Sustainable Development (environmental, population, economic, resources wars, ext.)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darth_Yuthura, Jan 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    There have been a number of topics recently aimed at one subject which I think could be consolidated into a single thread. World population, energy, biodiversity, economics, and environmental issues all seem to connect with a single subject.

    Sustainable development

    1987 Brundtland Report:

    "..development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

    This particular definition is one which I think is worded properly to encompass almost every aspect of what is discussed within the subject of sustainable development. There were three primary aspects that needed to be considered within the topic, which are economic, social, and environmental sustainability.

    Obviously if the world is not enough to provide for six billion people, then extermination would be a solution... although not one I would support. And because of the implications, it most certainly would not work. If it's a simple solution you're looking for, then this is not the thread for you. This is to go into depth about how human practices are harming the world and which ones are providing for future generations.

    Technology makes this debate that much more difficult. As technology improves, it makes future development that much harder to predict. Because of improved farming techniques, we've been able to provide much more food using much less land than ever before. Because of advancements in factory and power plant production, manufactured goods have become ever cheaper to buy. The problem with technology is that it's restricted by the physical world. We may be able to produce an abundance of food and energy now, but as global supplies of oil and freshwater dwindle, the environmental problems could (and most likely will) begin to overtake the advancements in technology. I won't make that statement absolute, as the same debate had been made decades ago only to be proven false.

    This topic had been debated long ago and some analysts had predicted the world could not sustain 6 billion people under any circumstances. This has been proven wrong, but only because advancements in technology made it possible. The problem with the world having to support 6 billion people is that the current technological advancements aren't enough to ensure future generations will be able to meet their needs. That would mean future generations will have to be prepared to deal with the deprivation of resources which may be abundant today, but may not be so later.

    In the past, we've looked to technology to bail us out of almost every problem. Factories used to use steam power, but switched to electricity. Then you replaced humans with machines, but with the loss of factory jobs, you created a social and economic instability. Without factory jobs, who would be able to earn the money to buy your goods?

    With globalization came a trend where you could buy raw resources from third world nations, but the US has become a consumer nation. That means it takes in more than it returns. This is an economic instability which will demand one of two measures... either the US will have to find new ways to produce goods for export (services included in this) Or the US will have to adapt to having a shortage of such resources as oil.

    Most economists have pointed to 'green' technology, but I seriously believe it's more important for the US and other world nations to practice sustainable development. This is to ensure we don't depend on technology for our future needs. If advancements allow us to produce more of a resource, then good. Otherwise we must recognize the physical limitations of the world and adapt to a world where the future generation may not have a better lifestyle than their parents.

    In this thread, I'll bring up a series of topics in regards to certain resources or practices and debate the subject in great detail. The first such topic I was hoping to cover is for mineral resources. I would discuss four major mining methods used for coal, iron, copper, and uranium. I would cover their ben
  2. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The key to the future is the development of steady-state economies with fixed populations and creation of capital that matches the destruction of capital so that there is, in effect, no economic growth.

    In the modern era, free market capitalism has become a form of mutually assured destruction. The best possible sustainable future would embrace some form of democratic socialism. The worst would, as always, entail some hideous autocratic caste system. Tyranny and ruling elite supported by masses of peasants living at subsistence level. The world, at present, in the aggregate, already looks much like this. We have highly industrialized social democracies for the few supported by billions of energy and consumption peasants. 100,000 ultra rich. One billion living very comfortably and more than 5 billion peasants.
  3. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    I would have to agree with that. Capitalism is great for technological progression, but ultimately will collapse once you have a disruption in the balance between the super rich elite and the middle class. The US seemed to have such a balance only a few decades ago, but once the elite began to take over the government policies, it generated positive feedback where progressive taxes were being repealed and profit became the driving factor to everything.

    If the US is to save itself, we must set to restrain the elite from getting more powerful. Once the top 1% are forced out of government policies, only then could we expect real change to happen. I do agree that some form of socialism must be implemented, but it should only be to ensure the middle class doesn't get destroyed. It is because we have an imbalance in social classes that the upper 1% are only becoming richer while the middle class can't keep up with them.

