Ann Torrence wrote:Or maybe both sides really represent the top .01% and we are being snookered.
Chadwick Holmes wrote:I agree that going after the 1% is the wrong attack, but I misunderstood, I assumed these people were mad at the system that creates 99/1 not the actual 1%?!?
Maybe I am just naive!
Maybe it's my socialist upbringing, but I have difficulty believing that someone earning $2,400,000 compared to say $33,000 per year, truly has that much more going for them. That higher wage works out to $1,153/hour based on a 40 hour workweek. Even if they're just an incredible person and that they work more like an 80 hour work week, that would still be over $500/hour. I can't imagine myself genuinely working so effectively and consistently, that I could keep up that sort of value for 11 months of the year. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it's actually not so much the 1% as the 0.01% who have enough money that they can influence government policy in their favour, not to mention, buy out competitors to maintain their position even if that position is unsustainable. A classic example was the the car company that bought up the Lithium battery technology when it was the only thing that made electric cars possible at the time. These are the same car companies that pushed trucks, vans and SUV's as "status symbols" rather than practical small cars. From the "business" perspective, this made total sense - more money for their stock-holders, but of course, more money for the top 0.01 percent of management, at a time when the minimum wage in some states was so low that employees had to apply for Medicare to take their kids to a doctor.
Where folks seem lately to be getting upset is at the size of the gap between the "1%" and the "99%" of the rest of us.
Considering my comments above, this thought has a scary side. If permaculture were to "threaten" the current food conglomerates, like Cargill, Nestle or PepsiCo, would they decide to fight back? There are already rules in places against saving seeds and planting certain crops. Would those companies be able to convince the public through their huge advertising budgets that Pemaculture was a threat to the American way of life? Maybe the slow, but sure, underground approach to change is the route I'll take.
BTW...the 'soundbite' (byte?) is 'killer' tool used by marketers... we might come up with a few to communicate 'permaculture' effectively, and work to get them into common parlance.