Cabbies and Booksellers in London at War

I refer you to this article:

Cabbies and Bookworms Go to War with Uber and Amazon  June 17, 2014

https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140617145522-25760-cabbies-and-bookworms-go-to-war-with-uber-and-amazon?trk=tod-home-art-list-large_0

Posted by Michael Moritz, Chairman of Sequoia Capital and an influencer in linkedin.com

This is a terrific article about the impact of technological change upon old ways of conducting business. It's a variation of the fears of the Luddites at the inception of mass production, the conflict between an obsolete past and an inexorable future.

But there's more. What is unsaid but needs to be told is that we as humans in an ever changing world have to decide just what kind of world we want to have and how active we want to be in creating it. What often goes unsaid as industry after industry is decimated, is that jobs are, and will continue to be eliminated and fewer new jobs will take their place.

So, what do we do when all our needs, basic and ideal, are met? What do we do when there is no need to 'work' in the conventional sense, when we have time and freedom to sit and think?

WIll those of us who are manipulating systems to increase our share of wealth way beyond our needs still talk down about those who are not interested in having 'more'? That day is not far off. Certainly not in my generation but likely in my sons' time and certainly in my grandchildren's.

What happens when the insatiable drive for money and material things has been satisfied, when we have the freedom of choice, what will we do? How will we treat one another? What will we strive for? Will we embrace each other as ourselves, or will we continue to devise schemes to keep us apart?

I ask you: If all your needs are met, and you have as much as you need, will you pursue the discovery of yourself and make new dreams? Will you find such joy in your freedom that you will rejoice that others have it, too? Or will your ego still drive you to be 'better'?

Does the cabbie do what he does because he is driven to do it, or does he shlep people around town to fill more basic needs? Is it possible that if his needs were met, he might instead be composing music or preparing to head of for the stars?

What about you? If technology filled your essential needs and societies advanced enough in their thinking to accept its humanity for its intrinsic and infinite potential, what would you do? Drive a cab?

What Stacey Campfield Could Have Done

Senator Stacey Campfield (TN 7^th District) kept our state visible by promoting the Don't Say Gay bill and by asking the state to take food out of the mouth of children who don't perform well in school. These are ridiculous acts. They resulted in appropriate RIDICULE of him and garnered unfavorable attention for Tennessee.

What could he have spent his time on? I'll tell you. Instead of working to gain attention for himself, he could have:

Done what Maine legislators did. They passed a law allowing importation of prescription drugs from Canada. That law saved the City of Portland $200,000 and it saved Maine businesses MILLIONS. Portland has a population of 66,000. Knoxville’s is over 160,000. You do the math.  One small Maine company, Hardwood Products, a maker of ice cream sticks and skewers fro corn dogs, saved $400,000. Imagine the impact on Knox County businesses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOBYcIz7Mdc

He could have done what Oregon is doing, and making college education affordable by allowing students to pay nothing while in school; instead, after graduation, four-year students pay 3 percent of their income for the next two decades or so to fund the education of future students—without a role for the big banks.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175166/oregon-trail-end-student-debt

He could have worked to eliminate homelessness like UTAH, which has eliminated 74% of homeless people with the goal of elimination it all by 2015, NEXT YEAR!

http://100khomes.org/   https://www.facebook.com/100khomes

There are better people running for his seat. One is a Democrat with ideas. Perhaps you know her. Cheri Siler. She reads. She learns from the successes of others and asks, "Why not here?"

It's time to get recognized for doing good. It's time for Cheir Siler. That's my opinion.

A Work in Progress

My friend and FB pal David M Hendrix sent this along: http://silencednomore.com/kissinger-eugenics-depopulation/. It started me on this rant. I won't be able to do it justice in one sitting, so bear with me as I add to it, and amend it over time. Feel free to offer suggestions.

I quote the first paragraph:
 "“ Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote: "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign
policy towards the Third World.”"

I think the first victims of this idea have already been disappeared. Would anyone care if Kissinger was next? I wouldn't. He's so eager to purify the species, let him set the example. If we use one's humanity as a criterion, surely he should be in front of the line for lack of same.

Is the population huge and growing? Sure. In the 'third world'? Yes. What changes that trend? Feeding people, employing people, giving people chances to grow in their humanity, the top level in Maslow's hierarchy.
What happens when people have financial security and can enjoy the blessings of a good life? Birth rates go down. Carried to its extreme, we all have great lives but no one to carry on.

If we carry that along, what does that mean for first world nations? Aging populations are greater than younger ones. Who's to take care of the elderly? Immigrant care givers.

President Nixon gave us some good things, like the EPA (out of pragmatism not nobility). Unfortunately, he burdened us with Henry, and the bastard is still with us.

The problem is not that we have too large a population. It's that we don't want to share with them. We prefer to take advantage of them and we want to increase their numbers that they might serve us, the few, the select.

If there were fewer of them, would it really impact global warming? Not much, not really. They hardly consume all that much. We are the consumers, the ravagers, the rapers and pillagers. We need them to do it for us but increasingly they are less needed. The smart guys are creating their replacements: robots for plants, robots to repair robots in plants; self driving cars which will lead to self directed semis, operating 24/7 instead of 10/7, also serviced by robots; algorithms to replace financial planners; drones to eliminate fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers and expensive pilots. We get more efficient, more profitable, less human. If only there were ways to speed up the process, to amass greater wealth more quickly and accrue it to the fewest of us.

Wait! There are. Let's get rid of the drains on the economies of the world -- the unwashed. Let's bioengineer their demise. Let's speculate on crops and commodities and drive people to riot across nations, and to kill one another. We're doing that now. We just have to do it better, faster.

If we get rid of those savages in the rain forests. we can extract the oil and minerals while we destroy the environment. Whoever came up with the concept of 'externalities' really did us a disservice. They focused people against us. How wrong-minded can one be?

Lloyd Blankfein had it right. Buy an SEC employee to 'approve' commodities for speculation. We drive the prices for wheat and other food through the roof. Who'll take note?

Let's buy us a Congress. Who'll catch on? And they would not have, if the bottom had not fallen out. But, hey!, We made a killing on that, too.

A world with a third fewer people is much more manageable, anyway. Remember white collar layoffs? Now that was efficient. We get rid of the bottom 15% of the low performers, the overwork the hell out of the rest. We can do better later -- by cutting another 15% and call them low performers, too. It's great for our bonuses and stock options.

Later

https://www.facebook.com/LeeCampComedian/photos/a.391759894220737.90416.108248262571903/736467899749933/?type=1&theater

I looked at this image and read the comment by Lee Camp. He wrote "But you know, who's counting?"

I replied:

Lee Camp: You ask,"Who's counting?"
I'm counting. I'm counting the 12 aircraft carriers in the US Navy's fleet, 10 active and two on reserve. I'm counting the one they're having built, the one that's behind schedule, rife with technological problems, and over budget, currently $1.3 Trillion.

I'm counting the Chinese Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers (ONE, with another under construction). I'm counting the aircraft carriers owned by and on active duty for the nations of the rest of the developed world (ZERO!)

I'm counting the tanks, and the aircraft, too. More on that when you post your future photos.

Then I read Robert D. Turner's post, and had to reply. He's right, you know. Bankers are in it for the money, and not money tomorrow but money NOW!

Goldman Sachs got some flunky at the SEC to permit them to speculate on commodities. They did so immediately. In 2008 they drove commodity prices of wheat to 6 and 7 TIMES the normal range and caused food riots in thirty nations. SIne then, they have been buying warehouses to store commodities like aluminum and other metals to drive their prices to the limits. These men, called investment bankers, are pariahs.

Your turn, folks.

• Robert D Turner Banks don't profit by feeding the poor.

  46 mins · Like
• 

  Joseph Malgeri But they could. Imagine if the poor were fed enough to allow them to learn, if they learned enough to create, to offer value to employers., OMG! You're right, Robert D Turner, they see them as poor. Yet they never read Muhammad Yunus, or heard of the Grameen Bank. Have you?http://www.youtube.com/results... Send this link to the bankers. He speaks better English than they. His bank has over 7.5 million members. His bank is now operating in parts of the USA, serving ONLY WOMEN with small business loans. Please, Robert, share this. Wake the bastards up.
  

  
  

  muhammad yunus grameen bank - YouTube

  www.youtube.com
  

  Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

  23 mins · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Joseph Malgeri Robert D Turner, I hope you'll share this, too. A decade or so ago (Clinton was POTUS) the world's leaders set a goal of eliminating poverty by 50% (as I recall) by 2015. Bangladesh, Yunus' country is the only one close. He is promoting the vision of someday building Poverty Museums around the world so people can come to see what poverty USED TO LOOK LIKE. I marvel at his gifts to the world.