03/09/2010 10:11:53 AM EST

First the Revolution

posted by opposition

Many people on this forum think that a revolution will be necessary if the gap between rich and poor is going to increase even more, but what after that?

Here's my manifesto and 10 point-program:

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
  1. Nationalize banks
  2. Nationalize Health insurance
  3. Get rid of cash
  4. Create a 25% tax on EVERY financial transaction
  5. Get rid of all other taxes, except of deterrence taxes for everything that harms the environment or the health of citizens
  6. Legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling
  7. Pay a basic unconditional income to every citizen. This most be high enough for them to live on
  8. Vastly increase the investments in education, research and health care
9)Decrease the military spending
10) Fight for a global currency

Those demands are connected, but I would nevetheless like to know which you support.
Please, discuss them all.

Also I would like Rock'n'Roll, dope and fucking in the streets!;-)

< Hillary, George Mitchell and now Biden | Passing Health Care Bill will save Rahm Emanuel >

Poll

What do you support?
Nationalize banks 56%
Get rid of cash 12%
Create a 25% tax on EVERY financial transaction 25%
Get rid of all other taxes 12%
Legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling 68%
Pay a basic unconditional income to every citizen 37%
increase the investments in education, research and health care 93%
Fight for a global currency 25%
Nationalize Health insurance 87%
Decrease the military spending 100%

Votes: 16
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
Andrew Jackson called the Bankers 'snakes'.. (none / 0)

He destroyed the bankers trying to take over the currency and the independence of our nation. In Jackson's day it was called ' Bank of the United States' which was what the FED reserve is today.

He was ridiculed and to this day is still considered the Van Helsing of Bankers blood sucking vampires.

"In 1833, Jackson moved to finish off the bank. Jackson ordered all federal deposits in the bank withdrawn. To do this, Jackson was forced to remove two secretaries of the treasury, eventually replacing Louis McClane and William J. Duane with the more agreeable Roger B. Taney.<sup>[11]</sup> Jackson announced that effective October 1st, 1833, federal funds would no longer be deposited in the bank.<sup>[5]</sup> In retaliation, Nicholas Biddle began calling in loans from across the country. Biddle believed that a financial crisis would highlight the need for a central bank. However, the move backfired, and angry businessmen and farmers blamed the bank. The bank lost its charter in 1836, and went out of business in 1841.<sup>[12]</sup> "

 

The banks responded by destroying the economy in every way they could, by mainly canceling all loans and calling them in.

Make no mistake, the banks will do anything and kill anyone that gets in their way. They have no loyalty to the nation or people, they are inter national profiteers to say the least, and more openly a cartel like gangsters or vampires.

 

by wowisdabomb on 03/09/2010 11:41:37 AM EST

I didn't say it would be easy! (none / 0)
In fact all my demands are probably impossible. The first thing would definitly have to be an uprising of the people. I just wanted to work out a revolutionary manifesto that they could gather behind.

I think those 10 points check nearly every box you need for a fairer society.

On the one hand they would guarantee decent living conditions and economical fairness for everyone on the other hand they would encourage entrepreneurship.

Rest assured: I am aware that it is all just a dream.

But in my opinion a dream worth fighting for.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/09/2010 11:48:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I hope not... (none / 0)

Nationalizing the banks is a bad idea.  First, it is very difficult to know what you mean by "nationalize the banks," which means that at best it is an unclear idea.  Thus I cannot express how it is a bad idea with any degree of specificity.  Second, in general it is a bad idea.  We need banks to seek profit.  Here, the profit motive can work to benefit us all.  We need banks to discriminate between worthwhile investment opportunities (i.e. loans) and bad investment opportunities.  If we turn this function over to the government, this function is likely to be corrupted by politics, hurting us all.

(This is in marked contrast to health care or the prison service.  The profit motive corrupts these functions.)

Eliminating cash would help tax gathering but I would not waste an ounce of political capital on that issue. 

Simplifying the tax code is worthwhile, but a tax on all financial transactions is hideously regressive.  Also, tax code is not created in a vacuum.  Our code cannot be too distinct from other nations, or it will create international capital distortions.

Global currency is not a good idea.  At the moment the US has two levers with which it can affect economic activity: fiscal and monetary policy.  If the United States used an international currency, it would have to set interest rates in tandem with other nations to stop unwanted massive capital flows.  It would not be able to lower interest rates for the sake of the national economy.  Also, the US is in a convenient position where it denominates all of its debts in US dollars.  As long as the US denominates its debts in dollars, it can always make good on those debts.  That means, in a pinch the government can always deficit spend.  If the US started denominating its debts in some other currency, deficit spending would be very risky.  The US would find itself in California's shoes the first time it ran into a recession.  This is a lot to lose just to promote trade and minimize firm exposure to currency drifts.

by MGriebe on 03/09/2010 02:55:58 PM EST

on point (none / 0)
…other than the banks. We need to nationalize the banks and then break them up, as well as separate out the brokers.

I also think we would be better off refunding social security by lending against the surplus until the debt has been paid back. Banks only becomes risky when they are for profit and unregulated. The GSE’s were fine until the greed of the BOD took over and the bankruptcy reform bill was passed.

We need to return to a 90% upper tax bracket to deter the greed and corruption that has engulfed DC and NY. FDR showed us that a long time ago, among other things. I think just going back to the framework he laid out would be a good start.
I like the direction of the thread, the solutions are just not thought out. What about trade and energy?
 


by sisco66 on 03/09/2010 07:33:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for reading and commenting (none / 0)
The ideas are more thought out than they appear to be. I kept the OP as short as possible, because most users of this blog don't read posts with more than 200 words. The shortness also gives the readers more opportunity to post their own ideas. I was hoping for critical comments, so i have the opportunity to explain the aspects in more detail.

I only agree partially with you on the banks. As I pointed out to MGriebe the banks should still be for profit, but they should be highly regulated and the profits should be for the good of the whole populus. If the banks make high profits the taxes could be lowered. It would still be important that the banks are no longer responsible to shareholders, but the "the people". It would be much easier to regulate the banks, whenthey are a branch of the government. Sure their would be corruption, but I'm sure all in all they would cause less harm than they are currently.
I also defended my ideas about the flat-tax on my reply to MGriebe, if you wish I can go into more detail and I seriously ask you to attack me on it. Only opposing views can show how good my ideas are.
What about trade?
What about it would you like to discuss?
What about energy?
As I explained, the only other taxes apart from the flat-tax would be taxes on things that are harming health (like drugs) or the environment. The taxes for harming the environment have to be high enough to create insentive to invest in sustainable energy. The more you raise that tax the more motivated will companies be to go green.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/10/2010 07:50:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
energy and trade (none / 0)

I agree 100% on taxing based on the negative residual effect on the environment and overall health, including imported items with lower standards.

That said, a flat consumption tax is regressive as Mc pointed out. I did not read your response.  We have to have an upper tax bracket to deter greed and recoup all the money that has been stolen.

I don't quite understand your idea on banks. They can't be a mix. It's either private or public. If the money is going back to the people, then it's public. If the money is going back to the shareholders, it's private.
One thing I would support would be making bank deposit interest tax free up to the FDIC deposited level.

The job of the government is to incentivize sustainable growth and development while discouraging short sighted greed. We have been doing the exact opposite for the last 30 years, if not longer.

by sisco66 on 03/10/2010 04:49:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Greed (none / 0)
Sorry if I have been unclear.
I meant the banks should definitly be public. However the managers should get bonuses based on how much money the bank makes. Thereby you still have greed as a motivator, but the consequences of that greed would benefit the public.

I might sound nice to have an upper tax bracket of 90%, but the problem is that rich people usually find ways to avoid those taxes.

It's not a consumption tax, but a financial transaction tax. Loans, wages, everything that involves the exchange of money would be taxed.
However this tax would be lower than the current taxes. Who pays only 25% tax? Nobody who makes money (if you don't want the basic income the tax could probably be about 10-15% and still generate more revenue than the current system). Why are lower taxes regressive? They are a great incentive for people with money, or businesses to come to America.

If greed benefits the people, it's a good thing.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/11/2010 12:32:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
supply side economics (none / 0)
is what you are proposing, and it does not work. Greed is an addiction, just like gambling.  Giving bonuses to managers and traders is exactly what just caused this meltdown. The reason rich people don't pay taxes is that they payoff politicians to change the rules. You sound like Bush on that one. If that were the case they would not keep asking for more tax cuts.

Working class people pay between 23 and 35% when you included the payroll tax (social security). Which then gets used to offset the tax cuts for the rich.

Tax cuts promote looting and greed. Consumption taxes target the people who spend the greatest percentage of their money, the poor.

You must have a supply sider for an economics teacher. Stick a knife in him.

by sisco66 on 03/11/2010 05:35:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who's worse of (none / 0)
The working class people would pay the same. And in contrast to now the rich would pay. Rich people have so many ways to avoid paying taxes that they often pay less than working class people.

Assuming that Americans will need at least another 100 years to understand the merits of unconditional basic income the tax could be about 15%, which would mean tax cuts for the working class, too. Of course if you would couple that with the unconditional basic income their situation would be immensely better.

It seems that nobody here understood what unconditional really means, otherwise I would have expected an outcry. This basic income would be payed to working people and millionair. How's that for demand side economics? You shouldn't concentrate on on side, but on both.

PS: You really can't blame my economics teacher, because I never had one.:-)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/12/2010 12:26:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
value added tax (none / 0)
Thom Hartman always call for a value added tax, but I am not sure how it works. However, he is a pretty smart guy.

Anything that leaves the rich to runamuck won't work. We have proven that time and time again. Everything was fine until the 1980's.  The 1970's were just the fallout from nam and our first run in with middle east oil control.

