Eisenhower Warns of New World Order, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria?

[Cairenn]

That is good. I think I worked about a month total in that area. It is not a pleasant job. Do you own a business? Ever owned one?

 

[Pete Tar]

This simply isn't true. Even the poorest of people often spend large portions of their wages on entertainment, relaxation, and what 'luxuries' are available to them, whether that means a cellphone, a stereo-system, or just the occasional bottle. ....

Which is an indication that *that* definition of poor is relative to how rich or prosperous others in the society are - in theory I live on the poverty line, but in practice I live in more health comfort and plenty than a prince would have 200 years ago.

 

[Grieves]

That is good. I think I worked about a month total in that area. It is not a pleasant job. Do you own a business? Ever owned one?

That's a short stint for a couple of jobs. I spent at least a year and a half at that job, maybe two. In my defense though it was all incoming calls of people seeking the service, I never took part in the aggressive outgoing sales aspect. It was decided in my interview I didn't have the attitude for that sort of thing, which I took as a compliment.

As for owning a business, no, I never have. Unless you count occasionally selling home-made jams or jarred/pickled produce a business. That said, I think your penchant for identifying with massive multinationals as a private artist/vendor of art is somewhat misguided.

 

[Grieves]

Which is an indication that *that* definition of poor is relative to how rich or prosperous others in the society are - in theory I live on the poverty line, but in practice I live in more health comfort and plenty than a prince would have 200 years ago.

Health and comfort is certainly a possibility, but plenty I severely doubt. Less you have a staff and grounds which they tend. Still, you're not wrong, all things are indeed relative. But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive.

 

[Oxymoron]

That said, I think your penchant for identifying with massive multinationals as a private artist/vendor of art is somewhat misguided.

Glad its not just me that has noticed that.

 

[Pete Tar]

...But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive.

Not sure what this means.
Are you saying that NWO does not mean the plot to utterly control the world as it is usually meant, but is the basic improvement in living conditions and the spread of technological advancement and consumer culture and prosperity that is saturating the world at this moment in time?
It would be intellectually dishonest to take the term NWO as it is used in popular CT culture and change it's meaning from its intended use.
It is correct that there are two uses of the term, one by politicians describing the economic/political state of the world and one by CT's describing a sinister plot to control their lives.

(and they've made a series of The Crimson Petal and The White? I loved that book, mainly for the incredible writing. I suppose the plot would compelling enough as television, but how do they get across the brilliance of the writing?)

 

[Cairenn]

There are more similarities than one might think. Enjoy the production of those you despise and hate.

A low middle income American, in fact even many poor Americans live in more comfort and safety and with things like food and medicine, that even Kings and Queens and the most wealthy could not have dreamed of.

If your town/city has a tour of Victorian homes, go look at them. Look at the room size, lot for closets. I had friends that loved a Victorian in the city they moved to, it was had been built by one of the founders of the town, but their bed would not fit into the largest bedroom (with room to walk around it). Even rich folks had a limited wardrobe, clothes were too expensive.

Take the benefits of refridgeration for example, that is recent. My parents had an 'ice box' when they got married. I think they bought a refridgerator in 1949. The cookbook that my mother had from the early 50s, still had instructions for cleaning a freshly killed chicken. Even in my childhood, many fruits and vegetables were not available year round. AC was rare in homes and unknown in schools. A poor person in the US, in Section 8 housing has a better standard of living than the richest folks of just over a hundred years ago.

I also read a lot, not just fiction, but a lot of history. Maybe more folks should try that. I chuckle at some of PBS's reality shows, where it is obvious that the folks fail to understand differences, like the lack of shampoo. (Hair was brushed, long hair was braided or covered, to help keep it clean. It was rinsed not washed with soap).

 

[SR1419]

and what effect has the reduction of poverty and the rising of wages in China had on the United States Economy?

So? its a global economy now. Competition is good. The rise of a half of billion Chinese middle class hasn't resulted in a concomitant level of poverty in the US. The two economies are intertwined. The labor market effects of Chinese manufacturing are only felt in the local labor of directly competing industries. The consumers- a larger group by far- benefit.

Isn't it interesting that as China begins to achieve a reasonable middle-class and starts to offer somewhat more reasonable wages, America experiences increasing financial uncertainty, rising prices, and a great deal of anti-China sentiment is tossed around by its politicians. Seems pretty indicative.

