Please correct me if I am wrong here, but this is my observation of global economics.
Also, I wanted my ideas her to be sort of in a proper legible format, but I'm not great at putting my thoughts together properly.
Please, if anybody can rewrite this properly, I will do anything.


Cycle of the Cancer Economy
Rich consume human labor (tmie/effort) and earths resources like cancer on the earth.
Rich set up manufacturing in a processing zone.
Resources from land around processing zone are gathered.
Land is depleted and destroyed.
Humans from land around processing zone are worked under very harsh conditions.
In return, they get enough to barely survive so that they may continue working long hours.
This results in the production of mass quantities of consumable products.
Consumers get money to purchase consumable products by providing labor that serves the needs of other consumerns.
Consumable products are sold to consumers for profit.
Each unit of product is consumed, and converted to garbage causing even more damage to the envronment.
Profits collected by the rich are not used to set up high standards of living for processing zone workers.
Workers at processing zones are kepy deprived, and worked like animals.
Rich use their profits to create even more processing zones to create more consumable products.
This spreads the cancer economy.
More processing zones lead to even more profit which leads to even more processing zones which leads to even more profit etc.
All of this leads to more depletion and destruction of the earh environment.
This is the cycple of the cancer economy.

Marketing plays a big part of it.
Marketing creates an artificial demand for products.
The rich then loan money to poor people to buy products from the rich, and place poor people in even more debt.
They also loan money for military spending that causes more destruction to make poor people even more desperate to get in debt.
They sell military products. They get governments to go to war in order to purchase military products from the rich for the profit of the rich.
Government borrows money from the rich to pay for war. Poor people now are in debt to the rich. Poor people pay back the money that the government owes to the rich in the form of taxes.

Pardon me, but that is grossly false!!!! The entire picture isn't nearly as dismal and decadent as you paint it - not by a LONG shot!!! That's a level of exaggeration that is WAY out of bounds with reality.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but this is my observation of global economics.
Also, I wanted my ideas her to be sort of in a proper legible format, but I'm not great at putting my thoughts together properly.
Please, if anybody can rewrite this properly, I will do anything.


Cycle of the Cancer Economy
Rich consume human labor (tmie/effort) and earths resources like cancer on the earth.
Rich set up manufacturing in a processing zone.
Resources from land around processing zone are gathered.
Land is depleted and destroyed.
Humans from land around processing zone are worked under very harsh conditions.
In return, they get enough to barely survive so that they may continue working long hours.
This results in the production of mass quantities of consumable products.
Consumers get money to purchase consumable products by providing labor that serves the needs of other consumerns.
Consumable products are sold to consumers for profit.
Each unit of product is consumed, and converted to garbage causing even more damage to the envronment.
Profits collected by the rich are not used to set up high standards of living for processing zone workers.
Workers at processing zones are kepy deprived, and worked like animals.
Rich use their profits to create even more processing zones to create more consumable products.
This spreads the cancer economy.
More processing zones lead to even more profit which leads to even more processing zones which leads to even more profit etc.
All of this leads to more depletion and destruction of the earh environment.
This is the cycple of the cancer economy.

it has not been that bad since the robber barons of course there are neo cons who would probably like to go back to those times but things are not that bad

Pardon me, but that is grossly false!!!! The entire picture isn't nearly as dismal and decadent as you paint it - not by a LONG shot!!! That's a level of exaggeration that is WAY out of bounds with reality.
I don't understand. I thought that was how global economy works.
What is the reality?

I don't understand. I thought that was how global economy works.
What is the reality?

I just realized that this particular forum is one that I choose not to participate in for personal reasons, therefore I'll make my answer very brief and exit.

The reality is only about 20% as harsh as you paint it. I read your version as being similar to the idealistic vision of a very young person who is relying much more on heresay than on actual experience in the world. It isn't nearly as bad - by a long shot - as you make it sound except in some third-world countries.

I don't understand. I thought that was how global economy works.
What is the reality?
I think this is closest to reality in places like China.

Contrast what you describe with how the natural economy works...the world of plants and animals coexisting within the biosphere.

Have you read Upside Down: A Primer for the Looking-Glass World (http://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Primer-Looking-Glass-World/dp/0312420315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201387732&sr=8-1) by Eduardo Galeano?

I think you'll find it very illuminating.

Please, if anybody can rewrite this properly, I will do anything.

