I was having a discussion with someone who works with the mentally disabled and we happened to touch upon the above conclusion of why funding for the disadvantaged is being slowly reduced and the UK's welfare system is on track to become something of the past. I happened to watch a nature program which stated that a whole host of species exhibit cooperation in order to survive in a unique symbiotic way. Is it fair of us in the UK and elsewhere to blame the US culture of "survival of the fittest" rather than "survival of the most cooperative" for our welfare woes?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
USA Promotes Survival Of The Fittest & Not Survival Of The Most Cooperative
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
I may be wrong but seeing how things are transpiring pretty much everywhere, it's an issue of profit margins, the U.S. government is an expanding black hole of excess and ego and greed, not satisfied with a paycheck or taxpayer money, things that used to get funding now is being looked at from a vantage point of the needful vs the needy and corporations are pretty much responsible for it as their insatiable glut for more expands exponentially. the problem is that other countries and foreign corporations are following suit and yes, you can blame the U.S. partly. but these things don't happen by themselves so pretty much everyone has some blame on them. Humans are still biologically part of nature but our minds and emotions have been usurped by our own ego and so we don't follow survival of the fittest, it's more along the lines of survival for the dollar. I'd like to add that in nature survivability of other lifeforms that are incapable of fending for themselves is pretty much a foregone conclusion and ends up filling the bellies of predators, I think we're pretty much the only species that doesn't prey (as a food source) on them, although their illness is preyed upon through the dollars.
Yes, I agree with you, it's corporations that have gotten too big imv. They have too much lobbying power over governments, so the latter find it hard to do the right thing sometimes. How does humanity solve this situation? Ideally imo, there should be a maximum size to mega-corporations, limited to a maximum of 2000 employees to create a level playing field worldwide. Could this ever be achieved? Not if left to governments, because the mega-corporations have so much influence over them. Only the people can achieve such a monumental change in global economics, but how, I just don't know.
yes the US must bare a lot of the blame for putting Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses into trade agreements. This gives international companies more power than governments, if regulations are passed that disadvantage an international company then they have a right to sue a national government for that. Think about that, the principle being that it doesn't matter the purpose of legislation, it doesn't matter if its public health, environmental protection or any other public benefit for the very people who elected them, it doesn't even matter how much political support the law has (like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme PBS for example) if a company in another country is disadvantaged then they can sue.
Tell me this isn't a sign that government, Laws and people are being subservient to companies rather than the way it SHOULD be, that the economy exists to serve the people.
http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpr...cave-on-foreign-investor-rights-to-sue-govts/
Tell me this isn't a sign that government, Laws and people are being subservient to companies rather than the way it SHOULD be, that the economy exists to serve the people.
http://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpr...cave-on-foreign-investor-rights-to-sue-govts/
Wow, I didn't know things had gotten this bad. Thanks for informing me Asguard.