|
 |
|
| |
 |
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
 |
| |
>I guess that either the capitalist system would collapse or the value of money would deflate considerably thus we could not afford to live without work??
Okay, thanks for being the only one to venture an answer Rad. I guess no one gets the point I am trying to make by this "experiment" so I better elucidate.
My point is this: Unless one considers that there should be two or more classes of citizens, doesn't everyone have the right to be rich?
If you say yes to this, the next question is: Do you want to live in a society that makes this an actual possibility for everyone, or do you want to live in a society that just promises this to everyone but can't actually deliver on that promise?
In one case, we have an ethical society. In the other case we have a fraudulent society.
If our society cannot exist without "collapse or the value of money would deflate considerably" as you point out, then it seems to me that we are living in a society that can't deliver on it's promise, and thus is a fraud.
If we live in a society that's a fraud, shouldn't we change it so that everyone has the ability to reach the top? We don't have this now, because if everyone DID reach the top, the system could not support it. This proves that the system does NOT add up, for if it did, EVERYONE would be able to co-exist in exactly the same way the rich exist -- they live off dividends, capital gains and interest. That's how they live. Independently wealth = dividends, capital gains and interest. It's that simple. Oh yes, you can add in there rents - but rents are really dividends issued on land.
So, if the system would collapse if everyone were independently wealthy, we MUST have two classes of citizens in the current society in order to sustain it. In other words, the test of the system's viability is the calculus of how many classes of citizens it must have in order to exist. If it can exist and expand on one class of citizen, because what's good for one is good for all, than that's one type of society. But if all in society cannot have THE POTENTIAL to be economically equal, then that society as a system does not hold water. It forces more than one class of citizen in order to survive, thus that society is not only a fraud, but predatory as well.
So, we live in a society that is:
A. Fraudulent
B. Predatory
The reason society is fraudulent and predatory is because ITS CAPITALISTIC STRUCTURE NEEDS REVISION.
Further, Democracy does not work if it is being raped by predatory and fraudulent capitalism.
The core of the problem is the very structure and purpose of a corporation. These need to be addressed by citizens as government, business and the media will never in a million years address them.
The address point is the pension funds owned by labor. Labor is you and me, the second class citizens. Together we have hundreds of billions being imprudently managed by Wall Street Insiders -- perhaps a 100 or 1,000 at the inner circle. Working men and women in America need to DEMAND that the money they place under the management of the pension fund managers be invested in a SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE manner.
Corporations that are predatory and fraudulent thus need to be DEPRIVED of capital. An example is GE and the Auto manufacturers.
Capital needs to be REDIRECTED.
The majority of capital needs to be REDIRECTED to SMALL enterprises and TAKEN AWAY from LARGE CORPORATIONS.
None of this is even on the political radar.
Grassroots education and re-allocation of LABOR'S CAPITAL are the answers to crushing the CURRENT fraudulent and predatory CAPITALIST SYSTEM that REQUIRES at least two classes of citizens in order to exist.
If this isn't done, you can kiss Democracy goodbye forever.
James Jaeger |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Okay, thanks for being the only one to venture an answer Rad. I guess no one gets the point I am trying to make by this "experiment" so I better elucidate.
no problemo James :)
My point is this: Unless one considers that there should be two or more classes of citizens, doesn't everyone have the right to be rich?
Yes i think this is the age old question of equal worth, arn't we all born equal? Why are some more privileged than others? Should'nt we all have equal access to resources?
I agree it is an interesting topic..
If you say yes to this, the next question is: Do you want to live in a society that makes this an actual possibility for everyone, or do you want to live in a society that just promises this to everyone but can't actually deliver on that promise?
Of course the former is more idealistic, though i dont think we will actually achieve a state of equality (at least until/if economy becomes redundant due to produce expense reaches nill through the advance of technology)... i recognise no socialistic government that has been able to achieve this is practice... no where near... so if you can then you are a true genius...NO SARCASAM!
In one case, we have an ethical society. In the other case we have a fraudulent society.
Yes i agree
If our society cannot exist without "collapse or the value of money would deflate considerably" as you point out, then it seems to me that we are living in a society that can't deliver on it's promise, and thus is a fraud.
Does our capatalistic society promise EQUALITY in the sense that it intends for all citizens to be financially equal? I dont think it does, rather it promotes independece for individual differences, and the right for each individual to go out and achive what they desire... But i agree that the ideal is for there to be equal access to resources. And at present i dont think enough HAS been DONE to PROMOTE EQUAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES. So there is alot of potential debate here... almost endless in fact.
Though some of what Karl Marx said has been tarnished in some way due to its relationship with communism, i do believe he was trying to do good and promote equality... though obviously it did not work in practice.
Marx pointed out the concept of social class (in capatilism)and pointed out it was based on class relations and ultimately economic relations. As this involved the ownership right that means EXCLUSIVE RIGHT (keeping others away) then the economic relation of social class will always be an ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP. Socialism led to Communism which was the socialist ideal in pratice... and concept such as 'class struggle' and 'oppression' were often used.
If we live in a society that's a fraud, shouldn't we change it so that everyone has the ability to reach the top?
I think everyone should have access to resourses (education, safety, equal opportunities- removing discriminating factors such as race, gender, disability etc) to reach goals they wish to achieve.
We don't have this now, because if everyone DID reach the top, the system could not support it.
I think that if we had equal resources (which we do have to an extent but not enough)then competition levels would increase and prevent everyone from achieving their goals, thus this would prevent the system from collapsing. I think we all have natural abilities etc so it is inevitable that some people will be better than others in different areas.
Im curious as to your views on what you think about natural ability... What i mean is that do you think when the time comes to enhance ourselves (whether by nano or bio or both- lets not argue on this posting which), that we should all be enhanced equally, thus having equal mental ability? Personally i think so (but of course the recipient should have choice in the matter) that access should be availiable for all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>Yes i think this is the age old question of equal worth, arn't we all born equal?
Yes, DNA from human to human, no matter what race, is virtually identical. We all have totally equal machinery.
>Why are some more privileged than others?
Because the chance of birth bestows on them familial wealth which they then use for better or for worse. On the otherhand, some go criminal in the process of seeking wealth and manage to circumvent the system to their advantage thus giving the illusion that they are "privileged." I will bet the percentage of self-made men and women who rise to the top because of an ethical exchange with society is somewhere around 5%. I would say 20% is due to criminal machinations and the balance is due to inheritance or other forms of luck, such as lottery winnings.
>Should'nt we all have equal access to resources?
As creatures that evolved on this planet for billions of years, yes. Since we are here, we made it. Our genes caused us to survive. Every individual therefor deserves a level playing field.
>I agree it is an interesting topic..
Okay.
>Of course the former is more idealistic, though i dont think we will actually achieve a state of equality (at least until/if economy becomes redundant due to produce expense reaches nill through the advance of technology)...
Idealism is a useful tool. It tells us what direction we should be going. If people can collectively put together an idealistic scenario of what they would like life or reality to be, then "all" that has to happen in order for it to be achieved is the barriers have to be systematically removed. If the systematic removal of barriers towards an ideal scene includes a NON-violent methodology, then this methodology should, must be, stated and made part of the ideal scene.
>i recognise no socialistic government that has been able to achieve this is practice... no where near... so if you can then you are a true genius...NO SARCASAM!
Both socialism and it's more aggressive counterpart, communism, have both proven to be unworkable technologies.
It looks like capitalism is also manifesting itself to be an unworkable technology as well because it looks like capitalism is creating at least two classes of people and undermining democracy. Therefore, I submit to you that to date, Homo sapiens has not yet evolved an economic system that moves all people towards the ideal scene of wealthy equality. But, at the same time, I submit to you that capitalism DOES have workable elements. Perhaps even socialism and communism have workable elements in them as well. Therefore, a solution may be to REVERSE ENGINEER a new economic system starting from the IDEAL SCENE as a guide and then using elements of all previous systems to the degree they serve the purpose of moving society to its agreed upon IDEAL scene. This might entail inventing new elements as well, and probably will.
>Does our capatalistic society promise EQUALITY in the sense that it intends for all citizens to be financially equal?
No it doesn't. Capitalism, as practiced today, only promotes the bottom line. It is virtually blind to issues of social equality and even society as a whole. This is the problem. Capitalism's values are not aligned with society's values.
>I dont think it does, rather it promotes independece for individual differences, and the right for each individual to go out and achive what they desire...
The "right" to achieve. But, as we discussed above, this is a hollow "right" because the system cannot deliver on the promise of HAVING the benefits of that right. Therefore to guarantee a right to action or a state of being that cannot occur, is a misrepresentation of the VALUE of that right. In other words, it sounds good on paper but it's basically fraud.
>But i agree that the ideal is for there to be equal access to resources. And at present i dont think enough HAS been DONE to PROMOTE EQUAL ACCESS TO RESOURCES. So there is a lot of potential debate here... almost endless in fact.
Yes, and this is a debate concerned citizens need to take up and quickly. Chance will NOT come from government. It's not the government's job to cause change. Change will not come from those who are currently in power because they want things to stay the same as this is what KEEPS them in power. Change will not come from the media, because corporate interests basically OWN the media (See a book called, IT'S THE MEDIA, STUPID). Change will only come from informed people, the disenfranchised masses of employees out there who work hard only to see their energy funneled to the top of the corporate pyramids of power and dispensed to a "privileged" class.
>Though some of what Karl Marx said has been tarnished in some way due to its relationship with communism, i do believe he was trying to do good and promote equality... though obviously it did not work in practice.
Yes, the road to hell is paved with good works. But this does not mean that we can't learn from him. We can at least see where socialism and communism went wrong and engineer our solution to avoid these pitfalls while using the best of what capitalism has provided and deleting the worst.
>Marx pointed out the concept of social class (in capatilism)and pointed out it was based on class relations and ultimately economic relations. As this involved the ownership right that means EXCLUSIVE RIGHT (keeping others away) then the economic relation of social class will always be an ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONSHIP.
Not necessarily. If an economic machine is created that serves the interests of society and yet imposes no limitations on those who want to excel or work harder, I see this antagonistic relationship mellowing or even disappearing. This is why I started this entire post with the idea that a system seems to be correct to the degree it only need rely on one class of people. Indeed, by definition, equality = one class, but that class should have infinite ability to expand into the universe, which for all PRACTICAL purposes is infinite. In other words, on a universal scale there ARE NO SCARCITIES OF RESOURCES.
>Socialism led to Communism which was the socialist ideal in pratice... and concept such as 'class struggle' and 'oppression' were often used.
Right.
>I think everyone should have access to resourses (education, safety, equal opportunities- removing discriminating factors such as race, gender, disability etc) to reach goals they wish to achieve.
Yes, I agree, this should be part of society's IDEAL SCENE.
>I think that if we had equal resources (which we do have to an extent but not enough)then competition levels would increase and prevent everyone from achieving their goals, thus this would prevent the system from collapsing. I think we all have natural abilities etc so it is inevitable that some people will be better than others in different areas.
Everybody lives their OWN life better than anyone else can live that life, thus everybody IS better at than all other people on at least one activity.
>Im curious as to your views on what you think about natural ability... What i mean is that do you think when the time comes to enhance ourselves (whether by nano or bio or both- lets not argue on this posting which), that we should all be enhanced equally, thus having equal mental ability? Personally i think so (but of course the recipient should have choice in the matter) that access should be available for all.
I think we need to get capitalism and democracy straightened out before we start to enhance people or create intelligences greater than our own. If we don't, the worst characteristics in our current dysfunctional economic system, indeed humanity itself, will only be amplified. Can you imagine if the executives at ENRON and WORLDCOMM were all superintelligent, bio-engineered CEOs. You get the picture.
James Jaeger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Idealism is a useful tool. It tells us what direction we should be going.
yes i agree
It looks like capitalism is also manifesting itself to be an unworkable technology as well because it looks like capitalism is creating at least two classes of people and undermining democracy.
What definition/meaning of democracy are you using? Democracy is the system of voting to elect Government and not equality. Does class difference undermine the ability to vote? I maybe missing your point or misinterpreting it.. can you clarify?
Perhaps even socialism and communism have workable elements in them as well.
I think they have in some way, i mean that the whole idea of equality has probably inspired the later, race and gender movements.
Yes, the road to hell is paved with good works. But this does not mean that we can't learn from him. We can at least see where socialism and communism went wrong and engineer our solution to avoid these pitfalls while using the best of what capitalism has provided and deleting the worst.
ok, so i guess the next question is, what is the solution that you envisage?
Not necessarily. If an economic machine is created that serves the interests of society and yet imposes no limitations on those who want to excel or work harder, I see this antagonistic relationship mellowing or even disappearing.
ok, so back to the question of a solution.
This is why I started this entire post with the idea that a system seems to be correct to the degree it only need rely on one class of people.
Im all for equality if it works, so i wont base any judgement until i read your solution. A few questions i would like to ask are:
(1)In an equal/single class society, are we all rich, poor or in between?
(2) If we are all equal class then who does the shitty jobs that no-one else wants to do?
(3) what if you got some lazy git who does'nt want to work, should that person be entitled to the same wealth as someone who wants to work and works hard for the benefit of others as well as him/her self?...
(4)Do you believe in the redistribution of wealth. Would you really want to give all your hard earned cash to someone one who has spent his life smoking pot all day?
(5)Dont you think that money makes a good motivator to work?
Indeed, by definition, equality = one class, but that class should have infinite ability to expand into the universe, which for all PRACTICAL purposes is infinite. In other words, on a universal scale there ARE NO SCARCITIES OF RESOURCES.
im not sure i know what you mean, can you elaborate?
What do you mean by:
but that class should have infinite ability to expand into the universe
and:
universal scale there ARE NO SCARCITIES OF RESOURCES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>What definition/meaning of democracy are you using? Democracy is the system of voting to elect Government and not equality.
People are supposed to vote for those who they wish to represent them. Corporations are not supposed to vote with their money, but that's what is happening. A vote is supposed to be a decision not a dollar.
>Does class difference undermine the ability to vote?
In some ways because the rich can vote with both a decision AND a dollar whereas the poor can only vote with a decision.
>I maybe missing your point or misinterpreting it.. can you clarify?
Hope I clarified.
>ok, so i guess the next question is, what is the solution that you envisage?
I (meaning ME) don't have a solution. But we all have a solution collectively if we hash it out together. I only have my ideas which may or may not make sense in the end.
>ok, so back to the question of a solution.
The solution to a reformed capitalistic society has to come from the concerned citizens in the field. It has to be distilled out of this collective wisdom and then be allowed to percolate into the awareness of our government officials.
>Im all for equality if it works, so i wont base any judgement until i read your solution. A few questions i would like to ask are:
Part of my solution is the idea that we need to confront the evidence that American capitalism is NOT working and it's perverting Democracy.
>(1)In an equal/single class society, are we all rich, poor or in between?
We all have the right and the guarantee that we can all, if we work hard and follow the rules, rise to the top and that when we reach the top - THERE WILL BE A CHAIR. As it stands now, our capitalistic structure is a game of musical chairs that, when the music stops, there will ALWAYS be too FEW chairs even for those WHO DESERVE to sit down and relax because they have worked hard and followed the rules.
>(2) If we are all equal class then who does the shitty jobs that no-one else wants to do?
This is an assumption that I have been testing lately: Are there any jobs out there that SOMEONE does not want to have? You assume that no one wants to be a garbage man? However I personally know some garbage men and they love their jobs. The garbage men around here are getting rich. Some of them can get their run done in the morning and then just take the rest of the day off at the country club. So what job do you have in mind that “no one” wants to do?
>(3) what if you got some lazy git who does'nt want to work, should that person be entitled to the same wealth as someone who wants to work and works hard for the benefit of others as well as him/her self?...
No, I have never said that. I have said that anyone who wants to rise to the top should be able to. I have also said, that if EVERYONE wants to rise to the top, then there should be room for ALL of them. But there is not, because the very structure of the current capitalist system can't provide that – i.e., everyone living off dividends/rents, capital gains and interest payments.
>(4)Do you believe in the redistribution of wealth. Would you really want to give all your hard earned cash to someone one who has spent his life smoking pot all day?
No I do not believe in the re-distribution of wealth. As I have said several times now, I believe in a system that not only PROMISES that everyone can be at the top, it IS CAPABLE OF DELIVERING on that promise. You yourself said the current system can’t deliver on that promise, and I agree. Thus the current system is fraudulent and predatory because it not only demands at least two classes of citizens, it REQUIRES them.
>(5)Dont you think that money makes a good motivator to work?
Sure. But so does love and interest and I bet these are stronger motivators once a person has their basic nut covered.
>>Indeed, by definition, equality = one class, but that class should have infinite ability to expand into the universe, which for all PRACTICAL purposes is infinite. In other words, on a universal scale there ARE NO SCARCITIES OF RESOURCES.
>im not sure i know what you mean, can you elaborate?
I mean that any solution to the problem of AMERICAN CAPITALISM that doesn’t take into account the possibility (more accurately the inevitability) of more than a ONE WORLD scenario is viewing the solution in a truncated manner. 500 years ago, people left the Old World and established the New World. This act made them the most powerful people on Earth because the act of exploration forces those involved to INVENT new technology in order to survive. By the same token, those who colonize other worlds in the Solar System in the next 500 years will become the most powerful people in the solar system, and this includes over earth because earth is a subset of the solar system. So this is what I mean by infinite resources. The solution to Mankind’s economic problem is to out create it, to think in terms of larger playing fields. And the next playing field is the Solar System with its virtually untapped resources. We need to be directing our energies towards developing THESE resources, not scrambling around a little mud ball called Earth fighting with each other over crumbs.
>What do you mean by:
>but that class should have infinite ability to expand into the universe
See above.
>and:
>universal scale there ARE NO SCARCITIES OF RESOURCES.
When one incorporates the idea that there are almost infinite resources in the Universe to exploit, and that sooner or later they will be exploited, the zero-sum, Earth-bound game that American capitalism has been designed (a century ago) to play falls short of utilitarian value.
James Jaeger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>What definition/meaning of democracy are you using? Democracy is the system of voting to elect Government and not equality.
People are supposed to vote for those who they wish to represent them. Corporations are not supposed to vote with their money, but that's what is happening. A vote is supposed to be a decision not a dollar.
Fair enough..
Part of my solution is the idea that we need to confront the evidence that American capitalism is NOT working and it's perverting Democracy.
ok
>(2) If we are all equal class then who does the shitty jobs that no-one else wants to do?
This is an assumption that I have been testing lately: Are there any jobs out there that SOMEONE does not want to have? You assume that no one wants to be a garbage man? However I personally know some garbage men and they love their jobs. The garbage men around here are getting rich. Some of them can get their run done in the morning and then just take the rest of the day off at the country club. So what job do you have in mind that “no one” wants to do?
Yes i think that different people like different things.
>(3) what if you got some lazy git who does'nt want to work, should that person be entitled to the same wealth as someone who wants to work and works hard for the benefit of others as well as him/her self?...
No, I have never said that. I have said that anyone who wants to rise to the top should be able to. I have also said, that if EVERYONE wants to rise to the top, then there should be room for ALL of them. But there is not, because the very structure of the current capitalist system can't provide that – i.e., everyone living off dividends/rents, capital gains and interest payments.
ok
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>Hi James... Although Capitalism has existed during only era known as the Renaissance (and other very short periods of time throughout history), Capitalism is dead forever. Even The Great Rome and Byzantine Empire succcumbed monetary corruption. What is occuring today is not unique phenomenon at all.
That's right. Everytime a People allow their government to print up FIAT money, the inevitable abuses by those in power eventually erode and destroy society. This is happening now because of the Federal Reserve System, which was put into place for the government to be able to create infinite amounts of money, by government fiat, in order to perpetuate their interests at the expense of the interests of everyone else. Since the Federal Reserve is, in essence, a private bank, it manifests the same negative characteristics of companies such as ENRON, with the added dimension that it exists to basically SERVE the government. This dual liability makes it even more imperative that citizens abolish the Federal Reserve System than it does the general reform of capitalism.
>What does this mean? That Man is unable to deal with a fair monetary system.
My view is not that man is basically bad, man only seeks to survive and thus does what he can, collectively and individually, to accomplish this goal. He only does evil deeds because he is not able to comprehend the effects of his actions. Human beings have improved over the past 300,000 years. I believe that they can continue to improve and that they can eventually create an almost perfect society. It's "only" a matter of engineering.
>Extremely sad but so... the worldwide DEBT BOMB was bound to happen and it is most likely why we may expect a important philosophical shift in the next coming 2 years which we lead to the death of Money as a concept.
See a book called THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND. If you put my email address of jjaeger@mecfilms.com in the search engine of this site, you will see many posts and discussions we have had on the subject of the Federal Reserve and money over the past years.
>I for one see the true futuristic society as money-free.
Yes, to the degree we remove the necessity of "keeping score," money will fade into obsolescence as a tool.
>With Nanotech making production costs very inexpensive, we'll all be working for coupons so to speak while enjoying universal healthcare and teaching (all free).
Why even have coupons? This is keeping score. If everyone was able to HAVE whatever they wanted, they would eventually grow tired of material possessions. Thus material possessions would become less valuable than other possessions. Other possessions might be knowledge, experience, beauty, wisdom, love. Fortunately, these can be created endlessly -- and with life extension, maybe even time can be included in the list.
>Having a moneatry system within a society where knowledge can be accessed for free is NOT workable, History speaks by itself.
I don't see that we have ever had a society that could access all knowledge for free. In the past knowledge was withheld in order to establish a fraudulent basis of power.
>We've got two choices: either predation leading to the possible extinction of the human race (economic wars and powerful weaponery is a deadly cocktail) or terminating the concept of money for a greater good. If we dont go that road, Mad Max or Blade Runner can well become a reality. Between profits and society..... we must chose?
You can't just up and terminate something. Not even the Federal Reserve. You have to get people to put their minds together and engineer better systems by being sensitive to the wishes of all. Then you have to find the correct levers in the machine that you already have and carefully steer that machine in the direction that will do the greatest good for the greatest number. In this case, the only lever the People, the employee class, have against the machine is their PENSION FUNDS. The trustees that control these hundreds of billions of dollars must be encouraged to NOT invest this money in any corporation that is not worker friendly. This will start the ball rolling and get Wall Street's attention.
>PS: I will republish your comments for my website, email me if you don't agree. Sharon/moneyfiles.org
That's fine. Anything that is posted on the Net is, for all practical purposes, in the public domain. Thus, whether copyright on the Net has any meaning is a subject up for grabs.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>I'm not going to do those long posts again James. We really HAVE been over all this in previous threads where I went into detail and I'll end up just typing practically the same thing again.
Whatever.
>The one thing most people seem to be missing is that the primary purpose of money is not as a reward system.
Money is a medium of exchange. In other words, it's a way of keeping track of that which is exchanged. Money is not the THING.
>That's derivative of its PRIMARY purpose as a tool for allocating any scarce resource to its best use /as determined by the people./ The combined values of consumers are expressed in the money-price through their own decisions, making the profit/loss signal key to determining which investment or type of work etc is superior to another.
All fine and dandy, but your perfect market theory doesn't work. More and more people are beginning to realize this, especially in the wake of such debacles as ENRON and WORLDCOM, etc. Anytime a system allows certain players to dominate the market, the allocation of resources is not necessarily in the best interests of society.
We now live in a capitalistic system that's so bottom-line oriented it's not providing the quality of life demanded by the majority in society. We have the largest disparity in income ever, with CEOs getting 500 times more than the average employee and the top 1% owning over 80% of all the assets; we have huge corporations buying up political power so that they can get special favors at the expense of society; we have corporations removing certain expenses from their balance sheets and so that society must pay these expenses (such as pollution); we have huge corporations paying no taxes when they do such things as citus their headquarters in Bermuda; we have investment banking firms dreaming up "securities" that appear as equity instruments on balance sheets yet debt on tax forms; we have the largest consolidation of the media ever thus little diversity of opinion in the public discussion (see http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/stupid.h tm); we have two political parties that act more like one party sharing the spoils of elections every other term; we have major accountancies that have so many conflicts of interest an investor doesn’t know what to believe; we have more money being spent on lobby groups than ever before; we have the lowest voter turn outs than ever; we have the major networks making the rules on who can debate and who cannot so that all chances for third party candidates are slim to non-existent; we have the government giving away public assets, such as spectrum bandwidth, to broadcast corporations because of their unprecedented lobbying power and campaign finance contributions. In short: capitalism as it is practiced to day in America is disgusting. The Founding Fathers of this nation would puke.