Rising prices? Since 1990 US inflation has averaged less than 3%...there is always financial uncertainty- its called risk- and politicians always reach for a jobs scapegoat when when trying to pander for votes. In the 1980s it was the Japanese. Anti-China sentiment is really not a significant meme right now.

There are markets within impoverished communities corporations are all too happy to exploit. Coca-Cola is an old pro at appealing to these. That said, corporations obviously don't need to consider supplying the impoverished in order to remain profitable. The impoverished are more profitably utilized as part of the supply-chain, in the form of cheap labor in the gathering of materials/assembling of products.

Corporations are not in business to model social engineering. The fact remains, the basic model of capitalism is the most efficient, most empowering form of resource allocation the World has ever known. Its not perfect but far better than any other system that has ever been tried. Of course, corps want to use inexpensive labor....but what about the impoverished? Do they not want the job? Are they better off working for Coke or not working at all? ...and once they gain some income- what then?

If people have more money, they don't feel the need to work like dogs for pennies. If no one's working like dogs for pennies, and everyone's getting a fair shake, than either prices go up or profits shrink. The product may also sell less if prices go up, shrinking the profit margin even further. Big business greatly benefits from paying people pennies to work like dogs. Remember slavery? That travesty on which America's great wealth was built? You understand why slaves were kept, yes? Why they weren't paid wages/allowed to own property and the like? Because it was extremely profitable to do so. If it were otherwise, those people brought against their will would have been paid and allowed to purchase property, as 'If people have more money, they buy more things... if they buy more things companies make more profits.'. The financial success of slavery is a direct contradiction of the assertion that it's more profitable, and thus more desirable from a corporate perspective, to uplift rather than to exploit.

Such assumptions. You assume the people working for pennies aren't getting a "fair shake"- Fair is a value judgement. You assume the employees of Foxconn are "slaves" working for pennies when they do not feel the same way. Such is your privileged North American perspective I guess.

There is a very large debate on whether slavery was "profitable"- It took great expense and overhead to keep slaves and its survival had more to do with political institutions and forces of the South rather than driving economic or market forces.

Slavery is demonstrated to have survived in the antebellum South, not because of the market,but because political forces pre-vented the typical decay and destruction of slavery experienced elsewhere

Content from External Source

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf


I see your point about the poor making...er...poor decisions...but that doesn't quantify what portion of their income we are talking about when you say "large"- Corporations will benefit much more if consumers can afford to buy more.

(of course, the study you pointed was done entirely on the decisions made playing video games...and of North American "poor"- the results in sub-Saharan Africa would be much different and indeed there is a lot of research in household decision making processes of the poor in Africa- "luxuries" is not a common theme.)

 

[Grieves]

Not sure what this means.
Are you saying that NWO does not mean the plot to utterly control the world as it is usually meant, but is the basic improvement in living conditions and the spread of technological advancement and consumer culture and prosperity that is saturating the world at this moment in time?
It would be intellectually dishonest to take the term NWO as it is used in popular CT culture and change it's meaning from its intended use.

if you backtrack a little in the thread, you'll see we're discussing the usage as believed to be intended by politicians who've employed the term, not the perception that the term represents a literal plot for world domination by Satanists/whatever.

It is correct that there are two uses of the term, one by politicians describing the economic/political state of the world and one by CT's describing a sinister plot to control their lives.

and we're discussing the former. That's why when I've used the term in my recent posts, it includes the disclaimer 'as we're discussing it', or something similar.

(and they've made a series of The Crimson Petal and The White? I loved that book, mainly for the incredible writing. I suppose the plot would compelling enough as television, but how do they get across the brilliance of the writing?)

Quite well I found through expertly employed narration and positively stunning visuals, as well as an entrancing and extremely effective soundtrack. It's certainly heavily condensed, and a lot of fans of the book complained the series was too fast-paced, but I personally thought it was an absolutely fantastic miniseries. Mrs. Rackham, as played by Amanda Hale, was the highlight for me... her performance was incredible and heartbreaking. I cried like a baby when she starts getting into her dream of the 'healing convent'.


Dat soundtrack.....

 

[Pete Tar]

if you backtrack a little in the thread, you'll see we're discussing the usage as believed to be intended by politicians who've employed the term, not the perception that the term represents a literal plot for world domination by Satanists/whatever.....

Well I guess I'm still confused then as to why you say this.
"...But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive."

I sort of thought no-one was doing that. The new political/economic state of things naturally encompasses human advancement.

