Is it possible for us to have a really good government some day - and one that will stay that way?

[Cal33]

If we looked back for something in the past that is similar to what is
happening today, one would be the years of the Great Depression before FDR
became president. FDR was successful, America became prosperous again.
How long did this prosperity last? Roughly until the Clinton years -- about
60-plus years. Then came Bush, Jr. A down period followed by an up, and
then another down. So we are at the beginning of struggling for another up
period, and this will be a long, hard struggle. Haven't all struggles of this
nature been difficult - always?

I have glossed over several important eras of modern history in one brief
paragraph. Only a few top "headlines" were mentioned. They are meant to be
an introduction to the ideas I am expressing below below:

Both of the above-mentioned down periods occurred when human greed was given
free rein. And grab for loot the "elites" did, by hook and by crook. The
middle-class and the poor were made poorer. FDR came along and spread the
wealth of America a little more evenly, and America as a nation became more
prosperous than ever before. More recently, Bush, Jr. reversed the situation
once again, and we are back into another Great Depression.

It seems this up and down cycle will be repeating itself indefinitely, if we
do not go to the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. And what is the root of the problem?
I believe that whenever we have the situation where too many "psychopaths"
(other names are "sociopaths" and people with "anti-social personality disorders")
are occupying positions of power (both in private industry and in government),
it is a prelude to a down period again, because these basically sick people
can think only in terms of their own personal profit and nothing else, and they
act accordingly - at the expense of the rest of the nation.

The more psychopaths we have in positions of responsibility, both in government
and in private industry, the more dishonesty, greed and corruption there will
be, leading to the economic chaos and disaster that we are experiencing today.
This is precisely because irresponsibility is one of the main characteristics of
psychopathy.

A solution is to have as few of them in high places as possible. This is the
difficult part, because psychopaths are exactly the ones who are not only
ambitious, but also aggressively ambitious. They are the ones who by hook and
by crook try to get into positions of money and power. They are the ones who
enjoy telling others what to do and love to lord it over people. And where are
the places where one can findsuch money and power? In business corporations and
in politics.

Is it any wonder that we have such a high number of psychopaths among corporate
executives and politicians? The number of psychopaths in the general population
is between 2 and 4 percent. It is quite likely that among the two categories of
professionals mentioned above, the percentage of psychopathy is significantly
higher than 4.

In my opinion it is imperative that we become very careful about how to choose
those we elect to high positions. We, as responsible citizens, should be adequately
acquainted with the personal history and background of those we vote for. I
suggest that the government send out such information on all candidates running
for office.

I look forward to the day when all candidates for office will be granted the same
conditions of time and space for advertising, debating....etc.... according to
what is appropriate for the position the candidate is seeking. All is paid for.
No other money ia allowed -- not even spending a penny more of one's own money.
The success of the OWS movement should result in the above, since one of their
goals is to separate the influence of money in politics. Lobbying should be
completely out - it's a badly corrupted habit of the past.

Once we have enough decent and competent people in Congress, they can be relied
upon to enact good and fair rules and regulations governing the over-sight of
business practices, which is something our present-day corporate execs. are so
much against, and have so successfully fought again.

Don't we all have a long, long way ahead of us to go?

[NNN0LHI]

1. How long did this prosperity last? Roughly until the Clinton years ???

Unemployment rate hit 10.8% and I was laid off close to 6 years during the 1980's before Clinton became president.

Prosperity for me was long gone before I ever heard of Bill Clinton.

Don

[Cal33]

12. I realize that there are bound to be discrepancies when I summarized so much of

modern history into one paragraph. I said so in paragraph 2, explaing
that paragraph 1 was only an introduction to the points I was going
to bring up below. It took time, but the country, as a whole, did prosper under
FDR.

[Speck Tater]

2. Not as long as humans are in charge. Another reason why the species is fatally flawed. nt

[pipi_k]

6. Have to agree with you...

Human nature is the biggest problem here.

That, and various mental dysfunctions.

[Speck Tater]

10. And the fact that the greediest and most selfish always rise to the top.

Greed is more quickly rewarded, even though the long-term consequences are negative.

[Cal33]

15. Yes, we humans have our egos, and many of us don't know how to, or can't, deal with it.

[The Doctor.]

22. It's fear.

The accumulation of power is a direct response to fear. Our biggest problem is that the fear we needed to safeguard our evolution is now destroying the civilization that we built, ironically, due to fear.

Civilization came about under the recognition that we had far more to be afraid of if we didn't work together under certain rules. The state of primal anarchy was one that we understood only put us at odds with one another and left everyone more vulnerable to, well, everything. So we created civilization for our mutual safety and prosperity. Out of this came the ability to accumulate 'power'. It would take a while to explain, but I'm sure we can all envision it.

Unfortunately, the fear that drove us to build civilization was still there. Still here. Those that have greatest fear seek power most aggressively. They are also more willing to use it. Due to the fact that there is always someone or thing with more power, the accumulation will not stop until we have a global empire with a very small handful of despots running things.