The rich pay 15% not and it still ain't good enough for them. You need to understand how greed and power combine together like Crack & Herion.


by sisco66 on 03/12/2010 06:14:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
VAT (none / 0)
I'm not asking for a value added tax, as it is common in Europe. That would be just another added tax.

My idea is that everytime you pay for something (product, wages, sevices, etc.) 15% (25% if you have the unconditional basic income) will go directly to Uncle Sam. This would indeed require that no more cash is used, but then it would be no problem, especially when the banks are nationalized. No other tax would be necessary (except the health and environment taxes I mentioned).
Nobody would be required to "do the taxes" anymore, it will be done whenever money changes the owner.
There would be no way to cheat this tax. Even prostitution, drugs, illegal firearms etc. would automatically be taxed.

If you start a company that would make it much easier, because you don't have to worry about taxes. All calculations would be more simple. If you combine that with single payer starting a new company would be extremely easy. There is no way to overestimate the effect that would have on small and medium businesses.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/12/2010 06:48:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
back to the regressive tax (none / 0)
I was just mentioning the VAT.


 I guess you don't understand what a regressive tax is.  Taxes should be based on income, all income. And people earning more than 3 to 5 million a year should be taxed very heavily after that. If you want to simplify it by getting rid of deductions that's fine by me. 

I get how a consumption tax will hit small time crooks but it won't get the big timers.  You do know that there is a bible prophecy about having to be marked in order to purchase goods and services.

I use my credit card for everything for the rebates, but I would never want to live in a cash free world. That would be the ultimate big brother.

by sisco66 on 03/12/2010 04:53:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally (none / 0)
You arrived at the point where I have problems with my own proposal. I would indeed be very big brotherish. On the other hand the amount of data would be so immense that it would probably create anonymity by default. Still there should be certain restrictions to guarantee anonymity, you definitly don't want the government to know more about you than the friendly banker next door.
This could lead to a situation where mugging (and many other crimes) would become impossible, because it would be just too easy to find out, who forced you to transfer money on their account and arrest that person.
What would you do with all those empty prisons and the crooks who would generate wealth outside prisons, instead of wasting it inside? Would there be enough space for all the people who wouldn't be killed in robberies? What to do with all the money that would be saved?

The tax would not be regressive, it would be progressive. Everyone would have to pay the same percentage, but you get a certain "bonus" at the beginning. If the tax would be 25% and the unconditional basic income would be 15,000 you wouldn't pay taxes, unless you earn more than 60,000. That is the break even point where the amount of taxes you pay catches up with the unconditional basic income (which even Bill Gates would receive).

Another thing that bothers me: I was thinking that my ideas were rather creative and original, but when I did some research I came up with a name of someone I really didn't want in my camp: Milton Friedman for a Keynesian like me this is a guy you don't expect to be in your camp when you consider giving money to everybody. He did some research on the basic unconditional income, but called it negative income tax he even lobbied to Nixon to impement the NIT, but ended up fighting against it, when he found out that it would be an added tax and not a replacement for the current system.
He proposed a flat tax of 25%, which made me think about my numbers. He wanted to tax only income, not every exchange of money, he obviously didn't want to nationalize the banks or legalize prostitution, drugs and gambling, this and many other details considere I have to assume that a realistic number for my system would be a tax of about 15% (max.). This means everybody who is currently paying taxes would pay less and still the revenue would be higher. Nobody would pay more than 15% tax. In fact everybody would pay less, because they get the unconditional basic income(even though that would be a very small amount of money compared to what people like Bill Gates would have to pay).

All this means your critique basicly boild down to two points:

  1. Jealousy: You just want rich people to pay a higher percentage, based on principle, not economics

  2. Privacy: This would be worth discussing, because I totally see your point, on the other hand you already have to tell the government how much you make, it would only be much easier to control it.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/13/2010 06:11:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
getting somewhere (none / 0)
I am on board with what most of what you are suggesting, at least in theory. Other than the currency of course. So people making less than 60k would get a check at the end of the year for an approximate amount paid on consumption taxes?  That sounds ok, but I think you are going to find some difficulty with it being applied equitably. Are you going to tax mortgage payments and stock sales, as well as car purchases? What I am getting at is that the tax will greatly influence what people buy. 

In order to maximize income, people will buy as little and as small as possible, which in itself is regressive. It may turn out to be more complicated than the current form.

Apparently you don't understand how greed works or the part it played in the current economic meltdown. This is not about jealousy this about the facts on the ground and a long and well documented history of what happens when wealth and power accumulate to a small number of people.

The greed and corruption in this country exploded when Regan repealed the 72% tax bracket in the 1980’s. The 72% bracket was the modified version of FDR’s 90% bracket done under Kennedy/Johnson that removed loop hole while appearing to cut taxes. Once that protection was removed, the looting began. Pension plans were raided; companies were bought up and dismantled selling off the parts and destroying jobs. We have had 30 years of greed based polices. I think that’s enough.

FDR figured out that the only way to control the sort of greed and corruption that led to the first Republican Great Depression was to eliminate the ability for people to keep the money they stole. John Maynard Keynes understood that government plays an important part in shaping economy through monetary policy as well as incentive and disincentives.
 
An upper tax bracket that targets reckless speculation and looting of companies is a very important disincentive. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand what Keynes was advocating. He was not advocating for the government to continual pump money into the economy just to keep people working.  He advocated targeting growth industries that would provide long term return on investment, while in the meantime keeping people working. What the Chinese are now doing is closer to the Keynes than anything we have done since the space program started. I would count the internet but the capital gains tax cut under Clinton gave it a black eye.

By the way, we are pretty well off, so it’s clearly not jealousy. However, I am very pissed that my home has been devalued.


by sisco66 on 03/14/2010 10:21:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course it's all theory (none / 0)
Step one would be nationalizing the banks, then everybody would need to have a bank account. They would get 1250$ every month.
Then, when they pay something the tax gets deducted. For example if I buy a new jacket for 100$ the store owner would get only 75$ and his tax is already paid,
Mortgages would mean that the money is going to the banks/state, so it wouldn't matter if any tax gets paid. It would just be the state paying a tax to the state.

"In order to maximize income, people will buy as little and as small as possible,"

You're trying to tell me that this would be a change, to what is already happening? I for one, always try to spend as little money as possible.

The rich people couldn't get any money, without the tax being paid, because if money gets moved from one person's account to another person's account the tax gets deducted.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/14/2010 10:51:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Brother Indeed (none / 0)
Ya that's probably not going to fly.

As far as crime goes. What's to stop people from going back to the barter system and/or robbying people for jewelry. What about gold and silver or other fairly easy to value commodities?

I don't think it is going to have the results you want to stop crime. Criminals are very resourcefull. Just look at what goes on in the prison system.

by sisco66 on 03/14/2010 11:07:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If Big Brother would be controlled? (none / 0)
I admit that it would not have those extrem influences on crime that I would be hoping for. Well at least they would pay taxes.

However, when you want to ignore the crime fighting, all informations could be handled anonymously. If the banks would just have a finger print and an identification number, it would be even more anonymous than nowadays.
How the privacy issues are going to be handled can really be talked about. With some thinking we could get to a solution.

The main problem is that it would require a revolution, because the system would be so fair that the big cats wouldn't stand for it. No matter how much the people on this forum say, when nothing changes or things get worse, there's going to be a violent revolution, I don't believe the people in America, or Europe are still capable of revolution.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/15/2010 04:48:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sad but true (none / 0)
I don't believe the people in America, or Europe are still capable of revolution.

by sisco66 on 03/15/2010 06:30:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Very good points (none / 0)
By nationalizing the banks I meant that the final responsibility should be the state's. The state should employ managers who get bonuses according to the success of the bank. This means the profit element would not be eliminated. The difference would be that in the end the banks don't aswer to the shareholders, but to the people. (I am aware that this is an oversimplification)

Tax code: The American tax code is already very different from the tax code of other countries. Most countries have a value added tax (vat) of well more than 10%. If I'm not mistaken Greece is currently raising theirs to 22%. The reason that this doesn't generate an enormous amount of tax is that they still have cash and thereby possibilities to get around paying taxes. Without cash it would be impossible to avoid paying your taxes, as soon as you receive or spend (depends on how you look at it, as I said for every financial transaction,including getting paid for anything) any money. This number is a vat that can easily be enforced and it would lead to a situation where gangsters, prostitutes, junkies and people who don't even have a residency permit pay taxes. The tax would still be much lower than the current taxes and far away from the 90% for rich people some users of this forum demand. Lower taxes would only create distortions in favour of the country in which you have to pay less. I can't stress enough that this would mean getting rid of all other taxes, except dterrent taxes for anything that's disproportinatly bad for the environment (Like fossil fuels ore extreme waste production)or the health (basicly: drugs).
This would support entrepeneurship on a gigantic level. If you start your own company you don't have to worry about taxes or health care for your employees and if the company fails you still have the basic income to fall back on, which minimizes the risk.