 

[Grieves]

Well I guess I'm still confused then as to why you say this.
"...But again, it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to suggest that the general advancement of the state of human affairs as a result of knowledge and technology, and the 'new world order' as we're discussing it, are somehow mutually exclusive."

I sort of thought no-one was doing that. The new political/economic state of things naturally encompasses human advancement.

Human advancement undoubtedly influences the modern economic and political paradigm, but it can't be said that human advancement is a result of the modern economic and political paradigm. Thus, to say 'the world is a generally better place than it was 200 years ago' as a defense of the modern economic and political paradigm doesn't really compute. Yes, advancements in technology and general understanding have improved the world by leaps and bounds, and will continue to do so. A highly corrupt financial and political system that increasingly fortifies the corporate profit-motive as the ultimate rule to the point where governments are willing or manipulated into protecting corporate profit over their own citizens isn't a requirement of that.

 

[Grieves]

Such assumptions. You assume the people working for pennies aren't getting a "fair shake"- Fair is a value judgement. You assume the employees of Foxconn are "slaves" working for pennies when they do not feel the same way. Such is your privileged North American perspective I guess.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, is it?
It's true, my perspective is from privilege. Privilege that the typical Foxconn employee does indeed lack, and will almost certainly never have access too. That's sort of my point. What's yours? That if offered a first-world wage and a first-world shift, they'd say "Nah, that's alright, I quite like pleading for extensions on already ridiculously long shifts and asking to work 7 days a week instead of 5 or 6 so I can raise a family with a relative sense of security." due to the cultural divide or something? Excuse me if I call that nonsense. There certainly is a cultural divide, as is evidenced in the interesting results of this survey, in which Foxconn employees are very forgiving of the corporation, it's true... more-so than they are of themselves it seems. The most interesting statistics I saw:


Do you feel that the wage you get is sufficient to cover basic needs?
Yes 35.7 %
No 64.3 %

I am fairly compensated for my work
Completely agree 21.3%
Agree 32.5%
Undecided 14.5%
Disagree 17.6%
Completely disagree 13.0%

So while 64% of employees felt their wage didn't cover their basic needs, 53% felt they were being fairly compensated. That's a strange contrast, suggesting that a fair number of Foxconn employees feel they don't deserve a decent wage for what they do, or at least are extremely hesitant to suggest the company could/should pay them more.

 

[Cairenn]

And the suicide rate for Foxcomm employees is less than that for the rest of China or even for the US. There is a line every morning for folks wanting to work there.

TBH, I doubt that many folks anywhere feel that they are 'fairly compensated' for their work. Even millionaire ball players demand more money. Lousy wording of a poll question.

 

[Grieves]

And the suicide rate for Foxcomm employees is less than that for the rest of China or even for the US.

Oh boy...? I think that would be true of most all workplaces that aren't literal slave-pits. Joblessness in the face of financial woes is after all a major motivator where suicide is concerned.

TBH, I doubt that many folks anywhere feel that they are 'fairly compensated' for their work. Even millionaire ball players demand more money.

Which is exactly why it's odd that a majority of the employees there feel they're fairly compensated, while at the same time a majority of employees there feel the wage they're paid doesn't meet their basic needs. It's a strange contrast that is indeed indicative of a cultural divide, in which the sense of entitlement is dwarfed rather than inflated. I wager many people of the first world, as you suggest with your sports star comparison, would say they aren't fairly compensated, even when their basic needs are more than met.

Lousy wording of a poll question.

It's an entirely apt question given the nature of the poll.

 

[SR1419]

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, is it?
It's true, my perspective is from privilege. Privilege that the typical Foxconn employee does indeed lack, and will almost certainly never have access too. That's sort of my point.

Humans are equal. Wages are not. Real life doesn't work like some utopian socialist dream.

Why can't a Foxconn employee ever have access the same (economic) privileges as you? "almost certainly"? Thats just bunk. pure emotional bunk. They can work hard, save their renminbi and do what people do everyday all over the world...Its happening all across China...why are Foxconn employees exempt from economic success? As they become more empowered by their success they will fight for more rights and privileges.

The point is this economic system which you rail against as "highly corrupt" has lifted more people out of poverty, facilitated more advancements technology and general understanding than all other systems combined.

 

[Grieves]

The point is this economic system which you rail against as "highly corrupt" has lifted more people out of poverty, facilitated more advancements technology and general understanding than all other systems combined.

The system I'm railing against is new and still emerging. You can call it capitalist, but you can't call it Capitalism. I know the argument you're again trying to suck me into. Not biting.