This nation was a big obstacle to that happening.

[Bloke 32]

3. No

Sorry. That shall never happen. In any country.

[white_wolf]

4. Under our current system no.

Our economic system concentrates wealth and power into too few hands. Even if you regulate it, the regulations are eventually undone. We have to build a new economic system that doesn't encourage greed.

[Cal33]

13. Yes, and I hope that OWS will be the beginning of the new system. We're fighting for it..

[Cal33]

14. Yes, and I hope that OWS will be the beginning of the new system. We're fighting for it..

[Cal33]

26. Yes, laws concerning supervision and oversight of business practices

are easily circumvented. There are so many ways, including bribey and
corruption. It ws the Dems. who had been for those laws, and the Repubs. politicians
who had been shouting the loudest against them.

There is nothing wrong or evil about money per se, it's how some people would use them, and what they would or wouldn't do to get more of it. It depends entirely on
human beings whether the money is handled honestly and decently, or dishonestly and
criminally.

I've read that our world actually grows more than enough food to keep every man,
woman and child well fed. Many of of the cases of hunger and starvation have been artificially created in certain area through the manipulations of food combines for
the purpose of making higher profits.

In the case of drought hitting certain regions, and food crops cannot grow, other
areas can easily bring in food relief. This is mutual help during hard tims. But
not all people are willing to take part in this mutual help. And foremost among
these unwilling people are some of the corporate execs. Their minds turn automatically to extra profits. Whether people are starving or not is of no interest
to them.

These are problems created by the corporate execs. Strict laws have to made to
curb greedy people from practicing them. These are exactly the ones who need the
most oversight.

It can be done,if, as someone said in this thread, we are eternally vigilant.

[Cal33]

27. Yes, laws concernin g supervision and oversight of business practices

are easily circumvented. There are so many ways, including bribey and
corruption. It ws the Dems. who had been for those laws, and the Repubs. politicians
who had been shouting the loudest against them.

There is nothing wrong or evil about money per se, it's how some people would use them, and what they would or wouldn't do to get more of it. It depends entirely on
human beings whether the money is handled honestly and decently, or dishonestly and
criminally.

I've read that our world actually grows more than enough food to keep every man,
woman and child well fed. Many of of the cases of hunger and starvation have been artificially created in certain area through the manipulations of food combines for
the purpose of making higher profits.

In the case of drought hitting certain regions, and food crops cannot grow, other
areas can easily bring in food relief. This is mutual help during hard tims. But
not all people are willing to take part in this mutual help. And foremost among
these unwilling people are some of the corporate execs. Their minds turn automatically to extra profits. Whether people are starving or not is of no interest
to them.

These are problems created by the corporate execs. Strict laws have to made to
curb greedy people from practicing them. These are exactly the ones who need the
most oversight.

It can be done,if, as someone said in this thread, we are eternally vigilant.

[Cal33]

28. Yes, laws concernin g supervision and oversight of business practices

are easily circumvented. There are so many ways, including bribey and
corruption. It ws the Dems. who had been for those laws, and the Repubs. politicians
who had been shouting the loudest against them.

There is nothing wrong or evil about money per se, it's how some people would use them, and what they would or wouldn't do to get more of it. It depends entirely on
human beings whether the money is handled honestly and decently, or dishonestly and
criminally.

I've read that our world actually grows more than enough food to keep every man,
woman and child well fed. Many of of the cases of hunger and starvation have been artificially created in certain area through the manipulations of food combines for
the purpose of making higher profits.

In the case of drought hitting certain regions, and food crops cannot grow, other
areas can easily bring in food relief. This is mutual help during hard tims. But
not all people are willing to take part in this mutual help. And foremost among
these unwilling people are some of the corporate execs. Their minds turn automatically to extra profits. Whether people are starving or not is of no interest
to them.

These are problems created by the corporate execs. Strict laws have to made to
curb greedy people from practicing them. These are exactly the ones who need the
most oversight.

It can be done,if, as someone said in this thread, we are eternally vigilant.

[phantom power]

5. "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

[bbgrunt]

9. ...and every generation has to go through similar lessons before

they realize their folly of ignoring the lessons of the past.

[Cal33]

30. Very true. Real progress made by human beings is all too slow. But progress

there is. Would one prefer to live in the conditions of today, or say, in those
of the Middle Ages? However, there are some people who are trying to go back
to those times, societywise.

[Cal33]

25. We have to be careful about not electing sick people to high office. There are

too many of them there right now, hence all the lying, deceit,
ripping off and corruption. This is what happens when there
are too many psychopaths in high places -- public or private.

[Demeter]

7. That is the American Dream in a Nutshell

and the Hope and Change I voted for.

[Cal33]

18. This is why I am rooting for OWS to emerge triumphant.

[BanzaiBonnie]

8. It's a work in progress

I believe we can and are changing. And I refuse to be dragged down by the negativity of some. I am sad for anyone who feels so down on humanity. They can't have a very pleasant life and are likely chronically depressed.

