desertrain10 ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • Re: “A Little Girl Is Dead” Frustrated Mom’s #BlackLivesMatter

    Please close this thread

    BLM is a slogan, not the movement, or the grievance that underlies it

    Reducing a movement to its slogan, and then nitpicking that slogan to discredit it, is deeply dishonest to say the least
  • Re: Does Hip-Hop Drive Negative Stereotypes of Black Men?

    Furthermore mainstream rap is just a reflection of mainstream American culture which glorifies everything rap does only through different mediums.


    This thread should a referendum against pop American culture

    Otherwise for a blk child I would argue growing up in a world where: u are constantly the target of police harassment; u are the face of urban decay; u can freely be stalked and gunned down by concerned citizens; ur school looks like a prison; the adults in ur life are struggle to find decent work;... etc does more to the psyche than a 2chaiz record

    Like WaterDWOrip.dilla
  • Re: Morgan Freeman's granddaughter stabbed to death in NYC

    The government created the White middle class just as it created the ghetto

    And it will take similar efforts from the government to dismantle the ghetto

    Vounchers for ex,though only a bandaid , have worked wonders...There have been pilot programs giving people vouchers to move to better neighborhoods. And voilà, their children did better...

    This destructive "blk pathology" I guess doesn't travel

    My point being a person's surroundings, environment matter tremendously
  • Re: Nabisco (Oreo's) Is Leaving The USA And Sending Jobs To Mexico, 1.200 Lay-Offs

    Interesting article concerning economic inequality...

    TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015 07:59 AM EDT

    Why conservative billionaires have started talking like Bernie Sanders: “We are creating a caste system from which it’s almost impossible to escape”

    Share 34K 814WhatsApp 631

    Ken Langone(Credit: AP/Richard Drew)
    I’ve written previously about the growing fear among elites that they’ve pushed economic inequality too far. That fear is proliferating, according to a New York Times Op-Ed this weekend by former marketing conglomerate CEO Peter Georgescu. Joined by his friend Ken Langone, founder of Home Depot, Georgescu warns his fellow 1 percenters that “[w]e are creating a caste system from which it’s almost impossible to escape.” The column raises the specter of “major social unrest” if inequality is not addressed.

    Georgescu writes:

    I’m scared. The billionaire hedge funder Paul Tudor Jones is scared. My friend Ken Langone, a founder of the Home Depot, is scared. So are many other chief executives. Not of Al Qaeda, or the vicious Islamic State or some other evolving radical group from the Middle East, Africa or Asia. We are afraid where income inequality will lead.

    In June, Cartier chief Johann Rupert — worth an estimated $7.5 billion — delivered the same message to his wealthy colleagues, telling them that the intensifying inequality and what it portends “keeps me awake at night.” He told his fellow elites that “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us.” Like Georgescu and Langone, Rupert feared unrest and asked, “How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?”

    But while Rupert only mused about the prospects for continuing to hawk jewelry and the restfulness of his nights amid the tumult, Georgescu and Langone are being proactive. Georgescu writes that he and Langone “have been meeting with chief executives, trying to get action on inequality,” taking advantage of Langone’s tremendous access to business leaders. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a major CEO that wouldn’t take his call,” said a close associate of Rudy Giuliani of Langone in 2012. Georgescu and Langone are telling their patrician peers that if “inequality is not addressed, the income gap will most likely be resolved in one of two ways: by major social unrest or through oppressive taxes.” The word seems to be getting around at the global aristocracy’s water cooler, and Georgescu writes that they “find almost unanimous agreement on the nature of the problem and the urgent need for solutions.”

    It is remarkable that Langone is partnered with Georgescu on this crusade for social justice. Langone served on the board of a leading populist philanthropy group called the New York Stock Exchange, and his deep concern for the downtrodden led him to chair that gang of do-gooders. He’s a longtime generous contributor to Republican presidential candidates who have been on the front lines of the battle to institute supply-side and neoliberal economics. “[T]here’s nobody better than him,” said Rudy Giuliani last year about Langone’s prowess as a bundler for GOP politicians. And when he isn’t giving money and raising funds for the political friends of big business, Langone gives the invaluable gift of his careful insight, last year comparing progressives’ attention to income inequality to Hitler’s political project in 1933.

