democracy”
are often used interchangeably, the two are not synonymous.
Democracy can be seen as a set of practices
and principles that institutionalise and thus ultimately
protect freedom. Even if a consensus on precise defi nitions
has proved elusive, most observers today would
agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a
democracy include government based on majority rule
and the consent of the governed, the existence of free
and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect
for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes
equality before the law, due process and political pluralism.
Is reference to these basic features suffi cient for a
satisfactory concept of democracy? As discussed below,
there is a question of how far the defi nition may need
to be widened.

Some insist that democracy is necessarily a dichotomous
concept—a state is either democratic or not. But
most measures now appear to adhere to a continuous
concept, with the possibility of varying degrees of democracy.
At present, the best-known measure is produced
by the US-based Freedom House organisation.
The average of its indexes, on a 1 to 7 scale, of political
freedom (based on 10 indicators) and of civil liberties
(based on 15 indicators) is often taken to be a measure
of democracy.

The index is available for all countries, and stretches
back to the early 1970s. It has been used heavily in empirical
investigations of the relationship between democracy
and various economic and social variables. The
so-called Polity Project provides, for a smaller number
of countries, measures of democracy and regime types,
based on rather minimalist defi nitions, stretching back
to the 19th century.

Freedom House also measures a narrower concept,
that of “electoral democracy”. Democracies in this minimal
sense share at least one common, essential characteristic.
Positions of political power are fi lled through
regular, free, and fair elections between competing parties,
and it is possible for an incumbent government
to be turned out of offi ce through elections.

Freedom House criteria for an electoral democracy include:

1. A competitive, multiparty political system.

2. Universal adult suffrage.

3. Regularly contested elections conducted on the basis
of secret ballots, reasonable ballot security and the
absence of massive voter fraud.

4. Significant public access of major political parties to
the electorate through the media and through generally
open campaigning.

The Freedom House definition of political freedom is
somewhat (though not much) more demanding than
its criteria for electoral democracy—ie, it classifies more
countries as electoral democracies than as “free” (some
“partly free” countries are also categorised as electoral
democracies). At the end of 2005, 122 states were
classified as electoral democracies; of these, 89 states were
classifi ed as free. The Freedom House political-freedom
measure covers the electoral process and political pluralism
and, to a lesser extent, the functioning of government
and a few aspects of participation.

A key difference in the various measures of democracy
is between “thin” or minimalist ones and “thick”
or wider concepts (Coppedge, 2005). The thin concepts
correspond closely to an immensely infl uential academic
defi nition of democracy, that of Robert Dahl’s
concept of polyarchy (Dahl, 1970). Polyarchy has eight
components, or institutional requirements: almost all
adult citizens have the right to vote; almost all adult citizens
are eligible for public offi ce; political leaders have
the right to compete for votes; elections are free and fair;
all citizens are free to form and join political parties and
other organisations; all citizens are free to express themselves
on all political issues; diverse sources of information
about politics exist and are protected by law; and
government policies depend on votes and other expressions
of preference.

The Freedom House electoral democracy measure
is a thin concept. Its measure of democracy based on
political rights and civil liberties is thicker than the
measure of electoral democracy. Other defi nitions of
democracy have broadened to include aspects of society
and political culture in democratic societies.

2 Democracy index THE WORLD IN 2OO7

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s measure of
democracy

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index is based on the
view that measures of democracy that refl ect the state
of political freedoms and civil liberties are not thick
enough. They do not encompass suffi ciently or at all
some features that determine how substantive democracy
is or its quality. Freedom is an essential component
of democracy, but not suffi cient. In existing measures,
the elements of political participation and functioning
of government are taken into account only in a marginal
way.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



The Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index
is based on fi ve categories: electoral process and pluralism;
civil liberties; the functioning of government;
political participation; and political culture. The fi ve
categories are interrelated and form a coherent conceptual
whole. The condition of having free and fair
competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of
political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all
definitions.