Global currency: you are right that America currently borrows its money in $ and could in theory just print enough money to pay its debts, but that would only work once and after that the $ would be all but worthless and America would have to pay enormous interest for further credits that it wouldn't be able to afford. You are right that America would have to set the interest rates in accord with all other states, but that would create a currency stability that would encourage real business instead of speculation. this security would very probably be good for international economy.
America can not set the interest rates or the amount of money without considering the reactions of other countries. A little to much insecurity and the speculators and China would be over the $ like crazy. Other countries (and speculaters) have nearly as much power over the $ as the US government. It is by far not as secure as you might think.
Just assume new credits and oil prices would be swapped to the €. within months America would see the worst inflation in its history. The US economy would collapse. This is just one additional danger that the $ faces, another one, about as dangerous would be Credit Default Swaps. If China would use its $ reserves to invest in American CDS they could ruin the economy within the blink of an eye.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/10/2010 07:33:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
jobs (none / 0)
the best thing we could do to creat jobs is single payer healthcare. That would make us more competitive. Then next thing would be very aggressive green energy loan program for businesses and homes.

by sisco66 on 03/11/2010 05:40:49 PM EST

Nice post :D (none / 0)
I like the fact that you are absolutely sure that a revolution is comming :D

Here are my 2 cents:
1. Nationalize banks
We've already discussed this in another post and I'm extremely against it and you know why :D
But if you have new arguments I would love to hear them :D

2. Nationalize Health insurance
In complete agreement

3. Get rid of cash
I'm here assuming that you don't mean get rid of money since if there is no money there is no reason for banks or taxes or.... but that you mean no paper money and all transactions becomes electronical...
Extremely BAD!!! idea :D

Electronic money is controlled completely by the banks (government or private) = centralized... whereas papermoney is controlled by the person who has it in his hands = decentralized

And as you know I'm a BIG!!! fan of decentralized power whereever it is possible :D

4. Create a 25% tax on EVERY financial transaction
Before I answer that one I need to know from whom should the tax be collected from the reciever of the transaction or the sender of the transaction and wether it's a fixed tax of 25% or it can be changed acording to circumstances?

5. Get rid of all other taxes, except of deterrence taxes for everything that harms the environment or the health of citizens
Perhaps... depend on your follow up on 4.

But I'm dead set against deterrence taxes... the government have no bussiness making what I eat or drink or do more expencive than other things based on what they believe is more healthy for me... I'm quite capable of deciding that myself thank you very much :D

6. Legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling
You had me at hello... you had me at hello <squinting out a silent tear of joy>

7. Pay a basic unconditional income to every citizen. This most be high enough for them to live on
One of my big sticks and a huge fan... you definitely got my vote on that one :D

8. Vastly increase the investments in education, research and health care
Who can argue with that :D

9. Decrease the military spending
All for it :D

10. Fight for a global currency
Damn it now you lost me again (we were doing so well of late) :D
Well maybe... explain to me what you believe the advantage of this would be and then we'll discuss :D

Rock'n'Roll, dope and fucking in the streets!
Yeah... let's party like it's 1765 :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/07/2010 02:52:36 AM EST

Thanks for the reply (none / 0)
1) Additional agruments:
There is more oversight and in my ideal plan every account could be anonymized. People could identify with pin's or even better, their fingerprints, but I think I can guess what your arguments against that are.
Believe me I understand your objections and they are reasonable. It would be important to check several control, oversight and anonymity problems first, before anything else could be decided.

  1. Of course just paper. My defense is connected to 1). People would have to trust the institutions that have the responsibility.

  2. Of course this tax could be changed, depending on how much is needed. I just call it a fixed tax, because it is the same for everybody under all circumstances. (with the exceptions I noted)

  3. With the unhealthy-tax I was refering to things like cigaretts, alcohol, heroin and bullets. When people destroy the environment they have a certain responsibility to compensate for that, therefore I think it's reasonable to tax crimes against nature.

  4. It would make trade fairer, I could explain it to you in more detail, but it will only be realistic if the revolution happens in all developed countries at the same time. That's probably not extremly likely.;-)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/07/2010 03:02:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
1. Additional agruments:
Anonymized from whom?
If it's anonymized from the government then how will they know to tax the transactions :D

If you mean anonymized from other people then you don't need the government to own the banks for that... we have that now... it's not like I can call up your bank and get your financial information :)

I have NO problem with identifying yourself with pins and find the fingerprint idea a little cool :D but again why do the government need to own the banks for that?

My problem with the whole idea of government ownership of non-public-interest-areas is to do with the more generalized subject of centralization and decentralization of power...

Government is fine and in many areas can do a better job of things than the private sector and as society is constructed today they definitely have a role to play... but there is an old saying that 'power corrupts and absolute power sorrupts absolutely' and give any sector (be it government og a small handfull of corporations or...) to much power and it ALLWAYS ends bad (financial sector anyone)... which is why I'm a firm believer in as much decentralization as posible...

I personally would prefer worker (and/or maybe costumer) owned banks following the Zopa-model... but even as fucked-up as the corperate owned banks are today and as much as I hate them for what they did to the financial sector they are a wast improvement over the complete centralized plan-economy of government owned banks we saw under communism... So it would take some convincing before we agree on this one... but hey we agree on most everything else so we'll live :D

3. Of course just paper
Yeah that's the rub... I'm very distrustful of anyone that I give power over me in any area... I recognize that to function in todays society means relinguising power to someone else from time to time (be it employer or government or police or...) but when I do I'm gonna keep a close eye on you to see that you don't misuse that power... I'm not just gonna sit back and say the nice politician or corporation or... probably have my best interest at heart... they said so and they wouldn't lie would they? :)

And the more power they have the less I'm going to trust what they say and instead watch what they do :)

So in a Capitalistic society where those who control the money have the most power I'm trusting noone who is in charge of the money (government or otherwise) :)

And since paper money means more decentralization of that power well I'll be very reluctant to get rid of them :D

4. Of course this tax could be changed
Then that's fine I could live with that :)

I would still prefer an incomebased tax because it taxes at the source and it is distributed so if you make more then you help out more and I like that idea... I believe the more you can help the more you should help :D but maybe that just me...

But in all cases I'm all for simplefying the tax system and get rid of all the exemptions and what not and just have a flat tax on income of what the circomstances are (be it 25% or 40% or...) and to limit gamling on wall street we could combine the two and add a fixed tax on stock transactions (be it 5% or 20% or...)

But if you insist then you can have your tax and I can live with it (am I not the most merciful man in the world) :D

5. With the unhealthy-tax I was refering to things like...
I have NO problem with environmental taxing but what I put in my body is my bussiness... if I want to poison my body with cigarettes or alchohol or heroin or fat foods or... then fuck off and let me do it... the government (or anybody else) don't get to play parents and tax it to dissuade me from doing it... that's what informationcampaigns are for... they can try and educate me all they want but if I insist then leave me alone :P hehe

10. It would make trade fairer
Now I consider myself a fairly intelligent man but that I don't get... how would it make trade fairer? :s

It will only be realistic if the revolution happens in all developed countries at the same time. That's probably not extremly likely :)
Don't be so sure my scandinavian friend :D

The 100-year money-bubble is about to burst later this year and that's worldwide I'm afraid :s

It might not be a revolution (although it is likely that one or more will follow) but when the financial systems of the entire world fails in a way that will make the Great Depression look like the biggest upswing in history it will give the world the possibility to reimagine the financial nad political systems worldwide so it's VERY relevant :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/08/2010 09:56:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Decentralization (none / 0)
"If it's anonymized from the government then how will they know to tax the transactions"

It's easy, it doesn't matter, who does the transaction, whenever money is moved 10% (this is a more realistic number) go to the government.

"I have NO problem with identifying yourself with pins and find the fingerprint idea a little cool"

Wow, I really expected fingerprint-paranoia.;-)
This has by the way the advantage, that the bankers wouldn't have to know your name or adress, if you do your business online, they wouldn't even know your race. Discrimination (at least on a subconscious level) has still a lot to do with whether you get a credit or not and other bank related issues. The banks would only have financial informations when it comes to making decissions.

"My problem with the whole idea of government ownership of non-public-interest-areas is to do with the more generalized subject of centralization and decentralization of power..."

Well, let's leave the theoretical field for a short time and look at the current situation. The complete banking power is probably in the hands of less than 1000 people you don't know and can't hold responsible (talking worldwide). To take this power from them and turn it over to the government would indeed decentralize this power. Going back to theory... The people having the power would be controlled by the people, because they decide who the government is. When it comes to deciding who the 1000 most powerful banksters are the main identifier is ruthlessness.

"So in a Capitalistic society where those who control the money have the most power I'm trusting noone who is in charge of the money (government or otherwise)"

But some people are in charge of the money, you just don't know who they are. I really don't want to sound like a conspiracy not, but I'm pretty sure that the whole financial sector is controlled by only a few people when you start really looking at who controlls what.

"I would still prefer an incomebased tax because it taxes at the source"

Well, then I don't see the difference. Whenever you get money 10% are distracted. That would be the only tax. It really just depends on the point of view, whether the person getting the money or the person spending the money gets taxed. Your boss pays you 2000 and you get 1800. You buy a new TV for 1000 and the person selling it get 900. Is that income or spending based? I think that's only a question of PR.

"I have NO problem with environmental taxing but what I put in my body is my bussiness... if I want to poison my body with cigarettes or alchohol or heroin or fat foods or... then fuck off and let me do it... "

Well, it's no longer just your business, when HC is nationalized. If you shoot heroin that causes additional costs for the society. No problem with you poisoning yourself, but then you have to pay the price (quite literally). It is in my opinion also important that wine isn't much cheaper than juice, because that would be a motivation for people to drink wine instead of juice, and I don't mind the doing it, but they should pay a part of the costs they cause by deciding that. Also, imagine heroin being sold for 5$ per gramm. That would have disasterous consequences.

"Now I consider myself a fairly intelligent man but that I don't get... how would it make trade fairer?"

Well, I consider you a very intelligent man (as proven by the amount of things we agree on;-)).
Currently states and banksters can controll the worth of currency.

Example China: They keep the value of their currency artificially low, because that means they can sell cheaper. With one global currency that wouldn't be possible for very much longer.