    The only thing Langone had right was the year: 1933. It was in that year that President Franklin Roosevelt took office at the height of the Great Depression, inequality peaked to record levels, and fears of revolt circulated among that era’s fat-cat elite. Capitalism, unreined during the 1920s, had hit another of its cyclical failures, this time its worst yet. The powerful feared revolution, and the New Deal constituted a sort of bargain made between capitalists and the people: A bit of socialism to save capitalism from itself.

    That year, John Maynard Keynes issued an open letter to the newly inaugurated Roosevelt in the New York Times, whose two opening sentences of the more than 2,500-word manifesto defined the stakes and posed revolution as the price of failure of severely altering capitalism as it was practiced. Keynes was no radical. He urged the new president to work “within the framework of the existing social system,” that is, to reform capitalism without allowing it to be abandoned or abolished.

    It was later revealed that when in 1938 a year-long recession threatened the gains made against the Depression, as conservative Democratic legislators urged severe cuts in public works and farm aid, Roosevelt feared revolution. “The president remarked that this would mean calling out the troops to preserve order,” wrote a cabinet member in his diary. “It might even mean a revolution, or an attempted revolution.”
    Georgescu and Langone’s mission perhaps finds its best Depression-era analog in Joseph Kennedy, the millionaire father of the eventual president John F. Kennedy, who said of the Depression that “in those days I felt and said I would be willing to part with half of what I had if I could be sure of keeping, under law and order, the other half.” Kennedy, like many (but hardly all) of his elite colleagues, knew that capitalism had to be bridled if it was to survive. “I knew that big drastic changes had to be made in our economic system,“ he later told Joe McCarthy. “I wanted him in the White House for my own security.”

    Langone and Georgescu — like Kennedy, Roosevelt and Keynes — are urging another radical reformation of capitalism so that truly radical change doesn’t come. But they make serious mistakes in their judgment and prescription. They warn of “punitive,” “oppressive” levels of taxation — an 80 percent upper marginal rate with a low upper-bracket threshold — as a potentiality if their upper class doesn’t self-correct. But those levels of taxation wouldn’t be levied to punish or oppress; it would be to redistribute their collected wealth to the rest of us. Sharing isn’t being punished.


    Second, they propose that the change has to come from the capitalists themselves, that some sort of agreement would be reached to willfully raise wages significantly in the absence of governmental mandate. This seems to ignore fundamental laws of competition. Even if some degree of consensus was reached, any dissenters would gain a fantastic advantage over their competitors in the form of profit levels far exceeding those of their rivals. It would be asking corporations to enter the ring with one arm tied behind their back and face off against unrestrained competitors.

    They seem to know this and concede that “the most obvious choice is our government” to guide and enforce the change. Every major gain against the greed that animates capitalism has been implemented by mandate: the minimum wage, the right to collectively bargain, the 40-hour work week, the weekend, and a host of other rules of the road that marked the post-war economic and civil peace.

    “But the current Congress has been paralyzed,” they acknowledge.

  • Re: Nabisco (Oreo's) Is Leaving The USA And Sending Jobs To Mexico, 1.200 Lay-Offs

    Less government oversight and no minimum wage at this point in time is not going to stop mechanization, outsourcing and the greed of corporate and financial elites

    Its only going to make it worst...corporations who are not beholden to Democratic accountability would than have no reason to apply any kind of ethics whatsoever

    We would never be able to maintain a stable economy

    One could argue the success or failure of a company would than be more proportional to its ability to meet the needs and concerns of its consumer

    But that argument totally ignored the fact consumers also work for these corporations and wil not always benefit from a competitive market place... they might benefit from a price cut as a consumer, but lose their job as a result of the bigger corporation pushing their employer out of the market...

    What about the environment? Ppl are going to choose jobs and low prices in exchange for clean air 7 out of 10 for basic living expenses being the more immediate need

    And this notion that America is just this anti business, nanny state is bullshit... Most laws, the tax code overwhemingly favor corporations...

    I will say employers shouldn't have to provide medical coverage for their employees though, the government should.... That should be our next step