Sorry.... not you.

A half century ago, in 1957, the future Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow calculated that nearly 90 percent of productivity growth in the first half of the twentieth century (from 1909 to 1949) could only be attributed to "technical change in the broadest sense."
The supply of labor and capital -- what workers and employers contribute -- appeared almost incidental to this massive technological "residual." Subsequent research inspired by Solow has continued to put a spotlight on "advances in knowledge" as the main source of growth. Another highly respected economist, William Baumol, argues that "nearly 90 percent ... of current GDP was contributed by innovation carried out since 1870." Baumol judges that his estimate, in fact, understates the cumulative influence of past advances: even "the steam engine, the railroad, and many other inventions of an earlier era still add to today's GDP."
The Rich Are Hogging Our Common Inheritance -- We Must Take It Back
By Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly, The New Press.
Posted December 8, 2008.
It's worth reflecting that everything that Mother Nature has supplied to mankind in the way of land, air and natural resources, and all the
accumulated wisdom, knowledge and skills of past ages, are received by the present generation as a "free lunch".
The catch is that over the years, various interests have all managed to corner some portion of this, and make a good living selling or renting it to those who are without, who have to pay the rent. That is how the capitalist system works.
So we have this great gap between the rich (who have investments), and the poor (who have nothing but their labour to sell, and by the "iron laws of economics", have to pay in rent or interest everything they earn above subsistence level). A consequence is the desperate need under our present system for "full employment", so that these peons can have a source of income even if they destroy the environment by doing so much unnecessary work (including wars and armaments).
That, to me, is the moral justification for guaranteeing a basic income to
all.
Martin Hattersley
AAAAAA
in those heady first days of reagan, all my college grad friends just continued to work at the shitty jobs they held while students. hardly anyone i know isn't struggling still. really smart, educated people, all working harder every year for less and scared what will happen to them when they can't work anymore.
RE: Major in something pertinent
Posted by: somegirl on Sep 11, 2007 7:23 AM
I attend a community college in a town with multiple "real" colleges (all very expensive), so, not only am I borderline homeless most of the time, but most people I go to school with are too. Guess which college has gotten the biggest cuts in my community? A lot of people have left within the last year because there are no classes available for them. So the wealthy keep their private schools while the poor lose any hope of higher education. Sure builds character, though! (actually, it doesn't)
The International Bankers were relentless in setting up central banks, which the uSA resisted for decades because their system was working – no debt money. They realized the phenomenal profit to be had by printing their own notes, threatening congress to accept this private banking system, then lending $$$ at extortive interest rates (e.g.: the graduated income tax – the second plank of the Communist Manifesto).
They demanded that the interest on the money they lent the government was to be paid in gold, hence, when the gov’t ran out of gold (there is no gold in Fort Knox – it was handed over to the Bank of England for the interest on the loan), it had to find some form of asset to use as collateral for the loans which it claimed to continue to need. But for what? Not much revenue is required for the true federal functions, namely: a navy, international and interstate trade and commerce, and the general welfare of all. The rest is extortion. What could they use if there were no more gold? Ah! – The citizens themselves ... but ... we are a sovereign people. How can we be held as assets for a debt which wasn’t real? We can’t – at least not lawfully. We can however, be tricked into believing that we are responsible for the debt by transforming us into accommodation parties to a fictional entity (strawman) created by the government. In a circuitous and scathingly brilliant marketing scheme, we were led to believe that we were who we were not and that we must work to earn funds in order to pay a debt which not only is not one which we ourselves incurred but also is a DEBT WHICH INCREASES BY OUR VERY WORKING TO PAY IT. Please stop “working for a living”.
HOW I CLOBBERED
EVERY BUREAUCRATIC
CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY
Mary Elizabeth: Croft