I would suggest that you use the word"virus" instead of "cancer" because a cancer is a cell that mutates and devours itself whereas a virus eats destroys everything it comes in contact with, just like humans.

Resources from land around processing zone are gathered.
Land is depleted and destroyed.

This is done in two ways...the depletion of the environment and the poisoning of the environment.

Some examples of depletion are the thinning of topsoil and trees.

The depletion of essential metal ores like iron, copper and nickel is secondary but still very important.

I wonder where Europe would be today environmentally if it wasnt for the Dark Ages...when there was little in the way of deforestation and organized agriculture.

Are there any true forests left in Europe...not just clumps of trees here and there?

This is the cycple of the cancer economy.

It is no more different than drug economy....legal or illegal....in case of illegal drugs, no one forces people to take those drugs. Whatever is the reason, same reason applies to people buying crap and creating that demand in a legal way....which is causing what your perceptions are....

There is not much you can do about it...except save your money...invest wisely....that will teach them....

The reality is only about 20% as harsh as you paint it.
I'm describing the world in general though.
I don't understand what you mean, Read-Only. I'm saying that the Virus economy is destroying the earth. I don't see why you claim the cycle isn't that bad. Why do you belive what I am saying is an exageration of the reality? Thanks cosmictraveler for the clarification.

Thanks for the book recommendation, SAM.
It's from Uruguay. I've been there, and saw lots of the devestation. I travel alot, to many countries. Mostly for activism.
Most of the processing zones are far away from where regular tourists would travel. Do you find, SAM, that many consumers are sheltered from the realities of where their products came from?
I personally have seen the realities, and continue to consume these products out of necessity. For example, if I need clothes, I'm going to find the most cost effective clothes for my wardrobe despite where it came from.

Here is the quote from Amazon:
One of Latin America's most honored historians and authors, Galeano (Memory of Fire) returns with more barbed and bewitching accounts of the contradictions of the First World, as filtered through the enlightened sensibilities of a Third World scholar-writer from Uruguay. He chastises the moneyed First World, which he terms the "upside down world," as a culture gone amok that "scorns honesty, punishes work, and prizes the lack of scruples." In a series of wickedly on-target parables, lessons and homilies that force the reader to question the state of the world as we know it, Galeano slams industrialized nations for turning their backs on critical issues of our time, including poverty, child abuse, patriarchal arrogance and political deception. In "Practicum: How to Make Friends and Succeed in Life," he examines the nature of power, be it cultural, political and religious, revealing how in each area power is maintained through secrecy, money and terror. Humor, sarcasm and careful research inform his short tales of greed and tyranny in full bloom in "Master Class on Impunity," which displays the author at his witty, sardonic best. Concluding his primer with the most potent of his lessons, "The End of the Millennium as Promise and Betrayal," he delivers his hardest blows with stream-of-consciousness truths that match the best work of Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce and Thomas Merton: "What has the world left us? A desolate, de-souled world, that practices the superstitious worship of machines and the idolatry of arms, an upside-down world with its left on its right, its belly button on its backside, and its head where its feet used to be." This is arguably Galeano's most spirited and eloquent examination of our topsy-turvy modern worldDa ticking literary hand grenade waiting to detonate in the mind of the reader. (Oct.)
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Hi kmuguru. I think you are saying that whether legal or illegal, this cycle will continue because people will always continue to consume "crap" as you call it. I hope I interpreted you correctly.

Carcano thank you. I lean towards the standpoint of what many consider to be idealist, but is not really idealism. Its the standpoint that we as a society can function much more prosperously and technologically advanced without placing any burden to the planet's regenerative cycles, and even complimenting it. It all depends on human culture way of life. I'm not a great writer, so don't know if this is clear. The earthis going through bad times because the human culture way of life is fairly destructive like a virus. I'm not saying that it is possible to turn it around and fix it. I am saying that a culture of environmental protection preeservation and nourishment leads to a more positive cycle. Of course such a culture is impossible for those who don't believe in it.

I would suggest that you use the word"virus" instead of "cancer" because a cancer is a cell that mutates and devours itself whereas a virus eats destroys everything it comes in contact with, just like humans.
Come to think of it, cancer might just be the right description.

I've added the following lines to ths cycle.
Marketing plays a big part of it.
The rich then loan money to poor people to buy products from the rich, and place poor people in even more debt.
They also loan money for military spending that causes more destruction to make poor people even more desperate to get in debt.
They sell military products. They get governments to go to war in order to purchase military products from the rich for the profit of the rich.
Government borrows money from the rich to pay for war. Poor people now are in debt to the rich. Poor people pay back the money that the government owes to the rich in the form of taxes.

Come to think of it, cancer might just be the right description.

I've added the following lines to ths cycle.
Marketing plays a big part of it.
The rich then loan money to poor people to buy products from the rich, and place poor people in even more debt.
They also loan money for military spending that causes more destruction to make poor people even more desperate to get in debt.
They sell military products. They get governments to go to war in order to purchase military products from the rich for the profit of the rich.
Government borrows money from the rich to pay for war. Poor people now are in debt to the rich. Poor people pay back the money that the government owes to the rich in the form of taxes.

{sigh} you are just singing a very old song to the worst possible tune. The way you choose to present it is exactly the same as saying what life is in the following terms: "You are born, you work and then you die."

Cut down to it's very basics, that statement is true, of course, and so are your statements. BUT there is MUCH more to both! Much, much more.

One factor that you are completely ignoring is this - what REALLY drives any economy is the wants of the consumers. All of the people/organizations you are so quick to place the blame on could NOT do the things you complain about - like selling cars, homes, TVs, etc. and creating bad effects as byproducts IF the consumers didn't want their products! And that's the REAL underlying force behind it all. The things that you are pointing so many fingers at are the results of that force - nothing more.

your also ignoring the strong push for business ethics at the moment. Consumers who HAVE choice (somethings we get no say in) are opting to pay a little bit more if the companies act in a responcable manner. Its called the tripple bottom line, profits, comunity and enviromental responcability. Look at fair trade coffee

I would suggest that you use the word"virus" instead of "cancer" because a cancer is a cell that mutates and devours itself whereas a virus eats destroys everything it comes in contact with, just like humans.

Perhaps parasite might be best.

Perhaps parasite might be best.

Whatever name suits you. But just don't ever forget that the "parasites" would not exist if the people didn't want what they provide.

The problem I have with the OPs discription of things is that it's much like blaming hookers for the 'services' they provide. There wouldn't BE any hookers if there was no demand for them.

In other words, she (I think, it's a she) isn't looking at the REAL source of what she/he is complaining about. That's bad logic AND bad, bad reporting.

Whatever name suits you. But just don't ever forget that the "parasites" would not exist if the people didn't want what they provide.

The problem I have with the OPs discription of things is that it's much like blaming hookers for the 'services' they provide. There wouldn't BE any hookers if there was no demand for them.

In other words, she (I think, it's a she) isn't looking at the REAL source of what she/he is complaining about. That's bad logic AND bad, bad reporting.

So you see this as a demand driven economic system. I don't. I see the suppliers having control of the media and control of the 'representatives' even in democracies. The sell us products, services and wars. And the verb 'sell' is not a responsive verb, but an active, definitely transitive and very effective one.

They have sold us the idea that freedom, in the US for example, is to choose between two candidates who have already had to sell themselves out to these corporations and rich people before we even hear their names. We choose between, but this should not be mistaken for freedom. They have also sold the idea - using manipulative techniques that are even effective on people who understand marketing manipulation consciously, not to mention children who are trained and controlled before their conscious minds are critical - that freedom is choosing between brands. Anyone who challenges these ideas of choice are marginalized by the corporate controlled media.

One person, one vote does not exist. Not if the subject is power and representation.

To compare prostitutes - generally poor women, a large % of whom were sexually or otherwise abused as children in the richer countries - with corporations is a joke.

The poor corporations....

If you spend time in corporations as I have, you would know that they know they have power and that the only ones who can take it away from them are competitors. Sure they can mess up and the public can shift their backing to another corporation. But the Boards of Directors of corporations know that they can and they do tell COUNTRIES what to do.

elsyarango being an activist, what she is talking about is how the third world countries are operating and she is blaming the mega corporations for those problems including ecological disasters.

For example, a large number of chemical plants moved out of USA and established in third world countries where laws are lax and you can bribe your way in to anything.

She is basically talking like Green Peace....but in general terms.

Every so often activists blame Coca-Cola in India for polluting ground water. Coca-Cola brings the syrup from USA and adds clean filtered water from the ground and carbonation. Perhaps the competition pays the activists to stir up trouble in the name of ecology.