Problem CDS: They can be used to destroy currencies with "relatively little" financial investment. This makes markets less save, which means less fair conditions for small economies.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/08/2010 05:15:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
It's easy, it doesn't matter, who does the transaction, whenever money is moved 10% (this is a more realistic number) go to the government
Well... like I wrote... if you insisted then you could have your transactiontax and I could live with it :D

Wow, I really expected fingerprint-paranoia :-)
Lol really?... why?
I'm not paranoid because I don't trust people with power... you are only paranoid if you are wrong :D hehe

And just because I don't trust them doesn't mean I can't live with fingerprint-identification. .. it just means I'm keeping an eye on what they use that information for and if they misuse it I'm all over them like a catholic priest on a choirboy... (what to soon?) ok like a evangelical priest on a male prostitute (what still offensive?) ok ok like a muslim on a suicide mission (what what?) ok then I've got nothing :D

The complete banking power is probably in the hands of less than 1000 people you don't know and can't hold responsible (talking worldwide)
True and as I wrote... that is definitely NOT my ideal situation (I think it's a VERY BAD situation just like you do)... but the solution is NOT to go further in the wrong direction and centralize it even more by giving the power to the government (you think that just because you vote for essentially the same people every 4 years that you hold anybody accoutable for anything???)... the solution is to decentralize it even more and give the power of the money to the people by handing ownership over to those who work at the bank and the people who have money in the bank (the customers) because then you know who've done what and can hold them instantly and directly responsible... but maybe that's just my oppinion :D

Whenever you get money 10% are distracted <whole paragraph>
Like I said I can live with it so we are not in disagreement on this point :D

Well, it's no longer just your business, when HC is nationalized. If you shoot heroin that causes additional costs for the society
Yes it it still just my bussiness :P hehe

Who said freedom was free? it isn't...

Here's how it works...
The government have one responsibility... to provide to it's citizens what they need and can't provide for themselves (be it healthcare, security, welfare, etc. etc.) and then collect the money to pay for it from the collective (taxes)... and that's it... this is why I'm for the citizenspay you surgested (because in a society where the government can't guarentee a job/income for everybody then they pay its citizens instead... that's the prize of a monetary system)...

And that's it... and if it costs a little more in healthcare or security or welfare or... then you pay a little more in taxes... that's the prize of freedom...

And prices should be based on productioncosts and nothing else... let me give you an example...

In Denmark we have the highest prizes on cigarettes in the EU so in your logic people should smoke less and the smokers should cost the HC system more... well let's see shall we... we have the second highest percentage of smokers i Europe (only surpassed by Poland) so higher prizes DOES NOT equal less smokers... and we have the fifth lowest percentage of people getting lungcancer and other smokingrelated deceases... so we DO NOT have higher costs overall because of smoking so there is NO need to tax people smoking more to pay for an imaginary extra cost... so your argument doesn't hold water my friend :D - but even if it did (or do on other things)... that's just the prize of freedom :)

And the whole I will not pay for you egocentric attitude pisses me off sometimes... what happened to the christian value of helping thy neighboor :P and that's the whole idea behind NC... that I pay for you now because I know that if I ever need it you'll pay for me later... we HELP each other... that's what humans do... 

Currently states and banksters can controll the worth of currency
Yes and again your sulution for to much centralization (the control is in the hands of the states and a few bankers) is even more centralization (one world currency = one world bank to print and control the money) thereby making the problem even worse :D

The answer to too much centralization is NEVER more centralization... it's ALWAYS less centralization :D

So I'm gonna vote no on a global currency but I hope you woun't reject and denounce me completely on that account :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 06:27:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Only two disagreements left (none / 0)
Soon you will join me in my revolution!;-)

"The government have one responsibility... to provide to it's citizens what they need and can't provide for themselves"

Not really. The government should also be a tool of the people to fight for justice.
On a theoretical level I totally agree with you "it's my business" point of view, but sometimes the government has to play nanny at least a little bit.
The government should set incentives for sensible behaviour and people should be (at least partially) responsible for the costs they cause others.
Your smoking/cancer statistics really surprised me, they seem to indicate that the environment is nearly as much a factor when it comes to lung cancer as smoking. I'm happy to hear that and will enjoy going out to inhale some clean Finnish air very soon.;-)

On this stream of thought you should be against additional taxes for things that destroy the environment. Isn't it just my business how much oil I burn? The state has just to pay for the consequences.
Dterent taxes for environment and health are based on the same reasoning. I don't see how you can be for one and against the other.

(De-) Centralisation again:
Exchange rates are give power to the financial elite, therefore getting rid of exchange rates doesn't just decentralize this power, but eliminate it. I think eliminating power is even better than decentralizing it.
The people who would be responsible for the nationalized banks would at least be known to everybody. I prefer the devil I know, to the puppetmaster behind the curtain.
Also, you currently have an elite of 1000 people controlling the finance industry. If you would have over 200 national banks that number would significantly increase. There would also still be parts of the financial industry that aren't controlled by the states, but still by the chosen 1000. This means a lot of decentralization. The main control the state would have would be to distract the 10% tax and to make sure that citicens have fair conditions, when it comes to credits.
I wouldn't mind if private companies would offer an alternative, that might make the state banks redundant after a while.
Maybe I should formulate it differently. The state takes care that with every financial transaction the tax is paid and it offers an alternative to private banks. At the moment small customers are treated extremly unfair, when it comes to credit card debts, for example. If the national bank would offer fair alternatives the private sector would have to react. Private companies are usually much more effective, which means that state alternatives can only compete when the private companies are exploiting an oligopoly.
Maybe we could agree on an state run bank as public option. They offer all services, when the privte industry can offer better conditions they will prevail.

So, let's take that as my new official position:
I don't demand that the state nationalizes all banks, I just demand that the state offers a public option to prevent them from exploiting their oligopoly.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 07:21:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
Soon you will join me in my revolution!;-)
Oh I'm allready there... the revolution is near :D

Not really. The government should also be a tool of the people to fight for justice
Yes when they can't for themselves... that's why we have the courts and the police and... I think that's covered in the security part of my argument :)

The government should protect the people when they need it and can't defend themselves...

On a theoretical level I totally agree with you "it's my business" point of view, but sometimes the government has to play nanny at least a little bit
Eh no... there we are not in agreement :)
The government does not have a mandate to play nanny (no matter how much it thinks it does)... it can educate all it want and make all the infomation campaigns it want's and let me know how and why something is harmful to me... but they do not have the mandate to legislate what I can and can't do to myself if I want too... period... even if it costs the collective more that's (like I said) is the price of freedom... if you only want freedom that's free then you'll have no freedom left...

And where does it end?
In Denmark we have for the last 10 years or so moved more and more towards a nanny state and it pisses me off... it started with smokers... first they couldn't smoke in the workplace... then they couldn't smoke in bars... then they talked about making it illegal to smoke outside (but that hasn't cleared comity yet but just wait and see)... and now they are even talking about outlawing smoking completely so you can't smoke in your own home anymore... but hey that's just smokers right?... nope it isn't... you see now they are almost done with the smokers they are moving on to other areas...
Here are a few examples:
They are talking about making all fatty foods and food with added sugar illegal...
They are talking about making it illegal for young people under 16 to use tanningbeds...
They are talking about making it illegal for the employees in kindergardens to wear perfume...
They are talking about making it illegal (under penalty of having your child removed) if you eat fatty foods and foods with added sugar and smokes during pregnancy...
They are talking about...

So my question remains... where does it end? and the answer is... if you open that door it NEVER ends...
So let me say again... freedom has a price and if you are not willing to pay it then you'll have NO freedom... so stay out of my bussiness :P hehe

Dterent taxes for environment and health are based on the same reasoning. I don't see how you can be for one and against the other
Eh no they are not... enviromental taxes are not for the people... they are for the corporations that polute... they might infer that cost to the consumers but that's a different discussion... and just to clarify... I know that america believes that corporations are people but they are really not... sorry to be the one to break the bad news to this forum... and whereas corporations behavior can be regulated up the wassu (enviromental taxes) the government have no mandate to regulate my personal behavior (health/behavior taxes)...

Exchange rates are give power to the financial elite, therefore getting rid of exchange rates doesn't just decentralize this power, but eliminate it. I think eliminating power is even better than decentralizing it.
Well if you could ever eliminate power then yes :)
But as long as we depend on money to excange goods there will always be people with money and therefor always be people with power over the money... so eliminating the exchange rates doesn't eliminate the power over money it just moves it somewhere else... the only way to eliminate power over money is to eliminate money... and here and here is how you could do that :)

But as long as we have money let's look at your proposal... global currency...

If you have a global currency then you need somewhere you can print new money as needed and destoy old money that comes out of the system... a world central bank... and since a world central bank can't be operated by any single single (or any limited number of countries) it will have to be private (unless you are advocating for a one world government while you're at it)...

If private:
That would give the power over all the money in the world to not a few 1000 bankers but to a handfull (more centralized)... and do you think you get to elect the board of directors in that scenario?

If one world government:
You might get to vote for that government but let's do a little simple math... in Denmatk we are 5.5 mill people so my vote counts 1/5.5 mill... in the world we are 6.8 bill people so my (and your) vote will count 1/6.8 bill...

So you want me to belive that the people will have more influence over money in a one world central bank run by a private corporation or by a one world government?... you want me to belive that it will eliminate the power over money?... you want me to believe that your surgestion is not more centralization than we have now?... sorry not buying it :D - I'm afraid I'll have to vote no on a global currency :)

I just demand that the state offers a public option to prevent them from exploiting their oligopoly
Like we discussed before... the central bank should be government owned and nothing else (unless you can convince me that banks is something we as a society today needs and not just wants) :D

But we agree that the private banks need to be stopped exploiting their oligopoly but the way to do that is by (sorry to sound like a broken record) decentralizing and giving that power to the people by giving ownership to the people and NOT to the government or a central world bank :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 10:00:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nanny (none / 0)
You are right, those nanny legislations go much too far. Still, I wasn't proposing to outlaw those things, quite the opposite: I proposed to legalize all drugs. This freedom however has a price: Taxes. Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself.

Environmental taxes also "punish" individuals, what do you think why fuel is so expensive?
I think that is a good thing, because otherwise people would waste much more fuel. Wouldn't that to you be also sticking the governments nose in your business?

Imagine a society where people with 10Euro could go to a shop and buy 20 l of wine or 40 packs of cigaretts or 5 g of heroin or one book/newspaper.
I think I know what most people would spend their money on and I probably wouldn't want to live in that society.

