World Politics

[Anonymous]

Rubio might be the most extreme of them all:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/94128/marco-rubio-and-the-new-republican-consensus

Is THAT what passes for extreme in your view? Wow.

 

[VeloCity]

btw, what was that about Obama being "business-hostile"?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-gdp-minus-government-savings-2011-7

Just more Republican talking points. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Anonymous]

btw, what was that about Obama being "business-hostile"?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-gdp-minus-government-savings-2011-7

Just more Republican talking points. Facts are stubborn things.

This kind of reminds me of the Obama admin touting "saved" jobs. Let's create something so obscure and if the numbers look good we'll run with it.

Are there net gains in jobs in the private sector? Yes. In the five figures to low six figures, which is pathetic.

If you want to argue American business is experiencing robust growth then by all means have at it. While you are at it please explain why calculated unemployment is STILL over 9% and real unemployment is around 15%.

Payroll Forecast

Payrolls grew by about 95,000 in August, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed so far by Bloomberg before the Sept. 2 jobs report. That would compare with 117,000 in July which brought the average gain over the past three months to 111,000. Employment gains averaged 204,000 in the first four months of the year.

The weak labor market and concerns over slowing growth and falling asset prices will be foremost on the minds of central bankers and policy makers this weekend when they meet at the Federal Reserve’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke tomorrow is due to give his keynote speech. Investors and economists will be listening for clues on whether the head of the central bank hints at additional measures to boost growth and jobs.

Mass layoff announcements have increased in recent weeks as companies brace for a possible extended slowdown in economic growth.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/first-time-jobless-claims-in-u-s-increase-propelled-by-verizon-dispute.html

Though we are only seven months into 2011, there has been an avalanche of 677 new regulatory rules proposed or enacted and more than 50,000 pages of new regulations added to the Federal Register. The cost of these new regulatory burdens translates to a staggering $60.9 billion. With each new rule and page added to the Federal Register, business suffers. Complying with the government’s new regulations increases the costs of providing goods and services — making it more difficult to pay current employees, much less create new jobs. Is it any wonder that business investment has ground to a halt?

While no business or industry is unscathed by the onslaught of new regulations, small businesses have been hardest hit. Small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, now spend 36 percent more per employee than large corporations to comply with these new federal rules. Consider, small businesses are the largest employers nationally, creating two out of every three new jobs.

Nonetheless, the Obama administration remains tone-deaf to this statistic — produced by its own agency.

From new rules for greenhouse gas emissions, which will likely drive up electricity costs; to a virtual halt on energy development in the U.S., which will drive the price of gasoline even higher; to an unprecedented move to prohibit investments in new manufacturing plants in right-to-work states like Texas, these endless reams of federal red tape threaten the loss of 11.4 million private sector jobs in America.

Many of the White’s House’s job-killing policies, like cap and trade, which were blocked by Congress, are also now being enacted by political appointees and unelected bureaucrats through regulatory fiat.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61894_Page2.html

Yep, BO's real friendly towards the creators of the jobs that he says he wants.

 

[gregod]

This kind of reminds me of the Obama admin touting "saved" jobs. Let's create something so obscure and if the numbers look good we'll run with it.

,,,

Yep, BO's real friendly towards the creators of the jobs that he says he wants.

no question that obama has done nothing to create jobs, but this is not the same as being "business-hostile". worker-hostile, maybe. republican-craven, definitely. the only means at a president's disposal to expand the economy and therefore create jobs is spending. he has gone along with the republicans and refused to find ways to spend money on needed infrastructure, etc.

again, not creating jobs is not the same as being hostile to business. the people who create jobs first priority is not creating jobs. it is making money and they are doing that. but absent further demand created by an expanding economy, there will be no new jobs. i will admit, though obama/republican economic policies posssibly will contract the economy enough to eventually start hurting profits. at that point you can call him business-hostile. but he will have had help from the right.

 

[gregod]

.... So, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Obama is hostile towards the vast majority of American business. Of the several million business entities in the USA very few contribute to Obama's election efforts and very, very few received bail outs. Even fewer are big banks and not very many are making big money overseas. BUT, most if not all of us are feeling the effects of new regs (Obamacare as just one example).

two things here. regulations are not business hostile. often a reasonable regulatory environment saves business diversity and spurs innovation.

check the FEC's database. obama is doing much better by business than all of the republicans combined. the banks and its execs are among his largest contributors.

parenthetically, the reason big US banks are not making big money overseas has nothing to do with obama. one reason is nobody wants to do business with them given their rapacious reputation when there are more honest local alternatives.

 

[Anonymous]

no question that obama has done nothing to create jobs, but this is not the same as being "business-hostile". worker-hostile, maybe. republican-craven, definitely. the only means at a president's disposal to expand the economy and therefore create jobs is spending. he has gone along with the republicans and refused to find ways to spend money on needed infrastructure, etc.

again, not creating jobs is not the same as being hostile to business. the people who create jobs first priority is not creating jobs. it is making money and they are doing that. but absent further demand created by an expanding economy, there will be no new jobs. i will admit, though obama/republican economic policies posssibly will contract the economy enough to eventually start hurting profits. at that point you can call him business-hostile. but he will have had help from the right.

Let's be honest. Govt can't create private sector jobs... it can only create conditions that allow for the business to expand. Cap and trade is business hostile as is Obamacare. Perhaps we are squabbling over the word "hostile".

One thing we should be able to agree upon is Obama's lack of ability to create conditions conducive to expansion. It gets worse with the 677 new regs this year alone. You may not view that action as hostile, I do. So we'll have to disagree.

As to spending, there was 787 Billion in stimulus... much of it for shovel ready infrastructure. That was essentially a turd in a punchbowl, yet the Krugmanics of the world insist it should have been two or three times larger. Clinton didn't get his stimulus plan and somehow he managed to have a robust economy while shrinking Federal spending as a percentage of GDP. Remember, Clinton also reduced Capital Gains taxes by nearly 1/3. Kinda like what some of the repubs are talking about doing today.

 

[Anonymous]

two things here. regulations are not business hostile. often a reasonable regulatory environment saves business diversity and spurs innovation.

check the FEC's database. obama is doing much better by business than all of the republicans combined. the banks and its execs are among his largest contributors.

parenthetically, the reason big US banks are not making big money overseas has nothing to do with obama. one reason is nobody wants to do business with them given their rapacious reputation when there are more honest local alternatives.

the banks and its execs are among his largest contributors.

Yes, which points to at least the appearance of pay to play. No one is surprised by this.

Nearly everyone agrees there needs to be a regulatory frame work. Over regulation is hostile.

the reason big US banks are not making big money overseas has nothing to do with obama

I was talking about the Cisco's of the world, not big American banks. I should have been more clear.

 

[gregod]

Let's be honest. Govt can't create private sector jobs... ....

simply not true. the largest period of expansion of private sector jobs in the US was a direct result of federal government spending by creating the interstate highway system. private sector jobs were created to build and maintain it, but this was by far outweighed by the number of jobs created by easier access from one coast to the other. it allowed businesses to cheaply and easily move in to markets nationwide.

there are numerous examples of the government creating jobs through its spending and regulation. stop repeating memes and think a little bit and you will see this is true. of course that is not to say that government should or can be the only source of job creation, but when business is incapable or unwilling, government does have a role.

it is obvious that you are an intelligent person. i think if you use that intelligence to challenge the memes that you get from your choice of media, that you will see that in some cases your ideas work and in many cases they don't.

by the way, if you catch me repeating any dogma, please challenge it. i do not want to be guilty of any such intellectual laziness.

 

[redtreviso]

simply not true. the largest period of expansion of private sector jobs in the US was a direct result of federal government spending by creating the interstate highway system. private sector jobs were created to build and maintain it, but this was by far outweighed by the number of jobs created by easier access from one coast to the other. it allowed businesses to cheaply and easily move in to markets nationwide.

there are numerous examples of the government creating jobs through its spending and regulation. stop repeating memes and think a little bit and you will see this is true. of course that is not to say that government should or can be the only source of job creation, but when business is incapable or unwilling, government does have a role.

it is obvious that you are an intelligent person. i think if you use that intelligence to challenge the memes that you get from your choice of media, that you will see that in some cases your ideas work and in many cases they don't.

by the way, if you catch me repeating any dogma, please challenge it. i do not want to be guilty of any such intellectual laziness.

hey scotty ..want me to intrepid that for ya?

 

[Anonymous]

simply not true. the largest period of expansion of private sector jobs in the US was a direct result of federal government spending by creating the interstate highway system. private sector jobs were created to build and maintain it, but this was by far outweighed by the number of jobs created by easier access from one coast to the other. it allowed businesses to cheaply and easily move in to markets nationwide.

there are numerous examples of the government creating jobs through its spending and regulation. stop repeating memes and think a little bit and you will see this is true. of course that is not to say that government should or can be the only source of job creation, but when business is incapable or unwilling, government does have a role.

it is obvious that you are an intelligent person. i think if you use that intelligence to challenge the memes that you get from your choice of media, that you will see that in some cases your ideas work and in many cases they don't.

by the way, if you catch me repeating any dogma, please challenge it. i do not want to be guilty of any such intellectual laziness.

This gets to the point doesn't it? Where does the Federal tax money come from? What isn't taken out of the economy is borrowed from this economy and other economies. There is a debt service on the borrowed money and opportunity loss on the re-distribution of taxed dollars. At best the govt can only set priorities.

Government does not create private jobs. It can however create conditions that either encourage expansion or discourage it. Guess which conditions have not been created in the last few years?

there are numerous examples of the government creating jobs through its spending and regulation

Cool. Should be easy for you to post them then.

i think if you use that intelligence to challenge the memes that you get from your choice of media, that you will see that in some cases your ideas work and in many cases they don't.

This is curious considering where we are today. Obamacare was supposed to be a jobs creator. Nope. Meme? Perhaps. Dems have been trying to pass some version of Universal heathcare since FDR. A nearly Trillion dollar stimulus was agreed to. A thousand billion dollars in stimulus. Did it work? No. Why? Because it should have been three thousand billion. Meme? Uh, yes?

by the way, if you catch me repeating any dogma, please challenge it.

Well I suppose we are both guilty of repetition, no? Consider the above a challenge to dogma repeated.

 

[Anonymous]

hey scotty ..want me to intrepid that for ya?

Intrepid away Red.

FWIW, it's usually more effective to get the spelling correct when attempting to insult someone.

 

[redtreviso]

Intrepid away Red.

FWIW, it's usually more effective to get the spelling correct when attempting to insult someone.

I spelled it the way I wanted to. It takes conservative daftness to take exception to the obvious.

 

[gregod]

This gets to the point doesn't it? Where does the Federal tax money come from? What isn't taken out of the economy is borrowed from this economy and other economies. There is a debt service on the borrowed money and opportunity loss on the re-distribution of taxed dollars. At best the govt can only set priorities.

not necessarily. take the example of the interstate highway system. the money that the government "borrowed" from the economy more than paid for itself in effeciency in the economy. of course, not all government spending creates efficiencies like this, but it, at times, does. so, it is not accurate to say the government does not create jobs.

as an aside, the very reason that we can discuss this here is the result of a government-funded program. google, apple, microsoft and thousands of other companies owe the bulk of every cent they have ever made to the fact that the DARPA decided to invest some money in creating an advanced communication system that eventually became the internet.

Government does not create private jobs. It can however create conditions that either encourage expansion or discourage it. Guess which conditions have not been created in the last few years?

yes, it does. i gave you one example already with the interstate highway system. another example is defense contracting. the US government farms out roughly 400 billion dollars a year to private firms for defense and security, yet the defense industry is an almost 3 trillion dollar a year industry. the reason being is that these companies can use the expertise paid for by the US government to expand their markets. plus, their are knock on effects (subcontracts, materiel, etc.) not included in that figure. take a company like blackwater, for example. it got its start as a US defense contractor, but now the bulk of its business is not US government contracts, but corporate and foreign governments.

another example is the army corps of engineers. private engineering firms have government contracts totaling billions of dollars a year. however, these private infrastructure firms do not exclusively suck off the government teat. all of them do outside contracting, as well.

these are all private sector jobs that are a direct result of government spending.


there are many more.

This is curious considering where we are today. Obamacare was supposed to be a jobs creator. Nope. Meme? Perhaps. Dems have been trying to pass some version of Universal heathcare since FDR. A nearly Trillion dollar stimulus was agreed to. A thousand billion dollars in stimulus. Did it work? No. Why? Because it should have been three thousand billion. Meme? Uh, yes?



Well I suppose we are both guilty of repetition, no? Consider the above a challenge to dogma repeated.

i don't know quite what to make of this. i mentioned one particular meme that you repeated about the government and jobs. i gave you examples where the government does in fact create jobs. i have never brought up obamacare (which, by the way, is really romneycare, which is really the idea of the heritage foundation). as i said before, if i repeat some meme, challenge it with examples and i will happily rethink my position.

 

[rhubroma]

simply not true. the largest period of expansion of private sector jobs in the US was a direct result of federal government spending by creating the interstate highway system. private sector jobs were created to build and maintain it, but this was by far outweighed by the number of jobs created by easier access from one coast to the other. it allowed businesses to cheaply and easily move in to markets nationwide.

there are numerous examples of the government creating jobs through its spending and regulation. stop repeating memes and think a little bit and you will see this is true. of course that is not to say that government should or can be the only source of job creation, but when business is incapable or unwilling, government does have a role.

it is obvious that you are an intelligent person. i think if you use that intelligence to challenge the memes that you get from your choice of media, that you will see that in some cases your ideas work and in many cases they don't.

by the way, if you catch me repeating any dogma, please challenge it. i do not want to be guilty of any such intellectual laziness.

Don't get your hopes up. He only runs on his business dogma, nor, therefore, will his intellectual laziness abate for it is simply his modus operandi.

Having read all these economic diagnosis and economic strategies and economic forecasts, which is of course pure agony: I wonder if our civilization wouldn't simply be more intelligent (and sane) to give up its lust for everlasting life that is expressed in this folly of eternal growth at the markets and our mania for constant, unremitting action.

In short, to stop grinding ourselves down and befriend our own mortality to live more peacefully.

I know to this the work-crazed world of action and the market, mine seems totally incomprehensible and indeed absolutely heretical - that on should want to simply do less, or even give up work altogether - though I wonder if such conscious idleness, which is not to say laziness, wouldn't be wiser?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well it's easy, for anyone, to pull one of the oldest tricks in the book in cherry picking out the one sentence or sub topic that you want to debate out of a 20 paragraph statement, and ignore everything else.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I seem to have missed several pages yesterday.

Because Obama is the only sane one in the entire field? I am as liberal as they come and would be very unlikely to vote Republican no matter who was running, but this field of Republicans - including the wholly incompetent Romney (you do know how he made his fortune, right? Buying companies, splitting them up, laying off thousands of workers, and then selling the bits and pieces - yeah, that'd be a great business model) - is simply insane, from Bachmann and Perry down to Herman Cain and Ron Paul. And while I've been disappointed with Obama - mainly because he hasn't gone far enough to the left and is still trying to play nice with Republicans who clearly don't give a s**t about the country and will do everything they can to sabotage his presidency - I will vote for him again, no question, if only because the alternative of the sheer f**king ignorance (and I mean that in the full sense of the word) of the Perry/Bachmann/Romney set scares the holy bejesus out of me.

With you 100% on this!

Completely agree with this post. At a time when Corporate profits are rising at roughly the same rate as true unemployment, the idea that anyone in government is big business unfriendly is laughable. The trouble with Obama is that he has turned out to be almost as middleclass unfriendly as the last mob was. He is still better than the bunch of crazies poised in the (right) wings.

....and this!

Sabotaging a presidency? Do you think the efforts are more or less than the previous president was faced with? That's politics. Clinton faced it, Carter, Reagan, Bush... every president is opposed.

Part of our problem today is this idea that, since I have a different idea than you, somehow I don't give a sh*t about this country. Hopefully that's rhetoric on your part. I think our President cares for this Country. I just don't think his policies work and he's stuck enough in his ideology that he will not change course.

Yes Scott, sabotage! There really is no other word for the appallingly self-interested, radical conservative opposition to this President. I think that Republican efforts to thwart and blacken (excuse pun) the name and policies of this President have been more extreme and just downright nastier than anything I can remember. (Dubya was just an idiot in the back pocket of Halliburton who dragged us into war, whereas Obama is an intellectual who actually had policies intended to improve life for citizens) Republican antics and delaying tactics with regard to the budget bordered on the treasonous in my book. The President's policies have never had a fair chance due to the bitter nature of the opposition, and he has compromised far more than the rabid opposition has, and far more than his supporters are happy with. You may believe that Obama is an honorable man who wants to do the best he can for the country, but sadly, there are too many imbeciles on your wing who see him as some sort of crypto-communist bent on destroying American values. The fact that so many in the US appear to believe that affordable health care for all is simply un-American, demonstrates to the rest of the civilized world just how totally, utterly out of touch with reality the loony US right is.

 

[gregod]

Completely agree with this post. At a time when Corporate profits are rising at roughly the same rate as true unemployment, the idea that anyone in government is big business unfriendly is laughable. The trouble with Obama is that he has turned out to be almost as middleclass unfriendly as the last mob was. He is still better than the bunch of crazies poised in the (right) wings.

probably true, but both romney and huntsman may not be that bad. even ron paul, because the most radical things he wants to do don't have a snowflake's chance.

however, if you can't vote for someone from the other party, there is another alternative. don't vote or vote third party so that they have a chance at matching funds in the future. i will not vote for obama again. ever. even for dog catcher. i don't care if he is up against palin, bachmann or even pat robertson. he will not get my vote. if i wanted the policies that he has espoused as president i would have voted for cheney for president.

 

[Anonymous]

not necessarily. take the example of the interstate highway system. the money that the government "borrowed" from the economy more than paid for itself in effeciency in the economy. of course, not all government spending creates efficiencies like this, but it, at times, does. so, it is not accurate to say the government does not create jobs.

as an aside, the very reason that we can discuss this here is the result of a government-funded program. google, apple, microsoft and thousands of other companies owe the bulk of every cent they have ever made to the fact that the DARPA decided to invest some money in creating an advanced communication system that eventually became the internet.



yes, it does. i gave you one example already with the interstate highway system. another example is defense contracting. the US government farms out roughly 400 billion dollars a year to private firms for defense and security, yet the defense industry is an almost 3 trillion dollar a year industry. the reason being is that these companies can use the expertise paid for by the US government to expand their markets. plus, their are knock on effects (subcontracts, materiel, etc.) not included in that figure. take a company like blackwater, for example. it got its start as a US defense contractor, but now the bulk of its business is not US government contracts, but corporate and foreign governments.

another example is the army corps of engineers. private engineering firms have government contracts totaling billions of dollars a year. however, these private infrastructure firms do not exclusively suck off the government teat. all of them do outside contracting, as well.

these are all private sector jobs that are a direct result of government spending.


there are many more.

<snipped>

To some extent we are talking past each other. I understand your examples. But here's the thing; When government spends a dollar it first had to remove that dollar from the ecomony, or it had to borrow that dollar and pay the debt service with dollars removed from the economy. The only real way the federal government can raise money is to remove it from the economy.

Now, let's say the Feds wanted to sell Yosemite, then that would be income from the sale of an asset, which can only happen once. This, to my knowledge, is not happening on any scale worth mentioning.

Government defense contracts, army corps of engineer projects, etc., are creating conditions for jobs to be created AND setting priorities based on needs real or imagined (some defense projects for example). These contracts are awarded with funds removed from the economy and redistributed to satisfy priorities.

Now, the Treasury can print money and does. This money was not first removed from the economy but this can only last so long without the value of currency falling and the problems associated with inflation.

So there you have it. I'm guessing you'll not agree...

 

[Anonymous]

I spelled it the way I wanted to. It takes conservative daftness to take exception to the obvious.

Yep, me too.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes Scott, sabotage! There really is no other word for the appallingly self-interested, radical conservative opposition to this President. I think that Republican efforts to thwart and blacken (excuse pun) the name and policies of this President have been more extreme and just downright nastier than anything I can remember. (Dubya was just an idiot in the back pocket of Halliburton who dragged us into war, whereas Obama is an intellectual who actually had policies intended to improve life for citizens) Republican antics and delaying tactics with regard to the budget bordered on the treasonous in my book. The President's policies have never had a fair chance due to the bitter nature of the opposition, and he has compromised far more than the rabid opposition has, and far more than his supporters are happy with. You may believe that Obama is an honorable man who wants to do the best he can for the country, but sadly, there are too many imbeciles on your wing who see him as some sort of crypto-communist bent on destroying American values. The fact that so many in the US appear to believe that affordable health care for all is simply un-American, demonstrates to the rest of the civilized world just how totally, utterly out of touch with reality the loony US right is.

Wow. Please re-read the above.

It's not sabatoge, it's a different economic/political philosophy. What should the right do? Abandon what they believe in to staisfy you and the far left? Tell me, when does your side compromise?

Obama has his health care legislation. He has it. Tell me, why does the bulk of this legislation on happen in 2014? Why not now? I think you know why.

This is a classic case of the right thinking the left is wrong and the left thinking the right is evil. I highlighted a few of your words to demonstrate.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't get your hopes up. He only runs on his business dogma, nor, therefore, will his intellectual laziness abate for it is simply his modus operandi.

Having read all these economic diagnosis and economic strategies and economic forecasts, which is of course pure agony: I wonder if our civilization wouldn't simply be more intelligent (and sane) to give up its lust for everlasting life that is expressed in this folly of eternal growth at the markets and our mania for constant, unremitting action.

In short, to stop grinding ourselves down and befriend our own mortality to live more peacefully.

I know to this the work-crazed world of action and the market, mine seems totally incomprehensible and indeed absolutely heretical - that on should want to simply do less, or even give up work altogether - though I wonder if such conscious idleness, which is not to say laziness, wouldn't be wiser?

Hey, I think this would be great. Seriously.

We could go to the grocery store and everything we need would just be there. No need for a monetary sytem, as everyone has each others best interest at heart. We all live in homes that satify our needs and are just there. They exist. So does our modes of transportation (all harmeless to our environment of course).

And on and on. Too bad this world does not work in this manner. Chalk it up to the human condition.

 

[VeloCity]

Obama has his health care legislation. He has it. Tell me, why does the bulk of this legislation on happen in 2014? Why not now? I think you know why.

Health care is maybe the best example of how conservatives put their ideology above the good of the country.

 

[rhubroma]

Hey, I think this would be great. Seriously.

We could go to the grocery store and everything we need would just be there. No need for a monetary sytem, as everyone has each others best interest at heart. We all live in homes that satify our needs and are just there. They exist. So does our modes of transportation (all harmeless to our environment of course).

And on and on. Too bad this world does not work in this manner. Chalk it up to the human condition.

No, to human stupidity.

We have invented a market system which demands ever larger quantities of production and consumption, or else recession.

Meanwhile by 2050 Planet Earth may well have 8 billion homo rapiens on it, with diminishing resources of water, fossil fuels, deforestation, contaminated lakes and rivers, anemic seas and wasted mineral and other vital deposits: such that the entire world will be firmly on the senseless path to the complete despoilment of its biosphere, and the only thing there will be left for humans to do will be to find a way to escape from swimming in our own foul detritus. With the exception of Buddhism the great world religions tell us how unique and special we are among all created things, when the truth is that human beings are only gifted at consuming with a ferocious rapacity, that's as clamorous as it is unedited, all the things required for life, including our own, on the planet. While science and the economy has led us to believe that we can overcome all the natural limits, without having to control our own voracious appetites and desires. And somehow we contrive to even believe that we are healthy and sane animals!

Now I know you to be a guy of action, a world class business man as they say, a natural force of work, enterprise and fastidiousness; so keep it up and perhaps you will one day arrive at correcting the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

Health care is maybe the best example of how conservatives put their ideology above the good of the country.

Funny, that's what comes to my mind when I think of what Liberals have done with health care. Universal health care (single payor, govt run) is not the best delivery system but it is the single best way to keep liberals in power in perpetuity. Create the largest entitlement imaginable thrusting dependency upon literally everyone and what do you get?

Not better or more affordable health care.

 

[Anonymous]

No, to human stupidity.

We have invented a market system which demands ever larger quantities of production and consumption, or else recession.

Meanwhile by 2050 Planet Earth may well have 8 billion homo rapiens on it, with diminishing resources of water, fossil fuels, deforestation, contaminated lakes and rivers, anemic seas and wasted mineral and other vital deposits: such that the entire world will be firmly on the senseless path to the complete despoilment of its biosphere, and the only thing there will be left for humans to do will be to find a way to escape from swimming in our own foul detritus. With the exception of Buddhism the great world religions tell us how unique and special we are among all created things, when the truth is that human beings are only gifted at consuming with a ferocious rapacity, that's as clamorous as it is unedited, all the things required for life, including our own, on the planet. While science and the economy has led us to believe that we can overcome all the natural limits, without having to control our own voracious appetites and desires. And somehow we contrive to even believe that we are healthy and sane animals!

Now I know you to be a guy of action, a world class business man as they say, a natural force of work, enterprise and fastidiousness; so keep it up and perhaps you will one day arrive at correcting the problem.

Other than killing myself, I have done my part. I have no children, no legacy... Other than beer and bicycle parts I really don't consume anything near what you would consider excessive. I live reasonably small as do most of the people I know.

It sounds to me like you have a serious grudge against all mankind. I'm guessing if you had a magic wand and could make the world the way you'd like it to be you would still be miserable. That's a tough way to go through life.