[Cal33]

19. OWS offers new hope. I felt a sense of elation when it came into being.

I don't blame those who feel depressed. We've had rough times for a decade, and
there are more rough days ahead before things change.

[FarCenter]

11. No

Democracy and free markets work only in countries with small populations, high levels of resources and cultural homogeneity.

The history of the United States is one of a relatively sparse population steadily expanding westward into new agricultural lands and abundant natural resources during the period between the American Revolution and World War I.

During WW I and WW II, we stayed out of the conflicts during their early years, and profited mightily by being the arms supplier to the winning side. We exited WW II with the only major intact industrial base and an overwhelming share of the worlds wealth.

Since then, we have been living the good life off the steadily dwindling capital and natural resources.

Our resources are now at a low level. For example, we have been importing roughly half of the crude oil we need for the last decades. Most minerals are in the same situation.

Our population is now a lot larger than it was.

Our culture is anything but homogeneous and there is no dominant cultural group in society to take up the responsibility of running the country, either for their own advantage or for the general welfare. Thus, our politics has degenerated into competion among factions, and our economics has degenerated into a fight over dividing up the remaining assets.

So, it is over.

[DonCoquixote]

20. you might want to clarify

You said :
"Our culture is anything but homogeneous and there is no dominant cultural group in society to take up the responsibility of running the country, either for their own advantage or for the general welfare."

You do realize it can be easy for someone to use that to say "this country was better run when White People were in charge."

[FarCenter]

21. Actually, it was the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who were in charge

Anyone who is nostalgic for some golden age of American democracy in the pre-1950 era is nostalgic for a country run by WASPS.

Only after WW II did white ethnics gain power on the national stage, culminating in Kennedy's election. The Ken Burn's Prohibition video clearly addressed the vitriolic treatment of Al Smith in the '28 election.

Non-white ethnic groups were even later in gaining political power.

Bear in mind that the Democratic Party was heavily influenced by its "solid south" of segregationist politicians into the Johnson administration. Blacks in the south voted Republican, if at all.

[DonCoquixote]

23. Er you made my point

In other words, that statement can easily be twisted to mean that "the golden age" means run by WASP's. I do not know if that is what you actually meant, which is why I asked to clarify.

The fact is, if to restore some golden age of American democracy we had to ensure that the country must be "run by Wasps" then that would not be a democracy even remotely worth fighting for.

[Selatius]

16. One little point of disagreement I would bring up with your post.

Other than that one point, I generally agree with the tone of your post.

The point I disagree upon respectfully is when the thing all came crashing down. I generally think the election of Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the end of the prosperity of the New Deal. Yeah, there were years of economic growth under Clinton, but if we look at that time period, the income for the top 1% simply outstripped the income gains of everybody else in the bottom 98%. While one can argue whether the gap between the top and bottom was too big or was just fine, I think it's important to note that if that is the price of economic growth, then it was a trend that was simply unsustainable. The Clinton years were simply a papering over of fundamental problems emerging in the US economy. By the time of the early 2000s, the top 1% was making several hundred times the income of the lowest paid workers in the economy.

In the decades after FDR, the US economy was a dynamo of economic growth. It was fully capable of mass production to meet its own needs and the needs of the post-war world. Today, it has essentially lost its manufacturing ability, and many high-paying union manufacturing jobs, the bulwark of the US middle class, are gone. Its textile capabilities are also virtually gone. It has even lost its ability in the area of consumer electronics manufacturing. Until these high-paying jobs are replaced with an adequate substitute, we may have to accept a higher level of unemployment and poverty that is more the norm in the rest of the world compared to what we were used to.

[Cal33]

29. You are correct. Until Carter, the national debt was $ 1 trillion. During

Reagan's two terms, the debt went up from $1 trillion to $3 trillion. It was tripled! He was the one who restarted the process of shifting the national wealth
from the middle-class into the pockets of the well-to-do. Bush I added another
$1 trillion during his one term.

Clinton had a surplus and reduced the debt by a few hundred billion. Then Bush II
came along. He not only squandered the surplus, but also added another $5 trillion
during his two terms. And his programs of enabling the rich to get richer continued
into the future, long after his terms of office had ended.

Reagan was the one who restarted the process of enabling the rich to get richer at the expense of the rest of the nation, and Bush II was the one who pushed this process to its extreme.

I summarized the economic process from the time of the Great Depression till today
-- all of it in one paragraph. This one paragraph served only as an introduction to what I wanted to say in my post. I mentioned only Bush II because he was the one who had increased the national debt the most. To go into the various details would have only distracted me from what I wanted to say in my post, and would have lengthened it considerably. I cut the narrative of that portion short, as I thought it wasn't a part of the main theme of my post that followed,

Thanks for your reply.

[krabigirl]

17. No, but I believe it could be better than it is now.

[Cal33]

24. It sure can be better. It has never been worse!