Global currency:
I already got rid of cash, so no money would have to be printed, but you are right this is the most unrealistic of my proposals. And that says a lot.;-)

Banking:
How could you decentralize the banks? It sounds like a good idea to give the people ownership, but how will you manage that?

Do you really think our society could keep on existing without banks? This would mean no internet trade, no credits, no invoices...
When you think about it for a while I think you might agree that banks are nowadays a needs.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 02:33:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
You are right, those nanny legislations go much too far
Thank you for at least agreeing with that :)

Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself
Because science changes all the time... that's it's strengh... it's not dogmatic but evolve as new information presents itself... that's why I love science...

But that's also why it's notoriously bad to base legislation on... because legislation is much more final and dificult to change than science...

A few examples:
Fat:
First all fat were dangereous...
Then only satuated fats were dangerous and unsatuated fats were healthy...
Now science have found out in a 2010 study from the UK (the largest of it's size so far) that no satuated fat is more dangerous than too much satuated fat and the right amount is healthy (along still with the unsatuated fats)... (so we have to eat fat both satuated and unsatuated to be healthy... as long as it's in moderation)...
And who knows what comes next...

Sugar:
First sugar was healthy and you couldn't get enough...
Then all sugar was bad and you should stay away from it...
In 2008 again in the UK they found out that no sugar was more dangerous than to much sugar and the right amount was healthy... (so we have to eat sugar to be healthy... as long as it's in moderation)...
And who knows what comes next...

Vitamins:
First you couldn't get to much vitamins...
Then some vitamins could cause problems while others you could eat as much as you like...
And in 2010 (now in the US and after people have run amok in vitaminpills and omega-3 and...) they have found that (as always) you can have to much of all vitamins... and 99% of ALL people get to much vitamins when they eat vitaminspills and... etc. because they get their daily needed intake through their normal food intake... and the only people who should ever eat vitaminpills were people with deficiency illnesses like scurvy and others... so now you shouldn't eat any vitamins (in pillform)...
And who knows what comes next...

And I could go on for hours...

So in the 80'ies you would have to pay taxes on all fats... not on sugar... and not on vitamins...

Then in the late 80'ies you would have to remove taxes on unsatuated fat but keep it on satuated fats... and have a tax on sugar... and on some vitamins...

Then in the last couple of years after these taxes have become a LARGE revenue stream for the government it would sudenly be no taxes on fat and sugar but taxes on vitaminpills... you think that'll be done quickly? and when they are finally ready to do it what will the science then say?

So on science alone it's a BAD idea...

But on the more theoretical front when it comes to freedom...

Why should others have to pay for your freedoms, when there is a simple way to pay for yourself
Because freedom is for EVERYBODY or it's for NOONE...
You can't pick and choose who gets freedoms and who don't because then it's not freedom...

The same argument could be made for HC... why should I pay for your medical bills when I'm not sick when there is an easy way to pay for it yourself (private insurrence or out of pocket)?

And the answer is the same for both... because we are humans and we help each other and because the freedom that you help provide for me you too get when you need it and the HC that you help provide for me you too get when you need it... and if we don't help each other then only the rich will get healthcare and freedom...

Environmental taxes also "punish" individuals, what do you think why fuel is so expensive
Fuel is so expensive because the government taxes the compagny that makes the gasoline...
Now they might have inferred that cost to the consumer so the consumer ends up paying for it... but like I said that's a completely different discussion :D

But it's something I think should be fixed :)

Imagine a society where people with 10Euro could go to a shop and buy 20 l of wine or 40 packs of cigaretts or 5 g of heroin or one book/newspaper.
I think I know what most people would spend their money on and I probably wouldn't want to live in that society
I'm imagining... ahhh I'm in heaven :D

But let's take me as an example...
I hate wine and I would NEVER use heroin and I don't get my news from the newspapers generally... so I would buy 40 packs of cigarettes one month (which would last me at least 2 month if not more) and then the next month I would by the book (if it's any good) and maybe the next month another book (if it's any good) and the next month I would buy 40 packs of cigarettes again... and then... :D

Now this is a ludicrous example because the production costs of 20l of wine is more than 10 Euro and the same goes for the 40 packs of cigarettes so they would NEVER be that cheap... but the other things is roughly the price right now for 5g of heroin on the street (might actually be cheaper) and for books... do you think that means that ordinary people thinks... uh I can buy 5g of heroin so sorry I'm not gonna buy this book after all and then go out and get high? seriously?

90% of all people want to live healthy and they do (not because fatty foods or foods with added sugar or... is more expencive... but because they want to... and by all means they should have that right... do you seriously think that if all the unhealthy stuff became the same prize as the healthy stuff did they would switch? do you really have that low an expectation of your fellow man? :D

Let's take me as an example:
I eat as healthy as I can... when available only ecology... and lots of fruits and vegetables... and lean meat...
I play badminton once a week and walk to and from work (5 miles roundtrip) mon-fri...
My only vice is that I smoke cigarettes...

And in my lifetime I have cost the HCsystem one hospital visit for meningitis when I was 12 (not related to smoking I can assure you) and since I was 25 I have visited my practitioner once a year to get my yearly checkup (which I would have gotten smoking or not smoking because preventive care is the best way to take good care of yourself)... and I have had a handfull of sore throats in my lifetime and I got a lot of shots every time I traveled to places like Egypt and Cambodja and... but that's it...

So let me ask you... why should I pay more for smoking because of some imagined extra cost to the HCsystem that isn't there?

And with the risk of repeating myself... we are humans and we help each other and because the freedom that you help provide for me you too get when you need it... and if we don't help each other then only the rich will get freedom (see above)...

How could you decentralize the banks? It sounds like a good idea to give the people ownership, but how will you manage that?
Damn now you are asking me to implement my idea too? - damn :D

Well the 'easy' way would be through legislation making everyone who works anywhere part owner of the compagny by law... and I say easy with strong reservations because to convince the politicians of that would be anything but easy...

The 'hard' way would be for each compagny or corporation to make the change individually where the current owners simply hand the ownership over to the workers... but good luck on convincing the owners to do just that :D

Another way would be through revolution and the workers simply take control of the compagny no matter what the current owners think about it... but I'm not sure how I feel about that solution :)

And the final way would be just to sit back and wait for the money-bubble to burst and when the compagny you work at goes bankrupt you just silently take it over and keep production up... I like that better :D

But this is not an easy question... but when we discuss what the perfect scenario would be... what we should drive towards even if we don't get it right away then that's my solution :D

Do you really think our society could keep on existing without banks
Yes I do... it might make things a hell of a lot harder than they are now... and I get internet trades and credits... but why would there be no invoices? :)

You have to remember there were NO internet trades until the late 90'ies and we survived up till then :P hehe
But you would just have to go to the store to buy things instead...
And as for credits... well you would have to save your money before buying things (I know a world where you can't buy things with money that isn't yours... insane I know <insert sarcasm>) :D
And you would have to be payed in cash and keep it in a safe at home...

I'll agree that it's more inconvenient but society wouldn't come to a halt because we had no banks... so we don't need banks...

But I'll agree that banks make life easier and when you have your money in the bank they are insured if they are stolen and the bank have more security so it doesn't get stolen so easily... so we might want banks but that's not enough to warrant a government takeover or even a public option :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 04:10:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sadly (none / 0)
I have a very bad opinion of my fellow humans, because I know how bad I am. Ok, I want to live healthy, but it's damn hard to do.
I'm extremly pleasure driven and that's a hard thing to overcome. I know that should eat healthier, but it's much more work and more expensive. Same goes for sports. My company is as far from my home as yours, but I'm so lazy that I don't even walk, but take the bike.

I amit that the opinion about what is unhealthy changes, but so can laws. There are some thinks that are pretty much obvious. Most additives in food are not healthy, yet since I don't earn very much I can't usually afford eco-food. I also want to eat fast when I come home and the only food that is fast and cheap is rubbish.

Heroin is bad for your health, I'm pretty convinced that there will never be a study to show the opposite. It also is rumoured to influence the amount of work you can do during one day.;-)
I'm pretty sure if you could legally and cheaply buy heroin and crack in shops much more people would try it. The consequences of that are not really positive. The only way I would agree to legalizing all drugs is when they are heavily taxed, otherwise they would go out of control.

"You can't pick and choose who gets freedoms and who don't because then it's not freedom..."

Some people have opportunities that others don't, and some freedoms have to be paid for. Example: Basicly I'm free to travel to most places of the world, but since the flightsare not free I can't do that.
With finacial sucess come boons, you will have to wait a very long time for that to change and technocracy (was that the correct term?) to start. I personally think that will never happen, because people will always find new rare commodities they can fight over. That's part of human nature.

Decentralisation:
"Well the 'easy' way would be through legislation making everyone who works anywhere part owner of the compagny by law"
You have my support for that law, but I have a vague feeling that we might still be in the minority.:-(
I also can think of no way to formulate a general law that would take into consideration the size of companies (the amount one worker owns would have to be different for a company with 10 or 10,000 employees) and the age of companies (when you give regularily part of the ownership to the employees after a few decades there is probably nothing to give away anymore). You could of course give for example 10% of the after tax income in equal shares to all employees, but that would not really effect ownership.

"But you would just have to go to the store to buy things instead..."

What??? NO!!! NEVER!!!
Joking aside:
With invoice I probably haven't used the right term. I did mean that you can't wire money anymore. Every transaction would have to be done in cash.
That would be extremly unpractical. Take taxes as an example. Everybody would have to go somewhere to deposite the cash and that would have to be transported to the place where the government keeps it from where it has to be transported to the places and people the government spends it on. That would cause an extrem amount of hassle. I don't think our global economy could survive that hassle.

It would also raise extrem security issues. Imagine a big company (2000 employees) at the end of each month a car with all their wages would have to come. When they earn 3000 each that would be a car with 6 million every month and people would find out when it comes. A great target for criminals.
Let's assume the transport arrives savely, because the company could afford enough security then it would have to be handled to each employee. Do you have any idea how long that would take?
Then they would have to go home with all their money from one month's work, and their collegues know that. I'm pretty sure a lot of workers would disguise themselves and rob their collegues when they would know that. There's a German saying: Gelegenheit macht Diebe. (Opportunity creates thieves) There is some truth to that.
Those are just two examples of the top of my head, If you want to I can come up with new ones by the dozen.
Banks are as vital to our security as police. And much more vital to a working economy.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/09/2010 05:13:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
I have a very bad opinion of my fellow humans, because I know how bad I am
Well maybe I made myself holyer than I am... I also looooove candy and chokolade... and if I think about it I might find more vices if I try :)

But that's really not the point... the point is freedom and why we should all pay collectivly for it :)

I'm pretty sure if you could legally and cheaply buy heroin and crack in shops much more people would try it
Well that just goes against ALL the rescearch available at the moment... trust me if I had wnated to try heroin I could have done so many times over a fairly cheaply... all through highschool and college and between and if I wnated to try it today all I had to would be to go to the nearest bar on a thursday friday or saturday and it would be available cheaply... and that goes for everybody I know... so in your analogy most of my friends (me included) would all be shooting or smoking heroin right now...

Well we are not... so why is that... because we choose not to... NOT because we can't get it cheaply...

And to use a previous analogy... we have the highest prices for cigarettes in the EU so we should have to lowest number of smokers...

Well we do not... we have the second highest number of smokers in the EU... so why is that... because when people start smoking they are teenagers (VERY few people start smoking when they are 30) and as a teenager being cool and social acceptance is MUCH more important than what something costs so if the attitude is... if you smoke you are cool... then teenagers are going to start smoking no matter the prize of cigarettes... and once they are hooked prize isn't that important because you are... well hooked :D

So prizing on cigarettes have 0% effect on how many smokes in a country :) - the only affect that increasing prizes have had on smoking is that more and more people go to Germany to buy cigarettes and when they are they they buy other things they need to so Denmark looses a lot of revenue instead... so prizing and taxes on behaviour doesn't work to lower the people that use or buy the unhealthy stuff...

Heroin is bad for your health, I'm pretty convinced that there will never be a study to show the opposite. It also is rumoured to influence the amount of work you can do during one day
No question it is unhealthy and so is smoking and so is to much fat and so is to much <take your pick>...

But as to the amount of work you can do in a day... are you kidding me?
You might not want to operate heavy machinery but there is a reason that heroin was one of the first performance inhancement drugs used in sports... you get a hell of a lot of energy and need no sleep or breaks and can be focused for lot longer on heroin... so that's just not true :)

The only way I would agree to legalizing all drugs is when they are heavily taxed, otherwise they would go out of control
Well as I said above prizing (taxing) woun't work to deter people from using it and they are cheap and available (although illegal) right now but things are not out of control so.... your argument doesn't hold water on that one :)

some freedoms have to be paid for
ALL freedoms have to be payed for :)
I thought I mentioned that... freedom is NOT free :D

Basicly I'm free to travel to most places of the world, but since the flightsare not free I can't do that.
Bad example :)
Sure if you want to travel you can and under Technocratism you would be totally free to do so because it would be free... but in the society we have now... if I want to smoke then I'm willing to pay the prize of a pack of cigarettes... and if I can't afford it I can't smoke... that's fine... what I'm against is having to pay more than nesseccary just because the government want to decide for me whether I can smoke or not... as long as prizing is according to production costs I have NO problem with it... and that goes for travel to :)

With finacial sucess come boons, you will have to wait a very long time for that to change and technocracy (was that the correct term?) to start
No I just have to wait till the money-bubble bursts and when all the worlds economies have collapsed and we have to start over maybe people will be ready to try something new (or maybe I'm just naive) :D - but we'll see hehe

I personally think that will never happen, because people will always find new rare commodities they can fight over. That's part of human nature
I disagree but you'll have to see here for my discussion on why I believe you are wrong :)

You have my support for that law, but I have a vague feeling that we might still be in the minority
Thank you and you are right that's why easy should be taken with a grain of salt :D

I also can think of no way to formulate a general law that would take into consideration the size of companies
I don't have a final law in my head and we would have to discuss that... but how is the easy part... the hard part is convincing the government to make a law :D

That would be extremly unpractical
I didn't say that life ain't a hell of a lot easier with banks... I would definitely prefer a world with banks... but they are still a want and not a need :D

I don't think our global economy could survive that hassle
Well it survived for millinia so it will again... but like I said I prefer a world with banks... but private worker/customer owned banks would do just fine :D

It would also raise extrem security issues
Again the world would survive... but it's definitely better with banks :)

Banks are as vital to our security as police
Eh no not really :D - banks don't protect you from getting mugged or have your car stolen or...

And much more vital to a working economy
Not vital... but preferable :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/09/2010 07:05:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry the answer took me a while;-) (none / 0)
Performance enhancing heroin?
That's totally new to me, and I assume you confuse it with cocain. Even opium could become in a way performance enhancing, because it can help you to reach a state of trance in which you can keep doing the same thing for a very long time without realizing it.
Heroin on the other hand just shuts you down. You don't eat or drink or fuck or do anything except being stoned.

I'm also sure, if cocain would be cheaper (I think you confuse the costs of other drugs with the costs of dope) and legal I would have started using it.
In the depressive phases I had years ago I might even have started to shoot heroin, just because I wouldn't have seen a reason, why not. The way it was my capability for reason was enhanced by the depression induced lazyness.
Hell, if you could buy dope and acid at a little over the price it costs to produce I'm pretty sure that I personally would ruin my life. Seems like you don't have to much experience with drugs and therefore don't know the way they influence weak people like me.

Human nature:
I remembered this discussion and still think that you point of view was a little naive (no offense intended, I wish I was less cynical). One part of the reproduction aspect of human nature is the competition for the best partners. Men in general are very competetive. They usually find areas where they can compete with others. You will never get rid of that. Impossible. So they will always find something to fight over to impress females and the females will always go for the alpha-males. Sorry, that is very chauvinistic and oversimplified, but it would be a totally different discussion, which it already was, but we could restart it some time in the future.:-)

"I don't have a final law in my head and we would have to discuss that... but how is the easy part... "

Let's start that discussion. Your shot first.:-)
BTW: I am sure you have seen the thread about consumer driven economy. That would be a nice place to discuss unconditional basic income. It seems all the Americans on this forum have never heared of it, don't know what the liberal position on that should be and don't bother with my posts on it, because many consider me a troll. It would be great if you raise awareness for that concept by posting something about it, so I can reply. Maybe somebody else could become interested in the concept before Cenk explains that it is brilliant.;-)

Banks:
First of all they do protect us from being mugged, because of banks we don't have to go home with our wages in our pockets.
You say to all the things I mentioned that they make life more complicated, but we still could do without. I would agree if it would only be one or two of the issues, but if you combine them all they show that banks have become a needs. Our society would collapse without them.
Of course mankind could survive without banks, but mankind could also survive without police, without healthcare, without education...

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 03:06:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See below... (none / 0)
See below for my respons...

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/10/2010 07:37:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
PS: (none / 0)
I have explained most things in more detail in my dialog with sisco66.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/07/2010 03:04:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Response to the above post of opposition... (none / 0)
That's totally new to me, and I assume you confuse it with cocain
Actually I have... sorry about that... I take that part of my argument back :)

I'm also sure, if cocain would be cheaper (I think you confuse the costs of other drugs with the costs of dope) and legal I would have started using it
Then you should have that right... coupled with all the options possible when you wnated to stop again :)

Seems like you don't have to much experience with drugs and therefore don't know the way they influence weak people like me.
Uh boy... :D - let's see... I've tried hash and mariuana and mushrooms and... but only 'natural' drugs if you will... and I've always stayed clear of syntechic drugs like speed and amf and... and that was my choice and now I'm to old for that shit so I don't any more :D

I remembered this discussion and still think that you point of view was a little naive <whole paragraph>
No offence taken :D

Yes we compete for the best partners all the time... but I don't believe the state should decide who gets the girl and you can still impress a girl even if you have no money :P so you compete all you want... I've never said there would never be competition :P :D

What I said was there would be no competition over territory or resources or...

And ALL humans are very competitive when you live in a world of scarcity and there is not enough to go around... then you have to compete to survive... like I said survival is human nature :)

But if you live in a world with enough to go around the you don't need to compete so you don't :)

Let's start that discussion. Your shot first
Ok I'll try :D

Here's my surgestion for such a law:
All compagnies will hereby be owned by all it's imployees for as long as set imployee remain imployed at set compagny and have equal say in all decisionmaking in set compagny...

Now I'm not a lawyer so the language should probably be changed so it'll hold up in court... but that's my basic idea :)

I am sure you have seen the thread about consumer driven economy
No but it sounds like a ludicrouis idea :)

Cunsumer driven economy can never be sustainable... only production driven economies can... but the whole idea of trickle down economics is just as ludicrouis... power doesn't share power... period... so if you give people at the top more power it NEVER trickles down to the less powerful... period... what you need is trickle up economy (see here what I mean)...

That would be a nice place to discuss unconditional basic income
No it wouldn't but any discussion of trickle up economy would be a great place to start that discussion :D

don't know what the liberal position on that should be
Well since Liberalism is a rightwing ideology they probably wouldn't like it... it is at it's core a socialist libertarian/anarchist idea... because it deals with giving people freedom from the corporations to say 'hey if you don't treat me right I'll just leave again... I don't need your money to survive so if you want workers then you treat them right'...

because many consider me a troll
Seriously??? who??? and why???

