'In 1900, 38% of the labor force in Germany worked in agriculture; in 2000, only 2% did. And yet the full-scale automation of agriculture did not lead to mass unemployment.'



Well it quite clearly created a loss of jobs for 36% of the labour force. By happy coincidence work for those unemployed was created by consumerism and industrial process, an entirely new activity. Should 36% of the labour force become unemployed the question is what new activity could employ them. It is most unlikely a new sector will gestate that rapidly. So the sweeping statement that what happened in 1900 is a model for anything is beyond weak. Furthermore - Inequality points quite clearly towards a growing caste system with increased social mobility problems, training will not solve that.



Where the bank is the state and the state is the bank there is no escape for taxpayers and public debt is in growth. Nothing will stop this because it is the will of the people; the people after all are the ones demanding the provision invoking the public debt.



The author appears to want a national state within a supranational state and this cannot exist. It is however a very German idea