All modern definitions, except the most minimalist,
also consider civil liberties to be a vital component of
what is often called “liberal democracy”. The principle of
the protection of basic human rights is widely accepted.
It is embodied in constitutions throughout the world as
well as in the UN Charter and international agreements
such as the Helsinki Final Act. Basic human rights include
freedom of speech, expression and the press; freedom
of religion; freedom of assembly and association;
and the right to due judicial process. All democracies are
systems in which citizens freely make political decisions
by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily
democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be
combined with guarantees of individual human rights
and the rights of minorities.

Most measures also include aspects of the minimum
quality of functioning of government. If democratically
based decisions cannot or are not implemented then the
concept of democracy is not very meaningful or it becomes
an empty shell.

Democracy is more than the sum of its institutions.
A democratic political culture is also crucial for
the legitimacy, smooth functioning and ultimately the
sustainability of democracy. A culture of passivity and
apathy, an obedient and docile citizenry, are not consistent
with democracy. The electoral process periodically
divides the population into winners and losers. A successful
democratic political culture implies that the losing
parties and their supporters accept the judgment of
the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power.
Participation is also a necessary component, as
apathy and abstention are inimical to democracy. Even
measures that focus predominantly on the processes of
representative, liberal democracy include (although inadequately
or insuffi ciently) some aspects of participation.
In a democracy, government is only one element in
a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political
organisations and associations. Citizens cannot be required
to take part in the political process, and they are
free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating.
However, a healthy democracy requires the active, freely
chosen participation of citizens in public life. Democracies
fl ourish when citizens are willing to take part in
public debate, elect representatives and join political
parties. Without this broad, sustaining participation,
democracy begins to wither and become the preserve of
small, select groups.

At the same time, even our thicker, more inclusive
and wider measure of democracy does not include
other aspects—which some authors argue are also crucial
components of democracy—such as levels of economic
and social wellbeing. Thus our index respects the
dominant tradition that holds that a variety of social
and economic outcomes can be consistent with political
democracy.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Continued:



The Economist Intelligence Unit’s index provides a
snapshot of the current state of democracy worldwide
for 165 independent states and two territories. This covers
almost the entire population of the world and the
vast majority of the world’s 192 independent states (27
micro-states are excluded).

Several things stand out. Although almost half of the
world’s countries can be considered to be democracies,
the number of “full democracies” is relatively low (only
28). Almost twice as many (54) are rated as “flawed democracies”.
Of the remaining 85 states, 55 are authoritarian
and 30 are considered to be “hybrid regimes”. As
could be expected, the developed OECD countries (with
the notable exception of Italy) dominate among full democracies,
although there are two Latin American, two
central European and one African country, which means
that the level of development is not a binding constraint.
Only one Asian country, Japan, makes the grade.
More than half of the world’s population lives in a
democracy of some sort, although only some 13% reside
in full democracies. Despite the advances in democracy
in recent decades, almost 40% of the world’s population
still lives under authoritarian rule (with a large share of
these being, of course, in China). Given the most recent
trends, that are tantamount to a retreat from democracy
as discussed in our article in The World in 2007, it is
unlikely that this proportion will decrease signifi cantly
soon. On our ten-country watchlist for likely signifi cant
changes in 2007 (see box below) only one country is on
positive watch and nine are on negative watch.

The relationship between the level of development
(income per head) and democracy is not clear-cut.
There is an apparent association, although even in the
full democracy category there are a few that are not rich
OECD countries. The simple correlation between our
democracy index and GDP per head ($ at PPP) in 2006
is 0.6. This may look surprisingly low—it implies that in
a simple two-variable regression of the democracy index
on income per head, less than 40% of the inter-country
variation in democracy is explained by income levels. If
we also control for oil wealth (with a so-called dummy
variable that takes a value of 1 for major oil exporting
countries and 0 otherwise), the explanatory power of the
regression rises sharply to almost two-thirds of the intercountry
variation in the democracy index. Although this
still leaves more than one-third of the variation unexplained,
it illustrates the often-observed strong negative
impact on democratic development of a reliance on oil.