You are probably the least troll-like person I have encountered in here so far... so I don't get it :D

It would be great if you raise awareness for that concept by posting something about it, so I can reply
Well I'm so far beyond the consept of unconditional basic income in my personal views (Technocratism) by I completely see it as a natural part of my socialist libertarian views so maybe one day I'll write a post about it :D

Maybe somebody else could become interested in the concept before Cenk explains that it is brilliant
I doubt that would happen... Cenk is to much in love with Capitalism and the profit-motive to ever get on board with that idea :)

Banks:
Maybe you are right... my main consern about banks is that in any Monetaristisk society it holds that who controls the money controls everything... and I don't like giving that kinda power to any single organization like the government if I don't have to... I would much more prefer to give that power to the workers and costumers if at all possible... so you really have to sell the need part of the equation if you are gonna get me on board... there can be NO reasonable doubt in the matter... it has to be a crystal clear choice with no ambiguity... and I'm not all that convinced yet... :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/10/2010 07:38:41 PM EST

hmmmm...;-) (none / 0)
"Then you should have that right... coupled with all the options possible when you wnated to stop again :)"

I still would have made choices that would have been (probably) bad for me. So in hindsight I think it was a good idea that it wasn't too easily available. Maybe you should have some freedoms only if you are determined enough. That's why we all do our best to keep people from commiting suicide. I somebody would tell you that they want to commit suicide you wouldn't just say that that's their freedom, you would do your best to convince them otherwise, even though you would have to accept it if they can show that they are really determined.

"you can still impress a girl even if you have no money"

Not me, I've got nothing else going for me;-)
And I'm poor :-(

"What I said was there would be no competition over territory or resources or..."

That's naive again, unless you find a way to make all territories equal. No matter how much technology advances, not everybody acn have a nice, quiet, big house in a beautiful environment with good weather. Some accomodations will have advantages and people will compete for them. The same goes with other possesions. Not everybody can own a masterpiece by Hirst or Bacon. People will always find possesions to compete about, that is independent from technology.

"All compagnies will hereby..."

That would totally eliminate private ownership. How about the employees have 51% of the company's shares?

Here is the thread by HistorybyDay. He is indeed basicly talking about a trickle up economy.

"(see here what I mean)"
Yeah, I already saw it and we discussed there. I think our tiny differences are still very much the same, but I might reread it some time soon.

"I completely see it as a natural part of my socialist libertarian views so maybe one day I'll write a post about it :D"

I'm looking forward to reading and commenting it. There probably won't be many others commenting, because it is too far left for most here to even consider it. Even though Milton Friedman, one of the most "right-wing" economists, has calculated and fought for it. Sometimes even reasonable positions make strange bed-fellows.;-)

"Cenk is to much in love with Capitalism and the profit-motive"

The old difference again. I'm totally convinced that unconditional basic income won't harm the profit motive. Sure you can survive and live on it, but then you can't buy an expensive car from it. If your neighbour has a good car you want a better one. Well, maybe not you, since you seem to be one of the few people who are even less motivated by money than me, but most people think like that. When they have enough to survive they still want more. Let's be realistic. We both live in countries where you don't really have to work. If you make it right you can live from unemployment benefits, without being to much threatened by having to work. Still most people prefer to work and some are just too afraid to not work. The ubi would just exterminate that fear and more people would risk self employment or creative careers.

Banks:

"I would much more prefer to give that power to the workers and costumers if at all possible"

Nationalisation is the first necessary step. How should the workers own the bank? How do you decide who owns how much?
Maybe the solution would be to let the banks be organised by the regional and not the central government?
They are owned by the state, but organised by the city. Ok, even owned by the city to get you on board. Ain't i generous?;-)

About the troll allegations:

Chinese Democracy says that whenever he disagrees with me and some others like EveningStarNM say it occasionally. I think the reason is that sometimes I challenge people on their views by analogies that show how stupid their positions are and they assume the analogies are my position. I also like to challange people when I have the feeling that they hold positions, because these positions are part of the "liberal" worldview, without having really reflected on them.  Or when people use really weak arguments and I challenge those arguments just to show how weak they are. All that combined with occasional sarcasm and irony makes some people believe I'm a troll. But some people here just believe everybody outside the liberal mainstream is a troll.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 09:51:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
I still would have made choices that would have been (probably) bad for me
Yes for you and that's the rub :)
You can't make general rules based on individual cases... it always end bad...

If everything that might get someone in trouble should be illegal then nothing will be legal :)

Not me, I've got nothing else going for me;-)
And I'm poor :-(
I seriously doubt it my friend :)

That would totally eliminate private ownership. How about the employees have 51% of the company's shares
Well under Technocratism there is no private ownership... everything is free... and all production will be automated so no workers nesseccary so no owners... :)

But under Libertarian Socialism where the workers will own the compagnies... they will have to own 100% of the compagny... if they 'only' owned 51% and some other owner owns 49% then he/she would decide 100% because the chance that the 500 workers will all agree to go against the 49% owner (and thereby raise the 51% need to go against him/her) is not very likely :)

Here is the thread by HistorybyDay. He is indeed basicly talking about a trickle up economy
Yes and a consumer economy is a kind of trickle up economy... but it's the only kind that doesn't work... any economy based on people buying and things they don't need and throwing out the stuff that still work (like we have now) is NOT sustainable and will ALWAYS crash eventually :) - the only economy that have ever worked and will ever work is a trickle up production based economy :)

I'm totally convinced that unconditional basic income won't harm the profit motive
I don't believe it will either... but the capitalistic propaganda is hammering that notion in everybody's head every day... profit is the ONLY thing that can motivate anybody to do anything... and every 'hand out' underminds the profitmotive so it just makes people sit on their couches and do nothing and society comes to a halt :)

Now both you and me knows that's not true... but a die hard capitalist like Cenk woun't realize that until he gets deprogrammed :)

Nationalisation is the first necessary step. How should the workers own the bank? How do you decide who owns how much?
Well let's look at history...

In the 70'ies a lot of worker owned compagnies sprang up all over Europe (and a few in the US)... in Denmark we only have 2 (that I know of) that still exist... a publishing house owned by the authors they publish (and that works like I described in my attempt at a law)... and a school owned by the teachers working there...

Now all those compagnies started from the ground up... but there is nothing to stop making a law that transfers ownership to all existing compagnies to it's workers (well there is a lot to stop it but it should be possible)... :D

But one thing unites them all... no nationalization nesseccary :)

The workers in the bank (or compagny) would 'own' 1 vote each and then every 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years,... <whatever they decide> they would vote for the next board of directors (among themselves)... and noone can be on the board a second/third/fourth/etc. time until everybody had a turn :)

Maybe the solution would be to let the banks be organised by the regional and not the central government
No... better but still bad :)

Chinese Democracy says that whenever he disagrees <rest of paragraph> 
Ah CD and Star :) - yeah they have accused me too of being a troll (or sockpuppet of first one person then another) :)

Don't worry I don't see you as such :D

And don't let them intimidate you :)

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/11/2010 12:26:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom above all? (none / 0)
What about my freedom to drive fast? If I would be a good driver and sure that I don't harm anyone. Just because in some individual cases accidents happened shouldn't be a reason to infringe my right.

And I have to say again that I don't want drugs to be illegal, I just want them to be expensive, so people have to consider a little longer before they use them and they can't totally waste their lives if they want to afford them.

"Well under Technocratism there is no private ownership"

Technocratism is a nice ideal, but people are too stupid and driven by primitive urges, which makes it impossible to realise. Still it's a good goal, like world peace.
I also have the feeling that you want to infringe my freedom to personal ownership.

"the only economy that have ever worked and will ever work is a trickle up production based economy"

The people on the top of the economic ladder are the producers, it's them against the average Joe, the consumer. Sure sustainability is important, but the first fight is about who needs more support the consumers and poor people or the owners/producers who are the rich people. So the first step would be to help consumers and profit from the trickle up effect.
You're probably right about Cenk and "people like him". Especially in America people will need many more decades to realize that social security doesn't kill motivation.

"In the 70'ies a lot of worker owned compagnies sprang up all over Europe"

Sure, but those companies require that the people are more motivated by idealism than by profit. Some can pull that off, but never the society as a whole.

"The workers in the bank (or compagny) would 'own' 1 vote each and then every 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years,... <whatever they decide>  they would vote for the next board of directors (among themselves)... and noone can be on the board a second/third/fourth/etc. time until everybody had a turn"

I'm just imagining a company that is based mainly on physical labour and has social consciousness which means they employ some people who are seriously mentally handycapped. It wouldn't be to good for the company when all the clever people had their turn and the "retards" take over
Funny to watch? Sure! Good for the company? Less so.
It also seriously sounds like you want to take away my personal freedom to own something. That has never worked well.

What's your problem with my bank solution? The power would be extremly decentralized and regulated by the people. On a local level people can really vote against the people who make bad descissions, because it is much simpler to offer an alternative.

"Ah CD and Star :) - yeah they have accused me too of being a troll (or sockpuppet of first one person then another) :)"

Really, you too? Well that just proofs that they consider everybody out of the American liberal mainstream a troll. They have never called me a sock-puppet, but I would be interest to know who's sock-puppet you were supposed to be. might be interesting to read something by those persons.