Sometimes there is good activism, other times it is dumb. It all depends on what the issues are.

So you see this as a demand driven economic system. I don't. I see the suppliers having control of the media and control of the 'representatives' even in democracies. The sell us products, services and wars. And the verb 'sell' is not a responsive verb, but an active, definitely transitive and very effective one.

They have sold us the idea that freedom, in the US for example, is to choose between two candidates who have already had to sell themselves out to these corporations and rich people before we even hear their names. We choose between, but this should not be mistaken for freedom. They have also sold the idea - using manipulative techniques that are even effective on people who understand marketing manipulation consciously, not to mention children who are trained and controlled before their conscious minds are critical - that freedom is choosing between brands. Anyone who challenges these ideas of choice are marginalized by the corporate controlled media.

One person, one vote does not exist. Not if the subject is power and representation.

To compare prostitutes - generally poor women, a large % of whom were sexually or otherwise abused as children in the richer countries - with corporations is a joke.

The poor corporations....

If you spend time in corporations as I have, you would know that they know they have power and that the only ones who can take it away from them are competitors. Sure they can mess up and the public can shift their backing to another corporation. But the Boards of Directors of corporations know that they can and they do tell COUNTRIES what to do.

I see, I see. It's all the big, bad corporations fault, right? You're over 50 years behind the times and belong with all the kids who were protesting against companies/profits way back in the 1960s. That's much the same old tired rhetoric the OP is using.

Think what you will and live in the past if it suits you - but what I've said is true. No one is FORCING people to buy new cars, flat-screen TVs, faster computers, etc. The economy most certainly IS driven by consumer demand and the comparison with prostitutes is quite valid - if people didn't use them they would NOT exist. If you cannot understand and recognize that simple principle in action there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

Tell me this: what happened to the once-thriving horse-drawn buggy makers? They once were very much in demand. Could it possibly be that they faded out because the demand for their product just went away with the advent of the automobile? Prostitutes would vanish also if no one bought their services.

I see, I see. It's all the big, bad corporations fault, right? You're over 50 years behind the times and belong with all the kids who were protesting against companies/profits way back in the 1960s. That's much the same old tired rhetoric the OP is using.

This is empty of content.

Think what you will and live in the past if it suits you - but what I've said is true.
This is empty of content.


No one is FORCING people to buy new cars, flat-screen TVs, faster computers, etc. The economy most certainly IS driven by consumer demand and the comparison with prostitutes is quite valid - if people didn't use them they would NOT exist. If you cannot understand and recognize that simple principle in action there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

This is repetition of what you said before. And by the way, I do understand what you mean. I think it is naive.

Tell me this: what happened to the once-thriving horse-drawn buggy makers? They once were very much in demand. Could it possibly be that they faded out because the demand for their product just went away with the advent of the automobile? Prostitutes would vanish also if no one bought their services.

Of course demand affects supply. And in the days that we used horses and buggies there was marketing as information: where to buy and how much. If you cannot see the difference between how products were marketed then and how they are now, I cannot help you. If you cannot see how much power the corporations wield, I also cannot help you. Perhaps you are one of those neo-cons who are not bothered by the amount of power they have. In that case at least you have the intelligence to notice what is happening.

This is empty of content.

This is empty of content.




This is repetition of what you said before. And by the way, I do understand what you mean. I think it is naive.



Of course demand affects supply. And in the days that we used horses and buggies there was marketing as information: where to buy and how much. If you cannot see the difference between how products were marketed then and how they are now, I cannot help you. If you cannot see how much power the corporations wield, I also cannot help you. Perhaps you are one of those neo-cons who are not bothered by the amount of power they have. In that case at least you have the intelligence to notice what is happening.

No, the content is there - it's just not penetrating your slanted views.

The rest of your response was about what I already expected. Place all the blame on the suppliers and none on the ones who demand that supply. Right.

I agree with Read-Only about the prostitutes. I'm not sure why he thinks I'm targeting anybody in specific as opposed to targeting everybody who has a hand in it including the mislead consumer. In other words, whoever it is that we blame for the cycle of destruction does not change the fact that it is the basic structure of the system that allows this destructive cycle to occur. The fault or cause is no individual per say. It is simply the way the system is structured. And it is structured in such a way that leads to this sort of downward spiral. Still I do specifically hold the predator responsible for harm inflicted upon prey. See that is how I view these big businesses who use labor and resources from foreign countries to create consumables for us thereby destroying them in the process. The poor countries like it in the sense that their elite are being paid to provide these goods and services. The elite set up these factories. An American corporation has no obligation to be concerned about how the foreign elites treat the workers in these factories.

If I am a Brand name clothing company. I contract a company in a third world country to mass produce my products. What do I care how they go about mass producing my products. They could use slaves for all I care. As long as they deliver what I ask in a way that costs me the least money, I am happy. While the workers in the labor camps are living like crap, the elite foreign contractors are raking in profits. These contractors want to spend the least money possible to mass produce the product these American brand name companies want. The less money the contractor spends, the more profit for the contractor. While the people of these countries might have a vested interest in the working conditions of these labor camp workers, the foreign governments are so full of corruption that they are mostly concerned with how much profits the contracting companies that they own can produce for their own extravagent lifestyles. Moreover, I am going to give Americans the illusion that our countries are benefiting from the jobs that have been provided to our people.

(A labor camp producing clothes for Polo, for example, isn't owned by Polo. The labor camp would be run by a company of that country hired by Polo to mass produce Polo apparel.)

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but this is my observation of global economics.
Also, I wanted my ideas her to be sort of in a proper legible format, but I'm not great at putting my thoughts together properly.
Please, if anybody can rewrite this properly, I will do anything.


Cycle of the Cancer Economy
Rich consume human labor (tmie/effort) and earths resources like cancer on the earth.
Rich set up manufacturing in a processing zone.
Resources from land around processing zone are gathered.
Land is depleted and destroyed.
Humans from land around processing zone are worked under very harsh conditions.
In return, they get enough to barely survive so that they may continue working long hours.
This results in the production of mass quantities of consumable products.
Consumers get money to purchase consumable products by providing labor that serves the needs of other consumerns.
Consumable products are sold to consumers for profit.
Each unit of product is consumed, and converted to garbage causing even more damage to the envronment.
Profits collected by the rich are not used to set up high standards of living for processing zone workers.
Workers at processing zones are kepy deprived, and worked like animals.
Rich use their profits to create even more processing zones to create more consumable products.
This spreads the cancer economy.
More processing zones lead to even more profit which leads to even more processing zones which leads to even more profit etc.
All of this leads to more depletion and destruction of the earh environment.
This is the cycple of the cancer economy.

Marketing plays a big part of it.
Marketing creates an artificial demand for products.
The rich then loan money to poor people to buy products from the rich, and place poor people in even more debt.
They also loan money for military spending that causes more destruction to make poor people even more desperate to get in debt.
They sell military products. They get governments to go to war in order to purchase military products from the rich for the profit of the rich.
Government borrows money from the rich to pay for war. Poor people now are in debt to the rich. Poor people pay back the money that the government owes to the rich in the form of taxes.

Precisely.

I just realized that this particular forum is one that I choose not to participate in for personal reasons, therefore I'll make my answer very brief and exit.

The reality is only about 20% as harsh as you paint it. I read your version as being similar to the idealistic vision of a very young person who is relying much more on heresay than on actual experience in the world. It isn't nearly as bad - by a long shot - as you make it sound except in some third-world countries.
And who makes the profi in third world countries? Their own industries?:rolleyes:

So you see this as a demand driven economic system. I don't. I see the suppliers having control of the media and control of the 'representatives' even in democracies. The sell us products, services and wars. And the verb 'sell' is not a responsive verb, but an active, definitely transitive and very effective one.

They have sold us the idea that freedom, in the US for example, is to choose between two candidates who have already had to sell themselves out to these corporations and rich people before we even hear their names. We choose between, but this should not be mistaken for freedom. They have also sold the idea - using manipulative techniques that are even effective on people who understand marketing manipulation consciously, not to mention children who are trained and controlled before their conscious minds are critical - that freedom is choosing between brands. Anyone who challenges these ideas of choice are marginalized by the corporate controlled media.

One person, one vote does not exist. Not if the subject is power and representation.

To compare prostitutes - generally poor women, a large % of whom were sexually or otherwise abused as children in the richer countries - with corporations is a joke.

The poor corporations....

If you spend time in corporations as I have, you would know that they know they have power and that the only ones who can take it away from them are competitors. Sure they can mess up and the public can shift their backing to another corporation. But the Boards of Directors of corporations know that they can and they do tell COUNTRIES what to do.
Brilliant.