However, the direction of causality between democracy
and income is debatable. The standard modernisation
hypothesis that economic development leads
to—and is a necessary pre-condition for—democracy,

[Jennifer_SFBA]

A case in point as to why the U.S. ranks below the middle among countries with a full democracy, is the Marriage Amendment being pursued to institutionalize discrimination against GLBT people AND liberal churches who approve of GLBT marriages in Massachussets where I was until I was 12 years old, then moved with my parents to California.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

To see video, please click on " Demonstrators Gather Outside Statehouse; Legislature Faces Gay Marriage Vote " that is to the left of the story that is at the link above.



Mass. lawmakers vote on gay marriage By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.

The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of legislators in two consecutive sessions.

On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted in favor of moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.

If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the constitutional amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban any new ones.

About 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry. A few other states offer civil unions with similar rights for gay couples, but only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.

Backers of the amendment argue that it should be up to the people, not the courts, to define something as important as marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage say the civil rights of a minority should not be put to a popular vote.

Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick on Tuesday had met with leading lawmakers and urged them to skip the vote, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."

Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, skipping the vote would have effectively killed the amendment effort.

Instead, the Senate president called for a vote shortly after opening the constitutional convention, though he left open a chance for parliamentary maneuvers by gay marriage supporters to try to reverse the vote.

"I'm very proud that we took a vote," said Democratic Sen. Sue Tucker, who opposed the amendment. "I think we owed the people that. At the same time, I'm also equally proud of my 'no' vote."

Last fall, the Legislature had angered the amendment's backers and Gov. Mitt Romney when it recessed without voting on the amendment. They appealed to the state Supreme Judicial Court, which said it was powerless to intervene but chastised lawmakers, saying they had shirked their constitutional duties by not voting at all.

Lawmakers arriving for Tuesday's vote were greeted outside the Statehouse by crowds of gay marriage supporters and opponents waving signs.

"Legislators are sent to Beacon Hill to vote on a matter, not to not vote on a matter," said amendment backer Paul Ferro, 30, of Norton.

A sign in the crowd of amendment supporters nearby read, "Let the people vote," while at the pro-gay marriage rally across the street, another sign read, "Let the people marry."

[FDRfollower]

Okay FDR ... ya' know I love ya' ... but it's time to go to the mats! :eek:

I need more than your opinion when you vaguely attack Howard Zinn saying, "His agenda is simply to present the United States in the worst possible light."

For once a celebrated, brilliant scholar comes up with a new perspective, a ground-shaking, much fairer perspective than ever before and you trash him? A People's History of the United States is a breath of fresh air that needed, desperately needed to be written. Don't we have enough history written from the one-sided view of rich European men? How about history from the pespective of the women, the African slaves, the Native Americans and every other group that got stomped on by rich European men.

I need some facts, quotes and examples, dear, as to why you judge Zinn as ranking low.

Hmmm. I've been in various book stores (university, leftist, socialist) and I see quite a number of books written from all sorts of perspectives. The bay area is super for bookstores with those kind of books.

I borrowed "A peoples history" 6 years back, so I don't have the book on hand in order to quote it. From my reading, all I can remember was just a long, boring, serious of facts about bad things that were done to various other people by white people. For you, I'll go get it from the local library, so I can be as accurate as possible. I don't know the particulars about his personal life beyond the brief biography I've read of him, but isn't he a rich white european?

A fellow who works here, attended his universty lectures, and was very frank in saying that he thought Zinn was an idiot. Since I haven't attended them, I won't reserve any judgements.

Pardon me while I run off to the library.

[Jane of Arc]

Thank you FDR for being the kind of scholar who does homework. That's great. I have my copy of the book on my desk right next to me. I also will need to freshen up on it. And then we can assume positions on the mat and start to rumble! :jumpjoy: :whipit: Alright, I won't use a whip.

I've seen Zinn speak twice and he's brilliant. Could your friend be an idiot? :) Most conservatives hate Zinn and Chomsky ... I mean HATE ... precisely because they are so lethal and LEFT!

This will be a very productive debate. It's important that POL's brilliant Historian be well-rounded.

[FDRfollower]

Thank you FDR for being the kind of scholar who does homework. That's great. I have my copy of the book on my desk right next to me. I also will need to freshen up on it. And then we can assume positions on the mat and start to rumble!

I've seen Zinn speak twice and he's brilliant. Could your friend be an idiot? :) Most conservatives hate Zinn and Chomsky ... I mean HATE ... precisely because they are so lethal and LEFT!

This will be a very productive debate. It's important that POL's brilliant Historian be well-rounded.

If you had seen my friend give a class, you would think he was a pretty smart cookie actually. He may be a little brusque sometimes, but gives decent classes. Too bad he isn't published. Conservatives tend to be idiots about things sometimes. Chomsky put me to sleep. I can't see why the right thinks he's so "dangerous". The local branch didn't have Zinns book, so I'll have to go to the downtown main library. :)

[Jennifer_SFBA]

United States Senator, Independant, Vermont, Bernie Sanders, democratic socialist:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802382.html



Vermont
Bernard Sanders (I)
Thursday, November 9, 2006; Page A38


Bernard Sanders (I) is the first self-proclaimed socialist to become a U.S. senator. The eight-term congressman, known to voters as Bernie, ran on a populist platform, promising to empower farmers, veterans, the elderly and the indigent.

His opponent, the near-billionaire businessman Richard Tarrant, described Sanders as a "red" from New York. Sanders, 65, was raised by Jewish parents from Poland. His style is cantankerous cabbie -- his accent more Brooklyn than Burlington.

While campaigning, Sanders told reporters that the United States should learn from the democratic socialist models in Northern Europe. He first ran for the Senate in 1972, as the candidate of the socialist Liberty Union Party. He won 2.2 percent of the vote.

Sanders has since become a popular figure in the state. One TV spot for Sanders featured Vermont's sweetest celebrities: Ben and Jerry.

[FDRfollower]

Ok Jane D'arc, there's a new thread in the book section where we can discuss Zinn's book. See you there soon.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, halg. Green comes in many shades. To win elections, it's important to be inclusive of the many shades of Green that there may be within the context of the Green Party's platform.

Though I have never owned a gun, I do not support gun control. It would be more than a little difficult for me to stand by while an innocent, or innocent victims was/were in imminant danger of dying at the hands of another. Bhudists believe that the taking of a life is justified when that life taking is in defense of an innocent who would otherwise die. Guns I would buy for defense are a 1911, Mossberg 500 HS 410 and the Smith and Wesson Lady Smith 3913LS. I am not a vegetarian, but am mindlful of and sensitive to animal and plant life and have turned more toward sea food and chicken and generally away from beef. If God had meant for our world to be peaceful, God would never have made it so we have to eat, HA!. There is a joke that, "I became a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants!" Remember the book, "The Secret Life of Plants?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants

I am a plant communicator. What that means is that I pychicly connect with plants and have two way communications with them not unlike communications in a vivid dream. Plants who I have communicated with have the characteristic of being completely self centric. They have told me every part of themselves that is able to used, how to prepare it and what each part will do medicinally in the human body.

http://www.findhorn.org/home_new.php

http://www.findhorn.org/about_us/display_new.php

Some American Indians communicated psychically, spiritually with animals on hunts, thought by them to have presented itself/themselves willingly. All of the parts of the animal were used. The human spirit of thankfulness was present and ceremony took place after the hunt.

As I see it, based on my life experiences, being really Green, then, is being psychicly and spiritually in connection/communion with nature. Living psychicly and spiritually disconnencted from nature would make a Green Party member so living no better or worse than a member of any other political party with a political ideology, but without soul connection to nature and life. I feel shure that, as a group, collectively, Green Party members have more of that spirituality than, as a collective group, members of other political parties do with the exception of the Natural Law party, John Hagelin, Ph.D. and those of his ilk. I was a member of the Natural Law Party, but it got nowhere because the vast majority Americans are not yet at the level of the Natural Law Party. The leadership of the Natural Law Party are meditators from the school, Trancendantal Meditation.