They have never called me a sock puppet. Now I'm somehow insulted by that.:-(

Well, there attacks never had a chance to intimidate me, if anything they motivated me and showed that my thoughts are somehow creative and progressive.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/11/2010 01:06:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
What about my freedom to drive fast? If I would be a good driver and sure that I don't harm anyone. Just because in some individual cases accidents happened shouldn't be a reason to infringe my right
First off freedom is not unlimited... or you could say 'then what about my freedom to kill you'... and nobody want's that :)

There's an old saying that I live by that says 'your freedom to swing your arms wildly stops where my nose begins'... meaning that you have the freedom to do what ever you like as long as it doesn't infringe on other peoples freedom... and if it does then your work out a compromise... there are other people in the world and their right to freedom and life and happiness and... is just as important as yours and mine (but that's my ONLY limit on freedom) :)

So let's take your example :)
Personally I think people dying in trafik is a problem and it needs to be fixes... that said the most ineffective solution I could possibly come up with if I tried would be speed limits... I really can't think of a more ineffective way to deal with the problem... why don't you just demand from the car makers to build cars that can't crash??? (maybe build in a sensor that stops the car if speed and distance and direction indicates that you are about to hit something or someone and build the cars so if you do hit something (a person jumping out in front of you etc.) the car catches you and is soft to land on so they don't die from the impact or <come up with their own solution>... this is a technical problem and a technical problem can NOT be effectively solved by legislation)... I'm not saying... I'm just saying...

Speed-limit (limit on freedom) = 37.261 deaths by accidents in the US in 2008
My solution (no limit on freedom) = 0 deaths by accidents in any year

Now you choose...

So my answer is... your freedom to drive as fast as you want stops when you become more likely to injure and kill someone than not by your speed... and with no real solution (like mine) you can't drive as fast as you want because the likelyhood of you injuring or killing someone rises as you drive faster with the technology utilized at this moment...

Technocratism is a nice ideal
Isn't it though :D

but people are too stupid and driven by primitive urges, which makes it impossible to realise
Seriously dude... you must have had a terrible childhood to be this distrustful of you fellow man :)

Sorry... but all kidding aside... you might think that (and even I sometimes looses faith in my fellow man... usually when I watches to much FOX) :D hehe - but everytime I walk outside I'm reaffirmed in my beliefs... you should try watching a few documentaries that show the good sides of humanity just once in a while... just to balance out all the negative sides you see in the news :)

Here's a few surgestions just to get you started:
Us Now (part 1 here)
Slacker Uprising (part 1 here)
Start with those 2 and work your way back to humanity from there :)

I also have the feeling that you want to infringe my freedom to personal ownership
Personal ownership is not a freedom (even though it has been sold as such in Capitalism)...

Freedom is freedom to act and think... so if I want to take a walk I can or if I want to believe in an invisible skygod that listens to me and helps me I can...

Personal ownership is nothing more than saying this is mine so it is not yours... nothing more and nothing less... that's not freedom for you... that's infringing on everybody elses freedom with no freedom benifts for you...

The people on the top of the economic ladder are the producers
Well that used to be the case... but today? seriously???

The people on top today are the bankers and people on wall street and NIETHER produces ANYTHING other than more money for themselves just for the moneys sake... nothing comes out of a bank or wall street that has ANY production value for anybody outside the banks and wall street...

So that's a false argument :)

it's them against the average Joe, the consumer
Ah no that's a strawmans argument... it's not the owners against the consumer... it's the system against the people (I know that corporations only see people as consumers but I'll like to content that we are so much more) :)

Consumers is an artificial construct made by corporations to justify their existens... if people don't want to buy their product then they go out of bussiness... so to stay alive (no matter how asinine and useless their product is) they use advertising to create a consumer in us (an artificial need in people) so they'll buy their product anyway... don't tell me you need a new car every 5 years or a new tv every year or the latest jacket when you have 5 in the closet already... but we want them because it signals the status and lifestyle that those compagnies have artificially instilled in us through adverticing :) - but consumerism is NOT a natural state for humans to be in... it is one forced upon us by the system...

The system is Capitalism in and low/no scarcity world and as I have explained before Capitalism is not equiped to deal with that kinda world... Capitalism needs a high scarcity world to exist...

This is why we destroy the large food surplusses that the US and the EU produces every year instead of feeding the billions of starving people around the world (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free so by doing so would drive down market prizes and the farmers couldn't make a living and the system would collaps)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby killing millions of people every year) to save the system...

This is why we burn 2/3 of the diamonds mined instead of using them to build better technologies to better mankind (because if things are in abundance they get cheaper bordering on free and it would be more expencive to mine the diamonds than they can sell them for and the whole system collapses so we would get no diamonds at all)... so we create a false scarcity (thereby depriving everybody of cheap superiour technoligies) to save the system...

This is why we... <substitute everything you can think of)... so we create false scarcities to save the system... and all to the detriment of true progress, the common good and the people...

What noone seem to surgest is why don't we change the system instead of hurting people with false scarcities and false wants? why do we keep this unsustainable system alive when it hurts everybody but the very few at the top???

I'm not saying... I'm just saying... :D

And a wise man once said... it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society :D

Sure sustainability is important
Yes it's the only important thing in the equation... period... now I know the profitmotive is being hailed as the only important thing today... but it really isn't and we will ALL realize this when we have to pay the prize of the unsustainability of the current system when ALL the economic systems crashes later this year (if the propaganda maschine that is PR doesn't sell it to us (and we buy their pitch) as a failure of a few bad apples but instead tell the truth... that it's the failure of the system as a whole)...

So the first step would be to help consumers and profit from the trickle up effect.
Not the consumers (see above) but the people... but yes :)

Sure, but those companies require that the people are more motivated by idealism than by profit. Some can pull that off, but never the society as a whole
I disagree :)

When you live in a system that promotes and hailes egocentrism and greed and profit above all at every turn you are off course going to get most people being mainly egocentric and greedy and out to make a profit... how is this a surprise for anyone...

That doesn't mean that it's the only way people will ever behave... it just mean that this is the only way people will ever behave in that system...

So the question is how do we get people to be altruistic and help each other and coorperate for the commen good of everybody incl themselves?

You change the system so it promotes those natural things in human nature and remove the need for the other things in human nature...

As I have written many times now... human nature is comprised of 2 desires -protection of self (egocentrism) and protection of others (altruism)...

So since we live in a world of false scarcity thereby actually having abundance if we wanted... everything becomes free (or close to) so you have NO incentive to be egocentric... there is no need to protect yourself if you are not in danger... and that leaves altruism and helping everybody else... and in that system this discussion would not even be possible :)

My idea of that society is Technocratism but feel free in offering up your own solutions... as long as we agree that it's the system that needs changing and the problem that needs solving is to minimize egocentrism and further altruism...

It also seriously sounds like you want to take away my personal freedom to own something. That has never worked well
First off... owning something has nothing to do with freedom (see above)...

Second off... the only reason it never worked is because if you have high scarcity (not enough to go around... false or otherwise) then you need to protect yourself by making sure that what you have gotten for yourself you get to keep so you can live a happy and fruitful life...

If there's not enough for everybody then it becomes a game of musical chairs and when everybody have grapped enough for themselves (the music stops) then somebody haven't got any (is left without a chair) and die... so if any of the have nots come and take some of the things you need from you and there is nothing else to go around then you become a have not and die... so you need to protect what's yours to protect yourself... so you need to make laws that says that what you have you own so noone can take it from you... that's why we need ownership in a high scarcity world...

But if you suddenly find yourself in a world of abundance where if someone takes you things you just get new ones because there is plenty then you don't need to own anything... there is nothing to protect...

Example:
Let's say someone comes into your house and opens the tap and drinks some water... do you call the police and get them arested for stealing?
No that would be stupid (and the police would laugh in your face) because water is in abundance and therefor close to free and even though he took some of your water (your property) if you are thirsty you just open the tap again and drink some yourself... so since water is in abundance you don't feel you own water because there's plenty to go around... (no feeling of ownership)...

So why would that be different for anything else if everything you needed and wanted were as abundant as water?
And the answer is... it wouldn't be any different... and you wouldn't need to own anything...

What's your problem with my bank solution? The power would be extremly decentralized and regulated by the people
I'll agree with you that it's a better solution than the state owning them... :D

More decentralization of power = always better solution (always = I can't think of a single instance where that's not the case... not to say that they don't exist but I just can't think of one) :D

Which makes my solution even better since it's even more decentralization :D

But even though that your solution would solve many of the problems I described and if you could garanty that it would never reverse to state owned banks I could live with it...

The problem is that the local governance is subject to the state rule... so what's to stop the state (in your solution) from changing their mind at a later date and say we now own the banks (if they don't like how the local governance run them or they just feel like it)?
And what's to stop the local governance from censoring themselves in how they run the banks to the wants of the state so the state doesn't do that thereby running the banks as the state would have done anyway?

Answer those and we'll have a discussion on your solution :D

On a local level people can really vote against the people who make bad descissions
Not if everybody they can vote on want to run the bank as the state would have anyway (see above) or the state takes back the banks (see above)... then they don't have a real choice (kinda like the vote for the american presidency) :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/12/2010 11:42:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
PS: (none / 0)
Just wondering:
Are you also against government ownership of theatres, sports grounds, libraries and other wants like that?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/10/2010 10:03:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
Of theatres and sports grounds yes...
But libraries is public access to all the knowledge we have... and no society can thrive with out knowledge and the more knowledge is free the better it does... so our society needs libraries... so no problem with government ownership of libraries :)

Now I'm would be able to live with government ownership of sportsgrounds and theatres if no private options existed (or not enough)...

The exception to government ownership in want areas:
When a want area exists and there are currently no private options (or not enough) to fill that demand... then government can start up in a want area under the condition that they get out again when and if private options can take over :)

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/11/2010 12:35:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Aha! (none / 0)
"When a want area exists and there are currently no private options (or not enough) to fill that demand... then government can start up in a want area under the condition that they get out again when and if private options can take over :)"

That's the current situation in the banking sector.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/11/2010 01:08:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
That's the current situation in the banking sector
So you don't think that there are enough private options as we speak?

Seriously???

As of 2008 there were 8,430 different banks in the US alone... how many do you want? :D hehe

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 04/12/2010 11:45:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nuff said :) (none / 0)

by Thothlike on 04/13/2010 03:23:12 PM EST

Less talk more action!!! (none / 0)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 04/14/2010 10:04:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: