-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
I'm surprised this hasn't come up over the past couple of days, but yesterday I saw something quite interesting in the news.
While we were all focused intently on the bailout negotiations, the Treasury Department quietly released a five-sentence statement saying it had repealed section 382 (I think) of the tax code.
Section 382 kept corporations from claiming losses taken on by buying failing corporations for tax deductions/exemptions (I don't know the exact way it works)
This was written in the 70's, I think, to keep big corporations from expanding their power during recessions. You know, the whole idea of encouraging competition instead of consolidating power in a few businesses. It's pretty basic foundations of sustainable free markets.
Let's all remember a couple important things about this.
Number 1: The bailout plan was sold to the taxpayers and to Congress as a way to encourage banks to lend. But, without any of us noticing until now, the Treasury Department gave a huge tax break to corporations that want to use the bailout to buy their rivals out. Not only is it completely unfair to encourage corporations to consolidate their power (remember the days of trusts and monopolies?), but we are handing them the resources to do it via the bailout.
Number 2:
ARTICLE I SECTION 8; CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Is the Treasury Department "The Congress"? NO! This isn't only illegal, it goes against the highest legal document of the land!
Congress' response:
"We don't want to say it's illegal or do anything against the treasury for fear of creating another great depression" (paraphrasing an unnamed congressman)
So the taxpayers get ripped off 140 Billion in tax exemptions put in place to protect the spirit of competition that drives our economy, and Congress doesn't have the spine to act on it.
This is an outrage.
AN OUTRAGE!
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Welcome to the New world order . You are owned by the banks who run the Fed.
News flash....... The federal reserve is about as federal as federal express.
The federal reserve is owned by private bankers to whom you pay interest on the money the government borrows from.
SURPRISE!!!!!!!!
Look at the dollar. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777
Welcome to the New world order . You are owned by the banks who run the Fed.
News flash....... The federal reserve is about as federal as federal express.
The federal reserve is owned by private bankers to whom you pay interest on the money the government borrows from.
SURPRISE!!!!!!!!
Look at the dollar. FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.
That quote is taken right out of Zeitgeist, and it's true.
On Wikipedia, it says the profits made by the Fed go to its shareholders, as with any corporation.
However, its shareholders are the banks insured by the FDIC.
Not the Government, not the taxpayers, it's only the college of banks that make up the fed that get the profits from interest.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Welcome to socialism. Its a short step to communism.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
it's only temporary socialism...the government doesn't want to stay in the bank business...but the banks (and now the bank customers) know that the government will continue to bail them out again and again and again
the US national debt increased by $1 trillion in only 53 days as of friday last week
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
That quote is taken right out of Zeitgeist, and it's true.
On Wikipedia, it says the profits made by the Fed go to its shareholders, as with any corporation.
However, its shareholders are the banks insured by the FDIC.
Not the Government, not the taxpayers, it's only the college of banks that make up the fed that get the profits from interest.
It is a government enabled monopoly of the banking system.
I suggest anyone interested in the Fed to research Louis Thomas McFadden.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Welcome to socialism. Its a short step to communism.
if only that were true, then the people might regain some of the powers they have so blindly handed over to their so-called representatives. these bastards represent nothing but the consolidation of power and the slow stripping of the people of their liberties. the marxist concept that a government handed such powers over the lifeblood of a nation might willingly relinquish those powers to the citizenry has been disproved over and over again. no communalist society has ever been born of the consolidation of power in the few. only if all the people have the freedom to accumulate wealth and power individually is there any possibility of an equitable distribution of control over the nation's economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
it's only temporary socialism...the government doesn't want to stay in the bank business...
do you honestly believe that such power will just be blithely returned to the private sector? once government has gotten its hooks into any private entity has it ever really loosed its grip entirely? please don't be so naive. every totalitarian regime has instituted a series of temporary measures for the good of the people and it has always taken a popular uprising for the people to regain control.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
"once government has gotten its hooks into any private entity has it ever really loosed its grip entirely?"
- yes, privatization is happening all over the world...in my neck of the woods, the provincial government sold off a large government ferry corporation (with the largest ferries in the world) and a lucrative government natural gas utility (now owned by an american corporation)...governments will always retain the right to regulate business, but i don't believe that the US government wants to keep all that bank stock they have been buying...after the shit stops flicking off the fan, i think the US gov't will sell that stock, hopefully at a profit, and use it to buy more printing presses for the federal reserve
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
It is a government enabled monopoly of the banking system.
I suggest anyone interested in the Fed to research Louis Thomas McFadden.
Do you oppose the Fed, GoldenBoy?
If you do, it'd surprise the hell out of me.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
This is fucking insane... I mean shit, New World Order is even printed on our fuckin money! Oh well, Im glad Im "off the grid." Shits gonna be like that movie "Equilibrium" soon, lol...
:joint1:
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Do you oppose the Fed, GoldenBoy?
If you do, it'd surprise the hell out of me.
Of course i do! I advocate market regulated free banking. I also oppose the IRS, which goes hand in hand with the federal reserve system...
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
I'm against any government organization that isn't specifically spelled out in the constitution. So that pretty much leaves everything out but the military.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
okay, maybe if i repeat myself in a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really redundant way, y'all will get the hint:
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
stop using money, work the land for food, and share that food, stop waiting on politics to do what we need to do to survive, stop waiting on police to protect us, stop waiting of the federal reserve to act humane, and start taking responsibility for yourselves.
stop relying on money!
IS ANYONE LISTENING YET???
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Wonderful...the ridiculous lifestyles of a bunch of Wall Street fat-asses are in jeopardy, so of course working class tax dollars have to maintain their aristocratic status.
Sounds like something that would have happened in France in the 1780s or something...hopefully revolution's just around the corner.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Of course i do! I advocate market regulated free banking. I also oppose the IRS, which goes hand in hand with the federal reserve system...
Hah I hate the Fed and IRS, too, but I don't support free markets.
Getting rid of both those institutions would greatly help our economy, though. We should have a free currency, just like the founding fathers intended. None of this getting loaned money even after we worked our asses off to get it bullshit.
And there are so many better ways to raise money for government than taxing our fucking wages...Direct taxation without representation is what we fought the revolution over, wasn't it?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Hah I hate the Fed and IRS, too, but I don't support free markets.
Getting rid of both those institutions would greatly help our economy, though. We should have a free currency, just like the founding fathers intended. None of this getting loaned money even after we worked our asses off to get it bullshit.
And there are so many better ways to raise money for government than taxing our fucking wages...Direct taxation without representation is what we fought the revolution over, wasn't it?
Why do you not support open competition between firms? This provides the biggest advantage to consumers. It helps spawn innovation, and reduce inflation.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Why do you not support open competition between firms? This provides the biggest advantage to consumers. It helps spawn innovation, and reduce inflation.
I don't believe in currency. I think it's outdated.
A lot of people think this naive, but I think people can be given everything they want and they'll still help their fellows out of compassion. The only question is "Do we have the resources?" and I strongly feel we have the resources to give every person what he or she wants and even, with time, eliminate the need for most labor through the use of technology.
True, I think people may take advantage of it at first, but once people start being raised in that sort of society, it'll be less and less. Also, I think people would be bored with just lounging around all the bloody time. I know I'm fucking sick of it and it's only been a few months.
That's the end goal of what I'd like in our society so that we're free to create what we want and spend our time making people happy instead of having to look over our shoulders for someone who wants what you have.
As a transition, I think all the necessities should be nationalized. Farmers should be government employees and the food we grow and catch within the US should be either dirt cheap or paid for by the government. If someone wants a house, they should have one that's not going to put them in debt for 30 years. Water, natural gas, and electricity should be free or have their prices tuned only to pay for the operating expenses an extremely modest gain in case of unforseen circumstances.
So, yeah, I'm an open socialist. Not a communist.
Oh, and how can free market competition reduce inflation? I thought inflation came out of the fractional reserve banking system and from the federal reserve printing money to pay off the interest on the money already in the system.
That's why I say we should have a free currency if we're going to have one at all...with the money supply inflated according to the increase in goods and services.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I don't believe in currency. I think it's outdated.
All currency should be is a medium of exchange. Think about it, how else would you be able to obtain your needs without money? Say for example you were a shoe maker (cobbler), in order to find food in a society without a medium of exchange, you would have to find a shoe less baker, butcher, farmer, etc.... This is not necessarily a problem if you are the only cobbler, but you are going to have to facilitate trade on a large scale just to survive. Your overall efficiency would deteriorate as more and more cobblers emerged. This is known as the barter system. Look at the poorest African nations as a recent reference as to the effectiveness and the standard of living a barter system produces.
But, if you were able to trade your shoes for an accepted medium of exchange, say for instance gold, your efficiency instantly increases because your shoes can now be purchased by anyone who possesses the desired amount of gold. Much better than only providing shoes to those who have the resources you need wouldn't you say? In turn, you will then be able to take your gold coins and purchase the things you desire and need, spend less time finding trade partners, and produce more shoes! More shoes for peoples feet will improve the quality of their lives. I mean, wearing heavy boots in the summer, or sandals in the winter would really suck!
Quote:
A lot of people think this naive, but I think people can be given everything they want and they'll still help their fellows out of compassion. The only question is "Do we have the resources?" and I strongly feel we have the resources to give every person what he or she wants and even, with time, eliminate the need for most labor through the use of technology.
Everyone in the world cannot possibly satisfy their every need because resources are in fact limited. Limited in scale (finite), and limited in terms of production possibilities.
The bigger issue is how do you motivate all people to basically work for the good of society, as opposed their own best interests? There becomes a time when the good of society conflicts with a particular persons best interest.
Quote:
True, I think people may take advantage of it at first, but once people start being raised in that sort of society, it'll be less and less. Also, I think people would be bored with just lounging around all the bloody time. I know I'm fucking sick of it and it's only been a few months.
The question arises, why would a person with superior ability want to receive the same disbursements as everyone else, even though their presence alone provides greater levels of productivity? Who would want to spend years and years being a doctor if you are given the same necessities as someone who cleans bathrooms? Either doctors or careers that require much sacrifice would be extremely scare (in the case of a MD, it would reduce the overall health availability), or these people in demanding fields would need to receive greater compensation than the average. This alone creates a class system.
Quote:
That's the end goal of what I'd like in our society so that we're free to create what we want and spend our time making people happy instead of having to look over our shoulders for someone who wants what you have.
You are describing a society free of desire. How can society prosper in such a case, and how would we go about creating a non-desiring society that can produce everything needed?
Quote:
As a transition, I think all the necessities should be nationalized. Farmers should be government employees and the food we grow and catch within the US should be either dirt cheap or paid for by the government. If someone wants a house, they should have one that's not going to put them in debt for 30 years. Water, natural gas, and electricity should be free or have their prices tuned only to pay for the operating expenses an extremely modest gain in case of unforseen circumstances.
There is a serious flaw in this statement. Nationalization of an industry will reduce its overall output capability. Reason be, what is the incentive to the managers, and workers to produce more? It is not like the increased production would necessarily benefit them. A situation such as this would lead to massive inefficiency, and therefore reduce the overall standard of living within that society.
Also, price caps do much more harm than good, and tend to lead to extreme shortages. For example, if a specific good is affected by nature (drought, flood, earthquake, etc...) of which its overall supply has been strictly reduced, the people who buy the said good at an artificially low price before the good diminished would then have a direct advantage over those who were unable to purchase the good. They would then be able to trade the good for something more valuable than the price cap specified.
Quote:
So, yeah, I'm an open socialist. Not a communist.
Why? Do you not believe that a society that embraces competition will have a higher standard of living than one that does not?
Quote:
Oh, and how can free market competition reduce inflation? I thought inflation came out of the fractional reserve banking system and from the federal reserve printing money to pay off the interest on the money already in the system.
Inflation is too many dollars (insert any currency) chasing too few goods. The biggest indicator of inflation is the increase in prices. For example, a piece of land holds the same intrinsic value for a developer as it did ten years ago. So the question is, why does it "cost more" than it did 10 years ago? Similarily, a long distance phone call now cost on average less than 3 cents per minute. From memory, i remember seeing a long distance phone call would be equivalent to $9 per minute in 1910. Why does it cost less than it did 98 years ago, even though it provides the same intrinsic value (communicating vast distances)?
While the generic term that categorizes inflation is correct, much more is needed to determine why more or less dollars are chasing too few/many goods. Price stability is the key in any economy. Not the stability of one particular good or ten, but the price stability of all goods.
Quote:
That's why I say we should have a free currency if we're going to have one at all...with the money supply inflated according to the increase in goods and services.
The question remains, how else can you achieve this without open competition between banks and their preferred mediums of exchange?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
All currency should be is a medium of exchange. Think about it, how else would you be able to obtain your needs without money? Say for example you were a shoe maker (cobbler), in order to find food in a society without a medium of exchange, you would have to find a shoe less baker, butcher, farmer, etc.... This is not necessarily a problem if you are the only cobbler, but you are going to have to facilitate trade on a large scale just to survive. Your overall efficiency would deteriorate as more and more cobblers emerged. This is known as the barter system. Look at the poorest African nations as a recent reference as to the effectiveness and the standard of living a barter system produces.
But, if you were able to trade your shoes for an accepted medium of exchange, say for instance gold, your efficiency instantly increases because your shoes can now be purchased by anyone who possesses the desired amount of gold. Much better than only providing shoes to those who have the resources you need wouldn't you say? In turn, you will then be able to take your gold coins and purchase the things you desire and need, spend less time finding trade partners, and produce more shoes! More shoes for peoples feet will improve the quality of their lives. I mean, wearing heavy boots in the summer, or sandals in the winter would really suck!
Manufacturing would be handled by machines. This is already happening gradually thanks to the free markets because a machine can do manual labor with far greater efficiency and for far less money. With a manufacturing base rooted in automation, things like shoes would be abundant. This is going to happen whether or not society changes in the way I propose. The manufacturers themselves won't mind because they'll be able to turn the machines on and off at will, instead of risking trouble with a union for firing workers, to keep the prices of their products from becoming less expensive to the consumer than it is to manufacture, and because it'll reduce their manufacturing costs to the point that they'll drop their prices to compete better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Everyone in the world cannot possibly satisfy their every need because resources are in fact limited. Limited in scale (finite), and limited in terms of production possibilities.
How does a free market solve that issue? The free market only casts out those without money, keeping them from those resources irrespective of how they got in that situation. That's not good policy. There must be a better way to do it. In the goal of this idea for society, resources wouldn't be scarce because technology and effective management keeps them from becoming scarce. However, it's a long and slow road to reach that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
The bigger issue is how do you motivate all people to basically work for the good of society, as opposed their own best interests? There becomes a time when the good of society conflicts with a particular persons best interest.
Then why not work-in the ability to allow for people to act out of self-interest, as long as it doesn't harm the society? There's no such thing as perfection, so the idea that the system we have now is the best way to balance the society's and the individual's interests is laughable. I'm not saying this idea is perfect, either, but the best of my reason believes it's a step in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
The question arises, why would a person with superior ability want to receive the same disbursements as everyone else, even though their presence alone provides greater levels of productivity? Who would want to spend years and years being a doctor if you are given the same necessities as someone who cleans bathrooms? Either doctors or careers that require much sacrifice would be extremely scare (in the case of a MD, it would reduce the overall health availability), or these people in demanding fields would need to receive greater compensation than the average. This alone creates a class system.
Once again, technology. Technology could make something like surgery idiot-proof over time, something any punter who's good with his hands could do after learning basic anatomy and getting over the fear of cutting into another human.
Also, people raised in this society would know that acting for the benefit of the society is the most honorable thing a person could do, while making it a realistic goal unlike it is today. Thus, people would be motivated to increase their abilities because they want to help the society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
You are describing a society free of desire. How can society prosper in such a case, and how would we go about creating a non-desiring society that can produce everything needed?
The desire would be a desire to create something. The other prominent desire in this society would be to keep moving the standard of living upward for everyone in the society. Thus, since technology is what improves our standard of living, the majority would find a desire to maintain existing technology or research new ones. If even a fraction of a percent devote even an hour a day to research, there would be more people working on research and development an hour than there is now. Thus, tech would move forward at a pace that vastly overshadows current speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
There is a serious flaw in this statement. Nationalization of an industry will reduce its overall output capability. Reason be, what is the incentive to the managers, and workers to produce more? It is not like the increased production would necessarily benefit them. A situation such as this would lead to massive inefficiency, and therefore reduce the overall standard of living within that society.
The incentive is to feed the people. Managers are trained to teach their employees to understand what their services mean to both the business and the consumer, that way they can take pride in their work and find an intrinsic motivation to work harder. Those driven by intrinsic motivation, something inside the person such as "I am a doctor because I feel it is my duty to help my fellow man retain his or her health", instead of extrinsic motivation (money, a reward outside of the person), are much more productive at anything.
Instead of saying government is broken and inefficient, and thus should scale back its power, why not work on making it better? That's not too naive, is it? Otherwise, at the rate we're going, government will be so marginalized that it'll be lucky to still be in charge of the military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Also, price caps do much more harm than good, and tend to lead to extreme shortages. For example, if a specific good is affected by nature (drought, flood, earthquake, etc...) of which its overall supply has been strictly reduced, the people who buy the said good at an artificially low price before the good diminished would then have a direct advantage over those who were unable to purchase the good. They would then be able to trade the good for something more valuable than the price cap specified.
I said the price should reflect the costs incurred to provide the goods, with only a modest gain to go to a fund in case of unforseen circumstances. That way, if a drought affects the availability of water, there is a fund (perhaps gaining interest in a bank account) to cover the costs so the consumer doesn't see a massive price jump overnight, allowing prices to slowly increase over time.
It could work, if it was done intelligently. Our government should be able to handle anything a business can and then some. Why would you ask for less from those that supposedly protect you from harm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Why? Do you not believe that a society that embraces competition will have a higher standard of living than one that does not?
Depends on the available resources. Technology creates more efficient uses of existing resources and also creates new ones. That's why I stressed the idea of transition. I know it's not something that could happen overnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
Inflation is too many dollars (insert any currency) chasing too few goods. The biggest indicator of inflation is the increase in prices. For example, a piece of land holds the same intrinsic value for a developer as it did ten years ago. So the question is, why does it "cost more" than it did 10 years ago? Similarily, a long distance phone call now cost on average less than 3 cents per minute. From memory, i remember seeing a long distance phone call would be equivalent to $9 per minute in 1910. Why does it cost less than it did 98 years ago, even though it provides the same intrinsic value (communicating vast distances)?
I understand how inflation works. I just don't see how competition affects it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
While the generic term that categorizes inflation is correct, much more is needed to determine why more or less dollars are chasing too few/many goods. Price stability is the key in any economy. Not the stability of one particular good or ten, but the price stability of all goods.
It's not hard to figure out why the money supply moves independent of goods and services. The inflation is mathematically determined under fractional reserve practice, and also sped up by large loans such as the Bailout. This calls for intelligent expansion, not a mathematical equation that doesn't change with the times (except for speeding up because it grows exponentially)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
The question remains, how else can you achieve this without open competition between banks and their preferred mediums of exchange?
Through a government-backed, government-controlled currency that is free from unwise inflation or unfair interest. Benjamin Franklin cited King George's ban on a free currency as a prime cause of the revolution.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Manufacturing would be handled by machines.
This is already happening gradually thanks to the free markets because a machine can do manual labor with far greater efficiency and for far less money. With a manufacturing base rooted in automation, things like shoes would be abundant. This is going to happen whether or not society changes in the way I propose. The manufacturers themselves won't mind because they'll be able to turn the machines on and off at will, instead of risking trouble with a union for firing workers, to keep the prices of their products from becoming less expensive to the consumer than it is to manufacture, and because it'll reduce their manufacturing costs to the point that they'll drop their prices to compete better.How does a free market solve that issue? The free market only casts out those without money, keeping them from those resources irrespective of how they got in that situation. That's not good policy. There must be a better way to do it. In the goal of this idea for society, resources wouldn't be scarce because technology and effective management keeps them from becoming scarce. However, it's a long and slow road to reach that. Then why not work-in the ability to allow for people to act out of self-interest, as long as it doesn't harm the society? There's no such thing as perfection, so the idea that the system we have now is the best way to balance the society's and the individual's interests is laughable. I'm not saying this idea is perfect, either, but the best of my reason believes it's a step in the right direction.Once again, technology. Technology could make something like surgery idiot-proof over time, something any punter who's good with his hands could do after learning basic anatomy and getting over the fear of cutting into another human.
You missed my point entirely. How is it possible to facilitate trade in an efficient manner without an objective value measurement? How will producers know how much to produce? More importantly, how will goods be exchanged?
Besides, manufacturing is only a aspect of our economy, as we are primarily service based. Without currency, how will you obtain food, clothing, entertainment, etc... without actively locating the producers? Once you locate the producers, what will motivate them to trade you their goods unless they receive something of value, that they view necessary in order to want to trade?
Say for example i am a teacher, how do i go about obtaining my wants and desires without being compensated for my services with currency? The only way to do so, without complete welfare, is to only teach students who can provide me with the goods and services i need to survive. That would be absolutely horrible!
Quote:
Also, people raised in this society would know that acting for the benefit of the society is the most honorable thing a person could do, while making it a realistic goal unlike it is today.
That is a rather ambitious assumption. People raised in the current society know that committing a crime, preferably consuming cannabis, is against our societal norms yet is still done. In a utopia, yes, in reality this would not play out as you would want it to.
The better question is, how would we end up there?
Quote:
Thus, people would be motivated to increase their abilities because they want to help the society.
In a utopia maybe.
Quote:
The desire would be a desire to create something. The other prominent desire in this society would be to keep moving the standard of living upward for everyone in the society.
Creating something is not the same as creating something good. I mean, i can create a nice toe nail collection, and spend lots of time doing so.
Quote:
Thus, since technology is what improves our standard of living, the majority would find a desire to maintain existing technology or research new ones.
A system where open competition exists will out produce, out design, and live better than a society that does not employ a system of open competition. The more competitive the economic system the higher the standard of living.
Quote:
If even a fraction of a percent devote even an hour a day to research, there would be more people working on research and development an hour than there is now.
You still have yet to identify logical motivating factors that would push people to do so.
Quote:
Thus, tech would move forward at a pace that vastly overshadows current speeds.
Nope! People who innovate now are those who are either the most productive/ qualified in doing so, or are those who are inherently brilliant. Innovation does not happen for the sake of innovation, instead there has to be a reason to innovate.
Quote:
The incentive is to feed the people. Managers are trained to teach their employees to understand what their services mean to both the business and the consumer, that way they can take pride in their work and find an intrinsic motivation to work harder. Those driven by intrinsic motivation, something inside the person such as "I am a doctor because I feel it is my duty to help my fellow man retain his or her health", instead of extrinsic motivation (money, a reward outside of the person), are much more productive at anything.
Yet real world examples prove quite the opposite. Look at Cuba and the former USSR as good examples. In both cases, you have rather large differential rate of defection to free countries in highly skilled sectors such as engineering and medicine.
Quote:
Instead of saying government is broken and inefficient, and thus should scale back its power, why not work on making it better? That's not too naive, is it?
Yes it is. As the current financial crisis proves, free market innovation moves and innovates exponentially faster than systems bogged down in bureaucracy. Firms were coming up with more advanced ways of investing, at a much greater pace than government could regulate. This is known as time lag.
Quote:
I said the price should reflect the costs incurred to provide the goods, with only a modest gain to go to a fund in case of unforseen circumstances.
When grain runs a shortage, there is a short run finite limit of how many people will be able to obtain it. What are the people who desire grain to do, eat the "fund"?
Quote:
That way, if a drought affects the availability of water, there is a fund (perhaps gaining interest in a bank account) to cover the costs so the consumer doesn't see a massive price jump overnight, allowing prices to slowly increase over time.
I thought your Utopian society does not have currency? Why would there be prices and bank accounts?
Quote:
It could work, if it was done intelligently.
Not if there are other countries that still employ open competition. It would have to be implemented on a global scale, and with a revocation of private property rights.
Quote:
Our government should be able to handle anything a business can and then some. Why would you ask for less from those that supposedly protect you from harm?
I am not sure what you are getting at. Government is inneficient because even though the people elected are at the mercy of the voters, there is no competition that will actually motivate bureaucracies to become more efficient. It just does not happen.
Quote:
Depends on the available resources. Technology creates more efficient uses of existing resources and also creates new ones. That's why I stressed the idea of transition. I know it's not something that could happen overnight.
How are you going to sell the idea? Better yet, how are you going to get people who are extremely talented/ productive and well compensated for it to give up their prosperity? It sounds really nice, as well as really unrealistic...
Quote:
I understand how inflation works. I just don't see how competition affects it.
Did the open competition between phone companies undoubtedly bring down the price with the use of innovation? This is what your scenario lacks. Competitive firms are those that are able to innovate the fastest, not because they desire to do so, but because they desire to produce more profit. Look at the cost of cars, computers, communication etc..., that have reduced primarily due to a competitive market. If there is no competition, what is the incentive to reduce prices?
Quote:
It's not hard to figure out why the money supply moves independent of goods and services. The inflation is mathematically determined under fractional reserve practice, and also sped up by large loans such as the Bailout. This calls for intelligent expansion, not a mathematical equation that doesn't change with the times (except for speeding up because it grows exponentially)Through a government-backed, government-controlled currency that is free from unwise inflation or unfair interest. Benjamin Franklin cited King George's ban on a free currency as a prime cause of the revolution.
We have a government backed, government controlled currency. What you are advocating is not free currency, but more of the same. Right now, we are experiencing a period of deflation, even though there have been hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into the financial industry. Care to explain that?
Although your concept is a noble push for equality, it is very unrealistic. I advise you to read Adlous Huxley's Brave New World. The totalitarian, utilitarian utopia he creates in that novel seem to fit the "caste" (pun intended) of your thinking.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
You've missed a few key points, GoldenBoy.
There are 3 I'm pushing right now. They are Intrinsic v Extrinsic motivation, the failure of the free market system, and the emergent nature of the free market. I'm sorry but I ranted off a bit too much on my idea for a society, while ignoring the important issues. Keep in mind that I'm only 18. I have plenty of time to keep evolving this idea and making it better. However, for this argument, I'm going to put that to the side for a minute.
First off, if you read up on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, you'll find that intrinsic, though harder to create in somebody, greatly improves the productivity of a person. Extrinsic is cheap, quick, and dirty. For example, if I have a daughter and I want her to play the violin, I could go about it one of two ways. One, I could offer her rewards for regular practice and admirable performances by A) Telling her I'll give her a healthy allowance if I hear her practice an hour every day B) Telling her that I'll strip her privileges if she doesn't practice at least twice a week C) Tell her that if she ends up "grounded", she'll have to practice an hour a day for x number of days.
That little girl will practice her ass off. Literally. She'll play until her fingers are bleeding and she can't straighten her neck. But, she won't practice wisely, she'll learn slowly because she hates it, and she'll stop playing altogether once she's out of the house, which defeats the purpose of trying to motivate her to play the violin.
Option B is to teach her to the best of my abilities to appreciate classical music styles, along with other violin-heavy genres of music, and show her how rewarding it can be to do so. If I'm not too pushy, and RANDOMLY reward her without her prior knowledge for good performances and diligent practice, with such rewards becoming less and less frequent over time, she will learn to always challenge herself to play better than she is now without any sort of reward except the one she gets from playing the music. And, perhaps more importantly, she'll be delighted for the chance to play.
Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
You've missed a few key points, GoldenBoy.
There are 3 I'm pushing right now. They are Intrinsic v Extrinsic motivation, the failure of the free market system, and the emergent nature of the free market. I'm sorry but I ranted off a bit too much on my idea for a society, while ignoring the important issues. Keep in mind that I'm only 18. I have plenty of time to keep evolving this idea and making it better. However, for this argument, I'm going to put that to the side for a minute.
First off, if you read up on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, you'll find that intrinsic, though harder to create in somebody, greatly improves the productivity of a person. Extrinsic is cheap, quick, and dirty. For example, if I have a daughter and I want her to play the violin, I could go about it one of two ways. One, I could offer her rewards for regular practice and admirable performances by A) Telling her I'll give her a healthy allowance if I hear her practice an hour every day B) Telling her that I'll strip her privileges if she doesn't practice at least twice a week C) Tell her that if she ends up "grounded", she'll have to practice an hour a day for x number of days.
That little girl will practice her ass off. Literally. She'll play until her fingers are bleeding and she can't straighten her neck. But, she won't practice wisely, she'll learn slowly because she hates it, and she'll stop playing altogether once she's out of the house, which defeats the purpose of trying to motivate her to play the violin.
Option B is to teach her to the best of my abilities to appreciate classical music styles, along with other violin-heavy genres of music, and show her how rewarding it can be to do so. If I'm not too pushy, and RANDOMLY reward her without her prior knowledge for good performances and diligent practice, with such rewards becoming less and less frequent over time, she will learn to always challenge herself to play better than she is now without any sort of reward except the one she gets from playing the music. And, perhaps more importantly, she'll be delighted for the chance to play.
Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
I like what you have to say, but option b is a form of cohesion if it is your goal to get someone else to subscribe/accept to a particular belief, activity, ideology. Unless the desire comes from within to play violin, any attempt to persuade, reward, or teach is extrinsically motivating the individual. Basically it has to be a spontanious desire that motivates someone to do something to truly be intrinsic.
I do understand where your getting at, that it is possible to instill intrinsic motivation into not only one person, but all of society around the world. This is something i do not believe possible without chemical and psychological modification/manipulation. Which is why it would be great for you to read Brave New World.
Now, about the failure of free market society. I suppose from a Marxist POV, it has failed.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
I like what you have to say, too. We should carry this conversation on elsewhere, though. If you want to, go on to my profile and find my email.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
what if we literally used time as money? that way DOING things would result in earning things, instead of BUYING things.
time is a commodity that takes effort, whereas cash is a commodity that fuels greed.
time works better, the time it takes to collect the materials to build a house is the only real cost to building the house!!
and before you ask me to pay you for your efforts, your efforts are HOW you SPEND time!
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
I like what you have to say, but option b is a form of cohesion if it is your goal to get someone else to subscribe/accept to a particular belief, activity, ideology. Unless the desire comes from within to play violin, any attempt to persuade, reward, or teach is extrinsically motivating the individual. Basically it has to be a spontanious desire that motivates someone to do something to truly be intrinsic.
I do understand where your getting at, that it is possible to instill intrinsic motivation into not only one person, but all of society around the world. This is something i do not believe possible without chemical and psychological modification/manipulation. Which is why it would be great for you to read Brave New World.
Now, about the failure of free market society. I suppose from a Marxist POV, it has failed.
The problem i see arising with that idea is the lack of an objective measurement of value. For example, if i believe my time is worth something, and i desire to gain from "spending my time", i might even be inclined to sell a portion of my time for X amount of dollars. An hour to me might be worth more or less than an hour for somebody else. For that reason alone, currency is irreplaceable. What else provides such an objective measure of value?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
The measurement of value is in the resources, Goldenboy. You don't need money for that.
We could at least try it out. Besides, a lot of things I'm asking for will happen on their own, unless we kill each other first.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
what if you live in a country that doesn't have enough resources, and has to import more stuff than it exports? a country like that wouldn't last very long without currency:
warren buffet simplifies the trade deficit into a children's fairy tale:
Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE . In the News | PBS
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
The only way this could work is if it's a global effort. Besides, the idea of having countries is another outdated mode anyway. We're one world, one species, one people. Why seperate ourselves with lines on maps?
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
you might appreciate having those lines and laws protecting those lines if a country that doesn't have enough resources decides to send a couple hundred thousand troops and mercenaries over to take control of your resources
but that would be extremely unlikely in this modern civilized world...
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
you might appreciate having those lines and laws protecting those lines if a country that doesn't have enough resources decides to send a couple hundred thousand troops and mercenaries over to take control of your resources
but that would be extremely unlikely in this modern civilized world...
way to completely miss his point.
in a world undivided by countries, or borders of control, free trade reigns supreme.
EVERY corner of the world is afforded the same freedom of trade and resources as every other corner in a world where everyone is one people. one family.
the kitchen holds all the resources, but we can still take them back to our bedrooms.
the earth works no differently. the Sahara might be your bedroom, but my kitchen is open to you, because we are brothers.
The earth has the capacity to provide for many more lives than just a few billion humans, but the control nations place on agriculture prevent the simplest of people from leading simple lives.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
The measurement of value is in the resources, Goldenboy. You don't need money for that.
We could at least try it out. Besides, a lot of things I'm asking for will happen on their own, unless we kill each other first.
How many gallons of gasoline is a whole chicken worth? How many oranges is a toothbrush worth? How many quarts of peanut butter is a foot massage worth? ETC...
On the other hand, i know how many dollars one gallon of gasoline, a whole chicken, basket of oranges, toothbrush, peanut butter, and a foot massage would cost.
I hope you get the point. Until you can provide something better than this, a system without currency or, a medium of exchange/measurement of value is outdated...
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Everything being manufactured by machines, it's ultimately up to whoever's managing the resources if someone can have something based on its usage of those resources.
See, I believe that with modern technology, and a slow transition period to let technology grow even further, we can create an abundance of resources that everyone can share without the average person having to sacrifice anything.
Money, and the barter system, both rely on the idea of scarcity. There ISN'T enough to go around, so you either have to have something I want, or enough money to satisfy me. Otherwise, I won't give you anything.
It should be our goal as a society to work toward abundance. Let us not forget that abundance is bad for a capitalistic society. If there's a lot of something, the cost per unit goes down, but the cost to manufacture might not go down with it. So, abundance could easily cripple any business.
As a society, it should be a goal to CREATE abundance. Businesses will naturally fight the concept. For a recent example, what did OPEC do once an overabundance started driving oil prices into the ground? They stopped producing so many barrels of oil. A lot of people say that's just the way business works, but that's wrong. Why should we have to suffer higher prices for petroleum when the market's being manipulated to create scarcity?
Looking forward to a rebuttal.
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
drugs, sex, and rock, and roll
rofl
-
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
good to see this place
booming
:stoned:
