ONCE OUR GLOBAL LABOR POOL CITIZENS UNDERSTAND THAT DACA IS UNITED NATIONS/ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE KILLING ANY ABILITY OF OUR NEW IMMIGRANTS TO AMERICA EVER EXPERIENCING WHAT WAS OUR STRONGEST IN WORLD HISTORY AMERICAN GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURES----
Then our 99% new immigrants to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will understand that DACA IS OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS ----enslaving----and know that our US CONSTITUTION and US 300 years of immigration and pathway to citizenship for new immigrants IS THE PATHWAY allowing successful integration of our immigrants to AMERICAN quality of life.
- Tue, Sep 26, 2017, 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM
- Mitchell Park Library
Mitchell Park Library, Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA
- Need help renewing your DACA application? Attend Catholic Charities of Santa
Clara's FREE DACA renewal workshop! Scholarships are available for the $495
government fee for residents of Santa Clara County! If you have DACA and your work
permit will expire between now and March 5th, 2018 you must apply for a two-year
renewal of your DACA by October 5th, 2017.
Please bring: Two (2) passport photos, a copy of your earlier DACA application, a
check payable to the "USCIS" in the amount of $495.00*, copy of your DACA work
permit (front and back) and any other supporting documents.
*Note: Catholic Charities has scholarships available for this government fee
There is a reason the photo in FORBES -----and this article in FORBES is promoting not only DACA---but has that smiling face of an OLD WORLD GLOBAL % banking 5% freemason/Greek flashing those hand signs.
So, MOVING FORWARD will have those lower-end 5% freemason/Greeks looking like WHIRLING DERVISHES spinning from one dead-end job to another earning third world wages while those top-end 5% Congressional global banking pols have calluses ON THEIR KNEES from begging global banking 1% to allow them to be ROBBER BARON few decades of crony, criminal, subsidized corporate welfare queens pretending they know how to be business people.
What is this?
Jan 19, 2018 @ 01:33 PM 143,305
DACA And The Agonizing Waiting Game
UNICEF USAVoice Children First.
Jen Banbury , UNICEF USA Back in September when the Trump administration announced that it would end DACA, three Dreamers, Cinthia Cantú, Mayte Lara Ibarra and Cesar Octavio Espinosa spoke to UNICEF USA about living under the threat of being expelled from the only home they’ve ever known. Four months later, with their fates now linked to the Congressional battle over a government shutdown, we checked back in to see how they’re faring.
Nineteen-year-old Cinthia Cantú sometimes gets emotional when discussing her future. That’s because it is completely enmeshed with Congress’s deadline to fund the federal government this Friday. The fate of Dreamers like Cinthia — immigrants whose parents brought them to the U.S. as young children — has emerged as a major stumbling block, with Democrats stipulating that Congress must reach a spending-resolution agreement to protect Dreamers or risk a government shutdown. The future of nearly 700,000 immigrants hangs in the balance.
Nineteen-year-old Cinthia Cantú, far left, was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 1. "My parents wanted me to have a better future and, here in the U.S., I've been given the chance to build one."
“President Trump and the Republicans have a choice: they can either come to the table and negotiate in good faith on a responsible funding agreement and protection for Dreamers — or they can cause a government shutdown,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of those Democrats.
While negotiations continue on Capitol Hill, Dreamers try to stay calm
While negotiations continue on Capitol Hill, Cinthia is attempting to stay calm. “We try to stay positive, but we're human and we do think about all the negative things,” she says. Her parents brought her to the U.S. from Mexico when she was a baby so she could get the education they never had. “My parents struggled so much to even get me here, especially my mom, and thinking about all of that [changing] because of one President changing the laws and everything — it does make you sad.”
That’s a far cry from five years ago when DACA was enacted and young immigrants like Cinthia felt optimistic about their futures in the country they call home. With DACA — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — came the assurance that Dreamers like Cinthia could stay in the U.S without fear of deportation. They could attend college, work, get drivers’ licenses, build careers and have families.
DACA IS A PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER-----OUR US CONSTITUTION AND 300 YEARS OF PATHWAY TO IMMIGRANT CITIZENSHIP IS ALREADY IN PLACE-----YOU ARE BEING DUPED BY GLOBAL BANKING 5% POLS AND PLAYERS.
That all changed on September 5th, when President Donald Trump ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Since then, it’s estimated that thousands of Dreamers have lost their DACA protection, exposing them to the very real threat of deportation back to the countries their parents had fled — often in order to escape gang violence, extreme poverty or lack of opportunity.
“I do cry sometimes at night,” Cinthia says. “I do get scared.” Like many Dreamers, she has no recollection of her birth country.
Nineteen-year-old Mayte Lara Ibarra was valedictorian of her graduating class at David Crockett High School in Austin, Texas in 2016. She earned a full-tuition scholarship to the University of Texas at Austin.
Nineteen-year-old Mayte Lara Ibarra doesn’t know exactly what to feel. Mayte is studying pre-law at the University of Texas at Austin; she chose law so one day she can help others in her community. Only three years old when her parents arranged for her uncle to bring her and her sister from Mexico to the U.S., she grew up feeling as American as any of her classmates at school, where year in and year out she worked so hard to succeed she earned a 4.5 GPA in high school and was named valedictorian. But with her fate hotly debated on Capitol Hill, she, like Cinthia, is caught in limbo.
“It’s kind of feeling like you want to do something, make a change, but at the same time, you don’t know what’s going to happen, so you’re just stuck in this unknown,” Cinthia says.
The sense of uncertainty is a feeling that Dreamers know all too well
The sense of uncertainty is a feeling that Cesar Octavio Espinosa knows all too well. Not only is Cesar a Dreamer himself, he works for the Houston immigrants’ rights nonprofit, FIEL: Familias Immigrantes y Estudiantes en la Lucha (Immigrant Families and Students to the Struggle). Cesar recently went to Washington, D.C., where he and other Dreamers met with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers to put a human face on the DACA debate. There he met members of Congress and others just like him.
“My roommate in Washington was a 27-year-old PhD candidate at Harvard,” Cesar recalls. “He's doing his research on education. Brilliant young man. His worry was that he's going to have a PhD from one of the most prestigious schools in the country, but if his DACA gets taken away, what is he going to do next?” Since the September announcement, Cesar has met many successful young people who feel as though their lives and ambitions are completely on hold. “It is a very disconcerting time,” says Cesar. “I mean, literally, we get a different piece of news on the hour.”
DOES FIEL TELL CESAR THAT DACA IS SIMPLY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TIED TO DARK AGES GLOBAL BANKING AND THAT OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR IMMIGRANTS ARE THE STRONGEST?
Cesar, Cinthia and Mayte have been whipsawed by Beltway politics since early September, when the Trump administration’s call for an end to DACA was countered by a flurry of lawsuits in federal courts across the country, including one in New York filed by 15 states and the District of Columbia. Members of Congress worked to hammer out a compromise but with no deal in place, a glimmer of hope came on January 9, when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that DACA recipients must be able to retain their protected statuswhile litigation over the program fully plays out in the courts. As of January 13, the Department of Homeland Security announced it would once again accept the paperwork that enables Dreamers to renew their DACA status (something they must do every two years). While that and polls showing that up to 84 percent of Americans support a right to residency for undocumented immigrants who arrived here as children gave Dreamers some badly needed good news, the mixed messages continue.
The Trump administration is appealing the judge’s decision even as White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly has said he’s confident a deal can be reached. “The DACA deal will be worked out, I think, by the United States Congress,” Kelly told reporters. “Both sides of the aisle have agreed to meet in a smaller group and come up with [what] they think is the best DACA deal, and then it’ll of course be presented to the president.”
84% of Americans support a right to residency for Dreamers
Meanwhile Mayte, Cesar and Cinthia wait, left once again at the mercy of forces beyond their control. Cinthia fears that all her family has invested to give her a better life will be for naught.
Back in the 1990s, her father, who was pulled out of school in the fourth grade to work in a tire shop, journeyed from Mexico to the U.S. alone to find a place to live and a job before sending for his wife and daughter.
“I was only 1 year and 8 months old in 2000 when my dad called my mother to let her know that he had sent someone to cross us over from Vallehermoso, Mexico, to the U.S.
"When my mother talks about the journey, she recalls it was a hard decision. In Mexico there was poverty and violence, and many children were forced to leave school and go to work.”
Now a community activist in Houston, Cesar Octavio Espinosa was just six years old when he flew to the United States from Mexico City on a tourist visa. "I was very entrepreneurial at a very young age," he recalls. "I graduated from college when I was fully undocumented. DACA was a life-changer. We no longer live in the shadows."
Cinthia’s parents wanted more for her. Thanks to their decision to come to the U.S., she has not disappointed them. Cinthia graduated from high school and has been attending college with the goal of becoming a nutritionist. Eventually, she’d like to teach nutrition, health and fitness practices in her community. “I'm interested in health and community work, not just going to a privileged area to work, but to actually help my community and give back some of what they have given me,” she says.
A self-described optimist, Cinthia’s trust in God and belief that things happen for a reason fuel her hope that in the long run, everything will be okay.
It's not too late to support the Dreamers
Meanwhile, a different kind faith sustains Mayte. Coping with the uncertainty over whether her dreams of becoming a lawyer will end with deportation, she’s focusing on her studies and putting her trust in her fellow Americans.
“I still have faith that this country has great people that want to help and support each other,” says Mayte. “I still have faith that this is my home, and eventually I will be accepted in my own home.”
It’s not too late to support Cinthia, Mayte, Cesar and the hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers whose bright futures have been put at risk. Share your feelings about DACA today:
YOU MEAN THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS IMMIGRATION POLICY THAT KEEPS OUR GLOBAL LABOR POOL 99% BACK IN DARK AGES WITH WAGES AND WORKPLACE CONDITIONS?
Global banking 1% have been corrupting all that has been US POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC structural terms---that is why we constantly shout that Clinton is far-right wing not left center. Global banking 1% are also corrupting the definitions of third world vs second world vs third world. They are completely eliminating the GORILLA-IN-THE-ROOM basis for these terms-------
AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT/I AM MAN/WE THE PEOPLE HAVING RIGHTS AS CITIZENS INCLUDED IN A REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
Industrialization was NOT the driving factor creating these GORILLA-IN-ROOM quality of life issues for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE. In fact, it was US ROBBER BARON industrialization bringing in OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING US FED that slowly killed our AMERICAN quality of life and our US domestic economy.
NO ONE KNOWS BETTER THAN OUR 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL WORKERS FROM THIRD WORLD NATIONS HOW GLOBAL MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS KILLED THEIR LOCAL ECONOMIES AND WEALTH.
'The term “third world country” was coined shortly after World War II in the face of the Cold War. Contrary to popular belief, “third” doesn’t refer to the lowest economic third or economic status at all. “First world” refers to the US and its allies, the “second world” to the Soviet Union and its allies, and “third world” to all non-aligned countries'.
So, this article written clearly by global banking 1% has shifted the meaning of FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATION from our strong AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN----to that DARK AGES structure of commoners------clergy -----and nobles.
'Sensing the rift happening in the world, French historian and demographer Alfred Sauvy described all neutral nations as the “third world” in reference to the Third Estate of France. The Third Estate was made up of commoners and was therefore in no position to influence the debate between the First Estate (clergy) and Second Estate (nobles)'.
This is why today in US we have all our religions captured to global banking 1% KINGS AND QUEENS by FAKE 5% religious leaders who are freemason/Greeks----not religious. THIS IS NOT FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATION------THIS IS THIRD WORLD DARK AGES.
The Real Meaning Of ‘First World’ And ‘Third World’
by M.Admin | Nov 1, 2013
In A Nutshell
The term “third world country” was coined shortly after World War II in the face of the Cold War. Contrary to popular belief, “third” doesn’t refer to the lowest economic third or economic status at all. “First world” refers to the US and its allies, the “second world” to the Soviet Union and its allies, and “third world” to all non-aligned countries.
The Whole Bushel
During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought on the same side to prevent Hitler and the Nazis from continuing their genocidal path to world domination. However, once Hitler was eliminated, the economic and political differences between the two superpowers began to surface. The US and its allies formed NATO in 1949 while a few years later, the Soviet led Warsaw Pact aligned the communist countries in Eastern Europe.
Sensing the rift happening in the world, French historian and demographer Alfred Sauvy described all neutral nations as the “third world” in reference to the Third Estate of France. The Third Estate was made up of commoners and was therefore in no position to influence the debate between the First Estate (clergy) and Second Estate (nobles).
Many countries did not ally with either side and remained neutral. Some of these countries were former colonies or were without military or economic resources, essentially disregarded by the superpowers. However, some countries chose not to be officially involved. These countries include Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, and Austria. Despite being economically stable and prosperous, these countries are counted as being in the Third World.
While technically under US protection after World War II, Saudi Arabia was a neutral party during the Cold War. Consequently, Saudi Arabia is classified as a third world country, even though Saudis enjoy a relatively high standard of living due to their oil exports.
Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the term “second world” has become defunct and the term “third world” has erroneously been applied to all poorer nations. The poorest nations are sometimes referred to as “developing countries,” but in recent years, many economists have determined that the economic development in these countries hasn’t contributed to the overall welfare of the people, and this term has lost some popularity as well. The term “majority world” is now the term du jour to describe the poor nations of the world since the majority of the world’s population lives in one of these countries.
Here we have that same discussion this time including comments from nations around the world---and again-----there is no mention of first world being tied to AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT----I AM MAN-------US CONSTITUTION GIVING ALL 99% WE THE PEOPLE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW-----it is all tied to the wealth of a nation and industrialization.
When our 99% US WE THE PEOPLE discussing public policy use these terms THIRD WORLD GLOBAL LABOR POOL 99% ----we are making that distinction of global citizens not having lived with the freedoms, liberty , justice, pursuit of happiness RIGHTS AS CITIZENS -----quality of life----and MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE policies have a goal of making sure our global 99% of new immigrant citizens never have that opportunity-----AND take our US 99% down to those third world DARK AGES government and economic structures of extreme wealth extreme poverty OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
We know our global immigrant citizens do not want to be made WHIRLING DERVISHES-----constantly forced to be made EX-PATS never having a sense of homeland and sovereign citizens with rights----which is the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% ----MOVING FORWARD in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES pushed by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and those dastardly 5% pols and players black, white, and brown citizens.
PLEASE EDUCATE BROADLY ESPECIALLY AS ALL POLITICAL TERMS IN US AND EUROPE ARE BEING CORRUPTED AND ARE MAKING DARK AGES LOOK LIKE DISNEYLAND.
THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL is the fact that these same OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS keep being allowed to sack and loot civilized societies constantly bringing them to chaos, devastation, and 99% deprivation.
Here we see that global banking 1% designation of what a successful ECONOMY looks like---Chinese FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES being hyper-naked capitalist laissez faire extreme wealth extreme poverty----the OPPOSITE of US WE THE PEOPLE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMIES
'China is unique becuase they are poor at the same time they have one of the best economies in the world'.
ROOT OF ALL EVIL
If Third World countries are the poorest on earth, then First World must be the richest. Is there such a thing as Second World countries? Are there any official ways of separating the groups?
Lily, Swansea, Wales
- The original distintion among First, Second, and Third Worlds (modelled on the old French Estates) was this: First World: Developed industrial capitalist countries such as Britain, France and the US. Second World: Developed industrial socialist (i.e., Marxist-Leninist) countries such as the USSR, Poland, and Romania. Third World: Underdeveloped countries. To this categorisation was added the Fourth World: Underdeveloped countries with few, if any, natural resources.
Fragano Ledgister, Atlanta, USA
- The First and Second World countries were originally the two sides in the Cold War (in whichever order you choose). The Third World countries were those unaligned at the time. The term has outlived it's original meaning.
David Laturner, Bracknell, Berkshire
- The Second World was usually called the New World. Today we'd call it North and South America.
Mike Burton, Twickenham, UK
- The First World was the capitalist countries, the Second World the Socialist countries. The Third World were the non-aligned countries, most of whom were poor, so it became a synonym for the "undeveloped" nations. Most people now use the expression "South" since most countries in the Southern hemisphere are poor.
John Orford, Balingasag, Philippines
- I'm not sure where the first to third world terminology came from, but at school we were told to use "developed" and "less developed" countries. This is more politically correct and gets around the problem.
Adam Powell, Portsmouth, UK
- The term was coined when the industrialised world was divided into essentially 2 blocs - the capitalist and communist worlds. Then there was the third world - the undeveloped and largely unaligned countries. So there were never really first and second worlds.
Keith, London, UK
- I think I am right in saying that the former communist states of the Eastern bloc are/were deemed 'second world' countries, as well as China and North Korea (NK now I believe classisified as 'first world). Although I also believe this is now regarded as a somewhat outdated nomenclature/classification system.
Jane Evans, London, UK
- The original distinction was between the Old World and the New World, and was not based on relative wealth. The Third World was invented to distinguish poorer/underdeveloped/developing/ (the acceptable term changes over time)countries from the richer European / North American countries.
The trifold distinction does not work well economically when the fastest growth has been in some previously less developed countries like the tiger economies, and some others are among the poorest on earth. The latter - now the Fourth World - are recognised as having peculiar problems that distinguish them from even the slowest developing Third World.
Unsurprisingly, the terms have been appropriated for different purposes, (notably in using the Third World to mean the non-aligned countries - neither in the USA or Soviet blocs) and it is unlikely that any precise definition is respected in practice.
Jim Williamson, Bearsden, United Kingdom
- I seem to remember reading that "Second World" countries were those which lay behind the Iron Curtain at the time when this terminology was coined.
Peter Livingstone, Copenhagen, Denmark
- I believe the 'Second World' was the communist countries, though the phrase was never widely used.
Ro Thorpe, Esposende, Portugal
- Going back to A-Level geography, we were taught that although the First, Second and Third World lables were outdated in favour of Economically More Developed Countries and Econimically Less Developed Countries (which have since become outdated), a Second World country was a former Communist country such as Russia (especially in the late 80's/ early 90's).
Graeme, Nottingham, UK
- Second World countries were the Soviet Bloc - which shows how outdated the terms have become.
First World countries are (roughly) "The North" and Third World countries are "The South" as any Guardian reader should know.
Darren, Lancaster, UK
- I beg to differ with all the other 1st 2nd and 3rd world theorists. It came from a speech at the UN where it was claimed "A third of the world" was living in poverty hence the low economic status of that Third (of the ) World.
Jim Massey, Dubai UAE
- Jane Evans suggests that North Korea is now classified as "first world". I was under the impression it classified as "different planet"...
Barry Toogood, Epsom, UK
- The French for "Third World" is "Le Tiers Monde". This does not mean "third" in the sense of a number three in a sequence, but "third" in the sense of "one third of something".
When the phrase was coined, it referred to that 33% of the world which was considered to be in poverty and in need of aid. The English translation is misleading, but there is not, and never has been, a First or Second World.
Toby Smith, Farnborough England
- The less developed countries, collectively called the Third World, are not poor. They are broke. Many have vast natural resources, unused electrical generating capabilities, and weather that would allow three crops per year. Many factors contributed to this situation. Unfair international trade, rampant corruption including bribes paid by European and North American companies, under-educated populations, etc., making up a very long list. This situation can be changed. Vide South Korea, for example.
C. Alexander Brown, Rockcliffe Park Canada
- The Second World originally referred to the Soviet Bloc. Recently, the concept has been re-developed by economist Parag Khanna to refer to countries that have substantial economies but do not belong to the Big Three (the US, the EU, and China). These countries include: Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria, Russia, possibly India and South Africa. Successful nonaligned countries plus the resource-rich.
David Null, Emeritus Professor, California State Polytechnic University, USA
- While there is no precise definition of the "first" or "rich" world, the World Bank does categorize countries as high, upper, and lower middle, as well as low income. High income countries are thereby defined as countries with a Gross National Income per capita of US$11,116 or more. According to the World Bank, the following 60 countries were categorized as high income economies as of 2007. The term "first world" refers to countries that are democracies, which are technologically advanced, and whose citizens have a high standard of living. The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide the nations of Earth into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World. There were a number of countries that did not fit comfortably into this neat definition of partition, including Switzerland, Sweden, and the Republic of Ireland, who chose to be neutral. Finland was under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence but was not communist, nor was it a member of the Warsaw Pact. Yugoslavia adopted a policy of neutrality, and was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Austria was under the United States' sphere of influence, but in 1955, when the country became a fully independent republic, it did so under the condition that it remain neutral. Turkey and Greece, both of which joined NATO in 1952, were not predominantly in Western Europe. Spain did not join NATO until 1982, towards the end of the Cold War and after the death of the authoritarian dictator Francisco Franco. In recent years, as many "developing" countries have industrialized, the term Fourth World has been coined to refer to countries that have "lagged behind" and still lack industrial infrastructure. In contrast, countries that were previously considered developing countries and that now have a more advanced economy, yet not fully developed, are grouped under the term Newly-industrialized countries or NIC. Some nations have developed their own classification scheme consisting of the "Third World" and the "Two-Thirds World". This system is similar to the former in that it also reflects economic status or behaviour. In terms of material resources, the "Third World" takes just one third of the pie, while the "Two-Thirds World" takes two-thirds of the pie.
Viren Arora, New Delhi, India
- First world countries, for instance, are Russia, USA, EU etc. China is unique becuase they are poor at the same time they have one of the best economies in the world. Second are South American and third are African and Asia (some). The best technologies first world countries buy is from some second world countries.
Champion, Keyport, United States
- The first, second, third world idea was first put forword by a French economist Alfred Sauvy, who used the term Trier monde. The closest meaning in english is the (originally Norman French) insurance/legal term third party which implies the innocent but powerless party in an accident. The first world was the basically capitalist nations (USA/NATO), the second the command economies (USSR, China) and the third world everyone else just trying to survive.
Steve, Consett, UK
- I may be swimming against the tide here but my definition, for which I cannot give a source, so it must be mine is; Surely the Old World is the historic countries that developed our first arts and sciences - Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, Roman Empire, China and some smaller well developed societies, Thus the New World is those countries colonised by Old World countries such as North and South America, Australasia,some other countries who contribute to modern high technology and high art. Thus the Third World are all other countries that do not fall into the other two definitions.
Gerry Hodgson, Tauranga New Zealand
- • I beg to differ with all the other 1st 2nd and 3rd world theorists. It came from a speech at the UN where it was claimed "A third of the world" was living in poverty hence the low economic status of that Third (of the ) World. • The First World was the capitalist countries, the Second World the Socialist countries. The Third World were the non-aligned countries, most of whom were poor, so it became a synonym for the "undeveloped" nations. Most people now use the expression "South" since most countries in the Southern hemisphere are poor.
Akpan Sunday Akpan, Akwa Ibom Nigeria
- Third World countries are often countries that were colonised by another country in the past. They are generally poor and are not industrialised and technologically advanced as the developed countries. The term was coined by an economist, Alfred Sauvy in an article in the French magazine ‘L’Observateur’ in 1952 and gained widespread supremacy during the cold war to define countries which were unaligned with either the Capitalist NATO Bloc (constituting the First World) or the Communist Soviet Bloc (representing the second world). With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the term Second World fell out of use and the meaning of First World now include all developed countries while ‘Third World’ is now used for the economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa,Oceania and Latin America.
Angela Ajodo-Adebanjoko, Abuja Nigeria
Here is how REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES make our 99% of US black and white citizens from southern plantation economy states mad. PLANTATION ECONOMIES are always colonial-----enslaving. Indeed, our American colonies started from plantation economies especially our southern states. That is NOT what our US CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC system of governance and economy put into place. Indeed, sadly our southern states did keep plantation economics stopping our US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE in those states from being CITIZENS----but the rest of our US states across the nation grew and installed a real free market economy with expanding quality of life, freedoms and liberties------and RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.
When we shout that global banking 1% controlling America is not WHITE SUPREMACY because any colonial plantation economy takes power away from all 99% of citizens --black, white, and brown citizens---our US black citizens take exception----our southern 99% of white want to deny this----but indeed VOTING IN A PLANTATION ECONOMY is an exercise of futility. That is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA MOVED FORWARD here in US in capturing our US elections to rigging and fraudulent outcomes making sure only global banking candidates won.
We feel strongly that our southern state 99% of citizens calling themselves RIGHT WING would come to the LIGHTNESS OF REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE economics and governance if they were actually VOTING. So too, for our global 99% of new immigrant citizens---if you keep trying to simply be GLOBAL BANKING 5% PLAYERS=====you will remain THIRD WORLD poor.
OUR US SOUTHERN STATES REMAINED TIED TO OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS WITH ALL THOSE SECRET SOCIETY FREEMASON/GREEKS----AND THIS EXPANDED ACROSS US DURING CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---KILLING OUR US REAL FIRST WORLD QUALITY OF LIFE.
Can't find too many Haitian 99% thinking a global banking 1% revolution installing OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS dictators were liberating.
REAL LEFT social progressives shout to our 99% new immigrant citizens to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----please do not continue to allow global corporate plantation economics hold power over our 99% of citizens----fight for US CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW------AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN ----DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC------not colonial plantation economics.
How Slavery Helped Build a World Economy
The Haitian Revolution abolished slavery there and led to the establishment of the first black republic in the Americas. It also ended Haiti's dominance of world sugar production.
Cuba assumed this position during the 19th century, and even after slavery was abolished there in 1886, sugar remained the foundation of its economy and its primary export commodity throughout the 20th century. Sugar was also produced by slave labor in the other Caribbean islands as well as in Louisiana in the United States.
During the colonial period in the United States, tobacco was the dominant slave-produced commodity. Concentrated in Virginia and Maryland, tobacco plantations utilized the largest percentage of enslaved Africans imported into the United States prior to the American Revolution.
Rice and indigo plantations in South Carolina also employed enslaved African labor.
The American Revolution cost Virginia and Maryland their principal European tobacco markets, and for a brief period of time after the Revolution, the future of slavery in the United States was in jeopardy. Most of the northern states abolished it, and even Virginia debated abolition in the Virginia Assembly.
The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 gave slavery a new life in the United States. Between 1800 and 1860, slave-produced cotton expanded from South Carolina and Georgia to newly colonized lands west of the Mississippi. This shift of the slave economy from the upper South (Virginia and Maryland) to the lower South was accompanied by a comparable shift of the enslaved African population to the lower South and West.
After the abolition of the slave trade in 1808, the principal source of the expansion of slavery into the lower South was the domestic slave trade from the upper South. By 1850, 1.8 million of the 2.5 million enslaved Africans employed in agriculture in the United States were working on cotton plantations.
The vast majority of enslaved Africans employed in plantation agriculture were field hands. Even on plantations, however, they worked in other capacities. Some were domestics and worked as butlers, waiters, maids, seamstresses, and launderers. Others were assigned as carriage drivers, hostlers, and stable boys. Artisans—carpenters, stonemasons, blacksmiths, millers, coopers, spinners, and weavers—were also employed as part of plantation labor forces.
Enslaved Africans also worked in urban areas. Upward of ten percent of the enslaved African population in the United States lived in cities. Charleston, Richmond, Savannah, Mobile, New York, Philadelphia, and New Orleans all had sizable slave populations. In the southern cities they totaled approximately a third of the population.
The range of slave occupations in cities was vast. Domestic servants dominated, but there were carpenters, fishermen, coopers, draymen, sailors, masons, bricklayers, blacksmiths, bakers, tailors, peddlers, painters, and porters. Although most worked directly for their owners, others were hired out to work as skilled laborers on plantations, on public works projects, and in industrial enterprises. A small percentage hired themselves out and paid their owners a percentage of their earnings.
Each plantation economy was part of a larger national and international political economy. The cotton plantation economy, for instance, is generally seen as part of the regional economy of the American South. By the 1830s, "cotton was king" indeed in the South. It was also king in the United States, which was competing for economic leadership in the global political economy. Plantation-grown cotton was the foundation of the antebellum southern economy.
But the American financial and shipping industries were also dependent on slave-produced cotton. So was the British textile industry. Cotton was not shipped directly to Europe from the South. Rather, it was shipped to New York and then transshipped to England and other centers of cotton manufacturing in the United States and Europe.
As the cotton plantation economy expanded throughout the southern region, banks and financial houses in New York supplied the loan capital and/or investment capital to purchase land and slaves.
Recruited as an inexpensive source of labor, enslaved Africans in the United States also became important economic and political capital in the American political economy. Enslaved Africans were legally a form of property—a commodity. Individually and collectively, they were frequently used as collateral in all kinds of business transactions. They were also traded for other kinds of goods and services.
The value of the investments slaveholders held in their slaves was often used to secure loans to purchase additional land or slaves. Slaves were also used to pay off outstanding debts. When calculating the value of estates, the estimated value of each slave was included. This became the source of tax revenue for local and state governments. Taxes were also levied on slave transactions.
Politically, the U.S. Constitution incorporated a feature that made enslaved Africans political capital—to the benefit of southern states. The so-called three-fifths compromise allowed the southern states to count their slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating states' representation in the U.S. Congress. Thus the balance of power between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states turned, in part, on the three-fifths presence of enslaved Africans in the census.
Slaveholders were taxed on the same three-fifths principle, and no taxes paid on slaves supported the national treasury. In sum, the slavery system in the United States was a national system that touched the very core of its economic and political life.
EXCEPT THAT WE AMENDED OUR US CONSTITUTION MAKING IT CLEAR THAT SLAVERY WAS ILLEGAL AND ALL 99% OF US CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN PEOPLE WERE CITIZENS WITH EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW.
Here is a far-right wing NATIONAL REVIEW questioning whether our US cities and rural counties have really become THIRD WORLD POOR. Again, this is a governance and economic political term---it does not mean our global 99% of new immigrant citizens are bad----it means the nations from which they came had bad leaders and bad economic structures. When we shout that REAL LEFT social progressives do not want to PUSH OUT from our US cities as FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES our US poor citizens----but create economies really wanting to employ and give them opportunity in LIVING WAGE employment-----that again does not mean we do not want our global 99% of new immigrants--it means we are PROTECTING QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL US 99% OF CITIZENS making sure that pathway is around for our new immigrant 99% of citizens.
Please don't feel pushing one population group out to be made WINNERS leads to anything other than MOVING FORWARD DARK AGES for all US 99% and global 99% in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
This far-right wing media outlet will never see third world poverty in US because it does not want to recognize first world qualities of life for our US 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens.
Do 5 Million Americans Really Live in Third World Poverty?
By Robert Rector
& Jamie Bryan Hall
March 29, 2018 6:30 AM
The claim that they do is based on a failure to account for all sources of income.Nobel Prize–winning economist Angus Deaton recently published an op-ed in the New York Times titled “The U.S. Can No Longer Hide from Its Deep Poverty Problem.” Deaton asserted that 5.3 million Americans (or 1.7 percent of the population) live on less than $4 per day and “are as destitute as the world’s poorest people. . . . [Their] suffering, through material poverty and poor health, is as bad [as] or worse than that of the people in Africa or in Asia.”
But measurements of poverty and deep poverty based on income are seriously flawed, because U.S. government income surveys:
• omit or severely undercount most of the $1.1 trillion that the government spends on means-tested welfare assistance each year;
• omit or undercount off-the-books earnings, which are prevalent in low-income communities;
• omit the incomes of cohabiting partners and parents; and
• ignore assets acquired in prior periods.
The omission and undercounting of welfare aid is particularly troubling. For example, in 2016, federal, state, and local governments spent $223 billion on cash, food, and housing benefits for low-income families with children, an amount three times that needed to eliminate all official poverty and ten times that needed to wipe out deep poverty among them. But the Census Bureau’s income surveys counted only $7.6 billion of this spending for purposes of assessing poverty or deep poverty.
A more accurate picture of the economic resources of low-income households can be obtained from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX), collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and published by the U.S. Department of Labor. This survey contains detailed, self-reported household expenditures for each month and indirectly captures much of the income and many of the benefits missing in income surveys. The CEX routinely shows that low-income households spend $2.40 for every $1 of income that the Census Bureau claims they have.
Our analysis of the CEX shows that the number of Americans living on less than $4 per day is effectively zero. Since 1980, the CEX has reported on the annual consumption expenditures of 222,170 households. Of these 222,170 cases, 175 reported spending less than $4 per person per day. That’s one household in 1,270.
Deaton’s claims of Third World poverty in the U.S. can also be rebutted by examining the actual living conditions of families with ostensible incomes below the deep-poverty level.
Rather than 1.7 percent of the population living in deep poverty, expenditure surveys show the figure is only 0.08 percent. Moreover, examination of the 175 cases suggests that most are reporting glitches or anomalous situations, such as families stating they made no rent or mortgage payments during the year.
Deaton’s claims of Third World poverty in the U.S. can also be rebutted by examining the actual living conditions of families with ostensible incomes below the deep-poverty level. For example, according to government surveys, families with children living in deep poverty (based on income measures) typically have air conditioning, computers, DVD players, and cell phones. They rarely report material hardships such as hunger, eviction, or having utilities cut off. This seems a far cry from Deaton’s claim that these families are “as destitute as the world’s poorest people.”
Deaton’s claims of Third World poverty in the U.S. are simply the result of using severely flawed data that omit much of the existing welfare state as well as other economic resources. His analysis is like studying the world through a cracked microscope; it can tell you a lot about the defects of the microscope, but nothing about the real world.
Returning to yesterday's discussion of US work participation figures by US EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES tied to CENSUS figures------yes, the decline in population figures in US over these few decades has been the decline of our new immigrants' ability to become naturalized citizens-----and yes, the US CENSUS data excludes for the most part population data from those global 99% labor pool even as MOVING FORWARD filling US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES with a few billion of global labor 99% immigrants assure our new immigrants they will be included regardless of US CITIZENSHIP. What MOVING FORWARD in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES want in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is keeping all global citizens tied to OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS DARK AGES economics and zero rights as citizens.
No matter how much global banking 1% sends out those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% freemason/Greek players to pretend they are working for the poor/for immigrants/for disabled/for veterans/for seniors------they are not. Those 5% global banking players are being made WHIRLING DERVISHES getting ready to spin under the bus.
Should the US Census Count Undocumented Immigrants?
Matters of Money and Representation
by Robert Longley
Updated February 22, 2018
Undocumented immigrants—over 12 million of them— living and often working in the United States are counted in the decennial U.S. census. Should they be?
As currently required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau attempts to count all persons in the U.S. living in residential structures, including prisons, dormitories and similar "group quarters" in the official decennial census. Persons counted in the census include citizens, legal immigrants, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal (or undocumented) immigrants.
Why the Census SHOULD Count Undocumented Immigrants
A Matter of Money
Not counting undocumented aliens costs cities and states federal money, resulting in a reduction of services to all residents. The census count is used by Congress in deciding how to distribute more than $400 billion annually to state, local and tribal governments. The formula is simple: the greater the population your state or city reports, the more federal money it might get.
Cities provide the same level of services like police, fire, and emergency medical treatment to undocumented immigrants as they do to U.S. citizens. In some states, like California, undocumented immigrants attend public schools. In 2004, the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated the cost to California cities for education, health care and incarceration of illegal immigrants at $10.5 billion per year.
According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study released by the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, a total of 122,980 people went uncounted in Georgia during the 2000 census.
As a result, the state will lose out on some $208.8 million in federal funding through 2012, a loss of about $1,697 per uncounted person.
Why the Census SHOULD NOT Count Undocumented Immigrants
A Matter of Equal Representation and Politics
Counting undocumented immigrants in the census undermines the fundamental principle of American representative democracy that every voter has an equal voice.
Through the census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of undocumented aliens will unconstitutionally gain members in the U.S. House of Representatives thus robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.
In addition, an inflated population count resulting from the inclusion of undocumented immigrants would increase the number of votes some states get in the electoral college system, the actual process of electing the President of the United States.
In short, including undocumented immigrants in the census count will unjustly bestow additional political power in states where lax enforcement of immigration laws attract large populations of undocumented aliens, such as California, Texas and other states in which Democrats seek to gain greater influence over national politics.
In calculating congressional apportionment, the Census Bureau counts the states’ total population, including both citizens and non-citizens of all ages. The apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States — and their dependents living with them — that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.
The Foreign-Born Population in the Census
To the Census Bureau, the U.S. foreign-born population includes anyone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes those who later became U.S. citizens through naturalization. Everyone else makes up the native-born population, composed of anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth, including people born in the United States, in Puerto Rico, in a U.S. Island Area, or abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.
Our US immigrant populations these few decades have been primarily our 99% of LATINO citizens who while having been discriminated continually in wages and work conditions while working in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----have for the most part not experienced third world DARK AGES employment as in Asia/Arabia/Africa while they worked in America. What we have shouted for these few decades in supporting our 99% of LATINO workers-----is wage theft where instead of earning a $9 dollar minimum wage global banking CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was allowing corporations to steal $5 dollars from them leaving our LATINO workers earning $4 or less an hour. That has been MOVING FORWARD to our US LOW-INCOME WORKERS who are NOT always black---this is happening to our US black, white, and brown citizens as MOVING FORWARD takes our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE to third world wages and work conditions.
Again, here is WASHINGTON POST providing DATA that leads one to believe only our LATINO and US BLACK citizens are facing these DARK AGES wage structures when indeed all US citizens black, white, and brown citizens---Asian/Latino/Arabic/South Pacific et al------are being taken to these THIRD WORLD wage and workplace conditions.
5% to the 1% freemason/Greeks with all those OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS secret knocks--secret hand signs---funny hats------whirling dervishes going under the bus as global banking changes all those secret signs for ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%.
Walmart Is Getting New Employees, and They’re RobotsWalmart
Walmart is adding a number of autonomous scanning robots to 50 stores across the U.S. The move is meant to make the shopping experience easier, free up time for employees, and solve the retailer's out-of-stock problem.
Hmmmm, Walmart job categories fall into the robotic self-scanning checkout---the robotic inventory clerks-----the robotic shipping and receiving clerks----why that is what is getting those WALMART HIGHER WAGES.
The incredible pay disparity facing blacks and Hispanics in retail work
By Michael A. Fletcher June 2, 2015
Retail workers — sales clerks, cashiers and stock people — account for one in six jobs in the United States and a large share of the new positions created in the years since the recession. Many of the jobs are low-paying, making retail a major culprit in one of the most difficult challenges confronting the economy: stagnant wages.
The situation is even more challenging for black and Latino retail workers, according to a report released Tuesday by the NAACP in conjunction with Demos, a public policy organization. Not only are they more likely than whites or Asians to work in retail, but they also tend to have the worst jobs in the retail industry, the report said.
Retail is the second-largest source of jobs for black workers in the country and has helped contribute to a recent reduction in the black jobless rate, which in April was 9.6 percent -- down from 11.4 percent a year earlier. But that is not all good, the report said. Retail work too often comes with some of the worst problems of the modern workforce: erratic schedules, involuntary part-time hours and low pay. Overall, the report said, 17 percent of black retail workers and 13 percent of their Latino counterparts are in poverty, compared with 9 percent of the overall retail workforce
Part of the reason is that black and Latino workers are less likely than whites and Asian retail workers to be supervisors and managers, and they are most likely to occupy the lowest-paying jobs, such as cashiers. In all, even when they work full-time, blacks and Latinos in retail make just 75 cents for every dollar earned by whites in the industry, the report said. Some 70 percent of black and Latino retail workers earn less than $15 an hour, compared with 58 percent of whites.
Blacks and Latinos are also more likely to be working part-time even when they would prefer full-time work in the industry.
The situation is gaining more attention as retail and other low-wage workers press for better pay and more predicable hours. Earlier this year, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private-sector employer, gave its lowest-paid workers a raise. Many analysts saw it as a reaction to a tightening job market, while others saw it as a response to growing activism to lift the pay of the nation's army of low-wage workers.
Wal-Mart said a half-million of its workers would be boosted to at least $9 an hour -- $1.75 above the federal minimum wage. By next year, their pay will go to at least $10 an hour. The company said workers will also have greater control over their schedules and would be given more opportunity for promotion and other career advancement.
Demos and the NAACP said that should only be a beginning. The advocacy groups want to see employers stop using credit checks to screen job applicants, a device they say has nothing to do with the reliability or productivity of potential workers. The credit checks only hurt the job prospects of people who have tougher work histories and more economic challenges, which work against blacks and Hispanics. They also want to see workers' pay raised to a minimum of $15 an hour.
"Raising pay for workers at the bottom of the income distribution will improve living standards for for black and Latino workers employed in low-wage jobs, and reduce the racial wage gap," the report said.
While today's global banking 1% media try hard to make MOVING FORWARD sound it will hit only those OTHER POPULATION GROUPS----not this population group or that population group ----it actually has the goal of killing all US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens-----Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist. NO WINNERS IN GLOBAL BANKING 1% GREAT LEAP FORWARD FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
Here is a LESSON on the good old days in Eastern Europe. Our Eastern European 99% never experienced our Western AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN----US CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS GIVING EQUAL PROTECTION TO ALL 99% OF US CITIZENS------they have been trapped in OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS DARK AGES ---ergo, they have been called third world or second world nations.
STALIN WAS HITLER WAS MAO WAS PINOCHET WAS FRANCO-------ALL FAR-RIGHT AUTHORITARIANISM IS TIED TO OLD WORLD GLOBAL BANKING 1% KINGS AND QUEENS SIMPLY KILLING ALL WEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE GAINED BY 99% OF PEOPLE.
Since US MOVING FORWARD has the goals of MAO'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD has the goals of STALIN'S GREAT LEAP FORWARD we know already to where US MOVING FORWARD will take US 99% WE THE PEOPLE and our global 99% of new immigrant citizens.
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA 5% GLOBAL BANKING POLS AND PLAYERS PUSHED ALL THE ECONOMIC AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES TO MEET THESE GOALS----TRUMP IS SIMPLY MOVING ALL THIS FORWARD.
Today's global 99% labor immigrants are simply walking into that PURGING OF US 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE---and those dastardly 5% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols and players -------no winners for our global 99% in playing these DARK AGES GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS ECONOMIC GAMES.
Remember, those global banking 1% KINGS AND QUEENS----whether Eastern Europe or Western Europe---same bunch of OLD WORLD pre-Christian CATO/NERO/SENECA using religion for endless wars to keep capturing wealth and power. No difference between a PUTIN EASTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC or a TRUMP WESTERN ROMAN CATHOLIC -----these global banking 1% ---NOT RELIGIOUS.
The Soviet Union Under Stalin: Five-Year Plans, Purges & Policies
Instructor: Christopher Sailus
Chris has an M.A. in history and taught university and high school history.
In this lesson, we explore the brutal rule of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, from 1928 to 1953. Stalin radically transformed the economy of the Soviet Union, while also terrorizing its people.
Stalin's Soviet Union
Often times in history, one person in particular becomes remembered as the icon of a movement or an event. For example, most people think of George Washington first when they think of the American Revolution, or Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King when they think of the mid-20th-century civil rights movement. When it comes to the 20th century's Soviet Union, the person most people think of is Joseph Stalin, the brutal dictator who ruled over the early Soviet Union for nearly three decades.
Revolution and Stalin's Rise
Stalin was born in 1878 in what is today Georgia, but was then part of the Russian Empire. Though originally a student at the local seminary for the Georgian Orthodox Church, Stalin was expelled in 1899 and soon after became active in the Marxist underground in Russia. For this activity, Stalin was imprisoned multiple times in the first decade of the 20th century, even spending a period in exile in Siberia. Undeterred by this experience, Stalin continued to rise through the ranks of the fledgling Bolshevik Party, becoming a key figure in the Russian government after the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
Stalin was a key aide to Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Party. When the Soviet Union was instituted in 1922, Stalin was installed as Secretary General to the Central Committee of the Communist Party. After Lenin's death in 1924, Soviet and communist leadership was in limbo. Through complex and often backroom political maneuvering, Stalin won out against his rivals within the party by 1928, many of whom he soon imprisoned and/or exiled.
Stalin in Power
Soon after assuming full control of the Soviet government, Stalin set out to build Russia into an economic and industrial giant. He considered Russia 50 years behind the rest of the world in terms of industry and technology, and he resolved to close this gap through a forced and rapid modernization process.
However, in order to force such a wholesale transformation of the economy, Stalin needed total control of the Soviet economy. Fortunately, the Marxist principles Stalin's Communist Party expounded called for precisely the command economy Stalin needed. Under Stalin, the Soviet government assumed control of what few industrial complexes it didn't already own, but the most violent upheaval to the Soviet economy was Stalin's forced collectivization of agriculture.
At the time of Stalin's rise to power, the Soviet Union was still a predominantly farming-based society. In order to create a labor pool for Russian industry and have direct control over the Soviet food supply, Stalin seized ownership of millions of farms. Those farmers who resisted were forced into exile or summarily executed.
This brutal treatment was not restricted to uncooperative farmers; Stalin maintained a firm grip on power through terrorizing millions of Soviets and even Communist Party members. A secret police force roamed the Soviet countryside and cities rooting out 'enemies of the revolution' who were exiled or imprisoned for the smallest action or offhand comment that could be construed as anti-Soviet or anti-communist.
In the late 1930s, for example, Stalin instituted the Great Purge, which he claimed was to rid the Communist Party of subversive and foreign agents, but in reality targeted thousands of Stalin's political enemies and rivals. Correspondingly, the fabled Soviet Gulag prison camp system expanded enormously in the 1930s, where those imprisoned were often worked to death or simply executed.
We will finish this week's discussion of wage and income public policy by returning to the beginning discussion of BASIC INCOME that UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE wage policy designed to take Western FIRST WORLD DEVELOPED NATIONS' wages and income structures down to THIRD WORLD DARK AGES-----no money for you.
Here is a global banking 1% media outlet calling itself MODERN GHANA-----like our captured US global banking media---MODERN GHANA has those global banking players killing 99% of Ghana's citizens. Finland has always been that OLD WORLD GLOBAL 1% KINGS AND QUEENS kind of nation no matter how LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE global banking media tries to sell. We already KNOW BASIC INCOME will not work---we already KNOW it is smoke and mirrors simply MOVING FORWARD the end of what makes the US a first world quality of life nation------our global 99% of immigrant workers are made to believe all that PUBLIC SECTOR SERVICES AND PROGRAMS----all that PUBLIC CIVIC SPACE where our 99% meet to discuss public policy is WORTHLESS----OH, REALLY????
OH, LOOK------ALL THOSE 'GOOD BILLIONAIRES' looking out for 99% WE THE PEOPLE pushing BASIC INCOME
'Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.
Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson'.
Our global 99% of immigrant labor human distribution system citizens need to know this is NOT A WAGE AND INCOME improvement ---it makes sure third world extreme wealth holds 99% of US and new immigrant citizens.
25 April 2018 | Business & Finance
Finland: Basic Income Trial Falls Flat
BBC MODERN GHANA
The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.
Currently, 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.
"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers.
Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.
The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.
Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.
Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.
But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.
"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.
Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.
Another Kela researcher, Miska Simanainen, said "reforming the social security system is on the political agenda, but the politicians are also discussing many other models of social security, rather than just basic income".
When Finland launched the experiment its unemployment rate was 9.2% - higher than among its Nordic neighbours.
That, and the complexity of the Finnish social benefits system, fuelled the calls for ambitious social security reforms, including the basic income pilot.
The pilot's full results will not be released until late 2019. OECD finds drawbacks
In February this year the influential OECD think tank said a universal credit system, like that being introduced in the UK, would work better than a basic income in Finland. Universal credit replaces several benefit payments with a single monthly sum.
The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.
In contrast, the OECD said, universal credit would cut the poverty rate to 9.7%, as well as reduce complexity in the benefits system.
Another reform option being considered by Finnish politicians is a negative income tax, Prof Kangas said.
Under that scheme, people whose income fell below a certain threshold would be exempt from income tax and would actually receive payments from the tax office.
The challenge is to find a cost-effective system that incentivises people to work, but that does not add to income inequality, Tuulia Hakola-Uusitalo of the Finnish Finance Ministry told the BBC. What do others say about basic income?
Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.
Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.
US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment.
Y Combinator will select 3,000 individuals in two US states and randomly assign 1,000 of them to receive $1,000 per month for three to five years. Their use of the unconditional payments will be closely monitored, and their spending compared with those who do not get the basic income.
In 2016, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.
Supporters of the proposal had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,834; $2,558) for adults and also 625 Swiss francs for each child.
REMEMBER------global banking 1% selling the idea that US FULL EMPLOYMENT will come with creating 50,000-----or 70,000----or 100,000 jobs a month---when in modern history full employment was tagged at creating 270,000 jobs a month------FAKE DATA---FAKE NEWS. This is to where global banking is taking US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and yes, our 5% freemason/Greeks are being made to job from job to job ---part-time temporary making up most of what global banking 1% pretends is broad employment for 99% WE THE PEOPLE. As those 5% freemason/Greeks do the whirling dervish right under the bus----there will be NO EMPLOYMENT for US WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens---and only third world enslaving DARK AGES employment for our global 99% of immigrants filling US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
That global labor pool of few billion citizens brought to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to work the next decade or two will be LOSERS as SMART CITIES kills even that employment.
Obama several years of NEVER creating an economy designed to HIRE our US citizens laid off and in long-term unemployment has global banking 1% media keep printing that UNEMPLOYMENT rates were dropping to near full employment when all that was a great big LIE.
May 30, 2016 @ 08:10 PM 1,199 2 Free Issues of Forbes
How Far We Are From Full Employment
Modeled Behavior We're economists covering everything economics. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Adam Ozimek , Contributor
A new note out from Daniel Aaronson at the Chicago Fed is a useful read for those interested in the question of how much slack remains in the labor market. Aaronson estimates that as of April we are about 1 million jobs short of full-employment, and that trend labor force growth is about 50,000 jobs per month. That means the job growth rates we have been seeing of around 200,000 per month would take a little over 6 months (from April) to take us to full employment. In other words, full employment between October and November.
However, other research from Aaronson suggests that trend employment growth could be 70,000 a jobs a month and that the trend unemployment and participation rates are somewhat more optimistic. Under these assumptions, the market wouldn't reach full employment until the second half of 2017.
In any case, reasonable estimates continue to suggest we have between 6 months and a year left to grow until we reach full employment. And of course there is the question about whether prime labor force participation from 1990 to 2007 was weighed down by trade shocks. In this case, what we think of as full employment may be something we can improve upon.