http://hagelin.org/

For the Natural Law Party campaign for John Hagelin, President of the Untited States of America, 2000, the political piece below was wiritten:

http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/hagelin.html

John Hagelin is one of the people featured in the free Google video below, "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...+we+know&hl=en

[Jennifer_SFBA]

For those who would hunt for food and survival, I would recommend the best rifle ever produced for that purpose, the Winchester 70 pre 1964 in my opnion. Expect to pay over $1,000.00 for it if you do find one and possibly way more than that.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

For those who would hunt for food and survival, I would recommend the best rifle ever produced ifor that purpose, the Winchester 70 pre 1964 in my opnion. Expect to pay over $1,000.00 for it if you do find one and maybe way more than that.

As for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Green Party candidate for President of the United States of America, there is quite alot about him at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy,_Jr.

[halg]

Freedom House criteria for an electoral democracy include:

1. A competitive, multiparty political system.

2. Universal adult suffrage.

3. Regularly contested elections conducted on the basis
of secret ballots, reasonable ballot security and the
absence of massive voter fraud.

4. Significant public access of major political parties to
the electorate through the media and through generally
open campaigning.


I think I like Freedom House.

[halg]

Hi, halg. Green comes in many shades. To win elections, it's important to be inclusive of the many shades of Green that there may be within the context of the Green Party's platform.

... [more follows] ...



Ehhh ... what exactly prompted you to tell ME this? I already agree that Green comes in many shades -- you should see my Green Local!

Are you trying to make a point, or teach me something? Or are you really addressing others on this forum? You might want to quote some sections of others' posts, like I did to yours, when responding so we understand what context you are speaking in.

Thanks ahead of time for clarification.

[halg]

Hi Halg. Kudos for trying to keep the discussion at a level moderated tone. When a conservative comes around, it tends to become impossible to keep it that way.
Who is the conservative here? You are listed as a Dem. Are you a conservative Dem, or some other variety?

Any way is fine by me. Just want to be clear, that's all.


I've found that, in the stable of historians that one can choose, Zinn ranks very low.

You say "I've found that ..." How exactly did you FIND that? Do you mean this is your own opinion, or did you FIND this out from other, primary sources? Please state. Again, just want to be clear. Thanks.


Having had the unpleasant experience of reading his "work",

I think it is fair to say that, although many parts of "Peoples History" flow, there are plenty that don't. For one thing, he jumps forward and back in time many places in the book. This technique is unnecessary and distracting for his purposes.

That said, it is still the finest, fairest, and most thorough tome of American History I have ever heard of from anyone, anywhere. My High School textbook is not even in the running.

One major point to his credit is that it is very complete. It seems like he has covered every major historical event over a 500 year period, focusing particularly on the public reaction to these events.


I am reminded of how the neo-cons suckered everyone into this war, with their use of cherry-picked "intelligence", stovepiped through the office of special planning. His agenda is simply to present the United States in the worst possible light, and finding every bad thing that happened to make his case. I find that boring.

Well, I am sorry you find it boring. The truth often IS boring.

Interestingly, you start off pointing out how this whole war is a hustle by the neo-cons, then point out how Zinn points out US history in a negative light. Well, it seems to me your first point kinda supports the second point. Doesn't it? Isn't this war just one more ongoing example of the tyranny of the few?

I wouldn't get on any debating teams, unless you want to lose.


There's plenty in our history to present as a paradox to the two sides of what has made up the United States.

Paradox? I think this is a red herring, a mere distraction from the point. Sure some good stuff has gone down too, but not thanks to the Federal Government. You give me an example of what you think the US Govt did right, and I'll use the index at the end of Zinn and point out how it just isn't so.


Those who sided with the European oligarchy and their philosophy, in subjugating the US to the status of colony, and those who had the opposite outlook and fought to make the nation a "Beacon of Hope and Temple of Liberty" for all mankind.

GO AMERICA GO! Rah rah. More neo-con bulloney. :roll eyes:

That's exactly how Bush et al got the American public pumped up on the current war. "Oh don't look at all the bad stuff, look at how great America is...blah blah puke puke retch retch..."

[halg]

Thank you FDR for being the kind of scholar who does homework. That's great. I have my copy of the book on my desk right next to me. I also will need to freshen up on it. And then we can assume positions on the mat and start to rumble! Alright, I won't use a whip.

You may not need one. You can win this with one hand behind your back and the other holding "People's History." This is a book of pure truth -- boring perhaps, but still the truth -- and nothing can match the power of truth. Nothing I tell ya.:)


I've seen Zinn speak twice and he's brilliant. Could your friend be an idiot? :) Most conservatives hate Zinn and Chomsky ... I mean HATE ... precisely because they are so lethal and LEFT!

This will be a very productive debate. It's important that POL's brilliant Historian be well-rounded.
Take FDR down to that mat, Jane ... (but watch the ad hominem, it won't help)

[halg]

Ok Jane D'arc, there's a new thread in the book section where we can discuss Zinn's book. See you there soon.

Hey, wait for me! I want to see this.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, halg. You wrote the following:

I suppose the Green Party could get hijacked, as you say. In a sense, it may already be hijacked. There are a lot of people out there trying to posture as being "Green," when in fact they are nothing of the sort. I don't care to get into an argument about semantics (for anyone listening in on this public board). All I mean is that there is huge chasm between true Green and so-called progressives pretending and trying to attract the truly Green.

For this reason, I think all (true) Greens everywhere must be on a constant lookout for false prophets of Green wisdom. If every Green does that, then there is less of a tendency for surreptitious infiltration by undesirables.

One thing is a sure clue: The truly passionate and genuine types who are members of the GP tend to be participators, not talkers. I am proud to say that my small local is a group of very, very dedicated people who are working toward very Green social goals. It would be hard for a criminal to bust this group I think.

To make clear where I am on that subject, I wrote:

Green comes in many shades. To win elections, it's important to be inclusive of the many shades of Green that there may be within the context of the Green Party's platform.

... As I see it, based on my life experiences, being really Green, then, is being psychicly and spiritually in connection/communion with nature. Living psychicly and spiritually disconnencted from nature would make a Green Party member so living no better or worse than a member of any other political party with a political ideology, but without soul connection to nature and life. I feel shure that, as a group, collectively, Green Party members have more of that spirituality than, as a collective group, members of other political parties do with the exception of the Natural Law party, John Hagelin, Ph.D. and those of his ilk. I was a member of the Natural Law Party, but it got nowhere because the vast majority Americans are not yet at the level of the Natural Law Party. The leadership of the Natural Law Party are meditators from the school, Trancendantal Meditation.

http://hagelin.org/

For the Natural Law Party campaign for John Hagelin, President of the United States of America, 2000, the political piece below was wiritten:

http://www.natural-law.org/introduction/hagelin.html

John Hagelin is one of the people featured in the free Google video below, "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...+we+know&hl=en

That's the meaning.

As an afterthought, I responded back to you in a later post about John F. Kennedy, Jr.

As for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Green Party candidate for President of the United States of America, there is quite alot about him at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy,_Jr.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Political Independant, Senator Bernie Sanders has a legislative bill that will go nowhere UNLESS We, the people are proactively involved with Congress to make Bernie's present legislative role in the accomplishment of the American Dream come true:



Posted 03/15/2007 @ 2:01pm
Legislation Watch

Senator Bernie Sanders – founder and current member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus – wants to raise $100 billion to address the needs of ordinary Americans who are currently struggling, and another $30 billion to lower the deficit.

"It's very, very simple," Sanders told me, "if we have the guts to stand up to the wealthiest one percent of America."

Sanders has introduced the National Priorities Act to "expand the middle class, reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and lower the poverty rate" – largely through rescinding the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of American taxpayers.

Speaking at a Senate Budget Committee meeting yesterday, Sanders said of a current Senate Budget Resolution for FY 2008: "While the Budget Resolution… is far from perfect, it is much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans than the President's….But I think that over the long-term, we can and must do much better in establishing our budgetary priorities than this budget does."

Sanders' National Priorities Act makes his budgetary priorities crystal clear: providing primary and dental care to millions of Americans and health insurance for children; full funding for veterans health care; increasing access to affordable childcare and fully funding Head Start; lowering property taxes by federally covering 40 percent of special education costs for kids; providing 330,000 additional Pell Grants and doubling the maximum allowable amount; creating 200,000 jobs by investing in renewable energy, public transit, and high speed rail; creating 180,000 jobs by constructing, preserving, and rehabilitating at least 150,000 affordable housing rental units; reducing taxes for 10 million working families by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; and reducing the deficit by $30 billion.

"We're going to make people discuss the idea that if we were to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, this is what we could do," Sanders said. Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of Democrats – especially in the Senate – who don't want to have that discussion at all. The Republicans have had great success in scaring the bejeezus out of Democrats that come election year, any tax increase on the rich will be misconstrued (through successful Republican spin – and Fox) as raising taxes on everyone.

"It's like Bush with the so-called ‘death tax,'" Sanders says. "Never mind that the estate tax only impacts the wealthiest 3/10th of 1 percent of our population – the Republicans have people thinking it's about small businessmen, family farmers, and ordinary Americans…. And in this case – with my legislation – they scare good people into thinking that it's ‘radical' to rescind taxes on the top 1 percent… even though it's been poll tested and the American people support it!"

Because of the "radical" label there are currently no cosponsors of this legislation and Sanders doesn't seem to be holding his breath for any sudden rush.

"I'm in this for the long haul," he says. "We're going to push Democrats to begin to take on the Big Money interests that have held sway in this institution for too many years."

This truly independent Senator from Vermont has done a great service in providing a simple yet powerful vision of what might be achieved with the right priorities and a dose of courage.

[halg]

I went back and scanned through this entire thread ... now your responses make sense to me. Sorry, I lost track of it all.

This has been a hard year for me. That's why I haven't been around much. Looks to me like FDR man has come around a bit during my absence, which could be a good thing. I see this thread hasn't seen much activity since then though ...

[halg]

Hi, halg. Green comes in many shades. To win elections, it's important to be inclusive of the many shades of Green that there may be within the context of the Green Party's platform.

Now that I understand which of my posts you were responding to, I can comment appropriately on this. Once again, sorry for my own laziness.

Yes, it is true that Greens come in many shades. I am a strong proponent of diversity, so this works for me. What does not work, however, are false labels. I wasn't talking about the pro-gun v. anti-gun control Greens. What I meant was that there are some very phony "greens" out there.

One example of this are the people who just can't seem to lose capitalism for something better (like socialism). So they put on their best capitalist thinking caps and figure out a way to leverage Green into profitable enterprises with an ROI that meets shareholder expectations. (This last sentence is a clue that these people do NOT understand what Green is.) Once again, the charlatans of economic externalization go right back to work as if nothing has happened. And for them, nothing has happened indeed.

So, you replace your Edison light bulbs with compact flourescent bulbs (CFB's). Big deal. The bulbs are made in third-world countries by slave ("underpaid") workers (social injustice), and use elements that are toxic to the environment (ecological destruction). There is little if any talk of what to do with those CFB's when they die or if they break (flourescent material released into the environment is hazardous and can be deadly if it enters the bloodstream, as I understand).

Here's another one: Cars getting higher gas mileage. I agree, and it's long overdue. But wouldn't a much better idea be to put work where people live? Eliminate trips? Create local jobs? End economic disparities and social inequities? Encourage community-based economics? Why aren't we doing that also, at the same time?

So-called "Green Capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism depends on the ability to ignore "hidden" costs -- like slave labor, displaced workers, pollution, greenhouse warming, gigantic oil spills, homelessness, hunger, and the ravages of war -- when determining profits. Being Green means not obsessing about economic profitability at the microeconomic level, but being concerned about overall balance between the forces of nature and the needs of human society.

If a capitalist is concerning themselves more with ensuring fair pay for their workers, and eliminating hunger and poverty, as opposed to federally-subsidized (by war) oil products, they will not be able to compete against others since their classical capitalist competition is externalizing these costs. Unless at least some of the overhead for Green enterprise is subsidized or externalized, Green can't compete against classical Capitalist.

But as soon as some of the cost of Green is subsidized, you have socialism! The difference is just that capitalists want corporate subsidy that benefits a small elite class at the expense of the rest of society and the environment, whereas socialists want (of course) universal subsidy that benefits all with as little impact to the environment as possible.

Phony is what phony does. Real Green requires a different mindset than Capitalism. Green must think in terms of the overall impact on everything and everyone all at once. Externalities are forbidden in this worldview. Green must be responsible to him/herself, family, society, and the environment. Capitalist does not have these restrictions and commits ecological and economic violence for the privilege of ignoring them, which results in ecological destruction and social injustice, which are intolerable to Green.

Let's just drop this whole silly notion of "green capitalism." And continue to educate people about the differences between Real Greens and Robber Greens. That was the distinction I was referring to.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, halg.

Thank you for sharing in depth views concerning Greens, Socialism vs. Capitalism. I do not believe that Communism is an answer. We have seen the abuses of Communism. We have seen the abuses of Capitalism. We, as a techologically developed people, have yet to try Communalism. The links below describe what Communalism may look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf1gZxmIDKw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsaSFonaa8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc7x79kJ1S0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTQXgVb8V9M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSbKfdOTRpY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbtbGcKiLiM

http://www.thevenusproject.com/vgallery.html

[halg]

Yeah, OK, "communalism". Someone is repackaging the older idea, dropping the insinuations that go with it. I've read about it, and I understand the concept. Jacque Fresco's "visionary" outlook seems more like pages out of a 60's Star Trek collector's edition than any honest new discussion about the future. (In other words, big f---ing deal, fancy-shmancy "futuristic" architecture. We already have lots of faceless, gleaming glass and steel towers. I don't see much difference in his designs, frankly. Actually, I find them all very UGLY myself.)

I have been discussing intentional living and integrated live-work-learn-play communities for several years now. (I studied urban planning and architecture in a past life 10-20 years ago.) The difference is that I see this notion more as a big family of families rather than some big automated, homogenized gray world. There needs to be a sensible scale where individuals are not swallowed up by THE MACHINE, regardless of the intent.

Interesting topic, though.

[ababof]

Hi, glad to read you both in this nurturing topic.

Jennifer, communism is not an issue today anyway, whereas socialism is, and suffers from the constant communism-socialism in a same pot capitalists want to fuel. They see no contradiction, however in making business as usual with everyone. When China claims a communism of market, it is not only an oxymoron, but an insult to intelligence. But not to business.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Yes, American socialism is on the One World Government, New World Order, Fourth Reich menu a la Shrub & Cheney, et al. Remember Nazis started out calling themselves Democratic Socialists in an appeal to the German people who were then under serious economic hardship.

[halg]

Welcome back, all. Just been reading over the conversation a bit ...

Just a note, from something I read recently. The "National Socialism" that the Nazis perpetuated is considered an oxymoron, if not a complete affront, to the true socialist world. Socialism does not have borders, in its purest form (neither does Communism). Workers must all fight as one force together to defeat manipulation enabled by leveraging the varying economic policies of competing nations.

I didn't realize that the Nazis began with "Democratic Socialism," whatever that is. (I think Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist.)

[Magi2]

Corporate America has We The People rescuing them.........at our expense they hope...........

Imagine, socialism bailing out the greedy fascist capitalists, errr.... hogs!
With hope, Washington knows "We" are on to "them"!

Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.



:eek: :twisted:

[Jennifer_SFBA]

Hi, halg. It's good to see you! In fact I had been thinking about you shortly before you popped in.

You said, "I didn't realize that the Nazis began with "Democratic Socialism," whatever that is. (I think Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist.)"

There is a most interesting book about National Socialism titled "Democratic Socialism A Global Survey" by Donald F. (F.) Busky, and it's pretty up to date published July, 2000. It's certainly not inexpensive! There's a good preview of that book at the link below:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3joQKjDtn4wC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1