All this combined with what I said in an earlier post: that the power of compound interest will eventually cause one class to dominate a critical mass of society's resources (assets) and thus cause two classes of people, masters and slaves.
Already look at what is happening to the money due to all these wars the US is involved in. (See http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/formula. htm) The money is being diluted. Purchasing power is sinking at the grocery store. Every time I spent a 5 dollar bill about a year or two ago, I have to now spend a ten dollar bill. The Federal Reserve, but another irresponsible corporation no better than ENRON, is ruining the money supply by monetizing hundreds of billions of dollars - as I write. We now have the largest deficit ever. We now have the largest debt ever. We now have the worst balance of trade deficit ever. We are fucked because capitalism is a fucked system, and needs to be tossed, just as communism was tossed and socialism was tossed.
Hopefully if some Eliezer comes up with AI, it will be truly friendly AI and help the rank ‘n file humans devise a new socio-economic system that actually works.
This SHOULDN'T be a BIG problem.
Handling the economics of one little crappy planet out in the middle of semi-infinite space is a very TINY problem compared to colonizing the Solar System and moving on out as a space faring world with the technologies envisioned at the KurzweilAI site. If this isn’t the case, then everything on this site is horse.
James Jaeger
>Sol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
James, this is an interesting thread you've started here, but it's premise is less than sound. To wit:
My point is this: Unless one considers that there should be two or more classes of citizens, doesn't everyone have the right to be rich?
If you say yes to this, the next question is: Do you want to live in a society that makes this an actual possibility for everyone, or do you want to live in a society that just promises this to everyone but can't actually deliver on that promise? You explicitely added to this that if our society can't manage to deliver then it's built on sand, but that is simply not the case.
Our society (by that I'm referring to not just the democratic system, but to the capitalistic system - both of which are employed by the majority of the land masses on the planet, not just the US where I live) promises the opportunity, not the actuality. US society specifically promises that each person is free to pursue happiness, not the guarantee that they'll catch it.
If our society cannot exist without "collapse or the value of money would deflate considerably" as you point out, then it seems to me that we are living in a society that can't deliver on it's promise, and thus is a fraud.
Not true. The system is built on the premise (a premise proved by history and observation) that most will work, some will work hard, a few will work VERY hard, and a handful will work obsessively. That system rewards for the amount of work done as well as where (a field valued by many or few) and how it is done (quality of work).
The system was designed with this reality in mind, and it is also important to point out that the system of which we speak was actually not so much designed than one which evolved.
Further, Democracy does not work if it is being raped by predatory and fraudulent capitalism. Even with some "perfect" capitalism, democracy doesn't work by itself at all. As I've pointed out in the past, "democracy" is a just a fancy way to say "mob rule". The mob invariably votes under the sway of the "icing rule". That is, they think selfishly and in the short term (the latter being the real culprit, not the former) with their focus on immediate gratification rather than long-term consequences.
Constitutions and checks & balances are supposed to counter that harsh reality, but on a long enough time-line things still decay. But that's another topic.
The majority of capital needs to be REDIRECTED to SMALL enterprises and TAKEN AWAY from LARGE CORPORATIONS. This does not follow logically from your points, though, James. Small vs large is not the issue and it is not the outcome of the argument you've layed out above. Redirecting capital to a small corporation from a large corporation doesn't by itself change the rules by which corporations play (or the overwhelming body of law written in favor of the corporate model over other business models).
Yes i think this is the age old question of equal worth, arn't we all born equal? Why are some more privileged than others? Should'nt we all have equal access to resources? No (except philosophically in a few countries); because of the truth of the first answer; no.
No, we are not all born equal. Some of us are stronger or smarter or weaker or dumber. Some of are more or less capable in certain areas (logically or kinesthecically) than in others (say, spacially or musically). We are only "born equal" in the sense that we each have one vote, basic human rights, and the opportunity to strive for our personal goals....and that's only true in certain countries.
Some are more privileged than others because of the success of their parents or grandparents or whoever had their interests in mind.
No, humans don't have a right to equal access to resources. That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth. That's why we still fight wars, and it's also why we learned to create markets for trade.
i recognise no socialistic government that has been able to achieve this is practice... no where near They won't, either, because socialism doesn't work. The arbitrary redistribution of wealth assumes certain capitalistic truths, but is inconsistent with them. Socialism is the system which cannot ever deliver.
But i agree that the ideal is for there to be equal access to resources. Whose ideal? Equal access to resources is not, and has never been, a democratic or a capitalistic ideal.
Though some of what Karl Marx said has been tarnished in some way due to its relationship with communism, i do believe he was trying to do good and promote equality... though obviously it did not work in practice. It cannot work in practice and I've never understood why so many people say "communism looks good on paper" when it clearly does not (unless one thinks stifling liberty is a good thing). If Marx's idea was to create equality by reducing individual freedom (which is exactly what socialism and communism do and exactly what Marx thought should happen, no matter how he dressed it up), then I want no part of it.
Although Capitalism has existed during only era known as the Renaissance (and other very short periods of time throughout history), Capitalism is dead forever. Even The Great Rome and Byzantine Empire succcumbed monetary corruption. Now that is the silliest thing I've heard all day. Succumbing to corruption is simply not the same as a system dying. Capitalism is not dead and if the US were to collapse tomorrow it wouldn't mean that capitalism doesn't work. Capitalism is thusfar the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans. Me thinks you confuse a great many issues (corruption, money, cash, capitalism, socialism).
...lead to the death of Money as a concept. I for one see the true futuristic society as money-free. With Nanotech making production costs very inexpensive, we'll all be working for coupons so to speak while enjoying universal healthcare and teaching (all free) I see no difference between "money" and "coupon" in this. Further, you ignore that these things are not and cannot be "free". You ignore costs for R&D, materials, labor, distribution, production facilities, and on and on, and you falsely equate "CHEAP" with "FREE". As I said in another post, that it is (suddenly) cheap to make many things does not make it free to make everything.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
with nanotech assemblers labor, materials, etc are all FREE not just cheap.
just like nature can create cows, dogs, pigs, horses and other farm animals for "free", a nanotech system would be able to keep producing vast quantities of whatever you want for a negligible cost -- effectively "free" Not to pick nits, but there is a difference between "free" and "effectively free". While that difference may not be noticable in much of the western world, it is amplified in poorer nations. A $15 DVD player may seem cheap to you and I, but not to a family in Eastern Africa who collectively earn under $400 a year or in the recently bombed Afghanistan where barter is a more viable means of trade than an unstable "dollar".
The only thing that would be costly would be the effort to produce the instructions for the assemblers -- the R&D if you will..that would be hugely expensive...(and)...now imagine a nanotech assembly of the same DVD player from landfill waste...10 cents maybe. thats effectively "free" no matter how you cut it. While I agree (with qualification), we have to remember that there is a time gap between the harnessing of the technolgy and the "freeness" of the products reduced. Just as VCRs & DVD players were expensive for a time before the price plummeted, so will ALL the products of nanotech assemblers.
Further, I should state that my mention of qualifications above includes the skepticism with which I view the notion of free & infinite resources. The language tossed about here is akin to the language used in promises of perpetual energy, and it is little more than utopian fantasy.
I mean the access in which to achieve IE education (is a resource)for thoughs who can not afford, welfare (benefits to buy food clothes etc are resources) to support the poor, anti discrimination legislation to protect the discriminated so different races and gender can get jobs (job= money= resources).
These are ideals held by capatalist/democratic governments... No, sir, they are not universally accepted ideals at all. They are no more than a recent (and perhaps transitory) set of notions that many, myself included, disagree with.
I don't disagree with ALL of these notions, mind you; and I don't necessarily disagree with the ideals so much as with the methods always proposed for achieving them. For example, the US educational system is a mess and you clearly cannot fix it by throwing more tax dollars at it. Universal Health Care is nothing more than socialized medicine, which is simply a bad idea no matter how you look at it. Anti-discrimination laws as they exist are horribly out of date and we'd probably do well to banish them altogether.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
No, sir, they are not universally accepted ideals at all.
i never said they were universally accepted, my only point was that democracy in its capatalist form (though it can be critsised for many many things) have produced some legislation that promotes equality (including some of the resources i have cited), so i think its fair to call it an ideal (though im not saying we are close to that ideal in practice).
and I don't necessarily disagree with the ideals so much as with the methods always proposed for achieving them.
i thought you said that democracy has no ideals for equality?
I think the whole purpose of this post was to adress the problems with the methods used?
For example, the US educational system is a mess and you clearly cannot fix it by throwing more tax dollars at it. Universal Health Care is nothing more than socialized medicine, which is simply a bad idea no matter how you look at it.
yes hence this post
Anti-discrimination laws as they exist are horribly out of date and we'd probably do well to banish them altogether.
I think poor out of date laws are better than no law at all with anti-discrimination (though there is room for arguument) but take this for example: In FARAH V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS(1996)
a young girl who originated from Somalia was attacked by a gang of white teenagers and they also set a dog on her. After phoning the police they made no arrest on the gang but instead charged her for causing unnecessary harm to ther dog. Race Relations ACT 1976 protected her from prosecution and brought action for damages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
US society specifically promises that each person is free to pursue happiness, not the guarantee that they'll catch it. democracy promises this. which is comendable. Capitalism, in its current exploitation of democratic freedoms, has made it posible for those in the upperclass to remove this freedom for the lower class by hoarding resources(money, food, knowledge, land, democratic representation) that they do not need for their own benefit. most of which ends up being wasted BECAUSE they don't need it. once its waste, its not usefull to anyone and it never was. but it could have been. If this freedom is removed from any class, democracy has failed. the culprit is capitalism.
That system rewards for the amount of work done as well as where (a field valued by many or few) and how it is done (quality of work). this is what the system is suppose to do. this is not what it does. the system now rewards those that were rewarded before (inheritence) or those able to exploit the system to their own gain. thats not working hard (not even working creativly) thats fraud. the majority of wealth also goes to those whose "quality of work" can time and time again be debated as being of good quality. those persuing wealth by personal and moral means have an imposible goal to reach because of the exploiters.
(I'll give an example. Bill Gates exploited the public by selling an product with a %400 margin beacuse he could. the most my business partner can "moraly" charge for a product he sells has at most a %25 margin. He could charge more without loosing customers but he doesn't, its wrong.%25 profit can barely pay for the software needed to run the business and we are unable to expand. If we stole our software (an imoral exploitation of the system) we could grow and begin to compete. finding another solution that is still moral has been a two year struggle and I am not finding any means other than the typical imoral solutions.)
No, we are not all born equal. Some of us are stronger or smarter or weaker or dumber. Some of are more or less capable in certain areas (logically or kinesthecically) than in others (say, spacially or musically). We are only "born equal" in the sense that we each have one vote, basic human rights, and the opportunity to strive for our personal goals....and that's only true in certain countries.
We ARE born equal. we are just born different. our differences put us at advantages for different tasks. all equall in necessity. if there is a task needed to be acomplished, someone has to do, and someone is better than someone else to do that job. the worth of that task should be equal to any other task NEEDED by society as a whole. one job is not more important than another. the responibility and risk may be different, but the importance is the same. equal... the resources to survive to accomplish these tasks should be provided. risk and responsibility should be rewarded (within reason, also not done currently)
what about getting that person TO that position they would excel at? thats a problem of education, which it currently sucks at. also a different topic. though that is what a free resource of education/knowledge should provide.
overall your points show a feeling of "thats how its allways been, thats how it will always be" which is the start of the entire problem. we are alot like our hunting cave men ancestors, squabling over scarce food. we are at a point where we don't have to be anymore. this is a time of change. choose what to change to and commit to it or IT will change without your say. the failing business models of the music industry and the free access to all information by the internet now make this point clear (at least it should). the changes are comming without the consent of those said to be making desisions for society.
No, humans don't have a right to equal access to resources. That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth. That's why we still fight wars, and it's also why we learned to create markets for trade. resources are not scarce anymore. they are difficult to obtain. we can produce enough food for everyone if we chose to. we have enough power for all, if we chose. knowledge is available to all. the hoarding of resources is what causes the percieved scarcity and perpetuates the current conflicts and that mentality must end.
Equal access to resources is not, and has never been, a democratic or a capitalistic ideal. your right, it hasn't..... it should be. lets change. how? to what?
Capitalism is thusfar the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans. and now it is showing signs of failure. It fails when it reaches a critcall mass of corruption (much like comunism) and societal size. The collapse of the US would be a definitive sign of an error in the system. It may not be dead but it should be.
While I agree (with qualification), we have to remember that there is a time gap between the harnessing of the technolgy and the "freeness" of the products reduced. Just as VCRs & DVD players were expensive for a time before the price plummeted, so will ALL the products of nanotech assemblers. that price premium is to cover the R&D cost plus initial production line development. The open source model gets rid of the premium. (with future refinements)
the promise of nanoassemblers should not be necissary to reach a new society. It will probably take a new society to reach such a goal.
Its not like its easy to rebuild a society from the ground up. massive changes in business, government, education, and public mentality all have to change together. if one stays the same they all fail. if the system is going to fail if we don't change it (and it will) then what is the difference? better to try somthing else than go down in flames.
One issue that stands in the way is cultural differences. I had to laugh when you mentioned the cost of a DVD player in Africa I thought "why on earth would they want that?" but the point goes straight to "why would they want a global government?" comes from the same reason. their cultures don't fit easily with another culture, becuase they don't cooperate with the global goal. they can only think locally. The problem becomes if they don't fit ,they can't be included, but if they are not included, the system fails.
It is why our system fails now as well. so what is the solution on a global scale?
survival of the fittest as a law of nature must be moved out of the individual's survival to the global society's. we must evolve or perish.
griffman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>democracy promises this. which is comendable. Capitalism, in its current exploitation of democratic freedoms, has made it posible for those in the upperclass to remove this freedom for the lower class by hoarding resources(money, food, knowledge, land, democratic representation) that they do not need for their own benefit. most of which ends up being wasted BECAUSE they don't need it. once its waste, its not usefull to anyone and it never was. but it could have been. If this freedom is removed from any class, democracy has failed. the culprit is capitalism.
True.
>this is what the system is suppose to do. this is not what it does. the system now rewards those that were rewarded before (inheritence) or those able to exploit the system to their own gain.
True.
>thats not working hard (not even working creativly) thats fraud.
Right. Can't even get what the system promises to all -- especially if one is law abiding.
>the majority of wealth also goes to those whose "quality of work" can time and time again be debated as being of good quality. those persuing wealth by personal and moral means have an imposible goal to reach because of the exploiters.
True.
>(I'll give an example. Bill Gates exploited the public by selling an product with a %400 margin beacuse he could. the most my business partner can "moraly" charge for a product he sells has at most a %25 margin. He could charge more without loosing customers but he doesn't, its wrong.%25 profit can barely pay for the software needed to run the business and we are unable to expand. If we stole our software (an imoral exploitation of the system) we could grow and begin to compete. finding another solution that is still moral has been a two year struggle and I am not finding any means other than the typical imoral solutions.)
Right.
>We ARE born equal. we are just born different.
True. DNA is basically the same. Nurture makes all the difference. Privileged class gets better education hence is better able to survive and exploit the uneducated.
>our differences put us at advantages for different tasks. all equall in necessity. if there is a task needed to be acomplished, someone has to do, and someone is better than someone else to do that job. the worth of that task should be equal to any other task NEEDED by society as a whole. one job is not more important than another. the responibility and risk may be different, but the importance is the same. equal... the resources to survive to accomplish these tasks should be provided. risk and responsibility should be rewarded (within reason, also not done currently)
Yes, I see where you are going with this and have considered something similar. The idea being that every job in society is an integral part of the total machinery of that society. If the trash doesn’t get picked up sooner or later the CEO who lives at the house will slip and break his leg on a rotting piece of garbage and he will be absent from work for a period of time thus costing the company lost supervision. Another way of looking at this is the idea that everyone’s TIME is work the same as everyone else’s’ time. An hour in a life time is a precious unrenewable resource that can never duplicated or revisited. Since every person on earth only has so many hours, shouldn’t every person on earth have his or her hours valued the same?
>what about getting that person TO that position they would excel at? thats a problem of education, which it currently sucks at. also a different topic. though that is what a free resource of education/knowledge should provide.
A question that arises is this: If everyone were offered free education or resources, would they take them? People often waste that which is given to them for free. Look at the idle rich.
>overall your points show a feeling of "thats how its allways been, thats how it will always be" which is the start of the entire problem.
Right. I can’t stand the argument that weak-minded people so often use: “Well that’s the way it’s done because that’s the way everyone does it (or the equally stupid variation), that’s the way it’s always been done.
>we are alot like our hunting cave men ancestors, squabling over scarce food. we are at a point where we don't have to be anymore. this is a time of change. choose what to change to and commit to it or IT will change without your say. the failing business models of the music industry and the free access to all information by the internet now make this point clear (at least it should). the changes are comming without the consent of those said to be making desisions for society.
That’s right, in the US there is no more scarcity, only waste and misdirection. We must better manage our resources and start making decisions that will keep human in the equation otherwise AI systems will put us out of the loop and we will eventually become totally dependent on them to appoint of no return.
>>No, humans don't have a right to equal access to resources. That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth. That's why we still fight wars, and it's also why we learned to create markets for trade.
>resources are not scarce anymore. they are difficult to obtain. we can produce enough food for everyone if we chose to. we have enough power for all, if we chose. knowledge is available to all. the hoarding of resources is what causes the percieved scarcity and perpetuates the current conflicts and that mentality must end.
A perfect example to this hoarding mentality is DeBeers. They hoard diamonds to artificially push the demand up. Diamonds are a worthless commodity, yet DeBeers uses slave labor and horrible working conditions to produce and thrust this blood product onto a world of irresponsible pigs that spend huge sums of money just so they can wear them on a finger and show off to the neighbors. The money that’s spent on jewelry is disgusting. My friend is a GIA gemologist and has worked in many jewelry stores on the East Coast and West Coast. He says the kind of people that come into these places are disgusting and the money they spend on trivia is disgusting, especially when you consider all the starving and unfortunate people in the world. He says that these people should be taken out and shot because they are useless baggage to this world.
>>Equal access to resources is not, and has never been, a democratic or a capitalistic ideal.
Sure it is. It’s an inalienable right and inalienable rights are the basis of democracy. No being in the universe has any more right to the resources of the universe than any other being.
>>Capitalism is thus far the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans.
>and now it is showing signs of failure.
True.
>It fails when it reaches a critcall mass of corruption (much like comunism) and societal size. The collapse of the US would be a definitive sign of an error in the system. It may not be dead but it should be.
The US will eventually collapse and this is part of the plan of the collectivists who are putting together the totalitarian state that will replace the United States. G. Edward Griffin goes over this in his book available at http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
>>While I agree (with qualification), we have to remember that there is a time gap between the harnessing of the technolgy and the "freeness" of the products reduced. Just as VCRs & DVD players were expensive for a time before the price plummeted, so will ALL the products of nanotech assemblers.
>that price premium is to cover the R&D cost plus initial production line development. The open source model gets rid of the premium. (with future refinements)
When will open source really take off?
>the promise of nanoassemblers should not be necissary to reach a new society. It will probably take a new society to reach such a goal.
That’s what I think too. See my post entitled, “A Biotech Singularity?” Society may have to wise up BEFORE we are smart or ethical enough to create AI or nanotech and we may not even be able to do it with our current level of biological intelligence.
>Its not like its easy to rebuild a society from the ground up. massive changes in business, government, education, and public mentality all have to change together. if one stays the same they all fail. if the system is going to fail if we don't change it (and it will) then what is the difference? better to try somthing else than go down in flames.
True.
>One issue that stands in the way is cultural differences. I had to laugh when you mentioned the cost of a DVD player in Africa I thought "why on earth would they want that?" but the point goes straight to "why would they want a global government?" comes from the same reason. their cultures don't fit easily with another culture, becuase they don't cooperate with the global goal. they can only think locally. The problem becomes if they don't fit ,they can't be included, but if they are not included, the system fails.
As Oprah says, Africa MUST be handled otherwise it will present a major security problem in the future. Even the CIA is beginning to recognize this.
>It is why our system fails now as well. so what is the solution on a global scale? survival of the fittest as a law of nature must be moved out of the individual's survival to the global society's. we must evolve or perish.
This gets into the idea of operating from the POV of the greatest good for the greatest number of DYNAMICS. Until and unless people begin thinking in terms of dynamics, we are all doomed.
James Jaeger
>griffman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Hoarding Resources
|
|
|
| |
I didn't use the term "hoarding resources," Griffman did. He said:
"democracy promises this. which is comendable. Capitalism, in its current exploitation of democratic freedoms, has made it possible for those in the upper-class to remove this freedom for the lower class by hoarding resources (money, food, knowledge, land, democratic representation) that they do not need for their own benefit. most of which ends up being wasted BECAUSE they don't need it. once its waste, its not useful to anyone and it never was. but it could have been. If this freedom is removed from any class, democracy has failed. the culprit is capitalism."
I suppose he means that the rich have so much more than they need that they are hoarding resources by the very act of being rich. I tend to agree. At some point a person stops deserving additional RESIDUAL wealth to reward him for his past productivity because at some point such a person's brain becomes incapable of distributing or using or investing that wealth responsibly.
I see these old guys on CHARLIE ROSE that have set up these foundations and by the twinkle in their eyes I know they're trying to do right with their millions, but I can also see, in their countenance, a deep concern that they may not be doing right with their wealth. After all, how can someone ethically give away a billion dollars, even a hundred million? How can they be sure that portions of this wealth are not going to be used to harm the human race, such as to build more weapons or leak into terrorist hands? They can't so maybe the answer is to not allow such wealth to accumulate under the auspices of any given human in the first place. As an individual's wealth rises above some certain number, it should perhaps be automatically given away. Where should it be given? To entrepreneurs and artists of course! A $50,000 grant to a starving artist or entrepreneur will do more good for society than a $100,000 grant to an already established company or enterprise. Why? Because the bigger a corporation or organization gets, the FASTER their burn rate. $50,000 to a start-up entrepreneur means orders of magnitude more than that same $50,000 to say some new venture GE is initiating. The entrepreneur will be spending this money on fast food to survive whereas the corporate executives will be pigging it up on just their steak lunches. The upstart entrepreneurs will KNOW how to get more for their money because they are more used to DOING more without money. Thus an upstart is more EXPERIENCED in getting MORE productivity out of LESS money. Bill Gates might be an exception to this rule as he still eats hamburgers, but I bet he can appreciate this idea and I hope that he sees fit to invest most of his foundation in start-ups and artists. As history has proven, most of the significant advances for the human race have come from off-beat start ups. Classic example of this is the invention of the airplane. Here the gov gave the Smithsonian $50,000 and they just pissed it away on some abortion called the aerodrome and then the Smithsonian even tried to suppress the Write Brothers claim to various inventions -- just as they did to Tesla. What a bunch of crooks -- but then the whole group tied up with Edison and the Morgan and the Smithsonian were basically criminals -- and almost certainly burnt down Tesla's first lab when he aced Edison over the DC vs. AC current. Edison's Trust also used strong-arm tactics on the Jewish filmmakers that stole his camera and split for California to set up the movie industry.
Back to the story: On the other hand, these off-beat bicycle brothers from Dayton Ohio with no scientific stature or training probably "ate hamburgers" while they actually followed their dream and succeeded in building the airplane ON THEIR OWN MONEY.
So if you want to talk about hoarding resources you could defiantly start with the nation's largest Foundations. The fiduciaries that run these have no more ability to properly allocate capital than idiots in an insane asylum.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Hello
democracy promises this. which is comendable. Capitalism, in its current exploitation of democratic freedoms, has made it posible for those in the upperclass to remove this freedom for the lower class by hoarding resources(money, food, knowledge, land, democratic representation) that they do not need for their own benefit. most of which ends up being wasted BECAUSE they don't need it. once its waste, its not usefull to anyone and it never was. but it could have been. If this freedom is removed from any class, democracy has failed. the culprit is capitalism.
You have it exactly backwards. It is government, in ALL its forms, including democracy, that corrupts capitalism and the market. Government is a tool maybe wielded by wealthy elitists, but who really can blame them? It's there for the taking. The problem is that it's there for them to take in the first place. Wars are enacted and fought through governments, and they are the ones to blame for economic disasters through their tampering.
The primary way that the upper class "hoards resources" is THROUGH law.
this is what the system is suppose to do. this is not what it does. the system now rewards those that were rewarded before (inheritence) or those able to exploit the system to their own gain. thats not working hard (not even working creativly) thats fraud. the majority of wealth also goes to those whose "quality of work" can time and time again be debated as being of good quality. those persuing wealth by personal and moral means have an imposible goal to reach because of the exploiters.
capitalism is not about rewards. That's an offshoot of its true job, what it does best, which is allocate limited resources to endless possible uses, according to the values of consumers. "quality of work", or profit, is not decided by "someone" in particular, but by ultimately the buying decisions of the mass of consumers.
Bill Gates has a government-sanctioned monopoly. Current patent and copyright law allows this.
We ARE born equal. we are just born different. our differences put us at advantages for different tasks. all equall in necessity. if there is a task needed to be acomplished, someone has to do, and someone is better than someone else to do that job. the worth of that task should be equal to any other task NEEDED by society as a whole. one job is not more important than another. the responibility and risk may be different, but the importance is the same. equal... the resources to survive to accomplish these tasks should be provided. risk and responsibility should be rewarded (within reason, also not done currently)
You are totally ignoring supply. I had this exact same conversation with Stzzb back in the day. It's not that any job isn't important, if it weren't, the job wouldn't exist. The number of people who can work a drive-thru window drastically outnumbers the number of people who can do neuro surgery. So once again, the profit/loss signal rations relatively scarce abilities. The doctor's ability is bid UP over the fast food worker's because more consumers DESIRE it, it is valued more by them, and so s/he provides it.
resources are not scarce anymore.
Resources are scarce. Time and labor are still scarce for one thing. You must still have a way of allocating your wood, your steel, your gold, your time, your work, your land, etc etc.
and now it is showing signs of failure.
Only because it has been corrupted to such an extent by government policies. They destroy the money. They horribly distory market signals. They keep people unemployed.
The collapse of the US would be a definitive sign of an error in the system.
You can hardly call the US a very capitalist state anymore. If it collapses it will be for the same reasons that communism collapsed, and the western european socialist states will collapse, and thats from waste and resource misallocation due to distorted market signals and destroyed money (or virtually NO market signals and NO money, as in the case of communism.) It's just taking longer.
Cya
Sol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Capitalism Needs Tweeking
|
|
|
| |
democracy promises this. which is comendable. Capitalism, in its current exploitation of democratic freedoms, has made it posible for those in the upperclass to remove this freedom for the lower class by hoarding resources(money, food, knowledge, land, democratic representation) that they do not need for their own benefit. most of which ends up being wasted BECAUSE they don't need it. once its waste, its not usefull to anyone and it never was. but it could have been. If this freedom is removed from any class, democracy has failed. the culprit is capitalism.
>You have it exactly backwards.
No, he has it correctly. You have it backwards.
>It is government, in ALL its forms, including democracy, that corrupts capitalism and the market.
Democracies may be doomed to fail at some point if the elite get control over them at the expense of the people, but isn't this true for all forms of government. The democracy built by the Founding Fathers of this nation have allowed the great accumulation of wealth in history. The good news is we all have done SOMETHING right. The bad news is we need to fine tune the machine and the machine is capitalism AND democracy.
>Government is a tool maybe wielded by wealthy elitists, but who really can blame them? It's there for the taking.
That's a mercenary and elitist attitude. It even sounds like you condone it.
>The problem is that it's there for them to take in the first place.
Well, if by this you mean that democracy has a few too many loop holes in it, I can agree with you. But, as I said above, the democracy the Framers cobbled together has done SOMETHING right. What needs to happen now is that the People need to rise up and demand that it be adjusted to act for them -- not the corporations or some elite.
>Wars are enacted and fought through governments, and they are the ones to blame for economic disasters through their tampering.
Wars are caused by individuals and banks that make fiat money possible. This current war in Iraq, for instance, is being paid for by fiat currency. The fiat money is created by the central bank, which in the US is called the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System needs to be abolished. If citizens had to pay for wars out of taxes, this would be a peaceful world indeed. Thus the enemies of humanity are the people and interests that advocate fiat money and fractional reserve systems that allow the endless monetizing of debt.
>The primary way that the upper class "hoards resources" is THROUGH law.
Well if you want to consider the Federal Reserve Act a law that was enacted to screw the people, I agree.
>capitalism is not about rewards. That's an offshoot of its true job, what it does best, which is allocate limited resources to endless possible uses, according to the values of consumers. "quality of work", or profit, is not decided by "someone" in particular, but by ultimately the buying decisions of the mass of consumers.
That's the theory. But when you have corporate charters saying that "the purpose of this corporation is to build widgets and engage in any other lawful business" -- that's too general. The capitalism we have needs to be tweeked so that it doesn't run roughshod over democracy.
>Bill Gates has a government-sanctioned monopoly. Current patent and copyright law allows this.
Well the owners of the private Federal Reserve have a government-sanctioned monopoly too.
>You are totally ignoring supply. I had this exact same conversation with Stzzb back in the day. It's not that any job isn't important, if it weren't, the job wouldn't exist. The number of people who can work a drive-thru window drastically outnumbers the number of people who can do neuro surgery.
Well I would think, per your view of capitalism, the "free" market would eventually produce as many neurosurgeons as hamburger flippers.
>So once again, the profit/loss signal rations relatively scarce abilities. The doctor's ability is bid UP over the fast food worker's because more consumers DESIRE it, it is valued more by them, and so s/he provides it.
So you're saying more people desire to have their inter-orbital tumer removed than have a cheeseburger and that's why brain surgery is more expensive than eating burgers?
>Resources are scarce.
Depends on what scale you're looking at. Country scale, Earth scale, Solar System scale, Galaxy scale, Universe scale.
>Time and labor are still scarce for one thing.
Last time I looked there were quite a few unemployed people out there. So how can labor be "scarce"?
>You must still have a way of allocating your wood, your steel, your gold, your time, your work, your land, etc etc.
Oh, and I suppose money is the best system human kind will ever come up with. How unimaginative.
>Only because it has been corrupted to such an extent by government policies. They destroy the money. They horribly distory market signals. They keep people unemployed.
If anything, capitalism has been distorted by the banking system as this is the system that has generated over 6 trillion in debt and the worst balance of trade deficit we have ever had. Why don't you address that?
>>The collapse of the US would be a definitive sign of an error in the system.
Some say the GOAL is to collapse the US system, so that a high-tech feudal totalitarianism can be put in its place. See http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html for details.
>You can hardly call the US a very capitalist state anymore. If it collapses it will be for the same reasons that communism collapsed,
No it won't.
>and the western european socialist states will collapse, and thats from waste and resource misallocation due to distorted market signals and destroyed money (or virtually NO market signals and NO money, as in the case of communism.) It's just taking longer.
Hey, get a cogent worldview Solomon.
James Jaeger
>Cya
>Sol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Capitalism Needs Tweeking
|
|
|
| |
Hey
Democracies may be doomed to fail at some point if the elite get control over them at the expense of the people, but isn't this true for all forms of government. The democracy built by the Founding Fathers of this nation have allowed the great accumulation of wealth in history. The good news is we all have done SOMETHING right. The bad news is we need to fine tune the machine and the machine is capitalism AND democracy.
Democracies will always fail too because they always lead to an unsustainable amount of socialism and bad government policies like central banks. The wrong people will ALWAYS rise to the top in political systems because the slimiest, worst people win elections and always will. The success of the US is a testament to the market system, but much much more wealth would have been created if there wasn't a monstrous leech sucking away the resources and distorting the market and destroying the money.
That's a mercenary and elitist attitude. It even sounds like you condone it.
No I don't but there's no sense in keeping your head in the sand. It's reality. People will naturally use tools that are available to them to make themselves wealthier or advance their particular cause. Government is a weapon, being wielded either by masses of workers trying to destroy the economy to get free stuff, or the elite rich trying to do the exact same thing. Everyone's trying to steal using the government.
What needs to happen now is that the People need to rise up and demand that it be adjusted to act for them -- not the corporations or some elite.
What needs to happen now is that people need to realize the socialist policies they want will hurt them in the end and that they barely need government, if at all, in order to be prosperous.
Wars are caused by individuals and banks that make fiat money possible.
Yes but wars are fought THROUGH government. they are the tool of aggression just as they are in their own land. All they do pretty much is steal and kill. The government sells no product or service. THEY set the price and THEY enforce payment for services rendered whether you want them or whether they serve you at all period.
Well if you want to consider the Federal Reserve Act a law that was enacted to screw the people, I agree.
Through that law and many others.
Well I would think, per your view of capitalism, the "free" market would eventually produce as many neurosurgeons as hamburger flippers.
Well the incentive is there but it's still too much work and too much talent needed to do it. There will never be as many neurosurgeons as hamburger flippers. The skills required for neurosurgery will nearly always be far more rare and harder to acquire than the skills of a hamburger flipper. However, if it DID become easier to be a neurosurgeon, the pay between the two would go closer together. (the pay for the neurosurgeon would go down.)
So you're saying more people desire to have their inter-orbital tumer removed than have a cheeseburger and that's why brain surgery is more expensive than eating burgers?
James, I'll say it again. you are only looking at demand. The price is formed by demand AND supply. It's not burgers-as-a-whole vs. neurosurgery-as-a-whole. Its supply and availablility that matter. A lot of people want to eat a cheeseburger, but it's easy to make and eat a cheeseburger. Many people need brain surgery but the skills to do this are much more rare than hamburger meat. So there are more people bidding on this resource, just like on ebay, driving the price up, while competition between neurosurgeons drives the price down until the market finds the right 'clearing' price. Same thing happens with the cheeseburger but there's a lot more of it so it's value-per-unit in relation to other things goes down. Supply.
Last time I looked there were quite a few unemployed people out there. So how can labor be "scarce"?
Because most people are holding out for jobs James. Most of the unemployed people I know either A) don't want to work at all (which is most of them) or B) are waiting to find a job that they "like". It's not that there just aren't any jobs(which actually is not true because due to minimum wage laws, the government really DOES slash the number of jobs available.)
Oh, and I suppose money is the best system human kind will ever come up with. How unimaginative.
Not ever. But for now and a long time in the future I think. The money price conveys so much information about supply and consumer valuations that getting at that information in another way doesn't seem possible to me.
If anything, capitalism has been distorted by the banking system as this is the system that has generated over 6 trillion in debt and the worst balance of trade deficit we have ever had. Why don't you address that?
I have addressed it James. Many times. That's the proof that you really don't pay attention to anything anyone says to you. I've reminded you on many occasions that I'm with you on the whole Fed issue completely, but you always forget, because you don't pay attention to what I or anyone else says at all. You just want a platform for yourself.
Hey, get a cogent worldview Solomon.
What are you talking about?
Cya
sol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Capitalism Needs Tweeking
|
|
|
| |
>Democracies will always fail too because they always lead to an unsustainable amount of socialism and bad government policies like central banks. The wrong people will ALWAYS rise to the top in political systems because the slimiest, worst people win elections and always will. The success of the US is a testament to the market system, but much much more wealth would have been created if there wasn't a monstrous leech sucking away the resources and distorting the market and destroying the money.
I think I agree with this fully.
>>That's a mercenary and elitist attitude. It even sounds like you condone it.
>No I don't but there's no sense in keeping your head in the sand. It's reality. People will naturally use tools that are available to them to make themselves wealthier or advance their particular cause. Government is a weapon, being wielded either by masses of workers trying to destroy the economy to get free stuff, or the elite rich trying to do the exact same thing. Everyone's trying to steal using the government.
True.
>What needs to happen now is that people need to realize the socialist policies they want will hurt them in the end and that they barely need government, if at all, in order to be prosperous.
You may be correct on this. Perhaps friendly AI will supply the management (government) of the future.
>>Wars are caused by individuals and banks that make fiat money possible.
>Yes but wars are fought THROUGH government. they are the tool of aggression just as they are in their own land. All they do pretty much is steal and kill. The government sells no product or service. THEY set the price and THEY enforce payment for services rendered whether you want them or whether they serve you at all period.
I agree.
>>Well if you want to consider the Federal Reserve Act a law that was enacted to screw the people, I agree.
>Through that law and many others.
Right.
>>Well I would think, per your view of capitalism, the "free" market would eventually produce as many neurosurgeons as hamburger flippers.
>Well the incentive is there but it's still too much work and too much talent needed to do it. There will never be as many neurosurgeons as hamburger flippers. The skills required for neurosurgery will nearly always be far more rare and harder to acquire than the skills of a hamburger flipper. However, if it DID become easier to be a neurosurgeon, the pay between the two would go closer together. (the pay for the neurosurgeon would go down.)
I see what you are saying.
>>So you're saying more people desire to have their inter-orbital tumor removed than have a cheeseburger and that's why brain surgery is more expensive than eating burgers?
>James, I'll say it again. you are only looking at demand. The price is formed by demand AND supply. It's not burgers-as-a-whole vs. neurosurgery-as-a-whole. Its supply and availability that matter. A lot of people want to eat a cheeseburger, but it's easy to make and eat a cheeseburger. Many people need brain surgery but the skills to do this are much more rare than hamburger meat. So there are more people bidding on this resource, just like on ebay, driving the price up, while competition between neurosurgeons drives the price down until the market finds the right 'clearing' price. Same thing happens with the cheeseburger but there's a lot more of it so it's value-per-unit in relation to other things goes down. Supply.
You're right. I was just giving you a hard time. :)
>>Last time I looked there were quite a few unemployed people out there. So how can labor be "scarce"?
>Because most people are holding out for jobs James. Most of the unemployed people I know either A) don't want to work at all (which is most of them) or B) are waiting to find a job that they "like". It's not that there just aren't any jobs(which actually is not true because due to minimum wage laws, the government really DOES slash the number of jobs available.)
If all the unemployed people in the world took jobs (no matter what the pay) to make the future of the world better, the work load of the entire civilization would eventually go down. Of course this is my idealism showing.
>>Oh, and I suppose money is the best system human kind will ever come up with. How unimaginative.
>Not ever. But for now and a long time in the future I think.
I don't know, the money system could be completely gone with the Singularity or even before.
>The money price conveys so much information about supply and consumer valuations that getting at that information in another way doesn't seem possible to me.
I agree a money price -- such as a price hammered out by a willing and able seller and buyer conveys much accurate information -- can reflect a good solid stat, but recently, authoritative voices have been raised that say this is not the case in the so-called "free market."(1) That the money stats we have all come to rely on, are in fact not reliable at all. For instance, how reliable is the stock price stat when there is insider trading going on, or when off-balance sheet liabilities increase the stock value artificially? What value is the GDP stat as an indicator of national well-being when this stat rises everytime there is a disaster, because people earn additional money in disasters? I feel, MONEY, used as the sole primary STAT is a mistake. MONEY is only one TYPE of stat. By the time the MONEY stat has taken shape, it's usually too late to provide corrective management. Thus, we need to look elsewhere for valid stats in order to steer the government, the nation and the companies of the nation.
>>If anything, capitalism has been distorted by the banking system as this is the system that has generated over 6 trillion in debt and the worst balance of trade deficit we have ever had. Why don't you address that?
>I have addressed it James. Many times.
Okay, but not in this post.
>That's the proof that you really don't pay attention to anything anyone says to you.
Solomon, I make thousands of posts on the web, not only at the MIND-X, but many other fora. I'm sorry but I can't remember the particulars of every single person I respond to. I can only respond to what is in their CURRENT post, as such is relevant to the subject.
>I've reminded you on many occasions that I'm with you on the whole Fed issue completely, but you always forget, because you don't pay attention to what I or anyone else says at all. You just want a platform for yourself.
No, I pay great attention to what is said in each post. Many people just plaster their response in a monolithic blurb. I take the time to split text and utter upon almost every thought in a person's post. You can't say that someone who does this isn't paying attention to intra-post detail. Now that you mention it, I DO remember that you and I basically agree on the Fed. But you are in the minority, as most people I interact with are ignorant of what's happening with the Fed and so I assume that the subject needs repeating. I'm not trying to platform myself, I'm just trying to make sure the important points are made each time the subject comes up. You have to remember, there may be people reading our current posts that have no idea of the volumes we have posted together in the past. So I feel it's a convenience to them to reiterate background points that are vital.
>>Hey, get a cogent worldview Solomon.
>What are you talking about?
I guess that was rude. You DO seem pretty together on this subject Solomon.
James
>Cya
>sol
--------------------
(1) See William Greider's book, THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
David,
I think you've put things pretty much they way I see them except for a couple of additional considerations: first, we give people additional pay for taking responsibility. Most people don't want responsiblity for others and the posessions of others and must be induced to take it on. Second, large projects require equally large organizations to take them on. If all we expect from society is little people doing little things in small organizations, you can forget about taking to the skies and exploring the universe. Non-hierarchical organizations are now being experimented with (especially in the computer industry) but so far they haven't been especially successful. I see it as a trend we are moving toward but are not ready to adopt yet.
Modern technology allows people to organize and contribute to the production of goods and services while living a world away from each other. Plants and neighbrhoods are now created ad hoc on the internet and over the telephone in the form of people in pursuit of the same objectives rather than living in close proximity with each other. This is changing how organizations work and how work gets done.
On another note, the only basis for determining the value of money is labor and manpower. Money is just a way of harnessing a person's time, skill and willingness to work. The real medium of exchange is the time and skill available to get a job done. Money and resources flow to places that offer the best deal based on the cost of labor. That's why China and India are moving up in the world and China may soon become the richest country in the world.
Money flows to cheap labor like air flows into a vacuum. But as Taiwan, Korea and Japan have demonstrated, there is an equalization process much like there is in physics that soon begins to make wages higher in countries where competition for skilled workers drives the price up. Thus, America, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan are all exporting jobs to get cheaper goods. China and India are importing those jobs and exporting goods and services. As soon as other poor countries start producing educated and skilled citizens, the same process will happen around the world. At some point, the pressure of money will equalize the cost of labor and the benefits derived from mass production everywhere. It's not going to happen over night, but I was amazed at how quickly China is becoming a technically advanced nation by adopting capitalism and the changes it is causing in the social structure there.
That is a prime example of how capital and capitalism can bring relative equality to large numbers of people in a short amount of time. Except for North Korea, the entire Far East has benefitted from it. Just read back a few decades to see the condition those countries were in after WWII and compare the way people lived then with the way they live now. You will find very few of them longing to return to the "good-old-days." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
first, we give people additional pay for taking responsibility. Most people don't want responsiblity for others and the posessions of others and must be induced to take it on.
Yes. That is part of what was meant by "...most will work, some will work hard, a few will work VERY hard, and a handful will work obsessively. That system rewards for the amount of work done as well as where (a field valued by many or few)...", which probably should have read "...such as a field valued...". Field of work (computer programmer, grocery stocker, construction worker, teacher, lawyer, trash collector, etc.) and position within a field (laborer, supervisor, manager, administrator, executive, etc.) matter just as does one's expertise within one's position (not to mention bargaining ability, local biases [race, gender, etc.], and the like) and clientel & customer demographics. There are, of course, other factors, too - I didn't mean to imply that the ONLY issue is one's field.
Second, large projects require equally large organizations to take them on. If all we expect from society is little people doing little things in small organizations, you can forget about taking to the skies and exploring the universe.
No argument from me on that.
Non-hierarchical organizations are now being experimented with (especially in the computer industry) but so far they haven't been especially successful. I see it as a trend we are moving toward but are not ready to adopt yet.
Well, they are very successful within certain areas, and their lack of success in others may have more to do with the biases of corporate law than with the actual models themselves. Par-Econ systems, for example, have proven very successful in certain areas. Par-Econ (short for "participatory economics") erroneously touts itself as an alternative to capitalism while in reality it's an alternative to the corporate structure. It is similar to a co-op, but inlcudes concepts like self-management and no specific divisions of labor (or, more accurately, shared labor responsibilites). Co-ops are another successful system, most notably in small publishing groups and small health food stores.
Everything else you mention is dead-on. About half of my work is local/regional (teaching, performing, etc.) while the other half is non-local via the telephone & internet (writing, teaching, composing for games & other biz), and I obviously agree with the analogy between money and air.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Tough-Love Remedies
|
|
|
| |
>this is the issue that must be resolved. the bias of corporate law. it is what allows the exploitation of the system to occur and will be the point of failure when the entire system crashes.
Corporate law is indeed what needs to be modified in order to modify capitalism such that it doesn't run roughshod over democracy.
An example: Corporate charters allow incorporators to state to the effect that the purpose of the corporation is for "XYZ to make widgets and any other lawful business as it may see fit." This is way too general and allows a corporation to wander all over the map creating unnecessary products, wasting resources and getting into business it has no business being in. We allow these corporate pigs to wander the landscape pissing here and pissing there with little or no responsibility to society. I say slaughter the pigs and let's eat some meat tonight.
>the reality of modern capitalism cannot be maintained in a democratic environment. removal of the corporate bias will bring economics back to an even playing field. this is a simple change of mind state of the population involved. changing the entire population's mind is the hard part. is it impossible?
You can't change the entire population's mind and you can't change the government's mind and you certainly can't change the corporate pigs' minds. Thus the entrance point for change is the following places:
1. Making the working class who fund the pension funds more aware that they are sitting in a drivers seat behind a VERY powerful machine yet they are not steering the machine where it should go. Workers need to demand that the trustees who manage their funds, which are trillions of dollars, only invest THEIR money in certain pre-approved, socially responsible corporations, corporations that are, at the very least worker- and environmentally-friendly.
2. The narrowly defined group that dominates Hollywood, hence the media, must be by-passed so that word can get out on such issues as how the worker's pension funds should be invested. As a part of this, the networks must not be allowed to set the rules for the presidential debates. Popular third party candidates must be allowed to debate and compete openly with the Democrats and Republicans.
3. The Federal Reserve System must be abolished and replaced with a silver-backed monetary system that is simple and bullet-proof, yet allows all the conveniences of electronic banking, etc. The scum that currently run and perpetuate the Federal Reserve Bank are no different than the scum that ran Enron. They need to be arrested, brought to trial, audited and locked up in prison as soon as possible. Just like Saddam Hussein's crimes are expected to be brought to public light when he is on trial, the bankers that run and own the Federal Reserve will have much worse crimes when a light is placed on them, for these are the people that have financed such criminals AS Saddam Hussein, thus making their crimes possible.
4. The vested interests that are making us reliant on fossil fuels and inefficient cars (i.e., the oil companies and their partners in crime, the auto manufacturers) need to be immediately boycotted and forced out of business unless they make a binding agreement with the government that they will segue the energy base into renewable sources and plasma fusion within 10 years and not a second longer. Money from worker pension funds, discussed above, should be withheld from any and all companies that fail to meet the ten year dead line or that look like they are playing games.
5. The United States should stop fighting and funding other people that want war. War is the ultimate waste of human and natural resources and no longer serves a purpose in the world. The war in Iraq is totally bogus and is costing the US its highest debt and inflation ever. The purpose of this war was simply to blow off the obsolete arsenal so that the military-industrial complex can extort yet more money from the congress to replenish the arsenal. The Federal Reserve is in on the scam as are the oil interests who will attempt to sell the last remaining fossil fuel to power the new arsenal. Along these lines the US must stop giving any further financial aid to Israel and Arab countries. We must stop buying oil from Arab nations and we must not take sides in the conflicts in the Middle East. Either the US should withdraw from the ME completely and let them all kill themselves if they are so inclined, or we should immediately place the entire region under martial law and remove all their weapons so they can no longer fight each other. This would include taking over Saudi Arabia as well as Israel and Palestine. It’s no different than taking sticks away from little immature boys who are fighting endlessly in the back yard.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Grant, you feel giving the CEO 512 times the pay of the average employee in the company is enough for the additional responsibility, or should it be more?
James, a company competing for the services of a CEO is based on the same principles as competing to buy a share of stock. The price you pay will depend on what the market has driven the price to. There are only so many people available with the skill, experience and reputation to run a large corporation and a company seeking a new CEO will have to bid for his/her services. That's why American and European and Japanese corporations are building factories in China. The Chinese can offer labor at a cheaper price than has to be paid in more advanced countries. It works the same way on the other end of the scale. If there are few people with the skill and experience to do the job, the cost of that person's labor will be higher. If there are lots of people of capable of doing the job, the cost will be less. Complaining because the market has driven the price up is a waste of time. As the recent stock market crash illustrates, when the cost becomes too high, the bubble will eventually burst and, as happened in the computer and IT industry, those who were once CEOs will be reduced to driving taxis. What do you think Ken Lay is worth on the open market these days? Just as in the military, generals get paid more than privates and officers get more than enlisten men. If you want the best you have to bid high enough to get them. Unlike the military, there is no government setting the top and bottom of the scale. You bet your money and you take your chances. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. That's how a free market works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
What went around is coming around
|
|
|
| |
GROWING CONCERNS
By David E. Gumpert
U.S. Programmers at Overseas Salaries
Rather than send IT work to India, a Boston startup sought locals at the same money. The result: plenty of applicants -- and a lot of questions
It's the great unanswered business-economic question of our day: How do we replace the hundreds of thousands of information-technology, call-center, paralegal, and other jobs rapidly exiting the U.S. for India, Russia, and other low-wage countries? The main answer that the so-called experts put forth, without a lot of conviction, is that we'll create new "high-value" jobs to replace those leaving the U.S. What are those jobs? No one seems to know.
In the meantime, the matter of overseas subcontracting appears to have become open-and-shut. If you're an executive with half a brain, you can come to only one conclusion when tallying the differences in costs between hiring computer programmers in the U.S., vs. India or Russia. These days, the jobs are going to Indians and Russians.
OFFSHORE BARGAINS. But what if there was another way to skin this particular cat. That's what Jon Carson wondered a few months back, when confronted with the need to complete a major programming project in a hurry, and at the lowest possible cost. Jon is a serial entrepreneur whose latest venture, cMarket, helps nonprofit organizations increase their revenues by putting fund-raising auctions online. I have known Jon for years, and -- full disclosure -- have invested in several of his ventures. I only learned about his computer-programming dilemma after the fact, though.
cMarket had been pursued, as many business owners are these days, by an intermediary who promised he could cut cMarket's programming costs significantly by outsourcing his needs to India. So last spring, when cMarket signed an agreement with the national Parent Teachers Assn. (PTA) to handle online auctions for its 20,000-plus local chapters and, simultaneously, began taking on charity auctions from Boston to Miami, Jon knew he had to rapidly expand cMarket's capabilities. He had his IT director call the intermediary and tell him that cMarket needed four programmers, pronto. Jon knew the numbers for experienced American programmers doing the specialty work he required: $80,000 a year, with benefits adding an additional $5,000 to $10,000 per programmer. The intermediary came back with the number for the services from India: $40,000 per programmer.
It seemed like a cut-and-dried decision, the kind U.S. executives are making every day without hesitating, but for some reason Jon hesitated. Much as he likes the idea of having projects completed at the lowest possible cost, and as responsible as he feels to investors, he didn't like the feeling of becoming someone who callously pushes jobs to other countries. "I'm in the entrepreneurial economy," where competition around both costs and revenues is very intense, he says. "But I was personally very uncomfortable. This situation brought me face-to-face with how easy global disintermediation is being made for folks, to the point where it is almost inevitable."
TOUGH CALL. As he thought more about his decision, Jon realized he had a valid business reason to hesitate: As the head of a startup that had been going for less than a year, he wasn't at all certain he should take the risk of having essential work done at a far-off location by people he didn't know, and with whom he could communicate only via e-mail and phone. Still, there was that matter of nearly $200,000 in annual savings. Each time he hesitated about making his decision, various confidantes reminded him about the big money at stake.
And then Jon had a brainstorm. What if he offered Americans the jobs at the same rate he would be paying for Indian programmers? It seemed like a long shot. But it also seemed worth the gamble. So Jon placed some ads in The Boston Globe, offering full-time contract programming work for $45,000 annually. (He had decided that it was worth adding a $5,000 premium to what he'd pay the Indian workers in exchange for having the programmers on site.)
The result? "We got flooded" with resumes, about 90 in total, many from highly qualified programmers having trouble finding work in the down economy, Jon says. His decision: "For $5,000 it was no contest." Jon went American. And the outcome? "I think I got the best of both worlds. I got local people who came in for 10% more (than Indians). And I found really good ones."
HERE AND NOW. In the interim, Jon has promoted two of the programmers to full-time employees, at standard American programming salaries, rather than risk losing them to the marketplace. And he is convinced that having people working onsite gives him control over quality and timing that he wouldn't have enjoyed if he had subcontracted overseas.
While cMarket has solved its immediate challenge, the implications of Jon's approach are potentially mind-bending. What if other companies begin taking the same approach -- offering Indian-style wages to American workers? On the positive site, we could begin to solve our job-creation problems. But on the negative side, America's standard of living would inevitably decline. There's only one way to find out for sure how it all might shake out, and that is for other executives to replicate Jon's experiment. The results could be quite interesting.
David E. Gumpert is the author of Burn Your Business Plan: What Investors Really Want from Entrepreneurs and How to Really Start Your Own Business. Readers can e-mail him at david@davidgumpert.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>>Grant, you feel giving the CEO 512 times the pay of the average employee in the company is enough for the additional responsibility, or should it be more?
>James, a company competing for the services of a CEO is based on the same principles as competing to buy a share of stock. The price you pay will depend on what the market has driven the price to. There are only so many people available with the skill, experience and reputation to run a large corporation and a company seeking a new CEO will have to bid for his/her services. That's why American and European and Japanese corporations are building factories in China. The Chinese can offer labor at a cheaper price than has to be paid in more advanced countries. It works the same way on the other end of the scale. If there are few people with the skill and experience to do the job, the cost of that person's labor will be higher. If there are lots of people of capable of doing the job, the cost will be less. Complaining because the market has driven the price up is a waste of time. As the recent stock market crash illustrates, when the cost becomes too high, the bubble will eventually burst and, as happened in the computer and IT industry, those who were once CEOs will be reduced to driving taxis. What do you think Ken Lay is worth on the open market these days? Just as in the military, generals get paid more than privates and officers get more than enlisten men. If you want the best you have to bid high enough to get them. Unlike the military, there is no government setting the top and bottom of the scale. You bet your money and you take your chances. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. That's how a free market works.
You know Grant, I'll bet anything you're on medication. Your responses to alarming issues are like elevator music.
In your deus ex machina approach to economics (i.e., the markets will take care of everything in the end), I don’t hear you mention ANYTHING about the fact that the CEOs are usually on the compensation committees or the board members are usually all buddies of the CEO and everyone is in the old boys club so they wouldn’t want to step on anyone’s toes over a small thing like compensation 512 times the base pay of the lowest employee. Your approach boils down to: Let’s just let a bunch of innocent people suffer until the market crashes. Sheesh! Maybe YOU should move to China, I bet you would fit in nicely.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>James, this is an interesting thread you've started here,
Thanks.
> but it's premise is less than sound. To wit:
Okay.
>You explicitely added to this that if our society can't manage to deliver then it's built on sand, but that is simply not the case.
Okay, why?
>Our society (by that I'm referring to not just the democratic system, but to the capitalistic system. . .
Wait a minute. I am differentiating between the two. That's the entire point of my argument. There is 1) the interests/morals of capitalism and 2) the interests/moals of society.
> - both of which are employed by the majority of the land masses on the planet, not just the US where I live) promises the opportunity, not the actuality.
I don't know what you mean by "employed by"?
> US society specifically promises that each person is free to pursue happiness, not the guarantee that they'll catch it.
Right and I'm NOT arguing with this. Please re-read my first or second post on this and I think it will become clear.
>Not true. The system is built on the premise (a premise proved by history and observation) that most will work, some will work hard, a few will work VERY hard, and a handful will work obsessively. That system rewards for the amount of work done as well as where (a field valued by many or few) and how it is done (quality of work).
Right, that's what the musical-chairs assumption is and this is the essence of what I'm questioning here. The basis of what I call fraud. To set up a society where everyone is PROMISED the right to get to the top, but to tolerate a system, the capitalist system we have, which is incapable of DELIVERING on that promise is fraud. By declaring that not everyone will work, etc., you are trying to provide a justification for the fraud. Our system today is like saying to a bunch of little kids: “Now when the music stops, you all take a chair and the last one that sits down will be the asshole.” It is unethical to play this game with the kids unless you tell them that there are not enough chairs. Same with American capitalism: We tell people that anyone can have the_Ameican_Dream, anyone can make it to the top if only they are hard-working and persistent. Well if everyone IS hard-working and persistent, there ARE STILL NOT ENOUGH CHAIRS AT THE TOP because at the top everyone lives off of dividends/rent, interest and capital gains, and we have ALREADY established the FACT that the society would not be able to support everyone paying all their bills from dividends/rent, interest and capital gains -– therefore there are not enough chairs, therefore it’s fraud to represent society as ONE type of animal when it’s an entirely different type of animal –- a predatory animal where one class preys on the other class.
>The system was designed with this reality in mind, and it is also important to point out that the system of which we speak was actually not so much designed than one which evolved.
No the system was not designed by anyone. We evolved into the system. Democracy was designed to CONTROL capitalism and what’s happening is the reverse: CAPITALISM is controlling DEMOCRACY. Thus at thins time CAPITALISM is a machine that serves the dew and DEMOCRACY is a machine that is supposed to serve the many.
>>Further, Democracy does not work if it is being raped by predatory and fraudulent capitalism.
>Even with some "perfect" capitalism, democracy doesn't work by itself at all. As I've pointed out in the past, "democracy" is a just a fancy way to say "mob rule". The mob invariably votes under the sway of the "icing rule". That is, they think selfishly and in the short term (the latter being the real culprit, not the former) with their focus on immediate gratification rather than long-term consequences.
I am not denying that Democracy can all too easily degenerate into mob rule, or rule for the elite, I am simply arguing that CAPITALISM is the REASON Democracy doesn’t work. So let’s handle CAPITALISM first and then we can address DEMOCRACY. If you try to solve a problem ABOVE the level of the ACTUAL problem, you will NEVER be able to solve the problem.
>Constitutions and checks & balances are supposed to counter that harsh reality, but on a long enough time-line things still decay. But that's another topic.
Again, the REASON these checks and balances don’t work is because CAPITALISM is preventing them from working. The statistics that we use to monitor society’s “progress,” such as GDP, do not measure the actual progress of society. Therefore the actions of politicians are confused if not mis-directed and wasteful. In a government where all the actions and flows are a mish-mash, what you mean about so-called “checks and balances?” What checks and balances?! There are none. Especially when the DOLLAR is the unit of direction rather than the VOTE.
>>The majority of capital needs to be REDIRECTED to SMALL enterprises and TAKEN AWAY from LARGE CORPORATIONS.
>This does not follow logically from your points, though, James. Small vs. large is not the issue and it is not the outcome of the argument you've layed out above. Redirecting capital to a small corporation from a large corporation doesn't by itself change the rules by which corporations play (or the overwhelming body of law written in favor of the corporate model over other business models).
Maybe I jumped a thought. What I mean is this: The concept behind CAPITALISM is that capital (which is basically MONEY + LAND, PEOPLE and RESOURCES depending on whether you want to use the economist’s definition or the accountant’s definition of capital) is created by putting 3 beans in and getting 4 beans out of a system (i.e., a company, corporation or activity). The goal of capitalism is therefore MORE. Prudently managed, MORE capital becomes MORE easily available to larger corporations than it does to smaller enterprises. The larger corporations use the capital to then create even MORE: more products, more government favorites, more waste. As the corporations grow larger, they move off balance sheet as many of their costs as possible. This is in order to give their stockholder MORE stockholder value and their top executives MORE money. Off-balance sheet expenses are the things that the corporation does to society to damage that society. For instance dumping wastes into a stream, or avoiding taxes by using a Bermuda corporate headquarters, or by being “too big to fail.” All the expenses that can be NOT accounted for on the balance sheet give the corporation MORE borrowing power and MORE ability to raise yet MORE equity. So this cycle continues where the big corporations place themselves into a position to be MORE predatory at society’s expense.
In this case, BIG is not better, because BIG in a predatory and fraudulent system means that such corporations are usually BIGGER FRAUDS and BIGGER ANTAGONISTS to society.
>Yes i think this is the age old question of equal worth, arn't we all born equal? Why are some more privileged than others? Should'nt we all have equal access to resources?
Whether or not a question is age-old or not has nothing to do with the legitimacy of answering that question. Where did the Moon come from was an age-old question that was finally answered because a few people had the guts to push for the Apollo missions to the Moon. We need to have a few people now that are willing to push for the answers to the age-old question: Why, in an almost infinite Universe, after more than 300,000 years of trial and error, can’t Homo sapiens arrive at a point where s/he can live on a planet and have the marginal utility to experience permanent peace and unlimited expansion (material, mental and spiritual)?
We purport to be able to usher in the Singularity when we can’t even do something that is as relatively simple as answer this age-old question. People that sit around dreaming of the Singularity as if this were going to be a technical accomplishment more complicated than solving humankind’s age-old problems, yet they can’t solve the age-old problem, may have a screw loose in their priority evaluation systems.
>No, we are not all born equal. Some of us are stronger or smarter or weaker or dumber. Some of are more or less capable in certain areas (logically or kinesthecically) than in others (say, spacially or musically). We are only "born equal" in the sense that we each have one vote, basic human rights, and the opportunity to strive for our personal goals....and that's only true in certain countries.
I disagree. I believe that no one is stronger or weaker or better or smarter or dumber than anyone else: given they are not mentally defective. All humans are exactly the same. They are exactly the same because their DNA, the very computer code that has BUILT them is exactly the same for all practical purposes. I believe therefore that that the entire difference in people is a function of their educational environment, how they were raised, whether they were suppressed as a child, what type of tools and facilities they had available to them in their formative years. Yes, in the nature or nurture argument I have take a position: it’s nurture. All humans are equal: unless you modify their actual DNA with gene splicing – THEN and only then will NATURE enter into the picture.
>Some are more privileged than others because of the success of their parents or grandparents or whoever had their interests in mind.
Well that’s nurture.
>No, humans don't have a right to equal access to resources. That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth. That's why we still fight wars, and it's also why we learned to create markets for trade.
You are getting your causality screwed up. You said: ‘humans don't have a right to equal access to resources.’ Then you said: ‘That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth.’ That is a non-sequitor argument. Whether or not cavemen fight over something has no bearing on whether or not someone has a right. YOU as a being in this universe, have a right to have and experience anything and everything in this universe. Any agency that suppresses that right in any way, is suppressing that right, and has an equal right to suppress that right as well. What will BE, is the condition of existence that any two or more beings agree will BE. Thus, the reality we will have on this world is nothing more and nothing less than the reality we all agree to have. If you go into agreement with the idea that, “oh well there are just age-old questions that will never be answered because they are age-old and no one has answered them yet so I suppose no one will ever answer them,” if you agree with this, then this is the way it will be. And if everyone agrees with this then this is the way reality will solidify around us all.
>i recognise no socialistic government that has been able to achieve this is practice... no where near They won't, either, because socialism doesn't work.
I agree. But elements of it might be useful in some new system.
>The arbitrary redistribution of wealth assumes certain capitalistic truths, but is inconsistent with them. Socialism is the system which cannot ever deliver.
True. Socialism relies on bigger government to deliver MORE. To put it bluntly: Government does not give a shit about the People. Never has and never will, in any system. In a well-running Democracy, government IS the People, manifest as a TOOL for the benefit of the People. If the People give a shit about the People, then their TOOL will give a shit about them.
>But i agree that the ideal is for there to be equal access to resources. Whose ideal? Equal access to resources is not, and has never been, a democratic or a capitalistic ideal.
Well then maybe DEMOCRACY and CAPITALISM both need to be rejected. And in fact I HAVE rejected them both philosophically.
>Though some of what Karl Marx said has been tarnished in some way due to its relationship with communism, i do believe he was trying to do good and promote equality... though obviously it did not work in practice.
I’m sure he was. As I have said before, I believe that all people are basically good. I don’t believe that Karl Marx got up every morning and asked himself: “How can I fuck this planet today?” As unpopular as it may sound, I don’t even believe that Hitler got up every morning and asked himself this same question. People become “evil” because they loose touch with reality. They loose touch with what the rest of their fellow human beings are doing and thinking and desiring. They get corrupt because they find themselves in a situation where they made some bad decisions and they feel they can’t tell their fellows because their fellows won’t understand or forgive them. Thus punishment is the CAUSE of crime.
>It cannot work in practice and I've never understood why so many people say "communism looks good on paper" when it clearly does not (unless one thinks stifling liberty is a good thing). If Marx's idea was to create equality by reducing individual freedom (which is exactly what socialism and communism do and exactly what Marx thought should happen, no matter how he dressed it up), then I want no part of it.
Yes, if it doesn’t look on paper AND work in reality then it should be trashed or cannibalized for any good elements that MIGHT exist.
>>Although Capitalism has existed during only era known as the Renaissance (and other very short periods of time throughout history), Capitalism is dead forever. Even The Great Rome and Byzantine Empire succcumbed monetary corruption.
>Now that is the silliest thing I've heard all day.
Hey, I didn’t say that. But I DO believe it’s true if you insert the word, American, before the word capitalism. American Capitalism is an unworkable system: just like socialism and communism. The only unfortunate thing is it’s NOT dead forever.
>Succumbing to corruption is simply not the same as a system dying. Capitalism is not dead and if the US were to collapse tomorrow it wouldn't mean that capitalism doesn't work.
Right. It would mean that AMERICAN Capitalism didn’t work.
>Capitalism is thusfar the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this mantra. American Capitalism is:
A. Fraudulent
B. Predatory
Plus it simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of people – unless you feel that MORE money is all there is to life.
>Me thinks you confuse a great many issues (corruption, money, cash, capitalism, socialism).
Not at all.
>...lead to the death of Money as a concept. I for one see the true futuristic society as money-free. With Nanotech making production costs very inexpensive, we'll all be working for coupons so to speak while enjoying universal healthcare and teaching (all free)
I see no difference between "money" and "coupon" in this. Further, you ignore that these things are not and cannot be "free". You ignore costs for R&D, materials, labor, distribution, production facilities, and on and on, and you falsely equate "CHEAP" with "FREE". As I said in another post, that it is (suddenly) cheap to make many things does not make it free to make everything.
What if nanotech and a new economic system were devised such that NO ONE worked on a JOB, they only worked on their HOBBIES. Do you charge people for your hobbies? If you loved playing guitars and I loved riding bicycles and my hobby was making guitars and your hobby was making bicycles – would we charge each other for guitars and bicycles?
Maybe someday not.
James Jaeger
>--
>David M. McLean
>Skinny Devil Music Lab
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
First off, I should note that several items you responded to were items to which I was ALSO responding. I hope there is no confusion as to who said what.
[quote>>Our society (by that I'm referring to not just the democratic system, but to the capitalistic system. . .<<
Wait a minute. I am differentiating between the two. That's the entire point of my argument. There is 1) the interests/morals of capitalism and 2) the interests/moals of society. Quite right. But the US system is both democratic & capitalistic. Perhaps there is a problem when they become near indistinguishable, but that doesn't mean either of them is a failure. Further, I don't think they are in conflict - capitalism is very supportive of democracy (even if it is also potentially destructive).
Right, that's what the musical-chairs assumption is and this is the essence of what I'm questioning here. The basis of what I call fraud. To set up a society where everyone is PROMISED the right to get to the top, but to tolerate a system, the capitalist system we have, which is incapable of DELIVERING on that promise is fraud. By declaring that not everyone will work, etc., you are trying to provide a justification for the fraud. Not at all. I'm not providing justification for a fraud, I'm arguing that there IS no fraud. We HAVE told the world and the American public that there aren't enough chairs...but it's OK that there aren't enough because most people know they aren't willing to go after the big prize except by playing the lottery. They simply don't WANT to work as obsessively as Bill Gates.
That said, capitalism alone provides the mechanism by which wealth is created for everyone. Capitalsim alone (not democracy or any other form of government) has raised the bar so that onlt wealthy countries have fat people who are also poor. Poor people everywhere else just starve.
Democracy was designed to CONTROL capitalism and what’s happening is the reverse
I disagree. Democracy was invented (such as it was) to allow a modicum of self-rule for the first time in Western history (speaking purely from a Euro-centic perspective). Capitalism is the only current system consistent with self-rule AND the only system that allows one to gain so much from it (at least in terms of resources & wealth).
I am not denying that Democracy can all too easily degenerate into mob rule, or rule for the elite, I am simply arguing that CAPITALISM is the REASON Democracy doesn’t work. But this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm not so foolish or naive to think that corruption (often rooted in capitalistic potentials) doesn't hurt the democratic system, but I think it's less than valid to blame capitalism when it has allowed for so much good as well.
Maybe I jumped a thought. What I mean is this: (edit)... BIG is not better, because BIG in a predatory and fraudulent system means that such corporations are usually BIGGER FRAUDS and BIGGER ANTAGONISTS to society OK - I can go with that, so long as we agree that your statement reads better as "...USUALLY means that...", since there are examples of both large companies doing good things (like 3M, who started off with higher environmental standards than the government has ever managed to end up with) just as there are small companies who are hostile to their employees and often even their communities.
Why, in an almost infinite Universe, after more than 300,000 years of trial and error, can’t Homo sapiens arrive at a point where s/he can live on a planet and have the marginal utility to experience permanent peace and unlimited expansion (material, mental and spiritual)?
That, my friend, is an EXCELLENT question. The answer, I fear, is one that will not be solved for a long, long time.
We purport to be able to usher in the Singularity when we can’t even do something that is as relatively simple as answer this age-old question. People that sit around dreaming of the Singularity as if this were going to be a technical accomplishment more complicated than solving humankind’s age-old problems, yet they can’t solve the age-old problem, may have a screw loose in their priority evaluation systems. Hahahahaha!!!!!!! Beautifully put - but I suspect you may just piss people off making honest observations like that. At least I appreciate your honesty, though.
I disagree. I believe that no one is stronger or weaker or better or smarter or dumber than anyone else: given they are not mentally defective. All humans are exactly the same.{/quote]
You are clearly mistaken, then. It's not so clean-cut as "this human is mentally defective and this one isn't and so is equal to all others". What of very smart people who have bad (or not so bad, but not so perfect) eyesight, for example? What of severely handicapped folks vs only mildly handicapped? Where does one draw the line on IQs? 80, 85, 90, 100, 110, 120, 150? At what point is one demonstrating a "deficiency" problem?
Personally, I like Martin Gardner's book "Frames of Mind" which delineates 7 different kinds of intelligence. Clearly, some are "naturally" good at some things and not so good at others. Clearly, some people can spend 10 minutes learning basketball and being greeat at it while others can work the court for years and never get very good.
You are getting your causality screwed up. You said: ‘humans don't have a right to equal access to resources.’ Then you said: ‘That's why cavemen fought over women and water sources and fertile ground for game & growth.’ That is a non-sequitor argument. Whether or not cavemen fight over something has no bearing on whether or not someone has a right. Touche'.
But the idea of rights to anything are a human invention, James. Cavemen fought over resources long before they worried about whether they had some invented moral right to them. Yes, we're beyond cavemen - that's why we've invented both hostile and co-operative systems for sharing and securing resources...which is why I mentioned both war and markets (both of which can fluctuate between co-operative & hostile). With luck (and a lot of work) we'll invent even better systems in the very near future.
>>Capitalism is thusfar the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans.<<
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this mantra. American Capitalism is:
A. Fraudulent
B. Predatory
Plus it simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of people – unless you feel that MORE money is all there is to life. But capitalism HAS been good for people and will continue to be good for billions because it provides opportunity that simply doesn't exist with other systems. I agree that there is much more to life than cash, but without the means to live one has little time to worry about Guchi shoes or Rolex watches or a new Lamborgini or the new CD by Marylin Manson...much less the spiritual life mentioned in other posts of this thread.
What if nanotech and a new economic system were devised such that NO ONE worked on a JOB, they only worked on their HOBBIES. Do you charge people for your hobbies? If you loved playing guitars and I loved riding bicycles and my hobby was making guitars and your hobby was making bicycles – would we charge each other for guitars and bicycles?
Maybe someday not. Hey, bro, I'm all about the barter system. But saying "what if" concerning a new economic system does little to create that new system. So far, the best thing we have is capitalism, and it's best by a LONG shot. Democracy was once best by a long shot, but to me we've entered a time when MORE self-rule, rather than less (which we approach with the ongoing creeping socialism in the US), is better. Libertarian & even anarchic systems offer what old-school democracy can't.
As far as the problems with capitalism, which I readily admit exist: I'm not sure how to fix all that or even what might replace it. I just know that it has provided more resources and more freedom for more people than any other economic system the world has ever known.
Again, though, thanx for the thread, James. Great points being made by many and it's given me a lot to think about.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>First off, I should note that several items you responded to were items to which I was ALSO responding. I hope there is no confusion as to who said what.
No problem.
>Quite right. But the US system is both democratic & capitalistic. Perhaps there is a problem when they become near indistinguishable, but that doesn't mean either of them is a failure. Further, I don't think they are in conflict - capitalism is very supportive of democracy (even if it is also potentially destructive).
Capitalism CAN be very supportive of Democracy, but here's where I think we have gone off the rails:
1. Only about 50% of the electorate votes now.
2. Campaign finance contributions and lobbying by corporations have basically hijacked the government.
If the government mostly responds to corporations and not the citizens, do we still have democracy? Please read a new book out called THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM and this book will back up the question I have asked with an answer of "no."
Also read a new book out called PIGS AT THE TROUGH and this book will carefully document all the corporate lobbying and money that is paid to elected officials.
>Not at all. I'm not providing justification for a fraud, I'm arguing that there IS no fraud. We HAVE told the world and the American public that there aren't enough chairs...
That's not what I was told. I was told one can do anything if they have a dream and are persistent enought. I don't think that's a true statement, yet people like Ophra and Dr. Phil say it all the time.
>That said, capitalism alone provides the mechanism by which wealth is created for everyone.
Not everyone. 1% of the people own 40% of the assets and 10% own 80%. Americans work 500 hours longer each year than anyone in other developed nations and they are much more in debt. Most people have taken over 60% of the equity out of their houses often to pay down credit card debt. Bankruptsy has never been higher. Our balance of trade deficit is by far the highest it's ever been. We are in serious trouble.
>Capitalsim alone (not democracy or any other form of government) has raised the bar so that onlt wealthy countries have fat people who are also poor. Poor people everywhere else just starve.
Capitalism at one point was constructive. It is not more destructive than it is constructive. The real costs of capitalism do not show up on balance sheets. The GDP stat is not a measure of true growth because it takes into account such things as all the jobs and economic "growth" created by crime and destruction. Capitalism uses statistics that do not measure social values or progress.
>I disagree. Democracy was invented (such as it was) to allow a modicum of self-rule for the first time in Western history (speaking purely from a Euro-centic perspective). Capitalism is the only current system consistent with self-rule AND the only system that allows one to gain so much from it (at least in terms of resources & wealth).
Perhaps, but capitalism has run amok at this time and needs to be re-evaluated.
>>I am not denying that Democracy can all too easily degenerate into mob rule, or rule for the elite, I am simply arguing that CAPITALISM is the REASON Democracy doesn’t work.
>But this is exactly what I'm arguing against. I'm not so foolish or naive to think that corruption (often rooted in capitalistic potentials) doesn't hurt the democratic system, but I think it's less than valid to blame capitalism when it has allowed for so much good as well.
Sure hit has allowed for much good and much prosperity. But what I am trying to get you to look at is that was THEN this is NOW. CApitalism has taken a new twist, a twist that's not good for society and democracy.
>OK - I can go with that, so long as we agree that your statement reads better as "...USUALLY means that...", since there are examples of both large companies doing good things (like 3M, who started off with higher environmental standards than the government has ever managed to end up with) just as there are small companies who are hostile to their employees and often even their communities.
Yes, there are some good large companies.
>>Why, in an almost infinite Universe, after more than 300,000 years of trial and error, can’t Homo sapiens arrive at a point where s/he can live on a planet and have the marginal utility to experience permanent peace and unlimited expansion (material, mental and spiritual)?
>That, my friend, is an EXCELLENT question. The answer, I fear, is one that will not be solved for a long, long time.
Well if you put out the postulat that it won't get solved in a long time you may get that. THey thought the genome would take longer to codify and it took shorter time. Sometimes things happen more quickly, especially if everyone positive postulates things.
>>We purport to be able to usher in the Singularity when we can’t even do something that is as relatively simple as answer this age-old question. People that sit around dreaming of the Singularity as if this were going to be a technical accomplishment more complicated than solving humankind’s age-old problems, yet they can’t solve the age-old problem, may have a screw loose in their priority evaluation systems.
>Hahahahaha!!!!!!! Beautifully put - but I suspect you may just piss people off making honest observations like that. At least I appreciate your honesty, though.
Let them be pissed off.
>I disagree. I believe that no one is stronger or weaker or better or smarter or dumber than anyone else: given they are not mentally defective. All humans are exactly the same.
>You are clearly mistaken, then. It's not so clean-cut as "this human is mentally defective and this one isn't and so is equal to all others". What of very smart people who have bad (or not so bad, but not so perfect) eyesight, for example? What of severely handicapped folks vs only mildly handicapped? Where does one draw the line on IQs? 80, 85, 90, 100, 110, 120, 150? At what point is one demonstrating a "deficiency" problem?
IQ can be changed. No one's IQ is fixed. Plus there are many different kinds of intelligence. Everyone is a gifted as everyone else. Maybe I should modify my statement to mean that everyone is exactly the same in that they have at least one form of intelligence that just as good as anyone else and just as valid.
>Personally, I like Martin Gardner's book "Frames of Mind" which delineates 7 different kinds of intelligence. Clearly, some are "naturally" good at some things and not so good at others. Clearly, some people can spend 10 minutes learning basketball and being greeat at it while others can work the court for years and never get very good.
Yes, this is what I am referring to.
>But the idea of rights to anything are a human invention, James. Cavemen fought over resources long before they worried about whether they had some invented moral right to them. Yes, we're beyond cavemen - that's why we've invented both hostile and co-operative systems for sharing and securing resources...which is why I mentioned both war and markets (both of which can fluctuate between co-operative & hostile). With luck (and a lot of work) we'll invent even better systems in the very near future.
Hopefully.
>>>Capitalism is thusfar the most successful (and natural) system to be employed by humans.<<
>>Sorry, but I have to disagree with this mantra. American Capitalism is:
A. Fraudulent
B. Predatory
Plus it simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of people – unless you feel that MORE money is all there is to life.
>But capitalism HAS been good for people
Sure, but now the richest corporations are controlling the government and doing anti-social things. See SOUL OF CAPITALISM for details.
>and will continue to be good for billions because it provides opportunity that simply doesn't exist with other systems. I agree that there is much more to life than cash, but without the means to live one has little time to worry about Guchi shoes or Rolex watches or a new Lamborgini or the new CD by Marylin Manson...much less the spiritual life mentioned in other posts of this thread.
No one is saying that capitalism should be thrown out -- just modified or reformed.
>>What if nanotech and a new economic system were devised such that NO ONE worked on a JOB, they only worked on their HOBBIES. Do you charge people for your hobbies? If you loved playing guitars and I loved riding bicycles and my hobby was making guitars and your hobby was making bicycles – would we charge each other for guitars and bicycles? Maybe someday not.
>Hey, bro, I'm all about the barter system. But saying "what if" concerning a new economic system does little to create that new system. So far, the best thing we have is capitalism, and it's best by a LONG shot. Democracy was once best by a long shot, but to me we've entered a time when MORE self-rule, rather than less (which we approach with the ongoing creeping socialism in the US), is better. Libertarian & even anarchic systems offer what old-school democracy can't.
As far as the problems with capitalism, which I readily admit exist: I'm not sure how to fix all that or even what might replace it. I just know that it has provided more resources and more freedom for more people than any other economic system the world has ever known.
It has provided too much of good and bad things. The bad things it provides need to be pruned back. That's all that I'm saying.
>Again, though, thanx for the thread, James. Great points being made by many and it's given me a lot to think about.
You're welcome David. Take it easy.
James
>--
>David M. McLean
>Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Capitalism CAN be very supportive of Democracy, but here's where I think we have gone off the rails:
1. Only about 50% of the electorate votes now.
2. Campaign finance contributions and lobbying by corporations have basically hijacked the government. That I agree with completely...almost.
I don't so much mind campaign contributions, so long as there is transparency so that there can be accountability. What most people don't know is that the sudden swell of support for campaign finance reform among both parties is due primarily to the sudden, though moderate, success of third parties. From Ross Perot's bid for the presidency to the Libertarians gaining so many small offices to Ralph Nader's failed (but upsetting) run in the last presidential election, third parties have begun scaring the hell out of the duopoly (democrats & republicans). The finance reforms they are pushing thru will stop people like Gary Johnson (a Libertarian who ran as a Republican for governor of New Mexico and won, but had zero support from the Republican party until after he won the nomination by stomping on his opponents...which he paid for largely by himself), Ron Paul (TX), and every serious contender for any office who refuses to accept republican or democrat as their only two choices.
That said, if more people were interested even mildly in what their government was doing, it would be harder for special interest groups to buy legislation as easily as they have.
If the government mostly responds to corporations and not the citizens, do we still have democracy? Not a functional democracy - I absolutely agree. But to me that's less a condemnation of capitalism and more a condemnation of the integrity of elected officials. It also makes plain the obvious apathy of the American voter.
That's not what I was told. I was told one can do anything if they have a dream and are persistent enought. I don't think that's a true statement, yet people like Ophra and Dr. Phil say it all the time. True. But in civics class they told you how it all works. Theh reality of the system is that anyone CAN achieve success if they work hard enough (which means smart enough, too) simply because the reality is that most will not WANT to work that hard.
Not everyone. 1% of the people own 40% of the assets and 10% own 80%. Americans work 500 hours longer each year than anyone in other developed nations and they are much more in debt. Most people have taken over 60% of the equity out of their houses often to pay down credit card debt. Bankruptsy has never been higher. Our balance of trade deficit is by far the highest it's ever been. We are in serious trouble. But this does not mean that capitalism doesn't and hasn't provided for everyone, James. That a few own the most is no surprise AND it's no problem (in most cases). That so many of us are so deeply in debt is less an issue with how capitalism works and more an indication of the short-term thinking of most people (which applies to both individuals and most corporations). That this happened because credit was issued so freely may have been short-term thining by companies, but they will now pay a price for their folly, too (namely, they paid out billions they will never get back due to individual bankruptcy).
Capitalism at one point was constructive. It is not more destructive than it is constructive. The real costs of capitalism do not show up on balance sheets. The GDP stat is not a measure of true growth because it takes into account such things as all the jobs and economic "growth" created by crime and destruction. Capitalism uses statistics that do not measure social values or progress. I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, but have to comment on one point: that crime & destruction create jobs. They do not. They divert wealth-producing production and stifle the economy. What would happen if we killed all "victimless" crimes (like prostitution, drugs, etc.)? We'd empty half the prisons, which means a lot of guards & staff would be out of jobs. What happened if we removed the prescription drug requirement and made all drugs OTC? We'd have a lot of pharmacists out of work?
Most people would say that's bad, but only because they don't think the issues thru in the long-term.
No one is saying that capitalism should be thrown out -- just modified or reformed. AHHHHHHH...... this is the crux of it, then. You see, I thought you were saying capitalism should be thrown out.
In this case, we agree completely, despite our disagreements with certain details delineated above. More properly, I shold say I less think it's capitalism that needs reforming, but corporate law (so that non-corporate entities have a fair shake), tax law (so that everyone pays their fair share, not to mention we actually pay a FAIR share rather than 30-50% of our income), and anti-trust law. We also need more transparency at the interface between government and business...and a population who will care about the insights such transparency provides.
Well if you put out the postulat that it won't get solved in a long time you may get that. THey thought the genome would take longer to codify and it took shorter time. Sometimes things happen more quickly, especially if everyone positive postulates things. Good point. I should say that I fear that voter apathy and human greed will be hard to overcome. Those are the real roots of the problem, not any specific system. If humans were a bit less greedy (not to mention so willing to take by force what they cannot buy) and a little less apathetic (so they'd educate themselves and act accordingly), we might see some changes right here and right now.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
James,
The question you never seem to answer in your tilting with the system is "compared to what?" You don't like what we've got but what do you suggest we adopt instead? You blame what you don't like about the system on a few people gaming it for their own ends but I see what we've got as millions of people making billions of decisions based on what they perceive as their own best interests. Right now, most people see business, including big business, as the surest way to feather their own nests. They don't pay much attention to politics because there is very little return on such investment of their time and energy.
What business is doing is rapidly changing the world. What politics is doing is mostly getting in the way. They are ineffectual because they don't really see what's going on and they are always trying to fight the last war (in this case trade wars and battles over land and property) rather than anticipating the next one. The politicians try to solve short-term problems with solutions they'll have to live with for a long time. The rate of accelerating evolution in society is taking us places we've never been before and looking to the past for solutions will not get us there. Business is adapting to the new world while governments everywhere are trying desperately to hang on to the solutions of the past.
The business solution to this problem is to create their own governments using the power of technology and new ways of organizing people to achieve new goals. Those who cling to the past will be bypassed.
The visions of how things work programmed into us in grade school and high school are like the stories about Santa Clause. Most are myths based on ideals that don't really exist. They are, to put it bluntly, wishful thinking. The mantra "all men are created equal" is like saying all horses are created equal, so no horse it better or faster than another. That kind of thinking would have all horses worth the same amount of money. But that isn't how things work in real life. The fastest horse is worth millions to his/her owner and one that's not fast will merely be a burden to its owner and not give a return in the investment of land, feed, veteranary bills, etc. So it is with people and organizations of people. You invest time and money in them based on the expected return on your investment.
Politics today gives very little in return for that investment. Business, basically, gave us the world we live in today and the world we expect to live in tomorrow. So business is where people are investing in and politics is merely something they put up with and get involved with only when they feel like it doesn't work. (see, for example, Arnold taking over the government of California.)
A new way of governing can only evolve because of the extreme complexity involved. Making small changes can have huge consequences, many of which are unpredictable and unintended. Trying to control it is like trying to control the weather.
Basically, it's beyond our control and we either go with the flow or end up trying to stop a river with our bare hands. The kinds of changes you suggest are more likely to cause more harm than good if they are not implemented with care and understanding. Yet all you talk about is the goal you hope to achieve and leave out the methods by which we might achieve it. In the time available and the number of people who have to be involved in the process, I don't think it is achieveable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
...but I see what we've got as millions of people making billions of decisions based on what they perceive as their own best interests. Right now, most people see business, including big business, as the surest way to feather their own nests. They don't pay much attention to politics because there is very little return on such investment of their time and energy.
This is an excellent point, not to mention one I largely agree with, except for the danger of short-term thinking. You'll hear lots of people rail against gov or biz or both for their greed & short-sightedness, but they exhibit the same behavior when faced with daily decisions. For proof of this, and it's devastating consequences, take a look at national credit card debt or socialistic tendencies of both union & non-union manufacturing positions.
What business is doing is rapidly changing the world. What politics is doing is mostly getting in the way.
Now you're starting to sound like me, Grant (hahaha!!!). Note above my mention of both Libertarian & Anarchic systems (the latter a reference specifically to anarcho-capitalsim rather than anarcho-syndicalism). I said "...Democracy was once best by a long shot, but to me we've entered a time when MORE self-rule, rather than less, is better. Libertarian & even anarchic systems offer what old-school democracy can't..." and I also said pointed out:
1) That campiagn finance reform is a joke andn set up by those in power to keep them in power, and
2) That less government (by way of getting rid of useless laws that create or bloat industries, as is the case with the prescription drug system & the prison/justice system, for 2 examples) will help the economy from top to bottom in the long run.
The business solution to this problem is to create their own governments using the power of technology and new ways of organizing people to achieve new goals. Those who cling to the past will be bypassed.
This is fine and usually works well for small companies. The problem is when large companies (who often change policies as rapidly as a huge ship can turn around) can't react quickly to a changing environment, so attempt to buy legislation that supports them at the expense of others. The MPAA & RIAA are clear examples of this...of single entities (huge companies) reacting inappropriately to the winds created by millions of individuals making individual decisions.
Politics today gives very little in return for that investment. Business, basically, gave us the world we live in today and the world we expect to live in tomorrow.
Here is where we part company (pardon the pun). Biz is only part of what created the world we live in. Speaking from largely a US-centric perspective, guys like Locke & Jefferson and systems like democracy & capitalism are the foundations of those businesses. Without a free market of not only goods & services, but of ideas, and the right to personal ownership (of land, of the means of production, etc.) biz would have created (along with feudalism and other forms of oppressive top-down ruling structures) a completely different world.
Making small changes can have huge consequences, many of which are unpredictable and unintended. Trying to control it is like trying to control the weather.
Basically, it's beyond our control and we either go with the flow or end up trying to stop a river with our bare hands.
We part company again. Making reforms in government or biz is not about trying to control them. That sort of control is an illusion and typically employed by folks from both the right & the left who are afraid of what they perceive as chaos.
Making reforms in gov & biz is about strangling THEIR ability to control, whether they are trying to control markets or people. These reforms, oddly, usually involve removing laws, not creating new ones.
--
David M. McLean
Skinny Devil Music Lab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Politics today gives very little in return for that investment. Business, basically, gave us the world we live in today and the world we expect to live in tomorrow.
Here is where we part company (pardon the pun). Biz is only part of what created the world we live in. Speaking from largely a US-centric perspective, guys like Locke & Jefferson and systems like democracy & capitalism are the foundations of those businesses. Without a free market of not only goods & services, but of ideas, and the right to personal ownership (of land, of the means of production, etc.) biz would have created (along with feudalism and other forms of oppressive top-down ruling structures) a completely different world.
I think we're in basic agreement here. Ideas and personal ownership are an essential part of business as we know it today and gave us (largely) the world we live in today.
Making small changes can have huge consequences, many of which are unpredictable and unintended. Trying to control it is like trying to control the weather.
Basically, it's beyond our control and we either go with the flow or end up trying to stop a river with our bare hands.
We part company again. Making reforms in government or biz is not about trying to control them. That sort of control is an illusion and typically employed by folks from both the right & the left who are afraid of what they perceive as chaos.
Making reforms in gov & biz is about strangling THEIR ability to control, whether they are trying to control markets or people. These reforms, oddly, usually involve removing laws, not creating new ones.
I fail to see where we differ. Didn't I say what's happening is beyond control? Politics is just a way to create the illusion of control, but it controls little or nothing as you can tell by examining the results of the "war on drugs" and the "war in terrorism." Government inteference usually makes any problem worse rather than better. You can't expect government to do for people what they, themselves, are unwilling to do. Government's job should be collecting statistics (which they don't do well right now) and using them to convince people of what needs to be done. If the people are convinced, they will do it, one way or another.
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Sheesh Grant, what an elitist viewpoint you have! It sounds to me like you've given up on democracy and rule by the People. If democracy no longer works, it's because elitists like you have hijacked the resources of society, the banking system being a part, and driven it into the ground of apathy.
>James, The question you never seem to answer in your tilting with the system is "compared to what?"
Compared to what the world could be if 1% didn't own 80% of the assets -- a state of being you obviously are quite comfortable with.
>You don't like what we've got but what do you suggest we adopt instead?
A return to Constitutional Democracy where the People actually have a voice.
>You blame what you don't like about the system on a few people gaming it for their own ends . . .
And they don't?!
... but I see what we've got as millions of people making billions of decisions based on what they perceive as their own best interests.
So. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>Right now, most people see business, including big business, as the surest way to feather their own nests.
Totally elitist. Forget about the will of the People to feather the nest of society, let's just allow "most people" (those 1% I guess) to feather THEIR nests at the expense of everyone else.
>They don't pay much attention to politics because there is very little return on such investment of their time and energy.
And that's because the capitalistic society we've allowed to grow has completely demolished their voice. Is it any surprise they don't any longer "pay much attention"?
>What business is doing is rapidly changing the world.
Into a wasteland.
>What politics is doing is mostly getting in the way.
Oh, politics, the People in other words, are getting in the way. There's your elitism showing again.
>They are ineffectual because they don't really see what's going on and they are always trying to fight the last war (in this case trade wars and battles over land and property) rather than anticipating the next one.
Yes, the current Fed-infested system is geared to fight endless wars. See The Rothschild Formula at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/formula. htm
>The politicians try to solve short-term problems with solutions they'll have to live with for a long time.
The politicians are controlled by the short-term-thinking MONEY MENTALITY, i.e., the corporate interests. Duh. Read a book called PIGS AT THE TROUGH by Arianna Huffington.
>The rate of accelerating evolution in society is taking us places we've never been before and looking to the past for solutions will not get us there.
Can you be more specific here?
>Business is adapting to the new world while governments everywhere are trying desperately to hang on to the solutions of the past.
This is a vast generalization. If you're talking about the US government, just remember it was the Framers that set up the US government that made it possible for the "new world." To throw this rudiment out is walking on dangerous ground. When you invalidate or change that which has brought you into a condition of power, you descend from that condition of power back into emergency and danger sooner or later. This is happening now in the US.
>The business solution to this problem is to create their own governments using the power of technology and new ways of organizing people to achieve new goals. Those who cling to the past will be bypassed.
This is an insane "solution." I bet Hitler would have been proud of your thinking however. :)
>The visions of how things work programmed into us in grade school and high school are like the stories about Santa Clause.
Then how come you find it so difficult to accept the "visions" about the Federal Reserve that have been programmed into you Grant? Acknowledge what you preach.
>Most are myths based on ideals that don't really exist.
Such as the myth that we need a silver-backed currency.
>They are, to put it bluntly, wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is that a fiat money system could ever work. I bet you STILL haven't read THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, have you?! See http://www.realityzone.com/realityzone/creature.ht ml
>The mantra "all men are created equal"
All people's DNA is equal. I said it's nurture, not nature.
>is like saying all horses are created equal, so no horse it better or faster than another.
Horses' muscles aren't the same as peoples' brains.
>That kind of thinking would have all horses worth the same amount of money. But that isn't how things work in real life.
Oh, so some people are worth more than others?! Your elitism is again showing Grant.
>The fastest horse is worth millions to his/her owner and one that's not fast will merely be a burden to its owner and not give a return in the investment of land, feed, veteranary bills, etc. So it is with people and organizations of people. You invest time and money in them based on the expected return on your investment.
The government of the US is supposed to BE the People of the US. You seem to want to separate the two. The Framers intended that the People set up a government to REPRESENT them. GOV = PEOPLE. Politics = The way People go about getting their goals and dreams without hurting each other. Using machines, such as corporations or capitalism, to steamroller over each other was not intended to be part of the plan as it violates the prepositional clause in my definition of politics.
>Politics today gives very little in return for that investment.
Very little in return TO WHO? If you're talking about some rich elite, so what? If you're talking about society, politics is SUPPOSED to serve SOCIETY not BUSINESS Dude.
>Business, basically, gave us the world we live in today and the world we expect to live in tomorrow.
No, Constitutional Democracy gave us that. Many People getting together built the greatest nation in the world. Now, self-appointed élites like you are doing nothing but destroying it, from the environment to the banking system to the balance of trade to the religious fundamentals that instilled ethics. The MONEY MENTALITY has destroyed all that and will soon have its ugly head cut off like a certain French Queen had her head cut off once upon a time.
>So business is where people are investing in and politics is merely something they put up with and get involved with only when they feel like it doesn't work. (see, for example, Arnold taking over the government of California.)
I see... people are just in the way. Elitists.
>A new way of governing can only evolve because of the extreme complexity involved.
Stephan Wolfram has proven that complexity evolves from simplicity. The simple idea that the People should be respected has the ability to evolve any complex, ethical, society we need. Need being the operative word.
>Making small changes can have huge consequences, many of which are unpredictable and unintended. Trying to control it is like trying to control the weather.
And that's exactly why such should NOT be left up to some corporate elite that's hijacked the will of the People.
>Basically, it's beyond our control and we either go with the flow or end up trying to stop a river with our bare hands.
The river "beyond our control" has been created by the corporate interests disrespecting society and those ethical considerations that cause peaceful progress.
>The kinds of changes you suggest are more likely to cause more harm than good if they are not implemented with care and understanding.
Capitalism as practiced in the US today does not work. Period. It needs to be brought under the control of the People. It will be brought under the control of the People sooner or later. Heads will roll and should or the planet will roll.
>Yet all you talk about is the goal you hope to achieve and leave out the methods by which we might achieve it.
An understanding of the methods by which we can achieve a more ideal scene are expressed in the books I have constantly been citing. I add a recent book called, THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM by William Grieder. Until you read these and this, you are clueless. I am not the guy with the solution. I am just the guy who constantly tries to point in the direction of the guys who might have the solution. But ultimately, the solution will come by all of us putting our mind together and the Internet is a wonderful tool for this.
>In the time available and the number of people who have to be involved in the process, I don't think it is achievable.
It has to be achievable as Life will not stop for a bunch of selfish people who can see no farther than the buck.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
>James, In most of your statements you were talking AT me instead of TO me.
Okay, sorry Grant if that's the way you perceive it.
>In most cases you either deliberately or willingly misunderstood what I was saying. Two examples:
I don't usually deliberately try to misunderstand anything as that takes too much work. And I hate to willingly misunderstand things because I already find it much easier to just misunderstand things naturally.
The river "beyond our control" has been created by the corporate interests disrespecting society and those ethical considerations that cause peaceful progress. Capitalism as practiced in the US today does not work. Period. It needs to be brought under the control of the People. It will be brought under the control of the People sooner or later. Heads will roll and should or the planet will roll.
Okay, what did I misunderstand?
>The river that is beyond our control is the complexity of millions of people making billions of decisions on a daily basis.
But even a river can be controlled by the careful orchestration of certain things, such as the height of its banks and the narrowness of its channel or whether the flow is stopped by dams.
>Capitalism is already on its way out. It will not BE practiced as it is being practiced today much longer.
Well I think we may agree on this then.
>The millions of people I mentioned above ARE the citizens of the U.S. and of all the other countries in the world, too. They exert control to the extent that such control can be exerted with the decisions they make every day about what to do with their money and who in the business and corporate world is worth placing a bet on.
Sure all that kind of control exists, the idea that a dollar is a vote, etc., but I’m talking about such things as tax loopholes that allow a corporation to headquarter itself in Bermuda and thus pay no taxes. When corporations do this, more of the burden of financing the nation’s activities falls upon ordinary citizens, these millions of people you mention. When these people try to object to their congress men, the congressmen just yawn and invite another corporate lobbyist into their office. How can common people compete with the money power that the corporations spend on buying up congressional favors. This is control lost, and what I’m referring to.
>They invest less time and money in politics because the politicians don't do much for them.
Well the politicians don’t do very much for them because they have all their attention on the lobbyists that the corporations send in and the hard and soft money they provide in exchange for favors.
>But politicians in capitalist countries do more for the people who live in them than those in noncapitalist countries (if there still are such countries)and the changes that will be brought about by the complexity of the future will no doubt do away with democracy, kleptocracy, and all the other ocracies that we have learned to fear and hate.
I don’t fear and hate democracy. I think democracy, as envisioned by the Founders, is a very workable system. It’s just that it’s been distorted by capitalism. The MONEY MENTALITY is trying to turn the world into one huge corporation under parliamentary procedure where the guy with the most money gets the most attention. I am here to tell you that more money does not equal better solutions.
>It has nothing to do with elitism. It has more to do with the rapid pace of change that Ray keeps telling us about.
Well the way you phrase things makes you sound like an elitist Grant. Like the interests of a minority that happen to have vast corporate-generated wealth are more important than the interests of the majority who have to live and suffer here on this planet. Why should one class have more call on the resources of the universe than others?
>More important, though, is the fact that we can't return to the simplicity of 200 years ago because there are too many people making the country and the world more complex.
I’m not saying that we can go back to the simplicity of 200 years ago, I’m just saying we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. When we try and monkey around with too much of the democratic fabric that made our nation great too fast, we dislodge the underpinnings of what makes democracy, hence capitalism work. This is dangerous. I’m all for improving things and going with the rapid technological flow, but I think there has to be more open discussion on these things than just a little group of us here at the MIND-X. Unfortunately, because the media is controlled by multi-national corporate interests, this discussion isn’t getting out into the public. This is dangerous. Ray Kurzweil should be taking responsibility for getting these issues out into the public arena, especially since he has the ear of people like Bill Clinton and Al gore. Al Gore probably understands much of what we’re talking about here as it relates to the acceleration of technology. I wish he would pipe up.
>Wanting to take us back there would mean getting rid of large numbers of those people, which is a naive notion to my mind.
I believe that the earth’s population will eventually level off after we get better control of birth, educational levels increase and life extension makes it unnecessary for so many people to exist.
>That's the same sort of idiocy the Muslims are preaching, only they want to take us back to the 12th century when the cult of the Assasins was born. We can't go back. We can only go forward or go extinct.
Agreed.
James Jaeger
>End of sermon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A Money Experiment
|
|
|
| |
Jaeger said:
>My point is this: Unless one considers that there should be two or more classes of citizens, doesn't everyone have the right to be rich?
Grant said:
What has rights got to do with it? If you start everyone out with exactly the same amount of money so they are all "equally rich," some will save their money, some will invest their money, some will use the time their money buys them to develop new products and new ideas, and a great many will piss their money away on any number of useless things. In other words, there is no way to make everyone equally rich over time.
>If you say yes to this, the next question is: Do you want to live in a
society that makes this an actual possibility for everyone, or do you want to live in a society that just promises this to everyone but can't
actually deliver on that promise?
Although everyone in our society has the "right" to be rich, many do not have the drive, the desire or the intelligence to become rich. The very term, "rich," implies that one person has more than another. What people pursue is what they are most likely to get. People who invest their time and resources in accumulating wealth will have more of it than those who don't. It's not the government that causes this, it's human nature.
>In one case, we have an ethical society. In the other case we have a fraudulent society.
I find this a false characterization of society. The government should not be in the business of controlling the actions of all citizens so that they will remain equally rich. The people would rebell.
>If our society cannot exist without "collapse or the value of money would deflate considerably" as you point out, then it seems to me that we are living in a society that can't deliver on it's promise, and thus is a fraud.
If I save and invest my money but you don't, the result is not fraud. You had the same right to save and invest that I had. The fact that you didn't do it is not the fault of the government nor of the people who did.
>If we live in a society that's a fraud, shouldn't we change it so that everyone has the ability to reach the top ? We don't have this now, because if everyone DID reach the top, the system could not support it. This proves that the system does NOT add up, for if it did, EVERYONE would be able to co-exist in exactly the same way the rich exist -- they live off dividends, capital gains and interest. That's how they live. Independently wealth = dividends, capital gains and interest. It's that simple. Oh yes, you can add in there rents – but rents are really dividends issued on land.
How can everyone live at the top? Then there would be no top. A top implies a ranking of the people and some are bound by this ranking to be higher or lower than others.
>So, if the system would collapse if everyone were independently wealthy, we MUST have two classes of citizens in the current society in order to sustain it. In other words, the test of the system's viability is the calculus of how many classes of citizens it must have in order to exist. If it can exist and expand on one class of citizen, because what's good for one is good for all, than that's one type of society. But if all in society cannot have THE POTENTIAL to be economically equal, then that society as a system does not hold water. It forces more than one class of citizen in order to survive, thus that society is not only a fraud, but predatory as well.
IF everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be wealthy. Society itself might be wealthy, if the assets distributed were used to create infrastructure and provide jobs, but individuals would not be wealthy because the word implies a disparity between people based on wealth.
>So, we live in a society that is:
A. Fraudulent
B. Predatory
I see no proof of your assertion. People are fraudulent and predatory but society is just a collection of people and they come in all kinds. Some are and some aren't predatory.
>The reason society is fraudulent and predatory is because ITS CAPITALISTIC
STRUCTURE NEEDS REVISION.
Question: what system would you have in its place? Would you give up all
your wealth to make others equal to you? I doubt it. And furthermore, it
wouldn't work. Systems evolve over time and you can't just do away with
them without creating chaos and war. Is that what you want?
>Further, Democracy does not work if it is being raped by predatory and fraudulent capitalism.
"Capitalism" doesn't "rape" anyone. People rape people. Capitalism is one
means they use to do it. What is the alternative to capitalism that would
not cause war and chaos? How is war not a kind of raping by one side of
another? The problem you are describing is based on the fact that many
people see business as a type of warfare -- a zero-sum game. What we have
to create is a non-zero game based on the equal distribution of goods and
services. What people do with these goods and services after they get
them
is up to them.
>The core of the problem is the very structure and purpose of a
corporation.
These need to be addressed by citizens as government, business and the
media
will never in a million years address them.
The structure of government are changing -- constantly. I suspect your own business is in a constant state of change. It's not up to the media to change your business for you. It's your job to decide what changes need
to be made in your business. This applies to the people who run all businesses.
>The address point is the pension funds owned by labor. Labor is you and
me,
the second class citizens. Together we have hundreds of billions being
imprudently managed by Wall Street insiders -- perhaps a 100 or 1,000 at
the
inner circle. Working men and women in America need to DEMAND that the
money
they place under the management of the pension fund managers be invested
in
a SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE manner. SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE mutual funds are
among
the few that are moving in the right direction and these should be
supported
universally by concerned citizens.
> Corporations that are predatory and fraudulent thus need to be DEPRIVED of
capital. An example is GE and the auto manufacturers.
>Capital needs to be REDIRECTED.
>The majority of capital needs to be REDIRECTED to SMALL enterprises and
TAKEN AWAY from LARGE SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE CORPORATIONS.
>None of this is even on the political radar.
Grassroots education and re-allocation of LABOR'S CAPITAL are the answers
to
reforming the CURRENT fraudulent and predatory CAPITALIST SYSTEM that
REQUIRES at least two classes of citizens in order to exist.
If this isn't done, you can kiss Democracy goodbye forever.
>James Jaeger
Never trust politicians to change things to fit your agenda unless you are able to influence them with money or power.
James, I think you're naive and idealistic in the abstract but you lack any
clear vision of how to achieve what you want done. Most people wouldn't go
for it anyway. People want to have more than their neighbors. They want
their schools and cities and lives to be superor to those of other people.
That's what most of them are striving for. The problems lie mostly in how
they go about it. That's the part you don't seem to have addressed here.
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Employer-Employee = Master-Slave
|
|
|
| |
The basic problem with capitalism is the fact that once a group of people gain access to a certain critical mass of society's resources (assets), they will forever be able to plunder the rest of society.
This happens because of the exponential power generated by interest. Einstein even once commented on this. When asked what he thought the most awesome power in the universe was he responded to the effect: compound interest.
This is the system we live in now. We have at least two classes of people, and if we don't have exactly two classes now, our current capitalistic system will soon make it so. The insanely rich and the miserably poor. Put another way: the employers and the employed.
The employer-employee relationship is basically the master-servant relationship. Thus, the capitalism we have now, because of the exponential power inherent in compound interest, will reduce society to a class of masters and a class of servants. At some point the servants will reduce further to a class of slaves.
This is the inevitable road we are now on.
The Singularity in the hands of the masters will only perfect the entrapment.
The Singularity in the hands of the slaves, could free them.
You think I'm being overly dramatic? If so, I think you're overly naive or in love with the ideal of capitalism in much the same way one can become in love with the idea of love yet have nothing workable. Capitalism, like love, is a blinding force. Those who are on the power curve love it and are blind to the misery of their fellows. It's only a short while before they will be no different from a Saddam Hussein.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
A New System?
|
|
|
| |
Here's an idea for a new system:
First fix the education system. You want to fix the problems inherent in the system? You educate people. You teach people not to memorize facts and algorithms, but to be able to crictically analyze situations and synthesize new ideas. You emphasize discussions between people who may not share similar backgrounds. Education can cure many problems. Not all problems, but many.
In the public education system in the US, especially with President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, which is poorly underfunded and ideologically flawed, there is little or no emphasis on critical analysis among a majority of students. It assumes that everything a person needs to learn in public school can be stored in their brain, then regurgitated onto a piece of paper. This assumes that there is no need to look for connections between different ideas, and find differences in similar ideas. There is no emphasis on trying to look at the world in multiple ways, through different lenses, to achieve a more complete view.
I don't believe I can even come close to knowing everything, but I do believe that I can improve on my knowledge, and recognize more fundamental patterns that exist around me and incorporate this knowledge into my day to day actions.
I agree with Grant in that now is a wonderful time in history up until this point. The sheer quantity of information available for analysis is intimidating, and people are only beginning to realize the beginnings of the juxtaposition of some of this information (e.g. the singularity, nanotech, artificial intelligence).
Yet I also agree with James, that the current system is becoming seriously outdated, as we accumulate more information. And find more complex and meangingful ways in which to organize information. Previous social architectures (capitalism and democracy) that may have worked compartively well, are coming up short, and in many cases showing serious signs of decay. (e.g. bloated capitalism) Because of one point (coming back to education)--> knowledge is not being distributed equally with equal comprehension among people. When I turn on the news I am forced to watch a somewhat biased view of the world. I recognize this and accept this. I try to obtain information that is significantly unbiased, but often this becomes difficult in a system where a smaller self-interested group of people control a large quantity of the information/knowledge being distributed. I have to purposefully go out of my way to find unbiased sources. Now many people are either too damn lazy, don't care, or worse yet don't know that a huge portion of the information they are bombarded with everyday has significant biases. Education is the cure to this horrible societal sickness. If you teach people to think for themselves, they will soon become disenchanted with any system that feeds them either very warped versions of the truth, or even straight out lies. But our education system doesn't want to teach people how to think, it wants to teach people how to memorize (with reference to standardized tests). Or worse yet, think wrongly (which is possible).
Here is my proposal for a much improved (though not perfect, for perfection is left to some other kind of being other than myself, or anyone else in my opinion. *of course this system may be just another crackpot idea, but hey, what the hell*)
Working under the assumption that information and knowledge are being accrued at an accelerating rate, and the way that we organize ourselves into societal structures in many cases can not handle this constantly increasing accruing information. For example, the information that lead to the construction of nuclear warheads, or the information that lead to different paradigms with significant destructive potentiality (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION). The information in itself is not harmful, but it is the human intent behind it that makes the jump from understanding the atom, to constructing a device of such powerful devastation that if all the nukes in the world were dropped, it would be the end of all mammalian life. If our societal structure was rigorous enough, and built upon not only logical thought (analysis) but appreciation for the things that make us human (e.g. emotions) without the necessity of killing each other (uncontrolled, or unreconciled human emotion) then we could synthesize two entities that have been at each others throats for aeons. This society should also organize itself so that each member strives to attain as complete an understanding as they desire of their surrounding local, and global universe, and be able to reconcile the two. And yet at the same time refuse to compromise their own individuality, and diversity with respect to the whole. As James said, we are all born different, and it will take a truly enlightened society to look past the perceived advanatages and disadvantages each person has, and see what makes them truly an individual, who can learn and aspire to whatever their heart desires.
Only in a society where each person can maintain meaning/solidity with respect to the whole, yet grow in the infinite ways that are being opened by the constantly accumulating knowledge and information will we ever see the infinite parabola of possiblity that exists within the human spirit. And see it without having to suffer from mistakes made from misunderstanding and/or lack of understanding..
I apologize if any of this seems extremely abstract or inarticulate.
Anyway, I do not actually have a formalized version of such a society, but only a few of the ideas I have listed above, which seem incredibly important to me. I'm sure I've missed many, but the advantage is, even with what I have suggested, people could expand on all the possiblities while at the same time slicing away any frivolous ideas. Ths develops into a very complex, rigorous, intricate societal structure, without having to understand exactly what the end product will be at the beginning, (or should I say the middle, because we have been evolving for quite some time now).
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Douglas Hall |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
I would like to take this moment to defend Capitalism, and I think I may be in a unique position among the regulars of this forum to argue this position.
I don't make money. As a social worker, I live off your (our) tax dollars. I live check-to-check, unable to save a cent for CDs or stocks or other investments. I am poor.
A communist system would pay me well for my skills and hard work, but, well,
I WANT economic forces to play a role in my line of work. If the people I work with aren't frantically brought to a standard level of functioning in a given time, then I have failed and should be punished. My program should have its funding cut so that better programs may replace it. Competition is important; I want the bulk of funding to go to successful programs. How do we get good funding? Well, the state should be wealthy. We need more funding every year to increase the specialization in our programs and address new social problems. Capitalism has proven to work for attaining a wealthy state. A wealthy state with a democratic ideology means more funding for my programs. I like funding.
Normally functioning people like well-funded social programs, at least when they work. They like the peace of mind of knowing that crime rates fall when addicts are treated rather than recycled through the justice system. They like the peace of mind of knowing that the most disabled people in the world, the mentally retarded, are treated well and given more advantages in our society than in any other.
This line of work is difficult and complicated, so a lot of intelligent people choose not to pursue it. How do we fill all our positions, then? We hire people who are "good enough for now"--people who "have their heart in the right place." We have a lot of well-intentioned people in this line of work who simply aren't up to the task, but we hire them anyway because we have no choice. And so our programs are "good enough for now." I see a lot of "good enough" programs that I'd like to see swallowed up by better programs. This process of personel pruning works best under a competitive system. Capitalism fuels competition. Agencies that want better funding need to prove their efficacy and social relevance. Those that are able to accomplish efficacy and relevance DO get better funding, attracting people who are invested enough in the field to pursue more education, sharpen their skills, and demand a higher wage. I say we do better with the funds we have now.
I don't like being poor, but I like living in a system (capitalist democracy) that affords me the chance to pursue this line of work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
Douglas,
A couple of things you might look into in the way of reorganizing the way people work are the extra disks that come with the DVD for The Matrix series and the Lord of the Rings series. Here, you see whole armies of people coming together to create a magnificent spectacle. What they produced, to my mind, is less important than how they did it.
The best people in a number of fields were hired at pretty good wages to contribute to the creation of one or two men's dreams. At the end of this project, the people it used were recycled into the system and made available for the next great project.
I see work, in the future, being done on this basis with people in places around the world contributing their bit without being hired to work for wages as we know them today. In this business, you don't expect people to work for the same company forever. You don't even expect a company to last any longer than the project being worked on. Now take that idea and apply it to projects in AI, space exploration, biotechnology, nano, and all the other new fields of inquiry and productiion and you get a glimpse of what work and the organization of workers might be like in the near future. Every mind, every set of hands, being made available on a project by project basis and connected together into an organization of bits and pieces that doesn't even exist in the sense that a large company exists today.
When such an organization is no longer engaged and focused on its project, it no longer has a reason for being and dissolves without rancor because everyone involved knew the conditions when they signed on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
Every mind, every set of hands, being made available on a project by project basis and connected together into an organization of bits and pieces that doesn't even exist in the sense that a large company exists today.
That is a wonderful idea. The only opposition I see is that the world is so full of sticky systems, or systems that people are so damn comfortable with, they won't even consider change, especially when change may be the best thing.
Your idea, though, is deeply appealing aesthically, because in essence you are talking of pure and blatant holism, where the whole is much greater than the sum of the parts.
I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that capitalism and democracy are horrible things, and that they should be abolished immediately. What I guess I'm trying to say is that we should try to be intelligently human, and be able to keep pieces of whatever systems that work (as long as they work together). I also recognize at this point in history, the possiblity for many other systems, or combination of systems has opened up (with all our new knowledge) and it seems to me that if wee are to continue to adapt to survive on this planet, we will have to make reforms (again and again) of both how we look at the world and our day to day actions. (nature shows us that structures that work are kept for billions of years, but it still is able to evolve into billlions of different complex organisms. In my opinion human kind should evolve in the same way, we should keep parts of the systems that work, but expand outwards to new heights of beauty and complexity --sort of like your idea of having people just work on projects--) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
>Here's an idea for a new system:
Okay.
>First fix the education system. You want to fix the problems inherent in the system? You educate people. You teach people not to memorize facts and algorithms, but to be able to critically analyze situations and synthesize new ideas. You emphasize discussions between people who may not share similar backgrounds. Education can cure many problems. Not all problems, but many.
Agreed. And part of this is the fact that WE here at the MIND-X are discussing serious issues so that we may hopefully help educate each other. I can't agree more that education is KEY.
>In the public education system in the US, especially with President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, which is poorly underfunded and ideologically flawed, there is little or no emphasis on critical analysis among a majority of students. It assumes that everything a person needs to learn in public school can be stored in their brain, then regurgitated onto a piece of paper. This assumes that there is no need to look for connections between different ideas, and find differences in similar ideas. There is no emphasis on trying to look at the world in multiple ways, through different lenses, to achieve a more complete view.
That's right. I don't believe the current educational system we have teaches people how to THINK critically. They are spoon-fed information that is largely slanted to the victor's worldview and homogenized to a point where education is boring or something to be avoided. Moreover, the current education system was modeled after the Prussian military and is designed to simply mold an employee-mentality -- in other words a society of cloned robots that do little more than show up and punch a time-clock. No wonder democracy has basically ceased to exist and capitalism has run roughshod over the interests of society.
>I don't believe I can even come close to knowing everything, but I do believe that I can improve on my knowledge, and recognize more fundamental patterns that exist around me and incorporate this knowledge into my day to day actions.
Absolutely. If people made more of an effort, many things would come to light that would benefit all. Many minds will figure out the problems related to existence more quickly than fewer minds.
>I agree with Grant in that now is a wonderful time in history up until this point.
Yes, and I agree with this too, that capitalism has provided unprecedented benefits for, not only the people in the U.S., but people everywhere in the world. This is not what I’m arguing against (Grant). But now, I feel capitalism is NOT serving society and needs to be reformed or replaced by something else.
>The sheer quantity of information available for analysis is intimidating, and people are only beginning to realize the beginnings of the juxtaposition of some of this information (e.g. the singularity, nanotech, artificial intelligence).
Right. The world is mismanaged. All we have is a global mismanagement problem – nothing more nothing less. Just as computers have been able to make the office more productive and allowed managers to handle more data more easily to serve customers better, I am optimistic that we can create computer systems and AI systems that will help us better manage the world’s resources. I don’t know what percentage of Mankinds’ efforts are wasted, but I would be willing to wager that as much as 50% of everything the human race does is wasted. Imagine if this waste could be contained and eradicated through better management, AI or regular computerization?
>Yet I also agree with James, that the current system is becoming seriously outdated, as we accumulate more information. And find more complex and meaningful ways in which to organize information. Previous social architectures (capitalism and democracy) that may have worked comparatively well, are coming up short, and in many cases showing serious signs of decay.
That’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I’m saying we need to take a serious and critical look at whether CAPITALISM is serving society in a manner that gives the greatest benefits to the greatest number. The facts and figures I have posted in this thread indicate that capitalism is not at this time and needs reform if democracy is to once again be re-instated.
>(e.g. bloated capitalism) Because of one point (coming back to education)--> knowledge is not being distributed equally with equal comprehension among people. When I turn on the news I am forced to watch a somewhat biased view of the world.
That’s right. Less than 10 multi national corporations control the mass media now. A book called IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID goes into this and another book entitled, BIAS, goes into it in more detail at the network level.
>I recognize this and accept this. I try to obtain information that is significantly unbiased, but often this becomes difficult in a system where a smaller self-interested group of people control a large quantity of the information/knowledge being distributed. I have to purposefully go out of my way to find unbiased sources. Now many people are either too damn lazy, don't care, or worse yet don't know that a huge portion of the information they are bombarded with everyday has significant biases. Education is the cure to this horrible societal sickness. If you teach people to think for themselves, they will soon become disenchanted with any system that feeds them either very warped versions of the truth, or even straight out lies. But our education system doesn't want to teach people how to think, it wants to teach people how to memorize (with reference to standardized tests). Or worse yet, think wrongly (which is possible).
No argument here. Good points.
>Here is my proposal for a much improved (though not perfect, for perfection is left to some other kind of being other than myself, or anyone else in my opinion. *of course this system may be just another crackpot idea, but hey, what the hell*)
Okay, I love proposals and crackpot ideas. Hey, the airplane was a crackpot idea.
>Working under the assumption that information and knowledge are being accrued at an accelerating rate, and the way that we organize ourselves into societal structures in many cases can not handle this constantly increasing accruing information. For example, the information that lead to the construction of nuclear warheads, or the information that lead to different paradigms with significant destructive potentiality (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION). The information in itself is not harmful, but it is the human intent behind it that makes the jump from understanding the atom, to constructing a device of such powerful devastation that if all the nukes in the world were dropped, it would be the end of all mammalian life. If our societal structure was rigorous enough, and built upon not only logical thought (analysis) but appreciation for the things that make us human (e.g. emotions) without the necessity of killing each other (uncontrolled, or unreconciled human emotion) then we could synthesize two entities that have been at each others throats for aeons.
The two entities for reconciliation being what: analysis and emotion?
>This society should also organize itself so that each member strives to attain as complete an understanding as they desire of their surrounding local, and global universe, and be able to reconcile the two.
Yes, people are not given perspective. Few are aware of their effects. Few understand how the microcosm integrates with the macrocosm. In short: people are taught to be mindless robots and nothing else. These mindless robots serve the MONEY MENTALITY in their now-perverted game known as “capitalism.”
>And yet at the same time refuse to compromise their own individuality, and diversity with respect to the whole. As James said, we are all born different, and it will take a truly enlightened society to look past the perceived advanatages and disadvantages each person has, and see what makes them truly an individual, who can learn and aspire to whatever their heart desires.
I believe that every single human being has some special gift that sets them aside from all other humans. If only some technology could be devised to help the individual ascertain what his or her gift was and society allowed each individual the opportunity to bring such to the table.
>Only in a society where each person can maintain meaning/solidity with respect to the whole, yet grow in the infinite ways that are being opened by the constantly accumulating knowledge and information will we ever see the infinite parabola of possiblity that exists within the human spirit. And see it without having to suffer from mistakes made from misunderstanding and/or lack of understanding..
Society’s values are not capitalism’s values. This is the problem in a nutshell. Capitalism needs to be re-aligned with the values of society because value is not necessarily something that can be measured on a balance sheet.
>I apologize if any of this seems extremely abstract or inarticulate.
Some does seem abstract, but I get your shinning intentions and direction.
>Anyway, I do not actually have a formalized version of such a society, but only a few of the ideas I have listed above, which seem incredibly important to me. I'm sure I've missed many, but the advantage is, even with what I have suggested, people could expand on all the possiblities while at the same time slicing away any frivolous ideas.
You are actually articulating values that society has and that capitalism is currently robbing them of. It’s no wonder you may be feeling frustrated as I myself feel.
>Ths develops into a very complex, rigorous, intricate societal structure, without having to understand exactly what the end product will be at the beginning, (or should I say the middle, because we have been evolving for quite some time now).
>Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I have always felt that we should designate certain areas around the country and/or world as “test societies.” Just as democracy was known as the “noble experiment,” we should set up experimental societies and allow them to compete with each other. Perhaps this is what countries and states do in a way, but it seems to me there’s some unwritten law that states don’t allow other states to freely advertise their benefits to each other. Were the structure of states and countries changed so that they would be, in essence, placed into spirited competition with each other for the “best quality of life,” we might be able to evolve the perfect citizen-friendly state. And by state I am including both the economic and political infrastructure as well as the social. I have often though about starting a website that compares all 50 states with each other, right down to details such as what kind of fines do you get for drunk driving. If test societies can’t be done at the state level, I don’t see why “test societies” couldn’t be mocked up within certain states. Then, as it was determined what tests gave citizens the most happiness and best quality of life, the rest of the state could be segued over to the MO of the “test societies.”
If no state was willing to allow a physical “test society,” maybe they could be set up in virtual reality. Maybe this is where AI could sincerely help humans. Maybe we are already IN a test society, the so-called ancestor civilization concept. Again, if we could set up entire states and societies where real people would come to “live” in virtual test worlds, I don’t see why the most successful places couldn’t be converted to physical space -– complete with their own new forms of government and economic systems.
Well Douglas, those are my thoughts for what they’re worth.
James Jaeger
>Douglas Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
The two entities for reconciliation being what: analysis and emotion?
I have a hard time defining the two concepts I am trying to encapsulate here so I will try to elaborate. I mention analysis and emotion because those are easy to grasp, and very familiar. Yet what I am trying to convey is the reconciliation of two more abstract concepts. Here goes: analysis is our attempt to understand the universe in better ways. We do this by breaking problems apart into pieces, then we analyze these pieces, and try to understand all the ways they fit together. This is (in most cases) a very reductionistic way of looking at the universe. We reduce a problem to the constituent parts and then figure out how these parts fit back together. Analysis is very important, because it allows people to understand many aspects of the world.
Yet if we all became purely analytical we wouldn't be able to feel. We would lose that wonderful thing that makes us human, in that we are able to express ourselves, and communicate, and create beautiful things that can inspire emotion. My theory is that emotion is the mind's way of putting together pieces of reality and making it into a whole that is greater than the sum of the consituent parts. This is just my theory though, but I think it is valid enough for this argument. The problem with emotion is that it often overides judgement (e.g. analytical thought). This is very problematic, because then you can have uncontrolled or unreconciled emotion. Hence, the dizzing highs and lows that being human constitutes.
Therefore, for any system to exist where people don't lose themselves completely to their emotions there would have to be a reconciliation between analysis and emotion. There would have to be a synthesis between this reductive perception of reality, and the more holisitic perception of reality. This wouldn't stop people from feeling emotions, but in essence it would give people perspective on their emotions, letting them realize that emotions are not everything, but then again neither is pure analysis. It is only through the synthesis of these two concepts in every human being will there be a society where people don't succumb to destructive behaviour. Of course destructiveness in some cases can have positive side effects. Destruction is sometimes a sacrifice that needs to be made to build a better system. But I have no doubt that there is no need for any human being to harm another physically, emotionally, or spiritually. We can still grow and reform without hurting ourselves, as long as everyone recognizes their own inner reductionism and holism and how it juxtaposes itself upon reality.
Anyway, I'm still working on fleshing these ideas out more into a more formalized system. I have drawn a huge amount of inspiration from the infamous Godel, Escher, Bach and Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hoftstatder (which I think everyone should at least try to read).
I have always felt that we should designate certain areas around the country and/or world as “test societies.” Just as democracy was known as the “noble experiment,” we should set up experimental societies and allow them to compete with each other. Perhaps this is what countries and states do in a way, but it seems to me there’s some unwritten law that states don’t allow other states to freely advertise their benefits to each other. Were the structure of states and countries changed so that they would be, in essence, placed into spirited competition with each other for the “best quality of life,” we might be able to evolve the perfect citizen-friendly state. And by state I am including both the economic and political infrastructure as well as the social. I have often though about starting a website that compares all 50 states with each other, right down to details such as what kind of fines do you get for drunk driving. If test societies can’t be done at the state level, I don’t see why “test societies” couldn’t be mocked up within certain states. Then, as it was determined what tests gave citizens the most happiness and best quality of life, the rest of the state could be segued over to the MO of the “test societies.”
This is a very intriguing thought, and I would love to see it practiced somewhere. It would force the people in power to reform the systems for the majority of people instead of for self-interests. (well eventually, maybe) I like the idea of figuring out virtual societies even better though, so we could bypass all the easy problems, and get right down to the core of what kind of society should be worked out.
I appreciate your thoughts James, and I hope I clarified somewhat what I have tried to express.
Douglas Hall |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: A New System?
|
|
|
| |
>I have a hard time defining the two concepts I am trying to encapsulate here so I will try to elaborate. I mention analysis and emotion because those are easy to grasp, and very familiar. Yet what I am trying to convey is the reconciliation of two more abstract concepts. Here goes: analysis is our attempt to understand the universe in better ways. We do this by breaking problems apart into pieces, then we analyze these pieces, and try to understand all the ways they fit together. This is (in most cases) a very reductionistic way of looking at the universe. We reduce a problem to the constituent parts and then figure out how these parts fit back together. Analysis is very important, because it allows people to understand many aspects of the world.
Yet we are finding out that reductionism doesn't answer our questions about how the universe works. We have spent incredible amounts of money chopping matter up into smaller and smaller bits yet the more we chop the more difficult it is for us to figure out WHY they went together as they did. For instance we have no idea why the masses of the fundamental particles are as they are found to be.
>Yet if we all became purely analytical we wouldn't be able to feel.
I’m not so sure this is true. Hollywood has us believing that something that is analytical is unfeeling, like Data and Spoke. All this is horse as Hollywood is the last to figure out anything about truth. An emotion is simply a mental state of being. It is derived from the organism’s perception of how far it is from death. If an organism is far from death, it is said to be surviving quite well and thus may be in a mental state of “enthusiasm.” Enthusiasm is a category of emotion known as happiness. Other emotions, states of being, in the category of happiness are: interest, serenity, action, even boredom and monotony. Emotions, or states of being, that are not in the category of happiness are: fear, apathy, anger, pain, hate, covert hostility. In every case, your mind does an analytical evaluation of how close you are to death and spits out an emotion to reflect its decision. So emotional state is nothing more or less than a by-product of an analytical evaluation. Thus you can’t really say that it is our emotions that make us human any more than it is our ability to evaluate analytically.
>We would lose that wonderful thing that makes us human, in that we are able to express ourselves, and communicate, and create beautiful things that can inspire emotion.
The only thing that makes us so-called human is the emergent property of the blueprint of our unique constitution: our DNA. All the manifestations of what we are are a function of these emergent properties. Thus I am saying that a human is understood only as a network, as a holistic entity, NOT by reductionism. We may all have the exact same DNA when you chop us up, but the experiences we record give us all a unique beingness. This is why I feel that it’s nurture not nature that is important.
>My theory is that emotion is the mind's way of putting together pieces of reality and making it into a whole that is greater than the sum of the constituent parts. This is just my theory though, but I think it is valid enough for this argument. The problem with emotion is that it often overrides judgment (e.g. analytical thought).
But it’s analytical thought that produces emotion. You analyze how well you are surviving and then output an emotion as the by-product. In other words, you analyze your motion and emit an e-motion. E-motion is not reality, it’s only a response to reality. A response to the environment. The organism is in an environment and it’s responding to that environment in terms of how well or poorly it’s doing. The emergent property that boils off is known as e-motion or just emotion. It’s a by-product, a manifestation of survival potential.
>This is very problematic, because then you can have uncontrolled or unreconciled emotion. Hence, the dizzing highs and lows that being human constitutes.
Emotion gains its power from events that have actually happened in the past to the organism. The most powerful events are the life-threatening painful events, such as the time you went through a windshield or slammed your finger in a car door. In Scientology Hubbard calls these events, engrams. Read a book called “DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH” and another book called “SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL: The Prediction of Human Behavior”.
>Therefore, for any system to exist where people don't lose themselves completely to their emotions there would have to be a reconciliation between analysis and emotion.
This is exactly what’s done in Dianetic counseling.
>There would have to be a synthesis between this reductive perception of reality, and the more holistic perception of reality. This wouldn't stop people from feeling emotions, but in essence it would give people perspective on their emotions, letting them realize that emotions are not everything, but then again neither is pure analysis. It is only through the synthesis of these two concepts in every human being will there be a society where people don't succumb to destructive behavior.
Scientology is on the mission of “clearing the planet.” They feel that every human being has to be processed to a state they call "Clear" in order to become unaberrated. The Scientology view is that humans have become aberated because they store in their minds engrams and these engrams contain electric charge that causes the individual to act in destructive and contra survival ways. The collection of engrams in a person's mind comprises what they call the "reactive mind." Freud called it the unconscious, but I think Hubbard has more specifically defined it. There is great truth to what Hubbard has discovered and for this reason it's understandably quite controversial. The powers that be in this world do not wish to give Scientology platform or acknowledgement because so many of the illnesses that are currently "cured" through pharmaceuticals are remedied through Scientology processing with little or no recidivism. Their Narconon program, for instance, almost always gets people off drugs and they never go back. I did an internship on this form of counseling once and I can testify that it DOES work. By saying this I am NOT saying that I agree with everything in Scientology nor with all of their management policies. You will have to judge for yourself.
>Of course destructiveness in some cases can have positive side effects. Destruction is sometimes a sacrifice that needs to be made to build a better system. But I have no doubt that there is no need for any human being to harm another physically, emotionally, or spiritually. We can still grow and reform without hurting ourselves, as long as everyone recognizes their own inner reductionism and holism and how it juxtaposes itself upon reality.
All destruction is just counter-creation.
>Anyway, I'm still working on fleshing these ideas out more into a more formalized system. I have drawn a huge amount of inspiration from the infamous Godel, Escher, Bach and Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hoftstatder (which I think everyone should at least try to read).
All the old guys have a grain of the truth.
>This is a very intriguing thought, and I would love to see it practiced somewhere. It would force the people in power to reform the systems for the majority of people instead of for self-interests. (well eventually, maybe) I like the idea of figuring out virtual societies even better though, so we could bypass all the easy problems, and get right down to the core of what kind of society should be worked out.
Thanks.
>I appreciate your thoughts James, and I hope I clarified somewhat what I have tried to express.
Yes you have. Thanks again.
James Jaeger
>Douglas Hall
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
It's Nurture, Not Nature
|
|
|
| |
>Without nature, what would there be to nurture?
Look, when Dell manufactures computers with the same specs, every computer that comes off the assembly line is for all practical purposes EXCACTLY the same.
Same with Mother Nature. When a woman manufactures a baby with 99.99% the same DNA as all other human babies, every baby that comes out of THIS assembly line is for all practical purposes EXCACTLY the same.
I can then take any of those Dell computers and install different software. If I don't install ANY software on one of the Dell computers, that computer won't have the same ability as the one I installed QuickBooks Pro and Excel on. By the same token, if I take one of those babies and don't teach it anything and then take another one and give it a Harvard education, the later will have much more ability.
Hey, they all started out with EQUAL NATURE, but I NUTURED one with education and experience thus making it more able than the others.
Thus it's NURTURE, not NATURE. All Humans start out totally EQUAL. It what programming we load into one over another that counts.
This is why that poster that said the answer to most of our problems is education makes so much sense. For instance, if people were educated to comprehend exactly how a bunch of criminals concocted the Federal Reserve System and how it serves their interests to the exclusion of the vast majority - no such system would ever exist. But don't you think the criminals that founded the Federal Reserve System know this? Of course they do, and this is one reason the educational system of the US has been allowed to fall into such disrepair. Criminals can operate in an environment of ignorance and confusion much better than the can operate in an environment of understanding and clarity.
You think things just happen? Dream on.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: AI Based on Networks
|
|
|
| |
We are beginning to discover that the answer to understanding the universe is tied up in an understanding of NETWORKS.
YES I AGREE-But networks have to be broken down into reductions (at least in understanding human behaviour as i CAN NOT say HOW we should understand the UNIVERSE and I will leave this to others FAR MORE INFORMED than myself) if we want to understand how we work and behave, so as to establish a cause and effect relationships thus leading us to an understanding of HOW AND WHAT CAUSES THE NETWORK TO WORK.
You can sit there and chop something up as much as your want, attempting to reduce an item to smaller and smaller constituent parts, but all you will end up with is a pile of junk that can potentially have an infinite number of possible interactions.
I know what you are trying to say- that ulimately if we simply focus on a single possible cause and reduce and reduce where not going to get any where-I AGREE- for example if we just look at genes without environmental reactions where not going to find all the answers to how we behave. Thus we have to look at many other possible causes for the behaviour such as environmental interaction. We already know from neuroscience (some outstanding studies that i am quite happy to go into) that nuerons are plastic (malleable)- they form networks that is partly based on genes and partly based on environment. Anything we learn about cause and effect relationships is based on reductions and is VERY VERY IMPORTANT in understanding how we think/behave. I believe something BIG is going to happen to the feild of PSYCHOLOGY in the next decade and it is already starting to happen. Psychology can be devided into seperate specialist fields that each look at how we think and behave in their own unique way (they reduce behaviour/thinking through reductions that at times can be a little over simplified BUT now other reductions are being made to add to the evidence of theories such as looking towards neiroscience-AND ITS WORKING- THIS MEANS THAT LARGER NETWORKS OF EVIDENCE ARE BEING FORMED THAT IS ALREADY LEADING TO BIG ADVANCES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE THINK AND BEHAVE AS A WHOLE. Bring about the constant advances in MRI scanning (such as the nanomagnetic materials i recently read about from BIOPHAN TECHNOLOGY) its looking VERY PROMISING and will lead to highly reliable objective evidence light years ahead of anything availiable today.
We can sit there and study the neurons of the human brain endlessly and try to reverse engineer them -- but until we understand how they operate as a scale-free network, we are lost.
Neuroscience is trying to understand how they operate and reverse engineer the brain and they are making HUGE progress all thanks to REDUCTION.
The sum of the parts is MUCH more than the parts.
Yes i agree- WE have to understand the parts(reductions) and the how the parts organise and relate and function as a whole (more reductions in other areas and then corresponding data into a big network of smaller reductions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Misunderstandings on Scn
|
|
|
| |
For example here you mention the 'minds engrams'. I belive Engram is a term that originated with a psychological researcher Karl Lashley. He believed that memory was the result of brain mechanisms-(neurons)- which is very strongly supported and almost unquestionable today. YOU mention that it is scientologies view that the engrams (contained within the form of certain specialized neurons) contain an electric charge- i believe you are talking about the electrical action potential that ALL neurons use to communicate with on another NOT just memory neurons. IF SO THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM THAT THE ELECTRIC CHARGE OF ENGRAMS CAUSE THE DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR!!!
Scientology does NOT look at the physical processes that cause thought. It ONLY addresses thought itself. Hubbard borrowed the term ENGRAM from science, as you point out. Originally an engram was some sort of a physical scar on a cell. Hubbard re-defined the word to mean: A MENTAL IMAGE PICTURE OF AN INSODENT CONTAINING SEVER AND SHOCKING PAIN, OFTEN ACCOMPANIED WITH UNCONSCIOUSNESS. When engrams are located and recounted in Scientology counseling, the effect they have over behavior is observed to be reduced. Note, Hubbard makes NO attempt to describe what is going on at the PHYSICAL level. If people are looking for physical-level explanations in Scientology, they fail to understand the scope of Scientology so it's easy to see why they would mistakenly call it a "pseudo science."
The body of Scientology research is ONLY concerned with a) what works and b) that it works. Period. If you want to consider it placebo effect. Fine. If you want to consider it reducing influence of engrams (as defined in Scientology). Fine. Again, Hubbard doesn't care WHY it works, he only cares THAT it works -- that humans, when counseled with Scientology technology, become happier, more able and smarter. Thus Scientology is a heuristically developed technology, and this is not too dissimilar from Ray Kurzweil's projection that the brain may be able to be scanned for the neural patterns and these patterns transferred to a different substrate. Such posthuman thought postulates that "uploading" may work, yet HOW or WHY it works is not immediately important to the FACT that it DOES work. This was Hubbard's reasoning. He postulated: we don't know what an engram really is but when the person recounts them the effect they exert (known as "charge") is reduced giving the person greater happiness, ability and intelligence.
Here again I am neither endorsing or disparaging
Scientology, I am simply trying to dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings connected with the subject. The world has been all too quick to criticize Scientology without actually understanding it. But then what's new!
James Jaeger |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Employer-Employee = Master-Slave
|
|
|
| |
You don't need to be naive or a capitalist ideologue to recognize the vast benefits of capitalism - you just have to google something like "world economic growth 1900 1990", and see how "the misery of their fellows" has been reduced by capitalists creating new wealth.
The rich don't grow rich from the miracle of compound interest - that's just a way to hang onto and slowly grow wealth. There is no "miracle" unless someone somewhere is taking risks with your invested money in an attempt to produce new wealth.
The wealth of the rich doesn't sit around in money bins - it's mostly invested in productive ventures, which provide jobs and goods for everyone else. Under capitalism the rich serve the rest of humanity, rather than vice versa (as under feudalism for example).
To BECOME rich through capitalism - or super rich - one generally has to risk great losses in pursuit of 10x or 100x or 1000x returns. The really big, Gates/Walton scale success stories are rare because the opportunties for such tremenduous gains are rare. Most people don't know how to get rich, and most of those who do know, lack the nerve and drive to go for it. Hence the concentration of great wealth in few hands.
It is true that the singularity poses the risk that human nature will suddenly and fundamentally change - super longevity, super intelligence, the end of human advantages over machines, etc. Capitalism, being based on current human nature, could become obsolete. That bears very close watching. We may not like the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Employer-Employee = Master-Slave
|
|
|
| |
>You don't need to be naive or a capitalist ideologue to recognize the vast benefits of capitalism
Of course, capitalism has brought great benefits to many in the world and has proven itself to be a superior economic system to communism and socialism. But can we do better? Why not!
> - you just have to google something like "world economic growth 1900 1990", and see how "the misery of their fellows" has been reduced by capitalists creating new wealth.
Sure, but now I see equal amounts of misery being created BY capitalism, so it's time to re-evaluate capitalism’s value to society in light of society's goals and dreams.
>The rich don't grow rich from the miracle of compound interest - that's just a way to hang onto and slowly grow wealth.
No, the rich DO grow richer from the miracle of compound interest because they are usually very conservative and do not invest their money in anything that's risky. Since a truly rich person has no need to make more money, they are interested in basically two things:
A. Avoiding risk, which includes risk of loss due to taxation and risk associated with getting sued in start-up ventures, and;
B. Maintaining their lifestyle ahead of the effects of inflation.
>There is no "miracle" unless someone somewhere is taking risks with your invested money in an attempt to produce new wealth.
Not true. The miracle Einstein was talking about is the power of compound interest; the idea that once one has accumulated a (significant) sum of money, a) this money will grow (quickly) with no further effort and b) this growth is with very little risk. This is a miracle because all other people, who do not have a capital nest egg, have to actually WORK for their money. At some point, it becomes obscene that one man, because of the miracle of birth, or the chance of luck at getting to some resource sooner than his fellows – gets to have exponentially greater income without doing any (further) work.
>The wealth of the rich doesn't sit around in money bins - it's mostly invested in productive ventures, which provide jobs and goods for everyone else. Under capitalism the rich serve the rest of humanity, rather than vice versa (as under feudalism for example).
Not true. The wealth of the rich DOES mostly sit around in money bins, bins called trusts and foundations. These trusts and foundations store this money in further bins, bins called T-bonds, T-bills, T-notes, savings accounts, raw land, money market accounts and mortgages. In my 20 years or so as a fund and money raiser, I have observed that the richer the individual, the more conservative they usually are. You will very rarely see extremely wealthy individuals putting money in “productive ventures” especially start-ups, and early stage companies. In other words, the rich don’t make the future happen. The rich only care about A and B mentioned above. The people that put money into “productive ventures” and especially new ones that drive and create the future of civilization are the people who are just sophisticated enough to be considered “accredited investors” under the Securities Act of 1933 and as amended. Lastly, it is a matter widely known that according to IRS, the wealthy give the least per their tax returns. In short, the current capitalistic society in which we find ourselves allows a class of obscenely rich individuals who do little more than EXIST at the expense of the rest of us while using their vast wealth to appear altruistic.
>To BECOME rich through capitalism - or super rich - one generally has to risk great losses in pursuit of 10x or 100x or 1000x returns.
That’s simply not true. As I have tried to explain above, these risks are taken by the individuals who can barely afford to take them. As soon as a venture takes off and becomes reasonably solid, only then do the rich get involved. Let those who can least afford it, but who are desperate, do the heavy lifting -- is the mantra of the rich. The rich are pigs that like to ride the wagon down the hill but do little to push it up the hill. Again, the only time you see the rich giving is when it serves them in a PR way. The classic case is, of course, when Rockefeller’s PR got so bad (because of all the lives he ruined as a result of his insatiable greed) he had to hire PR agent Ivy Lee who recommended he start a program of giving dimes away to little children. As a further PR ploy, Rockefeller then went on to fund the Rockefeller Foundations which mostly “gave” money to the medical industry, BUT this “giving” was for the purpose of acclimating the each new graduating class of MDs to the wonders of pharmaceutical drugs. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey was, by then, a partner with I.G. Farben, the huge German chemical cartel (owner of Sterling Drugs, Bayer, etc.) and he continues to “earn” his “gift” money back in the form of an endless flow of high profit margin prescriptions his indoctrinated MDs issue to this very day for pharmaceuticals. If you want the gory details, read a book called WORLD WITHOUT CANCER. Also, there’s lots of great information on this, and other related subjects, at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/menu4.htm
If you think the rich since Rockefeller have changed, think again. They have simply devised endlessly more sophisticated ways of avoiding doing their share to help society while looking good thanks to their highly-paid PR strategists. A review of what was going on with the rich at ENRON, and other CEOs in many, many firms, should disabuse you of the idea that a tiger can change its stripes.
>The really big, Gates/Walton scale success stories are rare because the opportunities for such tremendous gains are rare.
I remind you that Bill Gates didn’t have any rich people invest in him. He started in a garage with a dream and an idea whose time had come: the personal computer. You don’t think everyone turned him down on his road up. Read his book. It was only by finally piggybacking onto IBM’s 8008 machines prior to the 286 ATs and literally giving away his OS half the time that he got a leg up. So Gates is, in essence, an example of an entrepreneur that bootstrapped his way up and was able to do so by the rising tide of technology. But please don’t tell me a bunch of rich guys were there to help him. Bill Gates, IMO, deserves every cent he has earned and does not deserve to have people turn on him. He is ruthless because he HAS to be ruthless to fight off all the entrenched selfish interests that don’t want to give him a piece of the planet. But never say the rich helped him get there, only his attorney father and his own brain got him where he is today.
>Most people don't know how to get rich, and most of those who do know, lack the nerve and drive to go for it. Hence the concentration of great wealth in few hands.
Getting rich is a simple matter. You find out what’s needed and wanted by the civilization and then you do, make and present that and exchange it for more money than it took you to produce and deliver it. The problem is many new ventures are capital-intensive. And the vast majority of the capital that could get new ventures started is in competition with the government which needs to keep rolling over its obscene debt (the T-bonds, etc.). As I said above, the rich will put their money into the government’s T-bonds before they will invest it in your well-researched new company, or growth stage venture. The rich figure that their money is safe with the government because it has a) the power of taxation and b) the hydrogen bomb. At least this is what a friend of mine in the CIA once told me. That’s what it comes down to: "force." Laugh, laugh, chuckle, chuckle, my CIA friend added quite seriously. And it is this same force that’s creating the kind of capitalism we have today and hence the economic system that will eventually create two (2) classes of people: masters and slaves unless we change course to something more universally benevolent.
>It is true that the singularity poses the risk that human nature will suddenly and fundamentally change - super longevity, super intelligence, the end of human advantages over machines, etc. Capitalism, being based on current human nature, could become obsolete. That bears very close watching. We may not like the results.
As long as the current slave masters that so selfishly dominate our world are not given the gift of strong AI by half-witted or politically naive technicians, there is a chance that this technology could be put to use creating a world of plenty for all, a world where humankind is free to rise to greater heights, a world where war and conflict have been replaced by reason and love, a world where the human species may join with other species, whether indigenous or extraterrestrial, biological or artificial, and where we may all experience and enjoy the wonders of the Universe.
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Employer-Employee = Master-Slave
|
|
|
| |
James, as usual you rattle off hyperbolic nonsense:
Not true. The wealth of the rich DOES mostly sit around in money bins, bins called trusts and foundations. These trusts and foundations store this money in further bins, bins called T-bonds, T-bills, T-notes, savings accounts, raw land, money market accounts and mortgages.
People put their money in trusts, foundations, bonds, T-bills, T-notes, savings accounts, raw land, money market accounts and mortgages because they produce INTEREST. Where does that interest come from? It comes from investment. If there were no mortgage interest, houses and buildings, for example, would not be built. The money I pay for my mortgage paid off the builder of my house from a loan he took out to buy the land and the materials and the labor that went into the construction of it. That's your "money bin." Every institution that creates bonds, for example, has to produce something to create the interest they pay in return. Municipal bonds put contractors and construction workers to work building highways and other infrastructure. Bonds build the subways we ride and pay wages to the men to produce the labor and materials to build them.
So the rich don't get their hands dirty when they invest their money. So what? That doesn't mean their money is just sitting around not doing anything useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
The Federal Reserve Scam
|
|
|
| |
People put their money in trusts, foundations, bonds, T-bills, T-notes, savings accounts, raw land, money market accounts and mortgages because they produce INTEREST. Where does that interest come from? It comes from investment. If there were no mortgage interest, houses and buildings, for example, would not be built. The money I pay for my mortgage paid off the builder of my house from a loan he took out to buy the land and the materials and the labor that went into the construction of it. That's your "money bin." Every institution that creates bonds, for example, has to produce something to create the interest they pay in return. Municipal bonds put contractors and construction workers to work building highways and other infrastructure. Bonds build the subways we ride and pay wages to the men to produce the labor and materials to build them.
Grant, must we re-visit this issue for the Nth time? Most of what you say above is true, but it's a superficial view of the situation. The fact is ALL of the money you are referring to above comes from the Federal Reserve Bank -- a government-sanctioned private bank owned by rich bankers, directly or indirectly. This bank was set up in 1913 to replace J.P. Morgan as "lender of last resort." It was also set up in violation of Article I, Sections 10 and 12 of the U.S. Constitution which forbids the creation of fiat money. This is an obscure area of law that most people are still unaware of, even you once asked me what the word "fiat" meant, thinking that I was using the word "flat" all the time (see archives under "Federal Reserve").
In short, here’s how the system works: The Federal Reserve receives bonds that the above you speak of issue and using these as collateral, prints up what's know as "Federal Reserve Notes". This so-called "money" is literally created out of thin air and floods into the economy diluting all the other money presently in circulation. The rich, and the other people in on this scam, get first call on the new money so they experience stronger purchasing power than those of us who get it later on and have to pay our mortgages and other debts with even though the excess of money in circulation has bid up prices. Due to the wanton printing that’s now going on to pay for the Iraq War, the inflation rate is over 10.5%, not 2,3, or 4% the Fed would have you believe the CPI is. The CPI doesn’t even include food or energy any longer so how can it POSSIBLY be a true measure of inflation?
Getting back top the fraud: Congressmen usually get their money from borrowing, not raising taxes. The gov runs off borrowed fiat money. This is why all governments throughout history sooner or later have abolished a backed money system in exchange for a fiat (unbacked) money system. The US has abolished a Federal Reserve-type central banking system so far twice in our history. The Federal Reserve will eventually be abolished again, as soon as people wake up again. In the current Fed-fiat system the gov can create as much money as it wants and give this money back to the rich that have voted them into power. This is where the gov gets it money for all the pork projects. The corporate criminals give endless hard and soft money to get specific criminals elected to gov posts and then the criminals in the gov give the corporate criminals what they want, such as the public airwaves. In the current system we now find ourselves, it is this feedback between the RICH and the GOV that is killing this nation. The money in the corps funnels to the top and is spit out by the filthy rich that run them. This money is vomited into the gov coffers to further keep the system running. The Fed continues to print money out of nothing to keep the entire ponzi scheme rolling over. Each year the gov must print up (known as “monetize”) more and more debt. They must turn more and more debt into money. That’s what monetize means. This new money is used by the rich criminals in the gov and corps to rollover the last issue of bonds and notes. This is the reason the national debt has never been hire. The national debt is advertised as being around 6 trillion, in perspective with the GDP, but actually it’s 60 trillion. Also the Gross Domestic Product is a terrible indicator of growth because it fails to take into account all of the negative productivity that goes on in the country. For instance, whenever there is an environmental catastrophe or an accident, the GDP treats this as a “grow” statistic. Every time a new disease crops up or is caused, even 911, all the industries that benefit monetarily from this negative event are figured into the GDP statistic. Thus the true growth of the nation is NOT measured by this stat in any way. If we were to adjust this stat by removing all the expenses our nation incurs to remedy problems and negative situations, like pollution, and the other things I have mentioned, the GDP would be about 1/10 the figure that is quoted by the gov. Thus we can see that the national debt as a percentage of GDP is a totally bogus figure, off by a factor of at least 1,000%.
The People MUST intervene to put a stop to all this absurdity.
Grant, I’m sorry to have to say, but it is evident that you refuse to take an objective, or responsible view of the perverted economic system we have because, by your own admission, you benefit from it in that your government checks come from the very fiat money that is printed up by the Federal Reserve, hence the very government you need to change. So of course you will be an apologist for the system and no change will come forth from you or those in your position. I therefore expect you to invalidate any and all you can on what I have said here.
>So the rich don't get their hands dirty when they invest their money. So what? That doesn't mean their money is just sitting around not doing anything useful.
As I said, they are so conservative they do little or nothing to help entrepreneurial growth. The super-rich that were/are connected with Morgan/his kind, are involved with the largest scam ever concocted. For a complete substantiation of everything I claim here, see a book called THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble or at http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
James Jaeger
[Reply] [Parent]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The Federal Reserve Scam
|
|
|
| |
In short, here’s how the system works: The Federal Reserve receives bonds that the above you speak of issue and using these as collateral, prints up what's know as "Federal Reserve Notes". This so-called "money" is literally created out of thin air and floods into the economy diluting all the other money presently in circulation.
If you took all the Federal Reserve notes ever printed, they wouldn't amount to a tenth of all the money in circulation. Money today is composed of numbers in computers in banks around the world. That "money" moves from bank to bank overnight to provide them with the funds they are required to have on hand to declare themselves solvent. That that is all beside the point. All money is created out of thin air because the only thing that keeps it circulating is the BELIEF that it has value. Using what's deposited in your bank account is an act of FAITH that can be destroyed with mere rumors. The main thing the Federal Reserve does is to keep the fiction of paper being worth a man's labor from being destroyed by inflation or stagnation. You still seem to have faith in the idea that one kind of money is somehow not a fiction or something we use on faith.
The system today has gone beyond what happened on Jeckyll Island and money is created by the fiat of the government DECLARING that it exists. It doesn't matter what kind of substance they impower with this myth, it will all fall apart when people stop believing in it. It is interaction between people based on this myth that drives the economy -- not the machinations of government, banks and business. Just like the stock of such companies as Enron and the rest of the rogue companies we've seen in the last few years, the value falls to near zero when people stop believing in it enough to keep trading in it. Stock, too, is a piece of paper signifying hope rather than value. A different piece of paper signifying a value in gold would not be any different.
In my opinion you are no different from the other purveyers of hope and faith and almost everything you write reeks of propaganda, from the hyperbolic descriptions of what is going on to the angry denunciations and damnation of small groups based on the idea that they control this complex adaptive system. They don't. Nobody does. If I want to believe in a conspiracy, I'll revisit the grassy knoll in Houston. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The Federal Reserve Scam
|
|
|
| |
>If you took all the Federal Reserve notes ever printed, they wouldn't amount to a tenth of all the money in circulation. Money today is composed of numbers in computers in banks around the world.
You're talking about M1, M2 and M3. I am not talking about any of this. I'm only focusing on M1, Federal Reserve Notes. Sure there is a multiplier effect when fractional reserve allows banks to create check money, M2, but again, this is not the source of the discussion, nor the source of the problem, Grant.
To illustrate what I AM talking about consider this: If every person in the US paid off -- with Federal Reserve Notes -- every mortgage they have, every credit card and every consumer loan, including all car loans and every student loan and business loan -- guess how many Federal Reserve Notes would be in circulation? Exactly zero. Why is this? Because in order for a Federal Reserve Note to come into existence, a debt has to be created on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. This is why they’re called Federal Reserve NOTES. These dollars are DEBT INSTRUMENTS. They represent DEBT. We use DEBT INSTRUMENTS as MONEY. Think about that: we use DEBT as MONEY. Does something seem wrong with this picture?
In fact there IS something wrong with the picture and here’s what it is. Back in the good old days, prior to 1913, all money was backed by silver. Today money is backed by nothing. Why was money backed by silver, what was the reason, was it just superstition as you might have one believe? No, there was a very sound reason why money was backed by precious metal, such as silver, besides the fact that the Founders demanded that it be backed by silver. The short answer is, it was backed so that it could not be easily created. Every dollar had to be backed by a specific quantity of silver. In fact the dollar is actually DEFINED as so many grains of silver at a certain purity. Now listen to what I am going to say next very carefully because this is the place MOST PEOPLE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF A BACKED CURRENCY: The QUANTITY of silver that backs a currency DOES NOT MATTER. Let me say this again. QUANTITY OF SILVER DOES NOT MATTER. Why am I emphasizing this? Because almost EVERYONE thinks that THERE IS NO LONGER ENOUGH SILVER TO BACK ALL THE MONEY WE NOW NEED FOR OUR MODERN CIVILIZATION. I have heard this a thousand times over the past ten years. It’s called “The Misleading Theory of Quantity” in Mr. Griffin’s book, THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND available at http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html And here’s why the QUANTITY of money does not matter. Just as you can measure distance in miles, you can also measure distance in feet and even inches. You could even measure distance in hair thicknesses. These UNITS of distance are all workable, so long as any unit used remains consistent throughout the measurement. Now applied to money backed by silver. You can take a dollar, and define it as backed by any amount of silver – MEASURED by any amount of silver. The backing is a unit of MEASURE. If the money supply must grow to reflect the increased demands of society’s production, the money can still be defined by smaller units of silver. Just as you can divide a pie into an infinite number of slivers yet make the pie NO LARGER, you can divide the units of weight describing the pie of silver in existence so that any amount of currency can be printed and represented by smaller slivers of silver pie. Thus, as the demand for more money grows, the silver backing it can be divided into finer and finer units of weight, fines slices of silver pie. There is therefore NO need for MORE silver as the detractors of a backed money system have brainwashed everyone into thinking. The Misleading Theory of Quantity is perhaps THE most major propaganda tool used by the Fed-infested monetary scientists to disenchant the public to a PRECIOUS METAL BACKED CURRENCY.
Okay, do you get what I am saying here? If you do, I would think the very next question you would have is “Well if this is true, why would anyone wish to deceive the public like this?” The answer is this. Elected officials in government are always in desperately in need of money to keep their constituents happy. This is how they got elected and how they stay in office. A corollary to this rule is: Elected officials hate to raise taxes because their constituents don’t like to pay higher taxes and this is how they get kicked out of office. Gee, thinks the government official sooner or later, if only there were a way I could get more money to spend yet not have to raise taxes. Inevitably all government officials realize that they can borrow money by issuing bonds (those T-bonds, T-bills and T-notes I spoke of earlier). But the problem is, with a money system where the money is required to be backed by silver, money can’t just be printed up willy nilly. Every dollar must be backed by so many grains of silver, or adjustment thereof, as discussed above, and citizens must be able to prove that this is true by the right to REDEEM their Paper in Silver. The reason for this is transparency. If the politicians want to create excess money to cover their borrowing, it becomes VERY obvious to the citizens because the ratio of dollars in circulation to the weight of silver backing MUST CHANGE DRAMATICALLY. This becomes obvious when paper is redeemed for silver.
So, what happens with almost every government since the dawn of civilization is: the BANKERS AND GOVERNMENT FIGURE OUT A WAY TO COVERTLY REMOVE THE BACKING and, presto, legal tender laws MUST be enacted. Now if you think this is confusing and have no idea what I’m talking about, you can readily see HOW this ends up happening each time. The citizens also have no idea what’s happening and so they go along with it. Legal tender laws are then enacted, as mentioned, which state that the money that is officially created by the Federal Reserve-like bank MUST be accepted for all debts public and private. It’s written on every dollar. Check it out. This means that YOU as a citizen MUST discharge a debt owed to you under penalty of law if that debt is paid off with money that is decreed by government fiat as being “legal tender” (in other words Federal Reserve Notes which bear the statement that these bills are “legal tender.”) This is the set up that MUST be put into place in order to acclimate the public to the massive fraud that will be happening over the life of the scheme (i.e., until the public wakes up again). The last time this scheme was put into place was 1913 when the Federal Reserve was established. This his fraud is the endless printing of money with no concern for its backing or valuation. Right now we are in a system of FIAT money. The money supply is no longer backed. It’s a free floating currency. It’s also exactly what the government officials wanted: an unlimited supply of money without having to go to their constituents for tax money. But here’s the BIG problem: the citizens still get taxed in such a system. It’s a covert tax and its name is INFLATION. Inflation is a hidden tax because as the Federal Reserve prints up more and more money for the now-drunk-with-power congressmen, all of the other money in circulation gets diluted. It’s exactly the same principle as diluting stock of a corporation. When you form a corporation you have to file a document with the Secretary of State in your state. In this document, known as your ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, you must state, among other things, how many shares of stock the corporation is AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE. If you put down 1 million shares, this means that you can sell these 1 million shares to investors for whatever price you can get. If the people that buy these shares, known as your investors, are willing to pay $1 for each share, this means your corporation will raise $1 million. Put another way: you have capitalized your corporation with $1 million. So what you have done is created a million dollars worth of value out of nothing but a promise to share the future cash flow of the corporation with each investor in accordance with the number of shares of stock s/he has purchased. Now let’s say you blow all the million dollars of capitalization on hookers and booze and get nothing produced with no cash flow (much the same as the government officials who endlessly need more money do). What do you do? You go back to your lawyer and have him AUTHORIZE more stock. Simple as that. You get out that piece of paper called the ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION and you AMEND it to now say that the corporation is AUTHORIZED to issue up to $2 million shares. Well whoopee doo, now you have more stock to sell to some more investors. This is the exact same thing the gov does when it needs more money, it authorizes more BONDS (T-Bonds, T-bills and or T-Notes) and “sells” them to whoever will buy them. Usually a few are sold to some fat rich pigs out there that still believe in the system, but the majority are sold to non other than: The Federal Reserve. But the Federal Reserve doesn’t have any money to pay for them so it kick starts its old printing press and prints out stacks and stacks of “Federal Reserve Notes.” These new Notes are ten used as “money” to buy the BONDS. In the case of your corporation, you do the same thing except your investors can’t just print up money to buy your stock or bonds, they must use the Federal Reserve Notes that are already in circulation. But here’s what happens to the investors in your corporation who now hold 2 million shares of stock rather than the original 1 million shares. Every time a dollar of cash flow is generated by the corporation it must be shared by TWICE the number of shareholders. Thus it is said that each shareholder, each investor’s INTEREST in the cash flow has been DILUTED. Watered down. In other words, due to the additional shares that were authorized, every share is not worth HALF as much in terms of claim on cash flow. The shares have been diluted by the excessive printing up of more stock. Since the shares are diluted and worth less, it now takes TWO shares of stock to now buy every one dollar bill of capital. The stock has undergone INFLATION. You have diluted the purchasing power of your stock to attract money. The exact same thing happens in a fiat money system: as the gov-Fed cartel prints up more and more money, all the existing Federal Reserve Notes out there are diluted, thus it takes more and more Federal Reserve Notes to buy any particular product or service. The “purchasing power” of the money is going down. This is called INFLATION, which is actually a poor term to describe what’s actually happening. What’s actually happening is you must use two Federal Reserve Notes, instead of one, to purchase a given product – just as you had to use two shares of stock to purchase every one dollar of capital. It’s exactly the same with one difference: ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE-GOVERNMENT LEVEL THE QUANTITIES OF MONEY ARE SO ENORMOUS THE AVERAGE CITIZEN HAS NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON. I assure you that there will be apologists for this corrupt system that will come along here and try and tell you that the fraud can’t be this simple, that there is much more complexity, that you just don’t understand this and that, but, but, but. . . These are all obfuscations. The system works as I have described it.
A fiat money system is no different than a corporation continuously diluting its stock with greater authorizations. Sooner or later the investors and the citizens, who are the investors in society, loose value and are subject to financial devastation.
Federal Reserve Notes are like the stock of the nation. If the gov and Fed keep creating more of then because they have no discipline of backing, we will go into a situation of spiraling inflation.
>That "money" moves from bank to bank overnight to provide them with the funds they are required to have on hand to declare themselves solvent. That is all beside the point. All money is created out of thin air because the only thing that keeps it circulating is the BELIEF that it has value. Using what's deposited in your bank account is an act of FAITH that can be destroyed with mere rumors. The main thing the Federal Reserve does is to keep the fiction of paper being worth a man's labor from being destroyed by inflation or stagnation. You still seem to have faith in the idea that one kind of money is somehow not a fiction or something we use on faith.
Yes, the ponzi scheme of the Federal Reserve is indeed kept alive by pure fiction based upon people’s ignorance. The sooner the entire system crashes the sooner we can start re-building it upon a sounder foundation.
>The system today has gone beyond what happened on Jeckyll Island and money is created by the fiat of the government DECLARING that it exists.
No fiat decrees doesn’t stipulate that it exists, it stipulates that YOU have to accept MY Federal Reserve Note when I am trying to pay off MY debt to YOU. If I pay you off with a FRN and you still claim I owe you the money, the gov will be on my side.
>It doesn't matter what kind of substance they impower with this myth, it will all fall apart when people stop believing in it.
True.
>It is interaction between people based on this myth that drives the economy -- not the machinations of government, banks and business. Just like the stock of such companies as Enron and the rest of the rogue companies we've seen in the last few years, the value falls to near zero when people stop believing in it enough to keep trading in it. Stock, too, is a piece of paper signifying hope rather than value. A different piece of paper signifying a value in gold would not be any different.
Yes it would because gold is real money. Paper is not real money. Gold has a utilitarian value, it is attractive and, most of all, it takes human effort to extract it from the earth. Therefore, down through the ages, the amount of effort it has taken to extract an ounce of gold from the earth has set its purchasing power of other goods. 500 years ago in the Roman Empire it took about an ounce of gold to buy a tunic, a pair of sandals and a belt. Today it still takes about an ounce of gold to but a men’s suit, a pair of shoes and a belt. The fact that an ounce of gold’s purchasing power has remained stable for 500 years is testament to the power of this medium of exchange. Nothing else can compare. Right now so many games are being played with paper money and securities and numbers there is NO WAY IT WON’T CRASH SOONER OR LATER. It’s just too unstable, too complex, as you like to characterize it. Maybe AI will step in and take over the complexities of the system, but if that happens I can assure you humans will be out of the loop and thus more dependent than ever upon an alien species. Do you want that? Do you want to move back to a more manageable, less game-ridden economic system – or do you want to turn your financial life over to computers, perhaps AI or even alien intelligences you can’t possibly comprehend. Frankly, abolishing the games being played by a fiat-based Federal Reserve System seem to me to be MUCH the lesser of the evils. James Martin in his book, ALIEN INTELLIGENCE says this is EXACTLY how it will happen. Humans will give up more and more of their day-to-day responsibilities to machines until the point of no return. We may have already passed that point right now in which case you can ignore everything I am desperately trying to relate.
>In my opinion you are no different from the other purveyers of hope and faith and almost everything you write reeks of propaganda,
Yes, what I write IS propaganda in so far as I am trying to effectuate positive change by and endless repetition of the truth. Every TV commercial you see on TV is also propaganda. Every OPED you read in the New York Times is propaganda because it’s trying to introduce you to a new worldview. At least 10% of all Hollywood movies are propaganda because they hammer away at that industries liberal position, such as gun control a desire for democratic presidents as well as endless financial support for Israel. I am over 50 years old and have read a lot and done a lot and been a lot of places. I feel I have earned the right to speak freely about my worldview at this time. And if you or anyone doesn’t like it, read something else. You undoubtedly have earned the same right and I feel that, as much as we argue, a lot of good comes out of these arguments as you get me to think and you DO express some very good points more often than not.
>from the hyperbolic descriptions of what is going on to the angry denunciations and damnation of small groups based on the idea that they control this complex adaptive system. They don't. Nobody does.
True, no body controls everything, that’s obvious, but certain groups do dominate certain industries. If you don’t know this you are very naive or poorly read. And as far as hype, hey I like to hype what I believe in, like an energy system, economy based on Plasma Fusion, like a world without war, like a film industry not dominated by any narrowly defined group, like
>If I want to believe in a conspiracy, I'll revisit the grassy knoll in Houston.
It’s not about CONSPIRACIES Grant, it’s about NETWORKS. The word “conspiracy” is old fashioned. It’s meaningless. What you are talking about is networks and how they work or don’t work and whether humans are capable of comprehending them. I say we set up a more simple, bullet proof financial network that allows humans to progress with their research and development of technology. We don’t need complexity in BOTH the area of technology AND finance. Technology will be complicated enough. We need to SIMPLIFY our money system so that we can focus ALL our attention of handling the technology. This is all I’m saying.
James Jaeger
P.S. And BTW, don’t look now, but it’s looking more and more like it WAS more than one gunman that killed Kennedy. Better get ready for another visit to that grassy knoll Grant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
No FRNs in Circulation
|
|
|
| |
A quibble : I'm not sure what you mean by
paying off private debts with FR Notes.
A. You go to your bank. Withdraw $4,213 in cash (i.e. FR Notes, a.k.a. Federal Reserve Notes, a.k.a. money, a.k.a. bucks, a.k.a. your cash savings). Then you take these 4,213 Federal Reserve Notes over to your credit card company and hand them to them. They then give you a receipt that says, "your credit card debt is paid off in full."
B. You then go back to your bank and withdraw $148,763 in cash (i.e. FR Notes, a.k.a. Federal Reserve Notes, a.k.a. money, a.k.a. bucks, a.k.a. your cash savings). Then you take these 148,763 Federal Reserve Notes over to your house mortgage company and hand them to them. They then give you a receipt that says, "your house loan is paid up in full."
C. You then go back to your bank and withdraw $23,218 in cash (i.e. FR Notes, a.k.a. Federal Reserve Notes, a.k.a. money, a.k.a. bucks, a.k.a. your cash savings). Then you take these 23,218 Federal Reserve Notes over to your car lending company and hand them to them. They then give you a receipt that says, "your car loan is paid up in full."
D. You do the same thing as in A - C above with any and all other debt you have.
E. Everyone else in the United States, including the U.S. government, does A - D above.
RESULT: The number of Federal Reserve Notes now in circulation = ZERO.
We have paid off all debt with FR Notes thus there are now NO Federal Reserve Notes left in circulation. Clear enough?
James Jaeger
|
|
|
|
|
| |