Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[KevinWestern]

NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY PEOPLE HIGH WAGES JUST BECAUSE YOU DEPORTED IMMIGRANTS.

You want to bet?
Let's deport 20 million and look at wages a year later.

I'm not really too involved in the immigration debate, but I think you're right. A company sourcing from a pool of 2,000 people for 50 jobs will pay much less for labor than a company sourcing from a pool of 200 people for 50 jobs.

Companies compete for labor just as they compete for resources, customers, etc.

Econ 101.

 

[gnarlylove]

Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't? That the blame solely relies on government. So what, do we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival? Is your claim that we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.

Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.

Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee desirable freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.

I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest. But who gutted it? Special interests and powerful lobbyists.

But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations? Doesn't this sound fishy to anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.

By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right? Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?

Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right? Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.

They're the real victims in all of this, right?

By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?

How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?

Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?

We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.

But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.

We stopped manufacturing televisions in this country because EPA regulations made it impossible. We haven't built a new oil refinery since 1970, also because of EPA regulations. There's two industries right there that have been decimated by government regulations.

 

[bripat9643]

And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they May or May Not Have Access to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..

As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.

You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.

If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.

Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.

By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.

Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency. The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Anyone who works for the government is either a) a piece of shit or b) really ignorant

I keep reading the same old worn out templates. The government is full of corruption but the private sector isn't? That the blame solely relies on government. So what, do we need to bow down to the market and enjoy our participation in the private sector--most likely selling my body and time for survival? Is your claim that we need more freedom in the private sector and less government thereby reducing the restrictions and multiplying freedom.

Our concept of freedom is irresponsible at best.

Reducing restrictions is not a guarantee desirable freedom, it only reduces responsibility companies must take for their actions, like dumping waste. Freedom from responsibility is a poor way to advocate for freedom. Refusing to accept responsibility tends to lead to greater problems down the road. Like eating a poor diet may feel like freedom at first but in the long run it's guaranteed to make you sick, less productive and likely obese. Accepting restrictions or taking responsibility can reflect a good character because it ultimately lend itself to greater freedoms--by eating healthy one can do more and feel better doing it.

I'm not saying the government functions like it should by any means and many laws or restrictions have been gutted so they don't really serve the public interest. But who gutted it? Special interests and powerful lobbyists.

But is anyone aware that those in government are of the same ilk that operates over half the private sector/global economy? Why do we think the government is the only problem when government officials, after serving their purpose, are hired onto the board of directors of major corporations? Doesn't this sound fishy to anyone?

Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.

I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.

 

[dblack]

As I recall, the woman responsible for writing most of the HCA took a leave of absence from WellPoint, where she was a VP, and went to work for a senate Democrat from Montana.

You should consider the possibility that Obama sold out the seniors, and others, in pursuit of greater corporate profits and not because he wanted to socialize healthcare.

If socialization had been his intent, he would have listened to many on the left advising him to spend the first fifteen months of his administration prosecuting the control accounting fraud on Wall Street that put him in office in the first place.

Based on the much smaller S&L looting of the late 1980s, we could have seen thousands of bankers indicted, tried, and convicted for their role in collapsing the global economy in 2008.

By the summer of 2010,(just before mid-terms) Obama could have proposed health care reform by pledging to remove three words for the 1965 Medicare Act: citizens over sixty-five would have become: citizens. Period.

Apparently Goldman Sachs gave Obama's 2008 campaign over $900,000 to prevent such history from ever occurring.

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency. The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.

I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.

 

[Indeependent]

You understand that if we deported those 20 million illegals, those employers would have to hire Americans and pay them more? Fuckstick.

By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right? Because that option of exploiting cheap labor won't be available, right?

Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right? The MASSIVELY HUGE TAXES that corporations have to pay force those poor international conglomerates to pay foreign workers slave wages in order to make those record-breaking quarterly profits, right? Those poor, poor multibillion-dollar multinational corporations.

They're the real victims in all of this, right?

By your "logic", if we end outsourcing then American corporations will have to hire Americans again at a real wage, too, right?

How do you stop Ford from building a factory in Ireland or Kuwait?

Oh, but companies outsource because of the HUGE tax burden, right?

We do have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. And regulations continue to cost jobs.

But you keep supporting importing competition for our workers, cause that'll help.

You should try reading an interview with a CEO once in a while.
The entire interview.
Companies off-shore due to wages.
But that would be presuming you can read an article as opposed to simply shooting off your virtual mouth.

 

[bripat9643]

Indeed. Obama is no socialist. Neither is he a capitalist. He's a corporatist, seeking a government 'managed', privately-profited-from, economy.

You're confusing what Obama would do it he had a totally free hand and what he does because of political expediency. The only reason we don't have healthcare totally run by the government is the fact that he knew he couldn't get it approved by his own party, let alone the entire Congress.

I don't think that's true. I could be wrong, of course, but I think Obama is a genuine corporatist, in the mold of FDR. He sees the role of government as the 'manager' of society, treating it as a set of competing interest groups. He's more than eager to cater to business interests as long as the are willing to collude with government in kind.

I think, like FDR, that Obama will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to maintain his power and the power of the Democrat Party. One of the main reasons for passing the ACA was to insure Democrat control of the government for the next 100 years. It obviously had nothing to do with making insurance cheaper or even insuring people who couldn't previously afford it. It was about control and making people dependent on government bureaucrats.

 

[KevinWestern]

You should try reading an interview with a CEO once in a while.
The entire interview.
Companies off-shore due to wages.
But that would be presuming you can read an article as opposed to simply shooting off your virtual mouth.

Now that seems just a little bit oversimplified to me. Sure, heavy manufacturing companies who produce cheap goods (socks, t-shirts) will probably go offshore for the cheaper wages; however, are you aware that there are other sorts of companies out there who don't care as much about the cost of low-skilled labor and would very much consider setting up shop in a country that is more friendly when it comes to taxes?

 

[gnarlylove]

Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.

I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.

First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility.

However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?

In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and do not realize these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption and dysfunction in our present government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, it is the Federal Reserve. Is that a government agency? No. It is a private central bank that literally operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve. Before he died, he said "I am a most unhappy man--unwittingly I have ruined my country."

This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]

They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.

To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Because government has no responsibility to its consumer. If a company behaved poorly without government shielding it would lose its client base and go under, but that clearly isn't the case (see BOFA/JP MORGAN/AIG/ETC). Corporations are creations of government and literally the government exists to serve private interests not the people.

I advocate pure freedom, no government, no laws, no regulations, free markets. There is no way that restrictions on freedom lead to more freedom.

First off, people under government are not called consumers, they are people. Reducing the human to a consumer is not a healthy form of governance. Secondly, the responsibility of a functioning government to its people is very tangible. Voting, if the public is well-informed, is a effective way to keep politicians serving the needs of the people. In other words, responsibility.

However, our government is very dysfunctional. I would like to draw a distinction between how our government IS functioning and how it is SUPPOSE to function. I agree the government serves the private interests. If these interests are broadly represented, we have a functioning government.. Unfortunately, our government has gone very foul by allowing narrow interests to vastly outweigh the masses. Would you agree?

In fact, this is precisely why you are upset at government...the corporations have spent trillions of dollars to elect the "right" politicians. The government has become a craps shoot for the wealthy. If the people weren't so full of lying rhetoric from politicians and propaganda from mass media we could vote them out of office. But sadly our citizenry views voting as a waste of time, including myself. But if we all worked to oust propaganda and Public Relations campaigns, we could get something done in gov't. Do I have hope in this approach (i.e. working within the system)? Hell NO! But am I going to try? Yes. Why not? It doesn't hurt my other campaign to work from outside the system to create a more free society.

You have mistakenly burdened government with all the executive screw ups and refuse to admit these narrow interests are largely responsible for the extreme corruption in the government. If we could pinpoint the SOURCE of this corruption, I would identify it with the Federal Reserve. Are the government agency? No. This is a private central bank that operates the government as well as the rest of the private sector.

Without money we have no government (given our modern age relying solely on fiat currency). It's that simple. There were many attempts to prevent a private establishment from controlling the American money supply, but, after 2 unsuccessful attempts, powerful bankers were able to deceive Woodrow Wilson into making the one regret he had in his presidency. Signing into law the central and private Federal Reserve.

This video is massively entertaining but doubly informative. If you only want the important stuff, skip to 14:30. I recommend watching it all. It's not a bad use of your time if your spending it on USMB.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/ame]

They [the people], and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude...
This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Long before we had this gay discussion about governments gone sour, Thomas Jefferson was dutifully aware. He foresaw what private central banking does to the public and the government, as well as leading to extravagance by the gov't and private bankers. At no other time in history have so few men dominated entire continents and resources. Their extravagance will either ruin the world or we will wake up and prohibit such wealth concentration.

To point fingers at the government is a small part of the problem--it is not the source! The real power isn't in Armies, it's in who controls the world and its resources. "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." -Nathan Rothschild to Rockerfeller.

I've seen that video.

My point was that governments has no regard for profit/loss etc. Things like war, which is only possible through taxation, can happen because the government has no need to worry about how much it spends as it has a constant source of tax cattle that will keep its coffers full regardless of how they feel about the performance of the agency. Corporations are creations of the government. They advantages they have are because of their access to legislation.

Government is the problem and the source of the problem. The only reason the central banks and the rothchilds and the rest can control the currency is because of the governments support. Trust me I am 100% against central banks but they can't exist without a government and even if they were gone, which we have had periods without them, the government is still evil and needs to be ended.

 

[gnarlylove]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.

When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.

 

[dblack]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

The key is to constrain the government to its Constitutional obligations.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you, I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

The key is to constrain the government to its Constitutional obligations.

the constitution sucks man why

 

[georgephillip]

Better yet, corporations are government creations. They simply exist to shield executives from liability.

Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:

"The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."

2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded

Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; however, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives.

 

[gnarlylove]

That's why I said we need a bridge social theory/government structure to take us to genuine liberty. Returning back to our constitution would be a fine start although there are plenty of other avenues. It likely starts with ending the dichotomy of Republican and Democrat (since they are the same). Is it our ultimate goal? No way. But we need to be reasonable in what we can accomplish or we will continue complaining without accomplishing real change.

Marx perceived socialism as a bridge to a more empathetic society (to communism). Although I don't agree with Marx on many of his points, he is right that as long as man is what capitalism made him (profit maximizer) we have no hope of genuine liberty. With egos swelled and self-interest the only game in town, why do we think we can create a just society for all when considerations start and stop with the self? Capitalism has brought self-interest to the fore and removed compassion. I don't know if socialism is the route we should take but I know this much: no modern society has genuinely tried it. Maybe that's the point--those half-socialist countries are working towards a fuller socialism. Change doesn't have to be slow but in our interconnected global economy rapid change tends to negatively effect us in the short term.

In order to exist without government we must "see strange people as fellow sufferers. Solidarity is not discovered by reflection but created." (Richard Rorty). A government-less society will either perceive each individual as having basic needs that must be met (but not the same wants) or it will trample certain folks underfoot for the sake of others.

Encouraging altruism (or an ego check) is essential if we wish to have a flourishing society. Otherwise it will always have "the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest." This is not the emblem of a free society and can never be.

 

[Contumacious]

Executives and shareholders, as the good citizens around Elk River are in the process of discovering:

"The Elk River chemical spill occurred on January 9, 2014 when crude 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) was released from a Freedom Industries facility into the Elk River, a tributary of the Kanawha River, in Charleston in the U.S. state of West Virginia."

2014 Elk River chemical spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone blames the evil corporations but still cheers for having a government, its retarded

Or maybe it's because every government yet conceived has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens above those of its majorities? Theoretically, a government could be created behind a wall of separation from all affects of private wealth; however, that's highly unlikely to happen in the US if a majority of voters continue "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when selecting their House and Senate representatives.

That is correct.

Reason I believe that Taxpayers and producers will vote using different means:

Da' Mossberg 590

.

 

[Erand7899]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.

When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.

Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom. Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals. Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.

 

[Contumacious]

Your aim seems to be "End gov't now." Am I reading you right? I'm all for a government-less world but this is not possible in today's world--we need a bridge to take us there. The effect of dismantling gov't now would be disastrous without also dismantling mass concentrations of wealth (e.g. corporations etc.). Otherwise we'd likely be further enslaved by power structures than we already are.

So while I agree with you I think such an approach is unwise given our current climate.

Well it is hard to dismantle corporations when they are created and protected by the government without dismantling the government first.

When would the time be right in your opinion? I can't imagine a greater power structure replacing the one we currently have.

Without government, there can be no private property rights, and without private property rights, there can be no economic freedom. Without economic freedom, there is no personal freedom.

Government is necessary to protect individuals from other individuals or groups of individuals. Without government, we are back to the stone age attempting to protect our cave from those who desire to take it.

1- US prisoners 2,400,000 inmates , more than in North Korea

2-

3- ad nauseam