Frédéric Bastiat Was Right About "Legal Plunder" & It's Much Worse Now!

Frédéric Bastiat is probably most famous for a quote that makes the rounds occasionally on Social Media "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it," which is true and applies to the current economy as much as it did in his time, if not much more. Most of his other writings is forgotten by the majority of the public, which is unfortunate, even if it has a few flaws, but he makes many other good points. However, if he gets more attention again, we should be cautious of people misrepresenting his work, which he actually warned about.

Today Frédéric Bastiat's most famous quote may seem to apply more to Capitalism than anything else, and justifiably so; but when he was alive he often applied it more to criticism against what he called Protectionism, Communism, which he opposed based on the assumption that it required Protectionism, and Socialism, which he wasn't completely opposed to but often criticized the way it was implemented; presumably because there was a strong Socialist movement in his time and he observed some powerful people distorting it for their own benefit. To the best of my knowledge his most detailed writings are listed in Selected Essays on Political Economy, Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) Translated by Seymour Cain, and he passed away shortly after that, unable to continue writing, and there's good reason to believe that this was a work in process, and it was based on economics as he knew it in his time, which would have to be revised to apply it to current times.

As I indicated two of the things he seemed most concerned about were various forms of Plunder, including what he called Legal Plunder, and Protectionism which in his time, and for the most part now, refers to banning imports or tariffs on them to protect local industry, but this term is rarely used to protect from Plunder, protect the environment, protect workers rights, protect from wars based on lies and many other legitimate forms of protection, assuming they're used rationally, which should be a good idea, and, in some cases these rational forms of potential protectionism are prevented by the narrow interpretation the establishment uses it for, although Bastiat didn't anticipate this in his time. But, when it comes to most if not all the examples of protectionism cited by Bastiat in his essays they make sense and are often forms of plunder that should be banned.

The first essay, in the collection I cited above, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," clearly describes a work in progress, where he describes several examples, mostly of tariffs designed to help special interests, and explains some things are immediately seen and others, although predictable, are only seen later, like the fact that people who are forced to pay high tariffs won't have money for other necessities that improve life and contribute to the quality of life. These are legitimate concerns, and he's right that good economists should foresee them, since they're so obvious; but there are other cases, that may not have been so easy to predict in his time, like current free trade policies attempting, often successfully, to ban protection of the environment or workers rights. When I read this it was pretty clear that his writings could easily be distorted to support current libertarian or free market policies; however some of his other writings oppose other forms of plunder, including against the poor or working class, which he acknowledges have the least political power, in his time and ours, which makes us the greatest target of "legal plunder," which is now as bad as ever, if not worse, but sometimes more sophisticated.

Even though he's almost forgotten by most people some academics have tried to use his writings to promote their own views, including complete opposition to all forms of what they call protectionism and complete support for the free market, or their version of a free market, which is actually dominated and corrupted by Oligarchs. Our current economic system, a form of Neo-Colonialism, is dominating most of the world, lead by Wall Street and their allies, including the IMF, The World Bank, and many of the most powerful countries in the world who are plundering the planet, robbing the poor and middle class with forms of "Legal Plunder" that would surely have outraged Frédéric Bastiat if he knew about it; and this system adopts opposition to Socialism, Communism and Protectionism, which is often used to suppress efforts to protect worker rights, environmental rights and other social rights which also would outrage Frédéric Bastiat!

The assumption that he would have supported current extreme opposition to Protectionism, even when it's used to enable profit at the expense of the environment and workers rights, among other things, is virtually guaranteed no to be true, although that doesn't mean we should jump to our own conclusions. However, even if I am mistaken about Bastiat taking too extreme a view against protectionism, or, more likely, the supporters of of our current economic system make it appear as if I am mistaken, this doesn't mean we should blindly obey all of Frédéric Bastiat's teachings anymore than we should blindly obey any other leader, including Karl Marx, like a mindless cult follower. Noam Chomsky once said something similar about Marx, recommending that we accept the best recommendations from him and fact check the rest, dismissing aspects, if any, that might not make sense; the same should apply to Frédéric Bastiat or anyone else.

Frédéric Bastiat obviously thought all forms of plunders should be abolished, if possible; but he had doubts about if the working class would do so, and suspected that instead they would reverse the process which would backfire, although there have been few if any cases where this happened. He acknowledged that

"legal plunder is exercised by the few against, the many, as it is among nations in which the right to legislate is concentrated in a few hands. But now it becomes universal, and an effort is made to redress the balance by means of universal plunder. Instead of being abolished, social injustice is made general. As soon as the disinherited classes have obtained their political rights, the first idea they seize upon is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose in them more wisdom than they can have), but to organize a system of reprisals against the other classes that is also injurious to themselves; as if, before justice reigns, a harsh retribution must strike all, some because of their iniquity, others because of their ignorance."

the clear implication is he didn't think the masses, in his time, would be able to minimize or eliminate "legal plunder" but he acknowledges that those controlling the legislature are much more likely to rob the majority. There may have been some justification for this since the French Revolution happened shortly before he was born, and there was limited improvements, at best, since; in fact it was only when upper classes, often somewhat abusive, took control that there was a reasonable amount of stability. Nevertheless, still more needed to be done to correct income inequality based on legal plunder, by those controlling the laws. He also argues that legal plunder is worse than illegal plunder because

"With courage and prudence, a man can protect himself from illegal plunder, but no one can escape from legal plunder. If someone tries, what is the distressing spectacle presented to society? A plunderer armed with the law, a victim resisting the law." .......

But even in such cases the Montagnards have been known to applaud. Is it not because they want above all to see the principle of legal plunder securely established as a precedent? Once the legal plunder of the poor for the profit of the rich is made legitimate by the support of the majority, how reject the legal plunder of the rich for the benefit of the poor?

He's right, of course, and it's far worse now than it was when he lived. He does come to the defense of the poor or working class, but may not do so as much as he could have, and perhaps should have. For example, at one point he comes to the defense of miners for not getting adequate compensation for their work, but says nothing about the horrible conditions in the mines at that time; and other defenders of worker rights do a far better job pointing out many other problems.

Regardless of whether he does enough to defend the working class or not, our government and media have created a much more sophisticated propaganda machine to convince the majority of the public that this is a Democratic government even though they have contempt for the will of the people, and the media is completely controlled by the rich who only provide fair coverage for candidates they support, ensuring those who try to represent the people have little or no chance of getting the name recognition they need to get elected; and when some good candidates, like Jill Stein, Jeremy Corbyn, Zohran Mamdani manage to get some attention the establishment media relentlessly smears them, making it virtually impossible if not impossible for these candidates to win.

As I pointed out previously in Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! there are over two dozen polls based on economic issues where a large majority of the public is on one side of the issue, campaign donors are on the other side of the issue; and in every case the overwhelming majority of the political establishment take the side of the campaign donors, rigging the economy and carrying out legal plunder against the majority of us! One of the biggest and most brazen examples is how our private health care system is designed to enable the rich to steal funds intended to be used for health care even though the result is that without those funds sick people can't get adequate health care and they suffer much more, and even die earlier as a result of this. If their any doubt about this, or the fact that the majority of the public don't support this system, there are numerous studies or polls, some that I pointed out previously, proving this.

Studies that support this conclusion include 22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money 02/24/2020; Medicare for All Would Save $450 Billion and 68,000 Lives: Study 02/18/2020; and The Troubled Insurance Sales Firm Behind Those Joe Namath Ads for Medicare Advantage 12/13/2021 which says "Researchers have found that aside from the financial risks, choosing the wrong plan can literally knock years off your life." Polls that support this conclusion include Polls showing 70% support Medicare for All & 85% of Democrats. Additional polls are also cited in the previous article mentioned above Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! and another article about Is Privatized Health Care Government Sanctioned Extortion? Simply understanding the fundamentals of insurance, also known as pooled risk, is enough to understand how flawed and inefficient the for profit system is and why it costs billions of dollars and thousands of lives more than a public system would, assuming the public system had adequate disclosure and checks and balances.