    Some may argue that it's up to the people to decide whether to be bums or millionaires, but I don't see many millionaires who want to be bums. There are many who are willing to work, but are simply being exploited. Capitalism may be reputed as the dominant ideology, but just because socialism fell doesn't mean capitalism was the better of the two. Communism failed because there were flaws in the system. Capitalism in the US is destined to fail, but most just aren't aware of it yet.
  4. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Free markets are good at setting the price of goods and rationing goods by price. That's all it can do. It isn't a moral ideology with any intrinsic value. Capitalism doesn't keep people healthy or maximize social good or guarantee a robust middle class or make sure that the brightest people get the best possible education, etc. Most of the things that classical economics accepts as fundamental truths are in fact false. Markets are not rational or necessarily efficient. People do not behave rationally when they make economic decisions. All this has been proven scientifically: the invisible hand is bogus because people are not rational and therefore the institutions they create do not behave rationally.

    If we leave the fate of humanity up to the behavior of economic markets, we are doomed as a species.
  5. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Except, according to IRS data, the top 1% pay over 40% of all the income taxes.

    You want them out of government policies? THEY PAY 40% OF THE BILL FOR GOVERNMENT POLICIES! They're going to want to have a say in how their tax dollars get spent.

  6. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    The average tax rate for the upper 1% is about 22.45% That's significantly lower than it was before the Reagan administration. The point behind progressive taxes is to have the richest of the rich pay anywhere from 50-70% of their earnings in taxes. Considering how incredibly rich they are, they could still make profit while providing much more for the state.

    Americans tend to think of 22.45% of all their income towards taxes as high, but the top 1% of income earners can afford to pay much higher taxes than they currently are. The US is so far in debt because it's not collecting enough from taxes to pay for everything. The top 1% meanwhile are becoming more powerful.

    Seriously, consider that the top 10% of income earners constitutes over 71% of all the wealth in the nation. The lower 50% don't even control 3%.
  7. anakin_girl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 2000
    star 6
    Exactly.

    Additionally, I believe that those top 1%, if they are business owners, could avoid paying 74% of all income above $400K a year in taxes (between the LBJ and Reagan administrations) and 91% of all income above $400K a year in taxes (before LBJ) by investing that above-$400K back into their businesses--buying equipment, hiring people, etc. If they did that, the Big Evil State didn't get it. ;)

    I'll never understand the logic behind the idea that we should raise taxes on the poor and middle class while cutting taxes on the rich. :oops:
  8. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Really? The point is to take away 50-70% of the earnings of any portion of the population?

    I thought that the point of progressive tax rates was to reduce the burden on the poorest portion of the population, and then distribute the rest of the burden among the wealthier portions. It's not there as a means to confiscate the majority of income from the wealthy. It is simply there to distribute the tax burden away from those who cannot pay as much.

    According to the link that my brother posted, the top 1% of income tax filers paid 40.4% of all income taxes. At the same time, they only earned 22.8% of all adjusted gross income. That means that they already have a disproportionately higher tax burden than the rest of the population. If you expand it to the top 10%, they make about 48% of the total AGI, but pay over 70% of the total income taxes. The bottom 50% of tax filers pay less than 3% of all income taxes.

    How is that anything but a progressive distribution of the tax burden?

    Here, you are flat-out wrong. The US is so far in debt because it is not living within its means.

    Look at the sources of the debt, and you will almost invariably find that it is from expanding government programs or operations. When the government runs a surplus, legislators rush to spend the extra money. When it runs a deficit, they rush to borrow it, refusing to cut the extra programs that they added during the surplus.

    Just because one portion of the population can "afford" to pay more taxes does not mean that the government is justified in increasing their tax burden. How do you determine how much anyone should be able to "afford"? By that same reasoning, you could argue that the government could tax everyone 100%, and then simply provide for everyone's needs, and then obviously everyone could "afford" to pay such high taxes.

    Even the wealthiest members of society have a right to be treated equally and fairly by the government. I would hesitate to call 40% of the tax burden compared to 23% of the income "fair". (Remember that it's based on AGI, not gross income. AGI already removes deductions, including the standard deduction used by most filers. The standard deduction is meant to significantly reduce the burden on the very poorest earners. Remember also that those numbers do not include those who don't earn enough money to have to file a tax return, further increasing the disproportionate burden on the top earners.)

    Personally, I see two definitions of "fair" that could apply to a tax system: 1) Everyone pays the same amount (i.e. a poll or direct capitation tax), or 2) Everyone pays the same rate. Anything else treats people unequally. If you are making 23% of the income, then you should be paying 23% of the taxes, all the way down to the bottom 50% who earn 13% of the (adjusted gross) income, and should therefore pay 13% of the taxes. From there, the tax rate should be adjusted for everyone so that the necessary tax revenue is achieved.

    Why? Because it's always easy to advocate increased government spending when you are convinced that you can get someone else to pay for it. If everyone shares the same burden, then calling for someone else's taxes to be increased would necessarily increase your own taxes.

  9. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    No, the point is to tax richer people more heavily than those who don't earn so much. A person who earns 70 million a year can afford to be taxed more heavily and still have a comfortable living. Just because he gets taxed more heavily doesn't mean he has no incentive to keep working.

    Exactly. That's exactly what I'm referring to, yet the wealthy have been getting huge tax breaks since the Reagan administration... taxes that the US could not afford to lose. Why do you think the US deficit has been growing so raplidly in the last decade?

    Because they own less than 3% of all assets within the US! The average earnings by a person in the top 1% earns about 1183 times as much as the average person in the lower 50% of income earners. Consider this before you start having sympathy for someone who's taxes are so high. And don't even think about defending one who has to pay a quarter of his $50 million earnings to taxes. So what if he can't now buy a new jet?

    Is that what you earn? If you're a wage-earner, that's different from a corporate executive who has all kinds of assets that allow them to take advantage of loopholes in the tax system. When you've got inventory, money market accounts, maintenance expenses, and all kinds of resources you don't get as a wage earner, you find that there are many loopholes in the system that you can exploit.

    My target isn't in wage earners who make 10 million a year... I don't know too many jobs where you earn that kind of money... My focus is on corporate executive officers who earn their money for doing next to nothing. The huge success of most CEO's in the 1990's were based more on the economy than what they actually did.
  10. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    Well, if he can't buy a new jet, the WAGE-EARNING people who build the jets may end up losing THEIR jobs. And when they lose their jobs, then the WAGE-EARNING people who build the electronics, the engines and other components of jets lose THEIR jobs.

    That's what happens when the rich are taxed so heavily that they can't get a new jet. More unemployment, not less.
  11. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Or you reconfigure society so that those people are building energy-efficient light rail transportation systems for the middle class instead of $80 million carbon megafootprint jets for the ultra-rich.
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    This first part is a reply to Darth_Yuthura. After that, I will pose a question to try and simplify this discussion. If you want to jump to the question, then jump to the end.
    Who are you to decide what someone else can "afford"? What I see here is that you are very free with someone else's money.

    Quite simply, it's not the government's place to decide who has too much money, or who can "afford" to pay more taxes. The government's responsibility to to protect the rights of its citizens, nothing more.

    I'm sorry, they've been getting "huge tax breaks" and yet they still pay over 40% of all income taxes, while only making 28% of the income? I'm sorry, but your argument that they aren't paying enough doesn't really ring all that true. They are already paying disproportionately to what they make. You are advocating making the disparity even more disproportionate.

    Once more, you are confusing assets (or wealth) with income. They are two separate issues.

    If someone in the top 1% earns 1183 times as much as the average person in the lower 50% of income earners, then they should be paying 1183 times as much in taxes as that average person in the lower 50%, which is exactly what I was advocating in my post. That would mean that those earning 28.2% of the money would be paying 28.2% of the taxes, not 40.4%. Your tax burden would be in proportion to your income.

    But that's not what you are advocating here. The bottom 50% earned 13% of the income in 2007, and yet they only paid 3% of the taxes. Again, that's massively disproportionate. That's the government treating one group of people

    I never said that I earn that. You might want to reread what I did say. That was an example using round numbers. (For the record, my AGI doesn't even break into the top 25% on the charts from my brother's link.)

    And yet, even with all of those loopholes, the top 1% are still paying 40.4% of all income taxes, despite only making 28.2% of the income after removing tax deductions.

    And I don't think you really know what you're talking about here. What do you mean by a "wage earner"? Last I checked, a "wage earner" is someone who works for wages (whether salaried or hourly). Those very "corporate executives" that you decry are also "wage earners" under that definition.

    />
  13. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    That's a good point, and speaks to a fundamental flaw in the way our economy is structured.

    It's insane the number of people who are employed in jobs working on luxury goods and services that they themselves will never be able to afford.
  14. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That assumes that "energy-efficient light rail transportation systems for the middle class" are a sound economic investment, and that enough people agree with that sentiment to make it a more economically viable utilization of resources than building the "jets for the ultra-rich".

    Kimball Kinnison

    EDIT:
    How is that insane?

    If I work as a welder for Newport News Shipbuilding (who builds both Navy and private ships), then does that mean that I should one day be able to afford my own yacht? That's simply not feasible or logical from an economic standpoint, no matter what economic theory you apply.

    As systems become more and more complex (including things like ships, jets, and even computers), they require more and more people working together to build. That increases the cost of designing and building them. For some products (such as computers) it is possible to scale up production to take advantage of economies of scale to recoup those costs, but for others (like ships or yachts, or even luxury cars), it's not as feasible.
  15. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    But can a government that cannot run Medicare and Social Security without said programs careening into bankruptcy (as they are presently doing) successfully reconfigure a society?

    The answer seems to point to "NO."
  16. JediSmuggler Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 5, 1999
    star 5
    People who construct a Gulfstream or a Citation, though, still can provide for themselves and their families. And who knows? Perhaps their kids will develop a big thing elsewhere that causes massive decreases in carbon footprints across the globe. Who knows?

    Bill Gates came from a middle/upper-middle-class background to develop Microsoft, which was one of the engines that made telecommuting possible - which probably saved a LOT of carbon over the years.
  17. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Yachts and luxury cars are toys for the rich, and there's something terribly perverse about saying that the rich HAVE to buy these silly trinkets "for the good of the workers".

    Yes, I find it insane that our economy is so situated that one person's decision whether or not to splurge on an environment-destroying status symbol can decide whether or not hundreds of families will have money to put food on the table for months to come.

    Of course, this problem largely stems from overbreeding. We have the resources and automation capability to sustain a high standard of living for every person on the planet, if only we could scale back the size of our global population.
  18. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    A great New Yorker article about the death spiral of the Chicago School of Economics:

    ABSTRACT: LETTER FROM CHICAGO about the state of the Chicago School of economics after the financial crash. Earlier this year, Judge Richard A. Posner published ?A Failure of Capitalism,? in which he argues that lax monetary policy and deregulation helped bring on the current economic slump. Posner has been a leading figure in the conservative Chicago School of economics for decades. In September, he came out as a Keynesian. As acts of betrayal go, this was roughly akin to Johnny Damon?s forsaking the Red Sox Nation and joining the Yankees.

    ...

    Raghuram Rajan, an Indian-born Chicago professor, is one of the few economists who warned about the dangers of the financial crisis. In 2005, he said that deregulation, trading in complex financial products, and the proliferation of bonuses for traders had greatly increased the risk of a blowup. In a new book he?s working on, ?Fault Lines,? Rajan argues that the initial causes of the breakdown were stagnant wages and rising inequality. With the purchasing power of many middle-class households lagging behind the cost of living, there was an urgent demand for credit. The side effects of unrestrained credit growth turned out to be devastating. The impact of the financial crisis shouldn?t be underestimated, especially for Chicago-style economics. ?Keynes is back,? Posner said, ?and behavioral finance is on the march.?

  19. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    How very simplistic.

    Now what about the money that would go to the government? Instead of that jet, you can pay for teachers, more police officers, providing for our military, ext. Maybe instead of a personal jet, you could instead buy another A-10 for the military. That actually could cause NO CHANGE in employment, as you have people working for Lockhead Martin and Boeing to build such planes.

    Think before you make such a comment, please.
  20. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    Who are you to say what the government's responsibilities are? You've just dove into a VERY complex subject that I don't wish to debate. Macro economics is HELL to work with. So unless you have a degree or minor in the subject, you should assume you haven't grasped the subject at all.

    Are you aware that their tax rates are so high that they're paying roughly 150% of everything they earn? When you use those numbers, you're going on the assumption their tax rates are this high.

    You probably misread the numbers, or don't see the flaw in the argument.
  21. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Ummm where do you think all that money comes from. It comes from people having jobs. If you have a company that can have close to 5000 people working for you that's a good thing fro ever one and that goes for all those things you listed above. It's simplistic becasue that's how it works. The big company with that so called EVIL CEO keep those things going.

    But heck if you want to put 5000 people out of work because the EVIL CEO should not be able to buy a jet fine. I just asking when ever one is out of a job how will you pay for the teachers, police officers, and so on. And last a checked Boeing does not make miiltary jets. As for Lockhead they signed a deal to make military jets. But have you ever heard of the L-1011? Yeah Lockhead and Boeing are still private companys. Boeing has the 737, 747, 757, 777, 787, and the 767. They don't bulid those because the government tells them to. They bulid them becasue companys such as Delta, Continental, Southwest, United, etc like the buy them to fly people like you in me in.

    Also going back to the L-1011 that was the last passenger jet Lockhead really ever made. They never made any after that becasue they found the could make more with military aircraft because they do a really nice job with them. I'm also going to point out that Fairchild Aircraft make the A10. Again they are still a private company. ;)


    He is one of the many members of the voting public.
  22. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    It's not me saying it. I'm simply referring back to the founding document of the United States:
    If you are going to claim that the Declaration is wrong, then you are going to need to provide sources to support your argument. So far, you haven't provided a single source for anything you've said.

    Wow. Just, wow.

    I've been accused of being condescending or arrogant on these forums, but your comment completely outdoes anything I've ever been accused of.

    Just because you find macroeconomics to be difficult to understand doesn't mean that everyone else does. Don't go projecting your own inadequacies onto someone else.

    No, you misread my argument completely.

    What I am saying is that their portion of the tax burden is disproportionate to their portion of the income. I made this rather clear in my post (which it's clear you didn't read in your rush to claim that I can't grasp these subjects).
    Note the part that I bolded and made blue? That should have made it clear to you that I am talking about making the marginal tax rate the same for everyone.

    If you prefer, I can write it out algebraically for you.

    I = total income
    T = total taxes
    X = percentage of income
    Y = percentage of taxes

    Basic math tells us that:
    X = (income earned) / I
    Y = (taxes paid) / T

    What I am saying is that X should equal Y.

    Kimball Kinnison
  23. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    This isn't 1776 anymore. Back then it was easier to enforce these kind of moral ambitions. The world then was vast and mostly uncharted, but globalization has almost literally made the world a smaller place. Some of the advancements in technology were for the good, but some have had unfortunate effects. Now you have nations overpowering others through economics instead of by military force. Now that you have 6 billion people all fighting for their share of the world, how could they all hope to one day become like Bill Gates? That's what everyone wants to be like, so please... if you can elaborate as to how the government could allow all people to do that, I will listen.


    Nor have you.

    Source:

    Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign To Rig Our Tax System To Benefit The Super Rich?And Cheat Everybody Else
    By David Cay Johnson

    I would advise people to read this book, but for those who are lazy... http://www.bainvestor.com/Perfectly-Legal-Review.html

    Further into this, the book goes to describe exactly what corporate executives get at the expense of their company's prosperity. Corporate jets are a luxury which the top dogs get at the expense of investors. They have free access to many forms of company property and don't pay for it out of their pockets. Most times, they use corporate jets for personal business... not company business. Remember when Ford, GM, and Chevrolet were on the verge of bankruptcy? That goes to show how recklessly GEO's treat privileges given to them by their corporations.

    "Internal Revenue Service reports show that from 1973 to 2000, when the Democrats were mostly in control of Congress, Social Security and Medicare taxes grew 82 percent faster than incomes. Because Social Security taxes applied only to the first $76,200 of wages in 2000? this rising burden fell mostly on the middle class and upper middle class."

    Cay Johnson focuses primarily on the top 1% of income earners, but doesn't really address the top 10% at all. One such reason is that the medicare taxes only applied to a certain extent of total earnings. Once you put a cap on something like $76,200, then this particular tax no longer applies to people earning billions of dollars. It still will have a significant impact on those who would call $10,000 a lot of money.

    ------

    To sum up this book, reading through how the top 1% can evade so much that is expected of them... it's criminal. In the last forty years, the average personal income rose in the US by about 25%. In that same period of time, the average earnings by the top 1% multiplied seven fold. To those who are content to know they're m
  24. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    First, a progressive income tax structure is fair precisely by Kimball's definition of fairness. That nth dollar of income is theoretically taxed the same way for everyone, no matter who earns it. In practice, of course, the rich have the ability to pay extra to minimize their tax liability.

    The idea that executives need to earn 500 to 1000 times or even more than the pay of the lowest paid employee is a new one, or more precisely a very old one that we've coopted from the feudal system, and really has very little to do with attracting top talent in a global economy. The economy would function just as well if top executives were limited to 25 or 50 times the income of the lowest paid employee in a given organization.

    I agree with everything Darth_Yuthura wrote in his last post except the part about questioning the patriotism of those who disagree. I think the tax conservatives are completely wrongheaded and if they get their way it will bring about the destruction of the U.S. as we know it, not that there aren't many other factors competing to accomplish that. But I'm sure they mean well.

    From the perspective of someone who earns in the top 3% and who knows many people in the top 1 and .1% percentiles of income earners (my brother earns $5 million a year, not including bonuses), Darth_Y echoes precisely why both of us have always voted democratic and support a progressive tax structure, even to our own personal financial detriment:

    social stability

    I've written about this before, so pardon me for repeating myself. I find that I've completely run out of new things to say and so am no longer a productive contributor to the Senate Floor.

    There are various ways to achieve social stability. One way is through a totalitarian regime that polices every aspect of the human condition. Another way is through bread and circuses. That's sort of the American approach in the last decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st. Television and XBox are the opiates of the masses.

    A third way I believe is through relatively broad participation in the political process and an equitable distribution of wealth so that a broad segment of the population shares more or less equally in the benefits. Social stability also helps the rich by providing an environment in which earning lots and lots of money is a predictable enterprise. Theft is manageable. Political unrest does not constantly threaten the destruction of capital. A minimal percentage of people feel disenfranchised by the social enterprise as a whole.

    America is backtracking itself into a Dickensian dystopia with "globalization" as the ultimate excuse for why we should just sit back and watch it happen on all fronts: on issues of racial equality and socioeconomic equality. The looming energy catastrophe has thrown an even greater level of upheaval and potential unrest into this process. Hard to tell how it will all turn out.
  25. Darth_Yuthura Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2007
    star 4
    Changed it. Absolutely right. What people choose to do with their money is none of my concern. I shouldn't have said something so inflamatory.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.