With pooled risk, whether it's private for profit insurance, a form of government run single payer insurance or a similar program, people pay into the pool of funds that are needed for health care, or what ever cause (auto, life, property, etc.) the insurance is used for, but tehy can't eliminate bureaucratic expenses, no matter what the system is, although they can be minimized. The establishment has told us for decades that competition creates increased efficiency, but they can't change fundamental principles and there are many expenses in a for profit system that has nothing to do with providing health care or another service which are unnecessary in a public system; so if you allow well run public systems to compete with for profit private systems the for profit system can't compete. Instead of competing to "be more efficient," as insurance companies want us to believe, they compete by spending an enormous amount on advertising without providing much, if any, honesty about saving money on insurance by switching to their company. In addition to advertising expenses insurance companies spend an enormous amount on high CEO Pay, Stock Dividends, lobbying expenses, campaign contributions, and many other expenses that have nothing to do with Health coverage or other insurance related services or products.

They even spend a fortune on legal expenses to ensure they don't have to pay claims as they advertise!

Don't take my word for it!

Look up Wikipedia: List of United States hurricanes pick a Hurricane then Google "Lawsuits against insurance companies for Hurricane Katrina (Or the hurricane of your choice)" then read up on all the lawsuits filed against insurance companies. One of the first ones I found is AG Lynn Fitch settled Katrina insurance cases for pennies on the dollar compared to others 10/03/2022, but there are many more where that came from, and policy holders often don't get help from government sources. If you repeat this process over and over again you'll find dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of articles about lawsuits against insurance companies, depending on how much time you're will to put into this search showing that insurance companies have an astronomical legal fund to deny or minimize payments for claims promised in those deceptive advertisements!

Where do they get the money for legal expenses to deny all these claims?

Your Premiums? If not, where else?

So, instead of using money intended for claims, the for private private insurance industry, is using some of that money collected to deny claims to help increase profits! The same goes for other types of insurance as well including Health Care; feel free to Google "Lawsuits against insurance companies for denying Health Care" or a variety of other phrases.

If this isn't a massive example for "legal plunder" what is?

How many other examples are there of "legal plunder?" I have no doubt that if we look through one aspect after another of our economic system we'll find one example after another, perhaps starting with all the polls I previously mentioned in Conclusive Proof Showing Democracy In The USA Is A Lie! where a large majority of the public was on one side of the issue but the political establishment takes the side of campaign donors against the will of the people. In most, if not all cases, we'll find direct or indirect evidence of rigging the economy in favor of wealthy campaign donors, and often costing thousands, if not millions of lives in addition to massive amounts of money stolen from the working class by the wealthy, although not everyone will agree on all these examples.

A large percentage of the public support an increase in the Minimum Wage, nine years ago we were pushing for $15 an hour, now, even though we haven't even got that most people would support even more. Is this too much? Do billionaires actually earn their money or do they get it by "legal plunder?" How can there be any doubt the system is rigged, although there can be doubts about how to fix it, but a higher minimum wage, as most people believe, should be part of it, to reduce massive inequality.

There was also an enormous amount of support for a Green New Deal, including, at least during the 2018 campaign, from AOC and the so-called Squad, although they forgot about this and most other progressive issues once in office. This is one example where the rich clearly get a large majority of the benefit from industrialization accompanied by massive amount of pollution from increased profits and massive spending, including on private Jets, etc., but the poor get stuck with the pollution making them sick and even killing them!

The majority want to expand Social Security, and Bastiat might have some doubts about that possibly even considering it plunder by the majority, or that might be what critics of Social Security might attribute to Bastiat, whether he came to that conclusion of not; however this is available for everyone, and it's an earned benefit, not an entitlement. The alternative is letting the rich live a healthy retirement while plundering the poor and leaving the poor destitute.

Most people support using the military as a last resort; but the establishment almost never do that, and we have to foot the bill for it. I've covered this in other articles, showing all wars, not just most, but all wars are based on lies by the well connected and the military industrial complex profit from these wars based on lies, along with other Wall Street corporations supporting Neo-Colonialism with wars based on lies, while it's the working class sacrificing their lives, along with millions of civilians in third world countries killed in these wars, and they also contribute to massive amounts of pollution and Ecocide, killing even more. This is not only legal plunder, but legal mass murder, genocide and ecocide!

The vast majority support fair immigration as well, but this poll only covers a fraction of the "legal plunder" related to this. Our country has a long history of supporting coups and wars against third world countries, even though the majority of the public doesn't support this, which creates a massive refugee problem, and since those creating this catastrophe won't admit their crimes they portray their victims as illegal aliens or criminals, when the real criminals are the ones exploiting the immigrants and overthrowing Democratic governments, so once again, this is not only an example of "legal plunder" exploiting oppressed people making them work for low wages and without legal protection, but it's also related to "legal mass murder!"

Most people support higher taxes on the wealthy, since they obviously don't earn their wealth, so this helps return some of the "legal plunder" stolen from the working class to them. If we end the "legal plunder" in the first place this might be more effective, but reasonable taxes will still be more appropriate.

of course a large majority of the public supports campaign finance reform, since it's a major part of the reason why the entire political establishment is obsessed with supporting "legal plunder!" But of course, the same people profiting from this are protecting the corrupt system.

The majority want to reform racists incarceration system possibly because it's a result of massive amounts of "legal plunder" where the biggest thieves almost never go to jail while the poor have the system rigged against them, often for petty non-violent crimes many of which should never be a crime in the first place, other crimes, like petty theft, are often a result of a rigged economy forcing people to desperate actions.

The majority support tuition free college, and Karl Marx also supported education for all, because he recognized people needed to be informed on the issues to participate in the Democratic process, among other things. Frédéric Bastiat also supported reasonable funding for education as he indicated when he admitted that he supported a tax for education, only regretting it later when he realized those getting the education were only a minority that mostly came from the wealthy class, while it was the working class paying the taxes for it. I suspect he would be more inclined to support a fair education system for all, which we are now able to provide. But there might be some exceptions worth considering; while many college courses, like medical care etc., are worthwhile, some, like marketing or political science where the children of the wealthy study how to manipulate the majority enabling "legal plunder' might not be worth complete support. However, since this is already commonplace, it would be worthwhile to teach these tactics to the majority for the purpose of recognizing "legal plunder" and preventing it.

Most people support universal childcare; and as I've pointed out previously, studies have shown that this helps reduce other social problems and actually saves money, so even if this doesn't involve "legal plunder" it's worthwhile.

The majority support capping Credit Card interest rates, which we used to call loan sharking when this was handled by the Mafia; now that banks with political connections are doing it the government protects this "legal plunder."

Most people agree that arms sales make us less safe, and research shows they're right, but of course the wealthy profit from this and the wars accompanied by arms sales, so we subsidize arms sales used to oppress people around the world, which is not only another example of "legal plunder" but it's also another example of "legal mass murder" and even "legal genocide."

Most people oppose outsourcing, and as I said Frédéric Bastiat had doubts about this, but in his time trade was mostly with other countries close to France with similar cultures, not a globalized economy where poor people are now forced to compete with other poor people all over the world driving wages down everywhere. There's good reason to suspect that Frédéric Bastiat would want to protect workers rights, as he did in his time; but even if he didn't on this issue, it's up to us to see how our current system is a form of "legal plunder" and it also leads to environmental damage and ecocide, which needs to stop.

By a four to one margin (62-14%), Americans favor the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The political establishment blocks this because it would prevent "legal plunder" exploiting children for the benefit of Wall Street Oligarchs.

Most people agree unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings who cannot afford legal representation should be provided with it, and our government has always claimed that the law treated all alike, even though this has never been close to the truth. The Oligarchs, of course, oppose this, since giving children or immigrants legal rights would make it much more difficult to get away with their "legal plunder" against them!

Let's face it, our government is controlled by crooks enabling "legal plunder" by Wall Street Oligarchs funding their campaigns!

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Vs. Frédéric Bastiat: The Interest of the Producer Vs. the Interest of the Consumer 08/01/2017

Economics 101: When Ever possible, Local Control Of Economies Is Far More Efficient Than Globalized Control

I don't have a PhD. in economics but I can still figure that it's not efficient to ship subsidized cotton half way around the world so it they can take advantage of sweatshop labor to increase profits, forcing workers to toil in outrageous conditions to manufacture cheap goods, before before shipping them half way around the world, again through complicated distribution systems.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that they're shipping jobs overseas to countries that don't protect their workers so that they can use globalization to force local workers to compete with the workers in the most oppressive parts of the world, driving down wages in both the third world and locally.

Another incredibly simple principle that mainstream economists routinely ignore is the fact that in order to maintain a strong economy we have to have a planet that's capable of sustaining life, which we've taken for granted for thousands of years; however, thanks to the growing amount of pollution and Climate Change over the past two centuries it's increasingly obvious that it's a matter of time where we destroy our environment and the ability of sustain life if we keep going.

If we're shipping merchandise half way around the world to be processed before shipping it back this is incredibly inefficient, and it contributes much more to epidemic levels of environmental destruction. with local control of economies, including local manufacturing then we have much more opportunities to reserve local jobs and increase efficiencies that have been eliminated in the globalized economy, including factory direct options that have been virtually eliminated except when used for false advertising purposes.

When it comes to both labor, environmental protection, and numerous other social issues, including education, violence prevention, democratic participation, etc. there's an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that local economies are far more effective at looking out for the best interests of people at the local level and in third world countries.

There are numerous studies showing that locally owned businesses invest significantly more in local communities, often contributing to local charities and helping solve local social problems. Communities with more locally owned businesses have less violence, on average, better health lower poverty and stronger democratic participation, among other things. Some of these studies are listed below; however if any claim that I make aren't backed up they can easily be confirmed through a relatively quick search.



One of the biggest problems of "free trade" policies pushed by corporations with overwhelming help from establishment politicians in both parties is the threat to democracy, preventing countries around the world from protecting workers rights or the local environment. there have been numerous examples where large corporations have used trade agreements to sue local governments for preventing them from protecting their own environment or forcing them to allow drilling for oil or enable energy projects because they violate trade agreements. Trade agreements have also been used to create "export processing zones" or "economic zones" where workers don't have the same protections as other parts of the world or that can be used to avoid paying taxes to support local or international communities as reported in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

Trade and immigration laws are also used to provide cheap labor from undocumented workers that have few if any rights, so corporations can force them to work in outrageous conditions, often doing farm work abroad and importing the produce, or using illegal immigrants to work on domestic farms. However, when they prosecute someone for this it's almost never the corporations making massive profits off human trafficking, instead they prosecute the illegal immigrants. Many of these immigrants are forced to flee their own countries due to oppressive conditions, partly as a result of foreign policy and trade policies designed to prop up dictators abroad.

For dozens if not over a hundred years our foreign policy, controlled by elites with ties to large corporations, has been designed to help maximize profits protecting corporate interests often overthrowing democratic governments like Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, all of which the United States government now admits that hey supported coups, although it took them decades to make this admission and Honduras which also had a coup in 2009 that the United States hasn't admitted to yet, despite the evidence and many other examples. The media partially never reminds the public of these coups, only disclosing them briefly in low profile locations, ensuring that most people are unaware of them. However in academic journals, non-fiction books, or alternative media outlets they're reported more widely.

The mainstream media has tried to argue that Trump's recent alleged deal to get Mexico to enforce immigration laws in return for not increasing tariffs at least temporarily is unrelated to trade, however trade, foreign police, immigration and democracy or lack of it are all intertwined. This deal may be bad, but not because trade isn't related to immigration. They're various ways to suppress wages for working class people. And of course, it has also been reported that Mexico Agreed to Take Border Actions Months Before Trump Announced Tariff Deal 06/08/2019

This policy does more to suppress the rights of immigrants fleeing from oppressive governments supported by United States corporations and the our government; however, it's not supported by the majority of the American people who aren't even aware of how our politicians are misleading us, since the media doesn't report it widely.

Nor do they report on some of the basic fundamentals of our economic system, which isn't a "free market" system as they claim, as I reported in Democratic-Socialism is far better than Socialized-Capitalism. It's an oligarchy system, with a small number of corporations controlling every sector of the economy rigging it in favor of the wealthy. Dwayne Andreas a former Archer Daniels Midland executive admitted it when he said "The competitor is our friend, and the customer is our enemy," and "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians," and this was confirmed by various other sources.

Strong opposition to tariffs is primarily so that nothing interferes with corporations ability to force workers to compete with each other driving down wages, however this also comes at additional expenses, especially when the entire economic system is controlled by a small percentage of the public. Many consumer goods seem cheaper, however the quality has been slowly going down over decades so many products have to be replaced four or five times as often as they used to. Sneakers that used to last two years before falling apart began falling apart in under six months until a few years ago when there was backlash from consumer, partly restoring quality, jeans, toasters, coffee makers refrigerators and many other items still only last a fraction of the time they used to last.

Instead of spending money on quality or fair pay for workers they're spending it shipping goods all around the world through complex distributions systems with corporations taking a cut every step of the way. And if workers were paid more they would have more money to spend creating a higher quality of life for almost every one, except those profiting off of sweat shop labor!



Not only are large industries controlled by a small number of oligarchies, but so is the mass media enabling them to repeat the same propaganda over and over again as if it's unchallenged, even misrepresenting many of the economists that have been cited to found our current economic system, including Adam Smith. This includes the economists that got us out of the great depression which was caused by extreme economic practices, which we've returned to causing the collapse of 2008 and now leading to more problems as the largest corporations were bailed out without helping working class people.

Current economists or media pundits don't remind the public that the great depression was caused by massive surpasses that were a result of government incentives to increase production during the first World War, guaranteeing payments for food, then when they no longer needed large surpluses to feed Europe, farmers couldn't get paid as much as it cost to produce food so they had to implement controls to prevent surpluses. the free market simply didn't work without some planning, despite all the propaganda from media pundits.

However since then whatever controls were put in place were designed to consolidate into a small number of oligarchs virtually eliminating antitrust regulations or enforcement over the last several decades.

Our current system is controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy; only those that are approved by these people can present their views to the vast majority of the public. This means that quality of life for working class people isn't a factor unless it's necessary to increase profits for the wealthy!

Another incredibly simple principle that should show that the current system isn't working is that it simply doesn't provide job opportunities they pretend to or other social necessities like paying a living wage, reducing or eliminating homelessness, increasing home ownership, reasonable educational opportunities for everyone, and a chance to rise up the economic latter. a dirty little secret is that they keep people in the lower classes because the wealthy need them to do menial chores that they don't want to do for little or no wages!

Contrary to the impression the mass media gives the public a permanently growing economy has never been a possibility, and rational economists know it; however the coverage they provide doesn't including the most rational economists at all, only ones interested in rigging the economy for the wealthy. the best economic research isn't completely suppressed, but it's never mentioned in traditional media so only those that take the initiative to find it or are pointed in the right direction by people at the grassroots would know about it. Even Adam Smith predicted that the economy couldn't possibly grow forever, as reported in the following article:

Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

For centuries, economists have considered a transition from a growing economy to a stable one, from classical economists like Adam Smith down to present-day ecological economists. Adam Smith is famous for the ideas in his book The Wealth of Nations. A central theme of the book is the desirable consequences of each person pursuing self interests in the marketplace. He theorized and observed that people trading in open markets leads to production of the right quantities of commodities, division of labor, increasing wages, and an upward spiral of economic growth. But Smith recognized a limit to economic growth. He predicted that in the long run, population growth would push wages down, natural resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness. He even predicted 200 years as the longest period of growth, followed by population stability.

John Stuart Mill, pioneer of economics and gifted philosopher, developed the idea of the steady state economy in the mid-19th century. He believed that after a period of growth, the economy would reach a stationary state, characterized by constant population and stocks of capital. His words eloquently describe the positive nature of such an economic system:

"It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds cease to be engrossed by the art of getting on."

John Maynard Keynes, the most influential economist of the twentieth century, also considered the day when society could focus on ends (happiness and well-being, for example) rather than means (economic growth and individual pursuit of profit). He wrote:

"…that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable… We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful."

and

"The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems – the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behavior and religion." Complete article

With a steady state economy controlled at the local level it enables people to participate in the decisions made to ensure that other concerns besides profits for wealthy are taken into consideration. It also prevents international events or corrupt politicians from disrupting the economy eliminating jobs with petty arguments over tariffs used to enforce bigoted immigration laws.

Some of the problems with a permanently growing economy was also pointed out by Bill McKibben who cited Bob Costanza comparing the belief in an economy that can grow forever to the belief in a perpetual motion machine that allegedly provides free energy, which is one of the most absurd scientific claims imaginable. In "Deep Economy" he describes how quality of life can be as important if not much more important than economic growth which can only be maintained for a limited time, even if that time does expand for decades.

Bill McKibben "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future" 2007

Well, it’s true that not many of us make our livings as farmers anymore (maybe not enough of us do, as we shall see). But it’s also true that, first thing in the morning, before we go to work in the software design cubicle (or the economics department), most of us prefer to eat breakfast. It’s nice to have microelectronics; it’s necessary to have lunch. If global warming “only” damages agriculture, the rest may not matter much. It’s as if the doctor said, “True, your heart is shot—but look at those six-pack abs!”

The creeping recognition that economics, even in its ever growing mathematical sophistication, had become abstracted from the actual planet we inhabit has spurred the steady development of an increasingly impressive new school of ecological economics. As far back as the 1960s, economists like Kenneth Boulding were at work on what he termed “the economics of the coming spaceship earth. . . . The closed earth of the future requires economic principles that are entirely different from the open ‘cowboy’ economy of the past.”40 (He managed to summarize the basic problem in a short chunk of doggerel: “One principle that is an ecological upsetter / Is that if anything is good, then more of it is better, / And this misunderstanding sets us very, very wrong / For no relation in the world is linear for long.”) In the 1970s, a World Bank economist named Herman Daly published a collection titled Toward a Steady State Economy that actually began to nose around the question whether perpetual growth was possible. And by the 1980s, Daly, with the help of a young professor named Bob Costanza, had formed the Society of Ecological Economics.

Costanza is, in certain ways, the opposite of someone like Larry Summers. From his office at the University of Vermont, where he runs the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, he’s become the loudest voice of an unconventional economic wisdom. He’s had to shout to make himself heard, but it’s getting easier—ecological economics seems to be on the verge of breaking through into the mainstream.

Costanza began his education as an engineer, and then an architect; by the time he earned his Ph.D. at the University of Florida, he’d switched to systems ecology. “But I’d also recognized that everything that was happening was being driven by economics,” he recalled, “so I took economics courses—in fact, I talked them into letting me take economics as my foreign language.” He specialized in energy flows across systems; and his first important paper, published in Science, established that the embedded energy in a final product (the amount of power it took, say, to mine the ore for the car, and grow the food for the automakers, and so on) correlated pretty closely with its final value. Which, if you think about it, raises some difficult questions for the theory of eternal expansion. Or, as he put it, “the universally appealing notion of unlimited economic growth with reduced energy consumption must be put firmly to rest beside the equally appealing but impossible idea of perpetual motion.”41

Since then, Costanza has been at least on the periphery of most of the important advances in ecological economics. In 1997, for instance, he joined with twelve coauthors to publish a paper in Nature that for the first time tried to set an economic value on “ecosystem services,” such as pollination and decomposition, that had always been counted as free. (Their estimate of the worth of these services was $33 trillion annually, far larger than the human economy taken all together.) He and many others have also developed the theoretical tools to explain how important it is to “get prices right”—for instance, to make the cost of a gallon of gasoline reflect the actual damage its production and use do to the environment. (By some estimates, gasoline would cost $7 or $8 a gallon, and the SUV would never have been invented.) Such strategies have led to clever new markets—there is now a trade in permits to emit sulfur and nitrogen, for instance, and as a result utilities have managed to reduce those pollutants quite dramatically and inexpensively. Few economists speak as easily of clean air or clean water as “externalities” as they once did: the essential logic of accounting for costs is slowly spreading. Complete article

McKibben and Costanza both agree that the cost of business should also include negative externalities like destruction of the environment or poor health as a result of environmental destruction. A carbon tax should be a no brainer to reduce this and prevent wealthy people from profiting off of polluting and killing working class people. This is especially important with growing threat from Climate Change! If we want to solve this problem before it's too late we need to take advantage of every method to reduce use of energy, including renewable energies, but the most important thing to do is reduce massive amounts of waste shipping things all around the world in an incredibly inefficient manner!

Charles Tolbert etal. describe how locally owned businesses are more concerned with the best interests of their own community, so cities are far less likely to turn into slums in the following study:

Civic Community in Small-Town America January 2002 Charles M. Tolbert II

Civic Community and Local Capitalism

Locally oriented production firms are likely to contribute to the civic culture because the owners and managers are socially and financially invested in the community (Mills and Ulmer 1946; Piore and Sabel 1984). In part, this local orientation is due to aspects of organizational form associated with size. Small firms usually have less formalized bureaucratic structures and lack the high degree of specialization and compartmentalization associated with their larger, Fordist counterparts (Edwards 1979). A small number of employees precludes a complex division of labor and allows—even requires— informality and mixing of roles. Owners and managers mix and work freely with production workers, creating bridging networks within the workplaces. Without rationalized rules for hiring, new employees often are found through kinship and friendship ties; these practices are advantageous to local residents and maintain employment opportunities for the community.

Further, owners and managers of small firms frequently are active participants in the community’s civic affairs. In the various service and business clubs, organizations, and associations, small businesspeople establish and maintain networks of local contacts and supporters (Mills and Ulmer 1946). Because they are citizens of the community, they develop strong local ties to place. As a result of their strong and enduring community ties, they may be less likely to pull out of the community during an economic downturn, and more likely to support and lead local nonprofit institutions.

A local orientation is particularly instrumental for the selfemployed. For many of these individuals, job and firm are coterminous, and the lines between ownership and employment are blurred. Often the decision to shift from wage work to self-employment is motivated by pressures to leave the local community. Self-employment becomes a mechanism for maintaining and strengthening ties to place; thus it represents a strong form of local orientation.

Local orientation, however, is not the only reason why small producers are likely to remain in a community. Small business owners and the self-employed rely on one another for support and information. These networks allow small producers to capture economies of scale that enable them to compete effectively with larger firms (Piore and Sabel 1984). Networks of small businesspersons are “place-based” and not readily transferable to other communities; small producers remain tied to locality. Because the networks themselves are embedded in local community institutions, they maintain and strengthen shared values and local community identity. Complete article

These small local firms would also be better at addressing quality control problems with consumer goods if they're manufactured locally and there are problems with them, ranging from trivial problems with packaging that have been gradually getting worse, where cans don't open properly or packets of seasoning that don't rip open easily unless you yank at it then they might spill all of a sudden, or larger problems like defective merchandise that is made in large volumes before being shipped half way around the world, which includes food poisoning, chests of drawers that fall over onto kids, or defective toilet seats. A family member once bought a cheap toilet seat manufactured in China with a small piece that was broken in the package, which means that they shipped this product half way around the world before she bought it only to return it to the store where it would be thrown away. Even if it hadn't broken before we opened the package this was so cheesy that it would have broken within a few years so we would have had to replace it again, which is now standard operating procedure.

Another major problem is centralized authoritarian control of the economic system, which we now have leads to more economic inequality and poverty, as a result of suppressed wages and people from wealthy communities getting better education, enabling them to get jobs in the media, advertising, public relations, political pundits, legal establishment, and other jobs that are designed to control the economy which also pay much better than working class people get.

All the people in the media come from the same class of wealthy college educated people, and many of them routinely go back and forth to the political establishment, or they invite pundits including economists that are well paid but support a fiscal ideology rigged heavily in favor of the wealthy, whether it's by shipping jobs overseas union busting, an unequal justice system, or many other issues. Economists like Richard Wolff and Juliet Schor or activists like Bill McKibben are practically never welcome on the mainstream media to explain many of the problems with our economic system, so the majority of the public only hears one side of the issue. But in the academic world or alternative media there's much better research explaining the problems with economic inequality and how it contributes to higher crime, racism, or lower health and quality of life, destruction of the environment including the following study by Wesley Peterson, which shows that the wealthy are leading contributors to many of problems for the poor while they get the majority of the benefits:

Is Economic Inequality Really a Problem? October 2017 E. Wesley F. Peterson

Inequality and Social and Environmental Ills

Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) document correlations between inequality and a wide range of social ills including crime, murder rates, teenage pregnancy, family conflict, obesity, poor health, and social mobility. Although they recognize that correlation is not the same as causality, their conclusions seem to blur this distinction. When Leigh et al. (2009) looked more deeply at the correlation between poor health outcomes and inequality, they were unable to find strong evidence of causality and the same is likely to be true for correlations between inequality and crime or teenage pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, even if it cannot be shown that economic inequality is the prime causal factor behind these problems, there is clearly a strong association and it is likely that it is a contributing factor. Other scholars have investigated the link between inequality and particular sets of problems and much of this work does support the idea that inequality contributes to social and environmental problems. The research reported by Payne (2017) focuses on the effect of inequality on various behaviors some of which do, in fact, lead to crime, violence and conflict. Troutt (2013) argues that inequality is at the root of discrimination in U.S. housing markets and unequal support for public education that have the effect of cutting off avenues out of poverty and economic inequality. He argues that those who are relatively affluent worry that mixing with those at the lower end of the income distribution will threaten their property values and diminish the quality of their schools. Residential sorting in the United States, often driven by racial discrimination, has resulted in enormous spatial inequality. Because public schools are financed primarily from local property taxes, school quality varies with the wealth of the neighborhood in which the school is located. Troutt (2013, p. 216) agrees with other scholars who see U.S. educational and housing policies as tightly connected and driven by a reverence for local control with the result that schools and neighborhoods remain segregated by both economic class and race.

There are two ways environmental concerns are linked to economic inequality. First, greater inequality leads to more environmental degradation because high-income individuals often benefit from polluting activities and have the political power to shield these activities from government regulation (Boyce 2017; Stiglitz 2013; Sayer 2016). Downey (2015) argues that organizations and institutions controlled by high-income elites are the primary causes of current environmental crises ranging from declines in biodiversity and soil fertility to growing global pollution. Baek and Gweisah (2013) find that a more equal distribution of income in the United States would lead to improved environmental quality. The second way that environmental degradation is tied to inequality is through its impacts on people with limited means. Andersson and Agrawal (2011) find that rising inequality has a negative impact on the protection of common property resources such as forests in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a result of the actions of low-income families. Those at the bottom of the income distribution may find that they have little choice but to move into environmentally fragile areas where their activities can lead to environmental damage. Hsiang et al. (2017) show that the effects of climate change are worse in parts of the United States where incomes are lowest. The environmental justice movement has drawn particular attention to the fact that ethnic and racial minorities in the United States often live and work in locations afflicted by pollution and toxic waste (Skelton and Miller 2016). In both low- and high-income countries the effects of such phenomena as air and water pollution and climate change fall most heavily on the least well off. As noted in The Economist (2017):

The rich are disproportionate contributors to the carbon emissions that power climate change. It is cruel and perverse, therefore, that the costs of warming should be disproportionately borne by the poor. And it is both insult and injury that the wealthy are more mobile in the face of climate-induced hardship, and more effective at limiting the mobility of others. The strains this injustice places on the social fabric might well lead to woes more damaging than rising temperatures themselves. (p. 66) Complete article PDF

Wesley Peterson presents many arguments from both sides of the argument, including many that don't seem to believe that economic inequality is a problem at all. These are presumably people benefiting from it that might even be inclined to finance propaganda disguised as research to justify epidemic levels of income inequality. Yet he still recognizes that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. Another argument from the Cato Institute listed below claims there are Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America which are utterly absurd, and any person with rational thinking skills can see through this propaganda. Wesley Peterson seems to accept William Watson's claim that winning the lottery is a fair way that contributes to income inequality; however, even though it's not related to local economies most of the time, a review of the lottery and how it correlates with crime and other social problems, and that it shifts tax burdens to the poor should raise major doubts about Watson's claims.

A few basic principles should also indicate that many of the causes of income inequality are a major reason for some of these social ills, and that many of the wealthiest people really don't earn their money, under the current system, they rig the economy in their favor so they get the majority of the benefits while others do all the work. A few simple examples include considering how certain jobs improve the quality of life for people and how well they pay, even though many of them aren't highly skilled or require advanced education. Growing food or stocking shelves are necessary jobs to make the economy work, yet the people that do this work get minimum wage barely getting enough to survive often being forced to go on welfare, even when they work full time. However college educated jobs like advertising pays much better, but they create a false impression of products and don't do much if anything to improve the quality of life.

One of the most extreme examples as described in Bob Ortega's book "In Sam We Trust" is Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line where she collected three percent of the retail value of the clothes sold using her name while the workers that made the clothes got less than one percent and were forced to work in outrageous conditions. Trying to argue that this is a justifiable distribution of wealth would require an enormous amount of spin and distraction, which is exactly what high paid advertisers, economists, media pundits do. Mostly the way they justify this is by simple refusing to report on it!

In most cases tariffs aren't necessarily the most effective way to protect local economies; a carbon tax might be far more effective since it discourages more shipping than necessary, while protecting the environment at the same time. However, when some countries are becoming more competitive by oppressing workers rights, destroying either their own or other peoples environment to produce good, or if the government subsidizes production to drive prices down to get an unfair advantage, then tariffs are a reasonable way to protect workers, the environment, or prevent unfair trade practices.

In most cases the shipping expenses should make it far more efficient to buy locally manufactured food, and in a reasonable economic system other policies could be put in place protecting factory direct stores, which were eliminated by oligarchy practices. One of the biggest problems is simply that lobbyists paid for by large corporations make all the decisions and they clearly rig things in their own favor.

Lawmakers have no qualms about "protectionism" if it protects their campaign donors, which is what the vast majority of our trade policies are designed to do. One of the most blatant and outrageous examples of that is The Jones Act, the obscure 1920 shipping regulation strangling Puerto Rico, explained 10/09/2017 which is contrary to their alleged "free trade" agenda, although it doesn't involve tariffs. Instead it requires good from one american port going to another American port to be shipped by american ships. This adds a modest expense to most of us but it protects American jobs, although the biggest beneficiary is the owners for American shipbuilders. But it's a much bigger expense for Puerto Rico due to their geographical location.

Since they're closer to many Caribbean counties or Central and South America countries so it would be far more efficient for them to deal with foreign shipping companies, perhaps even buying more foreign goods than many other American's might. Yet the Jones Act is designed to benefit the ship builders, not create an efficient trade system that works well for everyone, presumably since Puerto Rican's don't have equal representation, and even if they did most of the propaganda people used to based their votes on are paid for by campaign donors and elected officials routinely find ways to serve their interests in stead of the public's.

The bigger problem is that our entire economic system is being distorted by the media, politicians, and economists that all cater to corporate interests so a major part of the solution has to include a much more diverse media and enabling all people to hear from different views, including many that are much more rational than the ones presented by the establishment, which routinely ignores many inconvenient facts.

Other countries including those Northern Europe have far more rational economic system, although multinational corporations are trying to corrupt those as well, with less success. If they can do it, we can, perhaps even better if we stop listening to the oligarchs, and only electing candidates that they provide media coverage for!



The following are some sources or additional background information:

Local Ownership Makes Communities Healthier, Wealthier and Wiser 07/18/2012

Regulation & the Economy The Relationship & How to Improve It 09/27/2017

Green Party: Economic Justice & Sustainability

The Multiplier Effect of Local Independent Businesses 2015

Why Local First?

How a Trump decision on trade became a setback for democracy in Vietnam 10/12/2018 Freed from conditions imposed by the Obama administration to join the trade pact, Vietnam's communist government has scrapped plans to allow independent trade unions and unleashed its most severe clampdown on dissent in decades. Authorities have arrested scores of social activists, bloggers and democracy advocates, sentencing many to jail terms of 10 to 20 years.

The TPP Prioritizes the ‘Rights’ of Corporations Over Workers, the Environment, and Democracy 10/07/2015 ‘‘Corporations still have an extra-judicial process to enforce their rights. That’s not the case for labor and environmental standards.’’ By John NicholsTwitter

Getting Trade Right Fall 2015

The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries 06/10/2015

Fifteen years ago, Parada’s work was a minor niche even within the legal business. But since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)

Parada’s first case was defending Argentina in the late 1990s against the French conglomerate Vivendi, which sued after the Argentine province of Tucuman stepped in to limit the price it charged people for water and wastewater services. Argentina eventually lost, and was ordered to pay the company more than $100m. Now, in his most high-profile case yet, Parada is part of the team defending El Salvador as it tries to fend off a multimillion-dollar suit lodged by a multinational mining company after the tiny Central American country refused to allow it to dig for gold. .......

A Century of U.S. Intervention Created the Immigration Crisis 06/20/2018

Fleeing a hell the US helped create: why Central Americans journey north 12/19/2018

Corporate Control in Agriculture

Agropoly: A handful of corporations control world food production - EcoNexus

Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America 09/07/2016 The first "myth" here, "Inequality Has Never Been Worse" may not be entirely true, as they claim; however the other four alleged "myths," including "The Rich Didn’t Earn Their Money," "The Rich Stay Rich; the Poor Stay Poor," "More Inequality Means More Poverty" and "Inequality Distorts the Political Process" are mostly if not entirely true. It wouldn't take much research to show that this is an incredibly bad argument only designed to convince people that benefit from epidemic inequality. If this argument was presented to the majority of the public, especially people with reasonable critical thinking skills that aren't inclined to blindly trust so-called experts, it would clearly backfire since their claims is so bad, regardless of how good their spin is.

The true cost of your cheap clothes: slave wages for Bangladesh factory workers 06/11/2016

Workers endured long hours, low pay at Chinese factory used by Ivanka Trump’s clothing-maker 04/25/2017

Nike Called Out for Low Wages in Asia Amid Colin Kaepernick Ad Promotion 09/06/2018

Nike and America's wage problem 05/14/2015

Snopes: Do Nike Factory Workers in Vietnam Earn 20 Cents Per Hour? 09/07/2018 Partly true, the wages were from the 1990s before being reported, since then they rose to "between $0.61 and $0.89 per hour in 2016." some reports of them working longer than the maximum of 48 hours a week are probably true but 70 to 80 hours is supposedly not typical. doing so might reduce production as they're too tired.

Banning Sweatshops Only Hurts the Poor 07/05/2015 this is an incredibly bad propaganda piece that will only convince those that want to be convinced that abusing people's rights in sweatshops are in their own best interests. I doubt if anyone that ever had to work in a sweatshop would believe any of this, and unless she's intentionally providing propaganda for a living I can't imagine why she would spin things so badly.

Driving People to "Go Out In A Blaze Of Glory" isn't working so well!

It's been a couple weeks or so since the Aurora Illinois mass shooting and another incident where a Coast Guard member was allegedly caught before he had an opportunity to carry out another one that they claim might have been even worse, and a year since the Parkland shooting; but, if you search for a lower profile mass shooting on any given day it's pretty much guaranteed you'll find a new one. Vox has recently reported that mass shootings, which they define as a shooting where four or more people are shot, whether they're killed or not happens almost once every day, on average.

Yet there's little or no effort, at least in the mass media or political debate, to find out what's causing all these shootings or why it's so much more common in this country than in many other developed countries, especially some of the European countries that do a better job providing child care, education and ban corporal punishment both in schools and at home, and have murder rates less than 1 per 100,000 while our national rate is usually over 5; it dipped down bellow five from 2010 to 2015, before climbing back up to 5.4 in 2016 and 5.3 in 2017, which means that after hitting a historical low rate the total number of murder rose back up by about 3,000. Yet there's no public debate about why, except obsessive discussion about gun control almost as if that's the only potential contributing factor.

As I've said in previous articles, reasonable gun control is almost certainly a part of the solution but there's little or no chance that it's the only part; and it's highly unlikely that it's the most important part of the solution, based on an enormous amount of research that the media simply declines to report on.

We do have plenty of research available to show what many of the leading causes of violence, including mass shootings, are; however the media practically never mentions this research, nor do political candidates discuss it or base policy decision on it. One of the most important contributing factor, if not the most important one is early child abuse, including corporal punishment leading to escalating violence later in life, which I went into more in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media. The evidence showing this is a major contributing factor is overwhelming, with murder rates in states that still allow corporal punishment in schools being 22% to 31% higher than those no longer allowing it for the last ten to eleven years, and at least 2.26% higher going back twenty seven years, with it getting much closer a few years after about a dozen states banned corporal punishment, but before it had much chance to have a long term impact.

Between 1988 and 1994 nineteen states banned corporal punishment in schools, and it has been dropping steadily in the home since Benjamin Spock and several other good child rearing experts began recommending alternative methods, shortly after World War II. During the nineties the murder rates around the country plummeted almost in half, before dropping at a slower rate for another thirteen or fourteen years before reaching it's all time low in 2013-4.

Additional major contributing factors which were also listed in the same article with links to additional sources include poverty, income inequality, lack of education, gambling, insurance which also contributes to poverty since it's often based on misleading sales pitches, and military hazing to teach cadets to blindly obey orders, in wars based on lies. There should be no doubt that epidemic levels of corporate fraud is a major contributing cause, since it contributes, either directly or indirectly, to most if not all of these factors.

There should also be no doubt that refusing to address the social needs of the majority of the public while catering to the interests of of campaign donors making a massive amount of money off of epidemic levels of fraud. However, even if some people do doubt this there's even more evidence to support it, but the media doesn't cover that, any more than it covers any of the other contributing factors of violence.

Ignoring these problems is a major part of the reason why we have more mass shootings than other developed countries; and fighting wars based on lies, while shipping jobs overseas to pressures wages and other corporate scams adds to it making them more likely. And when there are legitimate protests to try to address these problems they're often suppressed, while the media misrepresents them only leading to more poverty and desperation including some that strike out violently, usually in the wrong direction.

The vast majority of mass shooters probably have emotional problems and may not be able to express legitimate concerns rationally; however there are some exceptions, although they respond to them the wrong way.

By outsourcing thousands if not millions of jobs over decades they've been driving down wages for the vast majority of the public so they can increase profits for a small percentage; and there's no doubt that this has driven a lot of people into desperate situations, including Gary Martin who recently went on a shooting spree in Aurora. I have no doubt that he had additional violent tendencies, but some of these are also caused partly by declining to education the public about how early abuse or lack of educational and economic opportunities leads to escalating violence.

As I pointed out in Cause and Effect of Hatred early child abuse is also a major factor in promoting racism or shootings like Christopher Paul Hasson allegedly planned, yet this isn't discussed as a potential contributing cause by the mass media even though there are plenty of good scholars available providing research to show it's a major factor.

Additional research also shows that union busting is a major contributing factor of workplace violence as I pointed out in Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime, citing Marty Jay Levitt, a former union busting consultant who wrote a book about the tactics he previously used and how they often contributed to violence, including in the coal mining industry; and it also cites major problems at Walmart where many of their employees have also gone on shooting sprees, often partly because of a hostile work environment, partly resulting from their union busting practices.

Eric Schlosser provided additional research showing that the hostile environment in the fast food industry is a contributing factor when it comes to violent robberies, often by former disgruntled employees who are more likely to rob their employers, or former employers, after being treated badly, even leading to armed robberies and murders. At the time he wrote his book in 2001 he claimed there were about four or five fast food employees murdered on the job every month, often by other employees; more recent studies indicate that the death rate is much higher, although most of them are for other reasons, with murder possibly going down since then. However as indicated in the following excerpt, when fast food industries were faced with regulations designed to protect their employees they lobbied heavily to prevent them, refusing to consider that their oppressive working conditions might be a contributing factor:

Eric Schlosser "Fast Food Nation" 2001 p.83-5

The same demographic groups widely employed at fast food restaurants — the young and the poor — are also responsible for much of the nation's violent crime. According to industry studies, about two-thirds of the robberies at fast food restaurants involve current or former employees. The combination of low pay, high turnover, and ample cash in the restaurant often leads to crime. A 1999 survey by the National Food Service Security Council, a group funded by the large chains, found that about half of all restaurant workers engaged in some form of cash or property theft — not including the theft of food. The typical employee stole about $218 a year; new employees stole almost $100 more. Studies conducted by Jerald Greenberg, a professor of management at the University of Ohio and an expert on workplace crime, have found that when people are treated with dignity and respect, they’re less likely to steal from their employer. “It may be common sense,” Greenberg says, “but it’s obviously not common practice.” The same anger that causes most petty theft, the same desire to strike back at an employer perceived as unfair, can escalate to armed robbery. Restaurant managers are usually, but not always, the victims of fast food crimes. Not long ago, the day manager of a McDonald’s in Moorpark, California, recognized the masked gunman emptying the safe. It was the night manager.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) attempted in the mid-1990s to issue guidelines for preventing violence at restaurants and stores that do business at night. OSHA was prompted, among other things, by the fact that homicide had become the leading cause of workplace fatalities among women. The proposed guidelines were entirely voluntary and seemed innocuous. OSHA recommended, for example, that late-night retailers improve visibility within their stores and make sure their parking lots were well lit. The National Restaurant Association, along with other industry groups, responded by enlisting more than one hundred congressmen to oppose any OSHA guidelines on retail violence. An investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that many of the congressmen had recently accepted donations from the NRA and the National Association of Convenience Stores. “Who would oppose putting out guidelines on saving women’s lives in the workplace?” Joseph Dear, a former head of OSHA, said to a Times reporter. “The companies that employ those women.”

The restaurant industry has continued to fight not only guidelines on workplace violence, but any enforcement of OSHA regulations. At a 1997 restaurant industry “summit” on violence, executives representing the major chains argued that OSHA guidelines could be used by plaintiffs in lawsuits stemming from a crime, that guidelines were completely unnecessary, and that there was no need to supply the government with “potentially damaging” robbery statistics. The group concluded that OSHA should become just an information clearing house without any authority to impose fines or compel security measures. Complete article

As I said most of these disgruntled employees almost certainly don't express their grievances very well, and even if they do killing former co-workers, even if some of them are management they may have previously had legitimate complaints against, clearly isn't the best way to address the issues; however when the vast majority of people do a far better job expressing legitimate grievances, management routinely dismisses them and police or politicians rarely ever help much either. Police routinely arrest protesters for many reasons, including workers rights protesters as well as environmentalists, antiwar protesters, and many other protesters, even though they often have legitimate concerns which politicians don't address and the media doesn't report on adequately.

While most mass murderers require in depth research into their background before almost always, if not always as Dorothy Otnow Lewis claims, finding early abuse that taught long term violent behavior and caused emotional problems, a few of them managed to write out some legitimate grievances, even if the media declined to cover them adequately including Joseph Andrew Stack (who only killed on person besides himself), Christopher Jordan Dorner, and Gavin Eugene Long, who all left behind what were described as manifestos, which has a negative stereotype after demonizing the Communist Manifesto for generations without reviewing it honestly.

When the media does mention these at all they often refer to them as "insane" or "rambling" or some other negative term without trying to figure out whether or not there was a legitimate concern; however they're often made public, and in some cases people that are being oppressed by a corrupt economic system see right through this, and in at least a few cases they've influenced additional mass murderers, including Gavin Eugene Long who adopted a few phrases from Christopher Dorner's manifesto in his own.

A lot of these complaints are legitimate complaints, even if the manifestos sometimes include rambling that might be expected from people that aren't trained writers, which would include me, and if they went to extremes that aren't justified, even with legitimate grievances.

You would think the simple solution would be to address legitimate concerns when we have peaceful protests or allow a rational debate at discussion forums where all views are welcome; however this isn't done; instead the oligarchies control over ninety percent of the media and they hire an army of pundits to spin incredibly bad excuses why we can't address legitimate concerns while the media only covers candidates pretending to bring "Hope" and "Change" during the campaign before selling out to the same Wall Street interests after being elected.

Joseph Stack was right about the health care system being rigged for the wealthy and the government bailing out the rich after they caused the economic crisis of 2008. Barack Obama, who promised to put on a "pair of comfortable shoes" and march with protesters as president hired plenty of lobbyist breaking another promise he made instead and bailed out the banks allowing them to give massive bonuses to the people causing the crash, while refusing to instruct his attorney general, Eric Holder to prosecute the banks for their robo-signing fraud, or many other scams carried out by financial institutions, before Holder resigned going back to the same law firm representing these people he didn't prosecute for their fraud, and much more!

Christopher Jordan Dorner, Micah Xavier Johnson, and Gavin Eugene Long, were all trained by the government to allegedly protect us; however the wars we constantly fight are almost always based on lies, including Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, and even Afghanistan, which if you accept the official version of 9/11 it was retaliation for fighting past wars based on lies and arming the mujaheddin which later became Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Christopher Dorner seemed to believe the rhetoric about "Honor" and "Integrity" they teach in the military during their indoctrination process that's enforced with intimidation tactics and hazing, yet when he joined the police force he encountered plenty of corruption which he spoke out about and was presumably fired for doing so. This of course, puts police propagandists in an awkward position; since, if he was as irrational and deceptive as they claim he was, why wouldn't they have seen it before hiring him? There's no doubt that there's an enormous amount of evidence of much more police corruption and cover-ups, making it reasonable for many people protesting police killings to assume that he was exposing some of the corruption he saw, even if he did go to extremes.

Even though Micah Xavier Johnson, and Gavin Eugene Long were never in the police force they were trained to fight warts which they must have concluded were based on lies only to come home to find that the police weren't protecting their own communities, before going on their killing sprees. Gavin Long's manifesto even acknowledged that he felt it was necessary to kill some good cops, which could be interpreted as collateral damage in military terms which he was trained in, and he made a point of saluting police that were trying to reform the system; however those entrenched in power continue to stone wall almost all reform.

In all fairness the most important reform is almost certainly not police reform, although that has to be part of it if we're going to solve this problem, but other reforms including economic fraud and cuts to education or child care that will prevent violence from escalating and making these confrontations with police necessary in the first place.

It may be easy to get angry about these people for going on shooting rampages, and assume that they're evil for the sake of evil dismissing their manifestos; but if people want to understand why it's happening and how to prevent it that's not the way to go.

This emotional hatred even leads many to demand that we don't even say their names, on the assumption that they're seeking fame, which might be a small part of it but clearly it isn't the most important issue which is why did they become so emotional unstable in the first place. This leads to perceived justification for censoring the manifestos; but this will only prevent us from understanding why it happened, and prevent us from seeing there are sometimes partial mitigating circumstances, even if it's not full justification. This only guarantees we can't solve the problem.

Even if you do accept the argument that we should ignore grievances in their manifestos, does this mean that we should also continue ignoring the same grievances when people with legitimate complaints express them the right way? Of course not, yet that's what the government has been doing for decades, which is clearly a major contributing factor.

While reviewing murder statistics, it became clear that the highest murder rates are where there's the least amount of educational or economic opportunities and they have the lowest medium income. These ghettos also have the lowest voting rates and even if they did participate in the democratic process more, without adequate education they would be less able to see through the political scams that are routine by politicians that study how to manipulate voters more than they seek to understand their best interests and try to look out for them.

there's much more research on the leading contributing causes of violence in alternative media, good non-fiction books, or academic research papers; however it's almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and in political debates. Instead we have people in wealthy communities making decisions on the economy then arranging to push them through regardless of what the majority of the public wants. Since they don't cover sincere political candidates they can't win so little or nothing is done to solve this problem and the people in the poorest areas routinely pay the highest price. One class of people does all the work; another class of people takes all the money and it's not hard to recognize this.

This is an intentional recipe for disaster!

We have research to show how to prevent these mass shootings but pundits and politicians refuse to cover it!



The following are some additional sources on this article, including excerpts from a couple manifestos:

Aurora mass shooting: Gunman, Gary Martin, opened fire after being told he was losing job, police say 02/17/2019

Arrested Coast Guard Officer, Christopher Paul Hasson, Allegedly Planned Attack 'On A Scale Rarely Seen' 02/20/2019

A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder



Joe Stack's 2010 Manifesto / Suicide Note 2010

The Insane Manifesto Of Austin Texas Crash Pilot Joseph Andrew Stack 02/18/2010

Joe Stack's 2010 Manifesto / Suicide Note 02/18/2010

If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, "Why did this have to happen?" The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. .....

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it's time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country's leaders don't see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political "representatives" (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the "terrible health care problem". It's clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don't get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You've got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly "holds accountable" its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law "requires" a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not "duress" than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is. The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. ......

..... However, this is where I learned that there are two "interpretations" for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country. ......

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn't so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along. ......

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010) Complete article

Read suicide note left by Gavin Eugene Long, gunman in deadly Baton Rouge officer shooting in July 2016 06/30/2017

Gavin Long’s Alleged Manifesto Calls Baton Rouge Shootings A “Necessary Evil” 07/20/2016

PEACE FAMILY,

I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous acts of violence. You are thinking to yourself that this is completely out of character of the MAN you knew who was always positive, encouraging, & wore a smile wherever he was seen. Yes this does seem to be out of character but I ask that you finish reading before you make that decision.

I know I will be vilified by the media & police, unfortunately, I see my action’s as a necessary evil that I do not wish to partake in, nor do I enjoy partaking in, but must partake in, in order to create substantial change within America’s police forces and Judicial system.

Right now their is a unseen & concealed war within America’s police force between Good cops & Bad cops. And the way the current system is set up, it protects all cops whether good or bad, right or wrong, instead of punishing bad cops & holding them accountable for their actions.

And when good cops do try and stand up, speak out, & point out the wrong’s & criminal acts of a bad cops they get reprimanded, harassed, blackballed or blacklisted or all of these and more. Thus creating a perpetual systematic fertile ground for bad cops to flourish, excell, & go unpunished in.

Therefore I must bring the same destruction that bad cops continue to inflict upon my people, upon bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together to enact justice and punishment against bad cops b/c right now the police force & current judicial system is not doing so. .....

.......

And special salute $ thank you to the brave cops that have already identified & spoke up against bad cops and racist unjust practices.

The list of good cops include but are not limited to: Officer Edwin Raymond & to the approximate 10 other officers who are coming forward against illegal practices of the NYPD targeting my people unethically.

Salute to Officer Nakia Jones Officer Joe Crystal Fellow Marine & EX-Cop MIchael Wood. Retired Captain Ray Lewis. Former Police Chief Norm Stamper.

Officer Billy Ray Fields. & Officer Frank Serpico.

And every other officer who stands up & protects & serves, and upholds their oath, even if it’s protecting the people from one of their fellow officers.

Sincerely, Love Cosmo

A sacrifice for my people, & a sacrifice for the people.

- “LOOK UP, GET UP, & DONT EVER GIVE UP”! Complete article

Christopher Jordan Dorner Manifesto 2013

Edit 08/22/2019: Patrick Crusius's Manifesto was also taken off line by the service providers, and it also describes some economic reasons for his shootings mixed up with his misguided bigotry. Understanding this is as important as others to learn how to prevent it, although not as important is research showing how early child abuse leads to escalating violence and racism. The following is his manifesto which I finally found on the internet:

Patrick Crusius Manifesto: The Inconvenient Truth 05/08/2019

About Me

In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement. This manifesto will cover the political and economic reasons behind the attack, my gear, my expectations of what response this will generate and my personal motivations and thoughts.

Political Reasons

In short, America is rotting from the inside out, and peaceful means to stop this seem to be nearly impossible. The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations. I could write a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused, but here is what is important. Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election. Although the Republican Party is also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are pro-corporation. Procorporation = pro-immigration. But some factions within the Republican Party don’t prioritize corporations over our future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of immigration while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans, the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.

Economic Reasons

In short, immigration can only be detrimental to the future of America. Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse. Some sources say that in under two decades, half of American jobs will be lost to it. Of course some people will be retrained, but most will not. So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America. In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs. Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.

Even though new migrants do the dirty work, their kids typically don’t. They want to live the American Dream which is why they get college degrees and fill higher-paying skilled positions. This is why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs, Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be issued for skilled foreign workers to come here. Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas. Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs. Jobs that Americans can’t survive on anyway. Automation can and would replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it.

The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

Gear

Main gun: AK47 (WASR 10) – I realized pretty quickly that this isn’t a great choice since it’s the civilian version of the ak47. It’s not designed to shoot rounds quickly, so it overheats massively after about 100 shots fired in quick succession. I’ll have to use a heat-resistant glove to get around this. 8m3 bullet: This bullet, unlike pretty much any other 7.62×39 bullet, actually fragments like a pistol hollow point when shot out of an ak47 at the cost of penetration. Penetration is still reasonable, but not nearly as high as a normal ak47 bullet. The ak47 is definitely a bad choice without this bullet design, and may still be with it.

Other gun(if I get one): Ar15 – Pretty much any variation of this gun doesn’t heat up nearly as fast as the AK47. The round of this gun isn’t designed to fragment, but instead tumbles inside a target causing lethal wounding. This gun is probably better, but I wanted to explore different options. The ar15 is probably the best gun for military applications but this isn’t a military application.

This will be a test of which is more lethal, either it’s fragmentation or tumbling.

I didn’t spend much time at all preparing for this attack. Maybe a month, probably less. I have do this before I lose my nerve. I figured that an under-prepared attack and a meh manifesto is better than no attack and no manifesto

Reaction

Statistically, millions of migrants have returned to their home countries to reunite with the family they lost contact with when they moved to America. They come here as economic immigrants, not for asylum reasons. This is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive. An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide. This will remove the threat of the Hispanic voting bloc which will make up for the loss of millions of baby boomers. This will also make the elites that run corporations realize that it’s not in their interest to continue piss off Americans. Corporate America doesn’t need to be destroyed, but just shown that they are on the wrong side of history. That if they don’t bend, they will break.

Personal Reasons and Thoughts

My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas, changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our country. The environment is getting worse by the year. If you take nothing else from this document, remember this: INACTION IS A CHOICE. I can no longer bear the shame of inaction knowing that our founding fathers have endowed me with the rights needed to save our country from the brink destruction. Our European comrades don’t have the gun rights needed to repel the millions of invaders that plaque their country. They have no choice but to sit by and watch their countries burn.

America can only be destroyed from the inside-out. If our country falls, it will be the fault of traitors. This is why I see my actions as faultless. Because this isn’t an act of imperialism but an act of preservation. America is full of hypocrites who will blast my actions as the sole result of racism and hatred of other countries, despite the extensive evidence of all the problems these invaders cause and will cause. People who are hypocrites because they support imperialistic wars that have caused the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and untold numbers of civilian lives. The argument that mass murder is okay when it is state sanctioned is absurd. Our government has killed a whole lot more people for a whole lot less. Even if other non-immigrant targets would have a greater impact, I can’t bring myself to kill my fellow Americans. Even the Americans that seem hell-bent on destroying our country. Even if they are shameless race mixers, massive polluters, haters of our collective values, etc. One day they will see error of their ways. Either when American patriots fail to reform our country and it collapses or when we save it. But they will see the error of their ways. I promise y’all that.

I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems. Also because it’s completely unnecessary and selfish. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics form interracial unions at much higher rates than average. Yet another reason to send them back. Cultural and racial diversity is largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territory(s).

My death is likely inevitable. If I’m not killed by the police, then I’ll probably be gunned down by one of the invaders. Capture in this case if far worse than dying during the shooting because I’ll get the death penalty anyway. Worse still is that I would live knowing that my family despises me. This is why I’m not going to surrender even if I run out of ammo. If I’m captured, it will be because I was subdued somehow.

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.

My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.

Many people think that the fight for America is already lost. They couldn’t be more wrong. This is just the beginning of the fight for America and Europe. I am honored to head the fight to reclaim my country from destruction.

Patrick Crusius Complete article

Inside a cramped Bucks County apartment, 5 family members dead in murder-suicide pact, survivors say 02/26/2019

In the year after Parkland, there was nearly one mass shooting a day 02/14/2019

Prosecutors say accused would-be Kentucky mass shooter had more than 30 guns, 1500+ rounds of ammo 02/28/2019

10 Manifestos Of Killers You Can Actually Read Online Right Now

Inside the minds of American mass shooters 11/10/2017

Reporters shouldn’t profile mass shooters, say experts 08/31/2018 These "experts" seem to have a background in media without much if any knowledge about criminology, child psychology, sociology, or other more important fields of research that do better job explaining why child abuse escalates to more violence later in life. Refusing to report on their background would only prevent people from understanding why they go on shooting sprees and how to prevent it.

What do many mass shooters have in common? A history of domestic violence. 01/15/2017

The Woman Who Plotted a Valentine's Mass Murder Shares How the Internet Radicalized Her 02/21/2019

Foodservice workplace deaths soar, study finds 12/20/2017

Food workers face higher injury, death rates: study 07/07/2015

An estimated 28,000 teens in fast food jobs are rushed to the ER each year with job-related injuries 01/01/2019

28 Fun And Interesting Facts About Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid