Benefits/Welfare.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-09-2012, 11:32 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(22-09-2012 05:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Raising minimum wage doesn't really do much in the long run (inflation and all) plus some times it can harm some small businesses.

I don't think the word you are looking for is inflation. I think the words you are looking for is prices escalation. The corporations would just raise the prices, so in the long run they make the same, if not more, money.

Its happening right now with the insurance companies, and I still can't figure out how their expenses have went up at this point, or ever from the new health care laws. They just got million of new customers...

Cigarettes is another great example. Govt taxes them, they just jack the price up to compensate.

Do you think these aristocratic leeches are going to lose a dime of their bonus money do you? Of course not..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2012, 02:06 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Thumbsup
(22-09-2012 05:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Raising minimum wage doesn't really do much in the long run (inflation and all) plus some times it can harm some small businesses.

Welfare is always an interesting topic, it deals with social issues. First it should be noted that there are people who do simply mooch off the system and don't do anything productive. But on the flip side is the single mom with two kids and part time job so...

So the problem then becomes the moochers.
I believe welfare is suppose to be a helping hand for those in need, not something to mooch off (that's what friends and family are for). So have it my way I would stop all payments (like lump sums that you currently get). I would then make a personalized experience. Someone is assigned to you, they then take a look at your financial position. The state then makes payments on your behalf for the basics (Mortgage, power, water, gas, internet). You then get food stamps in regard to your situation (so families would get more etc..). These food stamps can only be used for food and basics (shampoo etc..) and can't be used for smokes or alcohol. That's it, no money. Then as an incentive to getting people off the welfare system, the state offers an incentive to EMPLOYERS, the state will pay for half the wages of that employee for the first 4 weeks. This encourages employers to take a serious look and consideration of welfare people. The state will also supply the person with what they need for that job (so say you need a nice pair of shoes) to begin with. And as a last addition, drug tests. All welfare (unemployment mainly) recipients will be subject to drug tests at the request of welfare worker assigned to them (so they use their judgment as to who to drug test as to save on just simply "test everyone every X weeks"). And then if you fail you simply have your benefit cut.
You can also have additional things such as paying for children's school stuff. Actually that reminds of something being passed now. If your child's school attendance drops to a certain level then you have your benefit (the additional because you have that child) cut. I like that, so I'd do that too.

I think this way is far more of a helping caring hand then simply (here's $XXX, go away and come back next week). It'd be more cost effectively too simply because it would drastically reduce drug use (due to not having cash in hand to pay for it, making it harder to obtain). It'd get people in work faster.
It's overall just simply a better system then what a lot of countries have now.

I agree completely. Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2012, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 27-09-2012 04:28 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 07:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  @Luminon
Firstly, that would never happen. The only way that would happen is with an upsurge revolution that pretty much kills off all rich people (could see a few people on this forum leading that riot..., bemore Tongue ). And that wouldn't happen because there is a decent middle class in America or UK or whatever that wouldn't allow that happen.
You gotta remember, middle class want to protect what they have as well, they worked for it and so want to protect it.
You'd basically need like a 90% really poor population. I mean take the French Revolution for example, you'd need circumstances like that and that just isn't the case.
Secondly, if that was ever too happen those with the power afterwards are not going to lesson themselves if they have the power to be the next 1%.
Are you sure you read me correctly? There must be no next 1%, no pathologic concentration of wealth in private hands. No right to keep money away from circulating them in economy.
This is all in favor of the middle class. All we need is a 90% disgruntled population. The middle class in my country is totally sick of the business mafia that controls the government. My nation is not violent people so this is why they're still there, but we're totally and hopelessly disgusted by the politicians. That means everyone, young people, productive age and seniors. We just need a way to get out of the non-voting and non-rioting coma and empty the political cesspool. A cesspool isn't cleaned by adding a few drops of pure water in it, it's cleaned by eptying it. So yes, we're ripe for another revolution, although we do have a tradition of non-violent revolutions.
This is why Pirate party is gaining popularity all over Europe, which also has a social program. IIRC German party demands a low limit of income, a welfare per head, basically.
As for the rest of the world beyond USA and Commonwealth, last time I checked, rich people were in minority. I suspect that Brazil's poor might find their public voice very soon and lead an example. Poor people are very easily convinced in favor of the system I suggested.
It is obvious that whatever social and economic innovation there will be, USA would probably be the last country to which it gets, the most profiting from the current system and the last one to welcome changes. So please consider that in your worldview.

(26-09-2012 07:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Thirdly, it wouldn't be sustainable. No competition, no foreign trade, no profit etc..
No competition? Competition yes, but only where it increases efficiency. We may see the competition as the burning and explosions within the engine piston chambers. Just because it powers the whole thing, doesn't mean that all the engine and car space should be filled with flames, explosions and smoke! Nope, the competition is confined to where it does most good and least harm and there are mechanisms to harvest its producst for the benefit of the whole car.
We may translate this ideal model into a competition within a state only. Competitors who pay their taxes to some other state should not be allowed. Similarly, the engine pistons never move below their chamber or break upwards from their chamber and just like that, no physical person should ever be allowed to get too poor to do business, or so rich that he'll never have to worry about competition again. I suppose businessmen will manage their operations to produce best quality products (not quantity) and pay least taxes. I'd say this is the golden age of middle class - of course, backed up by those legal persons who became too rich to fail and ascended to Heaven Angel (being partially owned by the state, though privately managed)

As for foreign trade, it should be done but again, efficiently. It is not efficient when everyone produce the same thing and then try to sell it to one another. Current trade mechanisms are unfair and inefficient. Firstly, all raw resources should be traded not for money, but by a transparent and sophisticated barter of resources.
Secondly, states should not allow to their market something that their businessmen already produce (unless the foreign competitor pays taxes here), or allow foreign forces to buy out and demolish local business (as it happens in my country).

No profit? Profit yes, almost unlimited for legal persons (corporations etc), except the more profit they have, the more taxes they pay or the more ownership they give over to the state or local authority. If something is too big to fail, it's also too big to make independent decisions that affect whole regions.
As for personal profit, this one is tricky. Personal profit definitely yes, but a humanly limited one and a positively proportional one. With universal welfare per head there is no need to be greedy. So businessmen of the future should command great resources, but not to fill his pockets. Personal and company finances must be strictly divided, there must be higher or lower rewards depending on how is the company doing, but no... how to say it, endgame profit. Endgame profit is not to be understood as becoming a billionaire and never needing money again, but as having an universal state welfare and never needing money again.

(26-09-2012 07:00 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  there's no incentive for technological progress. Why should I invent the new car engine that runs on dead babies when I'm not going to profit for it.
Sure some progress may be made, but the point is that competition, foreign trade etc.. rapidly increase progress and innovation.
People think that NASA and it's rockets built all this amazing innovative things (and so we get stupid arguments for stupid things like the Enterprise being built, IT NOT GONNA GET BUILT!), it's because they had too. They had serious competition from the Soviets. Hell, the Soviets already beat them in the important race (satellites).
Now people for whatever reason think that the only way to move forward is to build the next spaceship, ahh no, because they were different times people. There was little global trade back then, little competition from major companies around the world. Unlike today where there is heaps which drives innovation and progress. This is why spaceships are stupid waste of money, because all that can be innovated that effects our lives is being innovated by companies competing.
I think I went a little off topic just then, but you get my drift.
As for technological progress, there's one answer, NERDS. Nerds do not need wealth or whips to motivate them. Nerds cooperate, it's their CEOs that do all the competing.
As for competition, I am not against it in principle. I am against competition that is unfair, involuntary, wasteful, destructive and that does not pay homage to the states and natural environments in which it happens and to all the people that it involves, regardless if they win or lose. Competition and development must be separate from social sector. People should be perfectly able to live decently whether they do well in competition or not. If competition can not fit into these demands, then it must stop. (for example, competition in sports is natural)
Yes, we get innovation from competing companies, but we also get planned obsolence and a hundred times the same thing every year for a huge cost on resources. (see cars and digital devices) And half of the world can't afford it anyway. This is enough of a reason to not be satisfied with competition. Do not make a sacred cow or a golden calf out of competition, or I'm gonna come from the Bohemian mountain with my Android tablets of new economic laws and there'll be some symbolic dramatical OT re-enactment Big Grin

On the other hand, if competition as we know it is a dangerous and mostly overcome practice, there is a whole new era ahead, the era of cooperation. I think cooperation is equally if not more motivating than competition. It is also more efficient and ethical. Today most of science is done through international cooperation. There is no need to restrict cooperation between people, municipalities, states and economies. It should be encouraged and publically praised. Whenever someone wins, (for example by technologic development) his achievement should be publically shared on the Internet so other people can build and improve upon it.
Trust me, creative people are not motivated by the vision of how their invention is going to be restricted from everyone else and lining only their pockets. Their CEOs perhaps, but not the creators.
All achievements of our civilizations considered, consider also how little good they are to the poorer half of the world. None. Half of our world is incapable of competition on our terms, isn't that a reason enough to use a better model? Whatever I say, consider that not only for your world, but also for the "third world". Let the third world's voice have its vote within your mind, when you're reading what I write.

There is a new paradigm ahead. A constructive but sustainable paradigm that builds on human virtues, not vices. A paradigm where people are not owners, but custodians of money, information, employees, resources, land, animals and nature.
I tried to explain it to you a little. Chances are, that you'll hear about it more as the time goes, if you watch independent media.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2012, 04:42 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(27-09-2012 02:06 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Thumbsup
(22-09-2012 05:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  ...
I agree completely. Bowing
I agree too Smile In my country we already have a similar system, a "credit card" that lets people withdraw only a small amount of money per day or week, so they don't drink it all at once. But as for food stamps, they tend to exchange them for 1/3 of their money value and then get drunk. It needs to be more personalized than that. Still better than a direct money, Gypsies just throw the large banknotes into gambling machines.

I agree with what you propose, I'd only build upon that by cultural support. There aren't many moochers, except certain ethnic groups - because they behave uniformly. They have a herd mentality, as opposed to us, unherdable cats. We do have municipal and regional committees on ethnic affairs, but they don't do their job. I'd like the committees (that have to be at least 50% ethnic) to involve the tribal authorities (Gypsies have vajda, the king) to manage their people personally and basically tell them what to do, which is something that we can't do by law. So the legal authorities should make it their job to get the ethnic authorities into the committees and to cooperate with them and indirectly influence the ethnic people. Regardless if Gypsies or African/Turkish Muslims, Vietnamese or whichever ethnicity happens to be frequent here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2012, 02:14 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
I am with earmuffs on this one. Price escalation is the result of inflation, and inflation it caused by many things, including government regulations that include minimum wage. The biggest danger to artificial inflation is a fiat money system and a private centralized banking system though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(26-09-2012 11:32 PM)Diablo Wrote:  
(22-09-2012 05:06 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Raising minimum wage doesn't really do much in the long run (inflation and all) plus some times it can harm some small businesses.

I don't think the word you are looking for is inflation. I think the words you are looking for is prices escalation. The corporations would just raise the prices, so in the long run they make the same, if not more, money.

Its happening right now with the insurance companies, and I still can't figure out how their expenses have went up at this point, or ever from the new health care laws. They just got million of new customers...

Cigarettes is another great example. Govt taxes them, they just jack the price up to compensate.

Do you think these aristocratic leeches are going to lose a dime of their bonus money do you? Of course not..

That is like exactly what inflation is.
Wages go up, prices go up and overall nothing changes apart from things that use to cost $1 are now $2 and where you earned $10 you now earn $20.
Devaluation of the dollar.

As for cigarettes, that's the general idea of increasing tax on them that price goes up and then hopefully people are deterred from buying them. Cigarette companies still make the same profit no matter the price on each pack.
It's the same with petrol, service stations make the same amount per liter(or galleon if you're country is crap and doesn't use metric) no matter the price (yet I'd always get an ear full when price goes up... yes because as someone who pumps gas and serves on till I am in complete 100% control of petrol prices and I'm obviously just raising them to fuck with everybody... fucking moron town doesn't understand global concepts). Or even refineries, we have a family friend who owns a refinery, his profit margin remains the same no matter gasoline prices.
Cost of petrol goes up yes but so does the price of crude.

Quote:I agree completely. Bowing

TTA, you could learn a thing or two from this guy. Tongue

Quote:Are you sure you read me correctly? There must be no next 1%, no pathologic concentration of wealth in private hands. No right to keep money away from circulating them in economy.

But that's what I'm saying. People want power, and if they are in a position to gain power then they are going to take it. To do what you're saying you'd then have to take power away from these people that have the power to make the change. It'd be like giving a baby a lolly pop for like 10minutes and then saying "no more lolly pop", that baby isn't gonna give up that lolly pop without a fight.
Thus, what you are saying is unrealistic and will never happen.

I mean look at communism, that fails mostly because the governments are corrupt or on a power trip. Stalin, China.

And the middle class will never revolt. The middle class is happy the way it is now. The middle class is happy going to their jobs, raising their families, having BBQs with their neighbors. Sure, they'll have they're say politically if something comes that peeks their interest. But for the most part, they are happy just the way they are. So to say they'd revolt is ridiculous, why would they cause such a fuss as a revolt and risk it all?

As for Czech Republic, obviously I don't know anything on the political nature of your country. But I can tell you that this would never happen. A revolution may happen sure, but you'll still end up with a 1% rich, a large middle class and a bunch of poor people. You'll still have people in power ruling over those not in power.

Quote:No competition? Competition yes, but only where it increases efficiency.

Everywhere, competition increases efficiency everywhere.
Growing progressive economies need competition to constantly stimulate markets.

Quote:We may see the competition as the burning and explosions within the engine piston chambers. Just because it powers the whole thing, doesn't mean that all the engine and car space should be filled with flames, explosions and smoke!

That metaphor is horrible.

Quote:We may translate this ideal model into a competition within a state only.

Countries use to operate this way, everything made within the state.
It doesn't work. (well it works obviously, but I'm saying that it's no comparison to global trade/competition).
It's all about allocation of resources and a country wastes resources producing inefficient things it's not good at.
Example: Here in NZ we had massive import tariffs until 1987 (when they were all lifted literally overnight). We use to produce everything from cars to TVs. Today, not a single NZ car or TV is made. Why? Because the Japanese TV's and cars are cheaper, better. Now we can allocate our limited resources (as a small nation) into things we are good at (clean green shit, innovation, diary farming, tourism).

Competition and globalization allows for specialization which just like back in the day when basic trade in towns started popping up, is creating this massive boom in the whole economy as products are becoming cheaper, better and new innovated products are being created.

You think Apple would be so quick to improve the iphone if android and BB (who are going bankrupt actually) weren't hot on their tail?
Why should windows improve on win98' if nothing else in that market was popping up that was better then it?

Quote:Competitors who pay their taxes to some other state should not be allowed.

I can't imagine Czech Republic is a big country? Most of your businesses will be offshore owned. Even ones started in your country will likely have incorporated and brought by overseas. Just as people in your country would have brought overseas businesses.

Quote:no physical person should ever be allowed to get too poor to do business, or so rich that he'll never have to worry about competition again.

But you're saying everyone is equal, now you're talking about rich and poor??

Quote:I suppose businessmen will manage their operations to produce best quality products (not quantity) and pay least taxes.

You suppose wrong.
Businessmen will sit around and do nothing because their is no incentive to work hard to improve the business. Why make that semi-risky business deal (that companies make all the time) if nothing is gonna change profit wise.
Sure the business may get richer but so what?? If that profit isn't going into anyone pocket then wtf is the point? And who cares if the business fails, everyone's equal right? I'll just drop out and be equal somewhere else.

Quote:I'd say this is the golden age of middle class

No it wouldn't. The economy would literally collapse. Nothing new would be produced, it'd be like the 20's without ever progressing past the 20's. And I don't know about you, but I like to think my quality of life is better then that of the 20's.

Quote: It is not efficient when everyone produce the same thing and then try to sell it to one another.

Yes it is. If apply produce the iphone and android produce their smartphone, both are effectively the same product. BUT they compete in that market and so either price comes down and there's a price war or innovation goes up or incentive (buy this get 50% off this sort of thing) goes up or most likely, a combination of the three.

Quote:As for foreign trade, it should be done but again, efficiently.

The most efficient form of foreign trade is an open market.

Quote:Current trade mechanisms are unfair and inefficient.

Hardly. Japan makes good TV's, so it makes perfect sense that a country that has a lot of silicon deposits mines and sells silicon to Japan who then turns it into TVs.

It's a specialized good system.

Quote:Firstly, all raw resources should be traded not for money, but by a transparent and sophisticated barter of resources.

WTF?? Take the TV situation. Say Lybia mines silicon to sell to Japan. What is Japan going to exchange to Lybia for the silicon? Sushi?
Money is the cleanest, simplest way to trade. It's why it was invented.

Quote:Secondly, states should not allow to their market something that their businessmen already produce

the state shouldn't be producing anything except social things like education and healthcare.

Quote:or allow foreign forces to buy out and demolish local business

If a business is inefficient then it is wasting resources that could be used else ware.
Example: The motorbike training school in the middle of my town. Complete waste of land resources. It's right at the end of the motorway on the corner of three of the cities busiest streets. A petrol station would be perfect for that space.

Quote:No profit? Profit yes, almost unlimited for legal persons (corporations etc),

Again, absolutely zero point. The point of a corporation is the same as a mum and dad business, to make people money.
The only difference between a mum and dad business and a corporation is size and legal stuff. The purpose is all the same.
So if profits being made are going to no one then what the fuck is the point? There is none.

Quote:except the more profit they have, the more taxes they pay or the more ownership they give over to the state or local authority.

[Image: baby+face+circumcision.jpg]

Quote:If something is too big to fail, it's also too big to make independent decisions that affect whole regions.

Fair comment actually.

Quote:Personal profit definitely yes, but a humanly limited one and a positively proportional one.

If you have any inequality then nothing will change. Poor will still bitch about rich and rich will still bitch about poor and middle class will continue not giving a fuck.

Plus this defies the whole point of everyone equal.

Quote:With universal welfare per head there is no need to be greedy.

No need to work either. No need to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

Quote:So businessmen of the future should command great resources, but not to fill his pockets.

As a future businessmen myself I can tell you now that the primary reason we do it.. $$$$$

Quote:Personal and company finances must be strictly divided

Why does it matter, according to your model nobody gets business profit and noone can be richer or poorer so this statement is irrelevant.

Quote:there must be higher or lower rewards depending on how is the company doing

This is so stupid to your point.
Why?
Because today if a company does well it is rewarded, if it does bad it is punished.
In the form of higher/lower profits.
So all you're describing is exactly what is happening today.

Plus again, it doesn't matter anyway as no one receives any of the benefit from the business.

Quote:Endgame profit is not to be understood as becoming a billionaire and never needing money again, but as having an universal state welfare and never needing money again.

But why? Why am I going to bust my ass to build up a business only to have the state take it from me and not benefit from all my effort in anyway shape or form while my neighbor down the road does absolutely nothing all day and receives the same benefit as me to my hard work.

But you know, most people are that neighbor down the road (not saying you are, just most people, especially "commies") and don't see it that way.

Fuck in hell this is taking ages to respond too.

Quote:As for technological progress, there's one answer, NERDS.

[Image: 8238939_0293a25f6e_z.jpg]

Are you fucking serious right now or are you just pulling my leg?
This is a joke right? Okay, you got me, where's the camera? Is someone gonna jump out of my closet?

Quote:I am against competition that is unfair, involuntary, wasteful, destructive

Answered this already in this post.

Quote:Competition and development must be separate from social sector.

What do you mean, what parts of the social sector? Schools and hospitals? Sure I think these are things the state should provide but that doesn't mean private forms of these shouldn't exist.
Competition is good for all forms of business, including these.

Quote:People should be perfectly able to live decently whether they do well in competition or not.

No they shouldn't.
Again, if that is the case why should apple improve the iphone? There is absolutely zero incentive.

Quote:If competition can not fit into these demands, then it must stop.

Then you grind to a halt all progress. Even in a country with no foreign trade competition is rampant and good.
In fact it is when competition stops that you have serious problems. Monopolies, Duopolies etc... Thus why we make those things illegal.

Quote:Yes, we get innovation from competing companies,

Yes we do.

Quote:but we also get planned obsolence and a hundred times the same thing every year for a huge cost on resources. (see cars and digital devices)

No we don't. Sure, we may get a new iphone every year but it's not the same. And people don't have to buy it.

Quote:And half of the world can't afford it anyway.

So because some people can't afford it that instantly means NOBODY should have it?

I can't afford a house, should nobody be aloud to own a house?

I can't afford a car, should nobody be allowed a car?

Quote:This is enough of a reason to not be satisfied with competition.

Fuck no it aint.

Quote:Do not make a sacred cow or a golden calf out of competition, or I'm gonna come from the Bohemian mountain with my Android tablets of new economic laws and there'll be some symbolic dramatical OT re-enactment

Bring it.
Competition is the golden goose.

Quote:I think cooperation is equally if not more motivating than competition.

Lolwut?

Duopoly anyone?
Example: Here for many years we had two major telecommunications companies in the cellphone market. Telecom and Vodaphone. Coincidence that they had the EXACT same deals? I think not. Now, about 3 or 4 years ago now, 2Degrees came into the market as a size able player. They started offering lower prices and basically stirred competition.
Back with the Duopoly $10 would have got me 500text a month, that's it. Today for the same amount of money and because of 2Degrees I get 10,000 texts, 600mb's of data and 30minutes free air time.

Quote:It is also more efficient and ethical.

Fuck no it aint.

Quote:Today most of science is done through international cooperation.

Yea because their is no competition in it. There's no competition in who can discover the higgs boson first.
Look at the space race, who think NASA would have put a man on the moon in 68' (it's 68 right?) if there wasn't major major pressure from the soviets?
Fuck no they wouldn't have.

Quote:Whenever someone wins, (for example by technologic development) his achievement should be publically shared on the Internet so other people can build and improve upon it.

A certificate? are you serious?

Quote:Trust me, creative people are not motivated by the vision of how their invention is going to be restricted from everyone else and lining only their pockets.

Yes they are, there is always an incentive.
Obviously don't watch Dragons Den.

Quote:Their CEOs perhaps, but not the creators.

Again, you think these creators volunteer their time?

Quote:consider also how little good they are to the poorer half of the world.

Oh you mean places like Australia (who's not exactly poor but it's a good example) who are mining resources on their west coast currently and are getting filthy stinking rich from doing it?
Or how about South America right now? Brazil is also doing the same thing. Getting rich of mineral deposits that it trades overseas.

Quote:Half of our world is incapable of competition on our terms

Half the world is about to pass us.
Are you familiar with the term BRIC nations? Brazil. Russia. India. China. Three of those countries are the top three countries for population sizes. And they're about to surpass western economies.
After them it'll be south Asia, Vietnam. Other South American countries, Venezuela for example. It's only a matter of time before African nations join in.

Quote:isn't that a reason enough to use a better model?

We haven't even spent 100years on this current model.

Quote:Whatever I say, consider that not only for your world, but also for the "third world"

Whatever applies to us, "competition", applies for them too in their markets.

Quote:A paradigm where people are not owners, but custodians of money, information, employees, resources, land, animals and nature.

And what I am saying is that what you are describing is not only bad for human kind but will never be implemented due to human nature.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 05:29 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Firstly I must say, Earmuffs thank you for your attention, but, please don't try to put me into extremes. If it looks to you like an extreme or black-and-white idea, then it's not only stupid, it's also probably not what I really mean.
If there's something I want to avoid, it's extreme, unalterable and simplistic ideas. If you see any, they're probably just your strawmen.
I may be confusing, because I think from several points of view at once. View of abstract and perfect principles, the materially-realistic view, the ecologic view, the social view, the future view, and so on. You think in a different way, focused only on your point of view and as such much time is wasted introducing you to other points of view.

Sorry Smile

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Are you sure you read me correctly? There must be no next 1%, no pathologic concentration of wealth in private hands. No right to keep money away from circulating them in economy.
But that's what I'm saying. People want power, and if they are in a position to gain power then they are going to take it. To do what you're saying you'd then have to take power away from these people that have the power to make the change. It'd be like giving a baby a lolly pop for like 10minutes and then saying "no more lolly pop", that baby isn't gonna give up that lolly pop without a fight.
Thus, what you are saying is unrealistic and will never happen.

I mean look at communism, that fails mostly because the governments are corrupt or on a power trip. Stalin, China.
Power-hungry people seek power in a raw form, unsupervised and self-supporting. There are ways to make positions of power not attractive for them. Direct democracy, transparency policy and even a delegation of part of state power to municipal authorities.
As for applying these changes, as far as I can see in my country, the corrupt regime relies on a low voting rate, that favors big parties. This is, because the people are demotivated and misinformed about alternatives and about the corrupt leaders.

Yes, the corrupt regime fights. But it has no strength in numbers. For example, quite recently the national TV censored out that the Pirate Party won among surveys of high-school popularity. Obviously, the politicians are afraid of the Pirate party, this is their weak spot. The Pirate party is all about transparency that prevents corruption, they can't step back and not act upon their program even if they wanted. That's like as if Greens voted for increasing pollution limits.


(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And the middle class will never revolt. The middle class is happy the way it is now. The middle class is happy going to their jobs, raising their families, having BBQs with their neighbors. Sure, they'll have they're say politically if something comes that peeks their interest. But for the most part, they are happy just the way they are. So to say they'd revolt is ridiculous, why would they cause such a fuss as a revolt and risk it all?

As for Czech Republic, obviously I don't know anything on the political nature of your country. But I can tell you that this would never happen. A revolution may happen sure, but you'll still end up with a 1% rich, a large middle class and a bunch of poor people. You'll still have people in power ruling over those not in power.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the middle class diminishes. For example during this crisis in USA a lot of middle class people found themselves homeless, because they were suddenly unable to pay the rent or mortgage. And the middle class is feeling threatened. My favorite example is the Iceland revolution, (also here) but there's the Occupy movement and more messages from Europe. Reputedly, Lithuanians used referendum to revoke their whole parliament. That's what I heard on the demonstration this year from Hördur Torfason, the man behind the Iceland revolution.

As for revolutions as such, nothing happens by itself. If revolution is not qualitative, if it does not bring real changes in laws and distribution of power, then of course the situation will repeat. Such is the situation in my country, the Velvet revolution only exchanged the Commies for puppets of business mafia.
But if the people know in advance what they need to change, then the situation will not repeat. Power-hungry people can only exist in places with freely usable power and no direct control. Indirect democracies, for example. The citizens are ready for direct democracy and most of state power delegated to municipal level. It is certainly wiser to let the people to decide about specific questions, than to elect candidates they do not know personally with an election program with no guarantees of fulfilling.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Everywhere, competition increases efficiency everywhere.
Growing progressive economies need competition to constantly stimulate markets.
The problem with growing progressive economies is, that their markets get satiated quickly. They can't open new ones, so they increase demand by marketing, planned obsolence of devices and by pushing their limits to make lower prices.
That is what I mean by inefficiency, markets chock-full of identic low-quality cars trying to sell them to one another, yet people still less and less capable of affording them. What does it remind me of? Besides of my half a year in a Korean car factory?

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  That metaphor is horrible.
Perhaps, but it expresses the right of people to not be subject to the turmoil of economic cycles. We need to make employment obsolete, just like today one farmer can feed 99 other people, in the future one industry worker should provide goods for 99 others. I'd call it post-industrial society, except office paperwork, court and other jobs are pretty much already obsolete too.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Countries use to operate this way, everything made within the state.
It doesn't work. (well it works obviously, but I'm saying that it's no comparison to global trade/competition).
It's all about allocation of resources and a country wastes resources producing inefficient things it's not good at.
Example: Here in NZ we had massive import tariffs until 1987 (when they were all lifted literally overnight). We use to produce everything from cars to TVs. Today, not a single NZ car or TV is made. Why? Because the Japanese TV's and cars are cheaper, better. Now we can allocate our limited resources (as a small nation) into things we are good at (clean green shit, innovation, diary farming, tourism).

Competition and globalization allows for specialization which just like back in the day when basic trade in towns started popping up, is creating this massive boom in the whole economy as products are becoming cheaper, better and new innovated products are being created.

You think Apple would be so quick to improve the iphone if android and BB (who are going bankrupt actually) weren't hot on their tail?
Why should windows improve on win98' if nothing else in that market was popping up that was better then it?
I don't mean everything produced inside the state. I mean the absence of foreign competition at the detriment of locals, whatever it may mean. (see further) If the state imports something that is not produced in it, there is no competition either and that's a good thing.
Your Netherlands example is an ideal one. I'd just like to know how this decision was made, if it was just a lucky shot. Did some Dutch deputy take a trip abroad and saw how nice the Japanese technologies are? Did he think, "damn, they're so good at this technical shit that we'll better give up and let them sell these things to us. We're gonna beat the slanty eyes in dairy production instead!"
I'd like to see a similar process, only organized and sophisticated. Made by the citizens and the government, because obviously businessmen will always want protection from competition. Perhaps this could be accomplished by reciprocal import agreements between states, obviously a state will not want our export if we refuse their import.

And similarly, there are situations when we want to close our borders against certain products and producers. For example, Czech Republic has really shitty import quality standards. It is a trashbin of Europe, with shittiest foods being imported. Almost everything in the supermarket has hydrogenized vegetable oils in it and what doesn't is so expensive, that most of people don't buy it anyway. Even some foods that aren't supposed to contain vegetable oils have them and are sold at the same price. Of course, it's the government's fault, they got bribed by foreign businessmen again. This is why opening borders is not the only answer, we need the option to close borders too. We need some mechanism to protect local quality producers - specially food and traditional industry brands.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I can't imagine Czech Republic is a big country? Most of your businesses will be offshore owned. Even ones started in your country will likely have incorporated and brought by overseas. Just as people in your country would have brought overseas businesses.
Czech Republic is a middle-sized country on European standards. Actually, it was largely self-sufficient after the revolution. It's only the fault of the greedy politicians and business mafia that they allowed the local companies to be sold abroad and many other economic crimes perpetrated as well.
I'm not aware that my people ever bought any business abroad, but the amount of industry that foreigners bought here, that's appalling. Sometimes (sugar factories) they bought it only to demolish it and eliminate the competition. Other corporations (Hyundai) got long tax vacations from the government with no guarantee that they won't lift anchors when the vacations' over.

Yes, competition may increase quality, but only if customers can afford quality, if they are able to vote with their wallets. In some countries (UK, Germany) supporting your local business becomes a matter of patriotism, not of market. And most of Brits can afford that. Here we have local quality marks on products but that's all, the products aren't cheaper or protected from the cheap foreign shit full of hydrogenized vegetable oil and other unhealthy ersatz substances. This I do not count as a fair competition and if I made the laws, I would not allow it. Certainly not with the food, natural resources and infrastructure. Would you believe that foreign companies here or in Slovakia bought water, electricity and coal mines?
Just because some idiots have more money, doesn't give them the right to hijack national production, crafts and industries. Any government that is not stupid (post-revolution syndrome) or thoroughly corrupted, protects these fiercely.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But you're saying everyone is equal, now you're talking about rich and poor??
Equality must be made independent from being rich or poor. This is done by increasing the minimal living standard, that the poorest are not poor in terms of public services that they may choose from. Not poor in terms of basic needs promised by universal declaration of basic rights, not poor from a lack of food, shelter, education, healthcare, mobility (public transport) or voting rights.
This has a profound psychologic effect, it downplays the awesomeness of being rich. Rich people too have one mouth and one asshole, just like poor people. They don't need that much more, just because they own more money. Things like sport cars, private jets, posh houses and so on, these are cultural delusions about what it means to be rich. It's like my grandma who lived through WW2 and a period of hunger (and was brought up by people who experienced much worse starvation of WW1), she is fond of food, like fat meat, white flour, sugar and so on, things from which I'd get a heartburn. Human nature my ass, it's all in your head. Maybe the old delusions will have to die out with old people, but the young generation knows all we really need is health, love, computer and the Internet Smile

Eventually I'd like to achieve a change of attitude towards money and property, owners should understand themselves as custodians, responsible for a some funds or facilities.


(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You suppose wrong.
Businessmen will sit around and do nothing because their is no incentive to work hard to improve the business. Why make that semi-risky business deal (that companies make all the time) if nothing is gonna change profit wise.
Sure the business may get richer but so what?? If that profit isn't going into anyone pocket then wtf is the point? And who cares if the business fails, everyone's equal right? I'll just drop out and be equal somewhere else.
OK, this looks like a tricky question. The question is, how much incentive a businessman needs and how do we best provide this incentive, without demotivating the businessman in an opposite way, let's say he sees that he has no chance competing against some big foreign corporation and the business fails anyway.

I didn't say there should be no profit. There are actually several ways to go. One is that a businessman should receive a percentage of profits from the company, additionally to his welfare per head. This would be a frequent case with large companies in which profits would make the businessmen obscenely rich. Which is a problem, because the money wouldn't circulate in economy smoothly.
Great philantropes like George Soros or Bill Gates have let's say 100 billion dollars and then they give 50 billion on charity. It's humanely admirable, but in economic principle it's rather silly. All these money are misplaced. They belong to economy, not on private accounts! What an irony, poor George spent his life building machinery shoving money into his pockets and now he has to scoop them away.

It's a tricky question of tuning, but there is such a thing as Laffer's curve, a curve that shows whom to tax to get most money. There should be a similar curve, showing how personally rich a businessman must be to become most economically productive. I'ď like some science applied to that. Plus of course other factors that motivate businessmen. The purpose is to motivate them without stuffing their pockets too much.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it wouldn't. The economy would literally collapse. Nothing new would be produced, it'd be like the 20's without ever progressing past the 20's. And I don't know about you, but I like to think my quality of life is better then that of the 20's.
As I said, in post-industrial society that would be a good thing, to live as if we were in our 20's. If production is automatized and we don't need that much in life, there's no reason why shouldn't we. Hell, I'm in my 20's.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote: It is not efficient when everyone produce the same thing and then try to sell it to one another.
Yes it is. If apply produce the iphone and android produce their smartphone, both are effectively the same product. BUT they compete in that market and so either price comes down and there's a price war or innovation goes up or incentive (buy this get 50% off this sort of thing) goes up or most likely, a combination of the three.
Strictly monetarily speaking, you're right. The problem is, money do not really express the value of iPhone. There is a difference between value and price. Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing, as some smart people said.
The price of iPhone does not reflect the civil war crimes and humanitarian catastrophe in Congo, fueled by demand after columbium and tantal. It does not reflect slave conditions in Chinese factories. And it does not reflect primitive ways of electronic waste disposal, harmful to people's health.
All this mess is built on two completely imaginary things, on green papers printed by the private bank of USA, and on marketing delusion of being cool and trendy by having a posh cell phone.
We are not better than all these Christians and Muslims, serving imaginary cruel gods. Hell, maybe we aren't so much better than Aztecs with their slave sacrifice rituals, considering what our market practices do in Congo, China and other countries. Where does the market philosophy answer for its crimes? Are you really so surprised I want to restrict the capitalism? Much of that is geographical restriction. Maybe you don't know yet, but capitalism never solves its own problems, it only moves them geographically.

The ever-pragmatic capitalism always seeks a way to shirk its duties. If you think how efficient it is, check out all the third world countries, who's waste they're processing bare-handed on smoldering open fires.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  WTF?? Take the TV situation. Say Lybia mines silicon to sell to Japan. What is Japan going to exchange to Lybia for the silicon? Sushi?
Money is the cleanest, simplest way to trade. It's why it was invented.
Yes, if a country has a private unlimited printer on money and controls all the stock markets, then money is certainly the best way to trade. Though I wouldn't call it cleanest.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Secondly, states should not allow to their market something that their businessmen already produce
the state shouldn't be producing anything except social things like education and healthcare.
Please read again, the talk was about state (not) allowing something to the market, not state producing it. See higher, the cheap foods with hydrogenized vegetable oil.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  If a business is inefficient then it is wasting resources that could be used else ware.
Example: The motorbike training school in the middle of my town. Complete waste of land resources. It's right at the end of the motorway on the corner of three of the cities busiest streets. A petrol station would be perfect for that space.
Business is useful in more ways than just in terms of money. Some business is a cultural heritage and a part of the country's tradition. Or it provides jobs to local people. But as for money, anyone can be rich, this doesn't give them the right to assume that everything can be bought for money.
You're from Netherlands, aren't you? Then imagine some rich foreigner comes and buys out all the windmill buildings to demolish them and build skyscrapers there. Also he buys out the tulip fields to make parking space.
The point is, the world is full of skyscrapers and parking lots. But the traditional Dutch tulips and windmills are unique, even if they aren't profitable, they don't deserve to be replaced by something ordinary and commercial.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Again, absolutely zero point. The point of a corporation is the same as a mum and dad business, to make people money.
The only difference between a mum and dad business and a corporation is size and legal stuff. The purpose is all the same.
So if profits being made are going to no one then what the fuck is the point? There is none.
I don't like corporations, because the distribution of profits is completely ridiculous. The people who work the most, get the least money. The top salaries are sometimes quite unbelievable, without any proportion to the increased quality of service. As I said, we need some scientific research on what price (or other factors) make the businessmen most motivated, efficient and beneficial.

I personally consider money, people and natural resources as entities that belong under the state protection. If a corporation is mostly money, people and natural resources, then it mostly does not belong to itself. As such I would understand it as a custodian of these resources and I would frown at the CEO and supervisory board lining their pockets with millions. If this is what they want from life, then I'd rather pay them a psychiatrist.

Quote:If something is too big to fail, it's also too big to make independent decisions that affect whole regions.
Fair comment actually.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Personal profit definitely yes, but a humanly limited one and a positively proportional one.
If you have any inequality then nothing will change. Poor will still bitch about rich and rich will still bitch about poor and middle class will continue not giving a fuck.

Plus this defies the whole point of everyone equal.
The only area in which we need to be equal by default (without lifting a finger), is the basic human needs. (food, shelter, healthcare, education, security, public services) After that, we can be unequal as much as we like, as long as it doesn't hurt the economy and the enviroment. (so there must be a tax ceiling or something)
The basic needs are not a matter of opinion, they're medical and otherwise scientific facts, that we need them. If someone has them and still does nothing but moaning and bitching, then he deserves only a solid kick in the ass and no more attention, besides perhaps psychiatrist's.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No need to work either. No need to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
That's it! You understand! Smile Or maybe you don't! You put a cart in front of the horse. Creativity has nothing to do with money. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs weren't creative because they were rich, they became rich because they were creative. They were creative long time before they became even remotely rich. And they were motivated by expressing that creativity, by being good at something, not by a vision of drowning in rectangles of green paper.
Even if you take an ordinary Joe in the street and offer him a billion dollars, he will likely not become another technologic innovator and visionary. Money can not make someone a visionary or a genius, there are plenty of stupid rich people. You know, correlation vs causation....

And yes, no need to work. Work is bad. Work is for machines. We people are meant to be creators, not workers. We need a post-industrial society with automatized production, to manifest our full creative potential. Please google up somewhere the artice "The abolition of work"

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  As a future businessmen myself I can tell you now that the primary reason we do it.. $$$$$
Last time I heard, there was also some ethical business here and there, as a rarity in the news. Also non-profits and so on. What if business may be motivated by altruism, given right owner and articles of association? What if the altruistic business is the future? There are ways to make profit at (seemingly) altruism, see for example Starbucks.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why does it matter, according to your model nobody gets business profit and noone can be richer or poorer so this statement is irrelevant.
If personal and company finances are divided, then the people may actually act more ethically. The whole business world will be better off leaving only those businessmen who are in it for more than just money. As I said, money as we know them today are imaginary and have no relationship to the real world resources and costs.

Besides, such division may be good for purely technical reasons, there are reasons why business might operate for a time on a government-issued scrips instead of national currency. If the businessmen use scrips that lose value with time (but don't pay taxes from them, for example) they are motivated to spend them as quickly as possible. That is, spend them by investment. There was a highly successful case of this, I suggest you read up on the Wörgl Experiment or the Miracle of Wörgl.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  This is so stupid to your point.
Why?
Because today if a company does well it is rewarded, if it does bad it is punished.
In the form of higher/lower profits.
So all you're describing is exactly what is happening today.

Plus again, it doesn't matter anyway as no one receives any of the benefit from the business.
Again, I didn't say no benefit at all, that would be extreme and I don't believe in extreme or black/white solutions. I just want to avoid a system that produces millionaires and billionaires, with money that they can not possibly use and only keep them out of economy. You wouldn't believe how they spring up like mushrooms after rain, Russia is full of them and nowadays India too. It's the bad system, rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer.
I think it says somewhere in Bible, laborer is worthy of his labor. All right, but why should someone get paid in millions for his labor? It's like eternal reward in Heaven, nobody can possibly be so good to deserve it. And similarly, nobody can be so useful for humanity to deserve being a billionaire. Poorest and richest people are signs of bad economy, the healthiest competition is somewhere in the middle.


(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But why? Why am I going to bust my ass to build up a business only to have the state take it from me and not benefit from all my effort in anyway shape or form while my neighbor down the road does absolutely nothing all day and receives the same benefit as me to my hard work.

But you know, most people are that neighbor down the road (not saying you are, just most people, especially "commies") and don't see it that way.

Fuck in hell this is taking ages to respond too.
Yes, helluva wall of text. This one's a needless problem. Let's say my job is to make the tax ceiling high enough, so that your work will not be taken from you. Ideally, your work will be so efficient, that it will be better to let you produce and earn money, than to tax you.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:As for technological progress, there's one answer, NERDS.
[Image: 8238939_0293a25f6e_z.jpg]
Are you fucking serious right now or are you just pulling my leg?
This is a joke right? Okay, you got me, where's the camera? Is someone gonna jump out of my closet?
Have you ever heard of open-source? In the future we'll likely have open-source technologic databases and small 3D printers to print the technologies of almost anything we want. The power of nerds will enter the real life. Today nerds are hampered by pesky reality and greedy CEOs, but not in the post-industrial society.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What do you mean, what parts of the social sector? Schools and hospitals? Sure I think these are things the state should provide but that doesn't mean private forms of these shouldn't exist.
Competition is good for all forms of business, including these.
Nah, let's say (Hans Adam von Liechtenstein says in his books) that the state should be like a company providing certain services. In this case state (or municipal) hospitals would represent the minimal (but not low) standard of healthcare. The governments should set a standard upon which would the private sector can improve.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No they shouldn't.
Again, if that is the case why should apple improve the iphone? There is absolutely zero incentive.
Well, you tell me or let's find out together. Or I'll search by myself. I want to study sociology in the future, you know.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So because some people can't afford it that instantly means NOBODY should have it?

I can't afford a house, should nobody be aloud to own a house?

I can't afford a car, should nobody be allowed a car?
I just say, let's see how many people can actually afford an iPhone, with its real cost of environmental and humanitary damage. Not its monetary cost, cheapened by workforce outsourcing and ore smuggling from Congo to Australia.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Bring it.
Competition is the golden goose.
More like a golden flame. As we know, fire is a good servant but a bad master. That's a big part of my worries, basically.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Today most of science is done through international cooperation.
Yea because their is no competition in it. There's no competition in who can discover the higgs boson first.
Look at the space race, who think NASA would have put a man on the moon in 68' (it's 68 right?) if there wasn't major major pressure from the soviets?
Fuck no they wouldn't have.
What I like about this competition is, that whoever wins, the benefit stays at "home", in this case, on Earth for all humanity. But why do the scientists compete who discovers Higgs boson first? What do they compete for? If for the government grants, then this is a very interesting information indeed Dodgy

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Trust me, creative people are not motivated by the vision of how their invention is going to be restricted from everyone else and lining only their pockets.
Yes they are, there is always an incentive.
Obviously don't watch Dragons Den.
Well, perhaps it only fits on the very great inventors who have hundreds or thousands of ideas and inventions, like Jacque Fresco or Nikola Tesla. They never were big on money.
I don't know everything and the mentality and motivation of creative people is a very fine question indeed. My sociologist's gut is all delighted by so many fascinating questions ahead of me. Just think what a society might be designed if we push the right buttons of the human nature and leave be the wrong ones.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Again, you think these creators volunteer their time?
They usually don't, but why they don't? Under what circumstances they would? I'm not a sociologist yet, but I'm gonna need to look into such questions.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Oh you mean places like Australia (who's not exactly poor but it's a good example) who are mining resources on their west coast currently and are getting filthy stinking rich from doing it?
Or how about South America right now? Brazil is also doing the same thing. Getting rich of mineral deposits that it trades overseas.
Oh, I don't mean places like Perth, where pretty much every citizen is rich. I mean both geographically and vertically, how regularly is the wealth smeared on the Earth's globe (save for seas) and how deep it trickles to the ones low on social ladder.
Several years ago I heard, Hugo Chavez wanted to nationalize the oil (social funding, IIRC) and USA raised a big fuss like he would be a second Saddam Hussein.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Half the world is about to pass us.
Are you familiar with the term BRIC nations? Brazil. Russia. India. China. Three of those countries are the top three countries for population sizes. And they're about to surpass western economies.
After them it'll be south Asia, Vietnam. Other South American countries, Venezuela for example. It's only a matter of time before African nations join in.
That must be a bad karma, a punishment for our sins. To be beaten at our own game and to see other nations joining in for eploit in the name of the imaginary money.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Whatever applies to us, "competition", applies for them too in their markets.
I'm concerned about who's going to win and lose. Usually the losers and winners are the same, because the global market system is inherently unfair. It's not like let's say Nigeria got the better end of a deal over United States any time recently.

(27-09-2012 07:26 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  And what I am saying is that what you are describing is not only bad for human kind but will never be implemented due to human nature.
Wow, so you're one of these human-naturists? All right, are you a believer in a particular human nature ideology, or do you have evidence for it?
As for me, I'd say the only noticeable human nature is adaptability, activity and powerful carrying of memes. People who behave by animal instincts the most, tend to have the least effect on the society. It's always the biggest meme-carriers that change the world and overcome the animal nature easily, for good or bad.

Warning: I tend to mock pessimistic human-naturists by comparing them to fire and brimstone preachers of our depravity of the original sin. I also tend to point at works of atheistic authors about evolutionary morality that we have in our genes and that does not necessarily predispose us towards capitalism Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 08:03 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Here's my dig in all of this- why do we think that only the government can provide these societal safety nets? I too was a welfare brat growing up and tho I am grateful for the help that my Mom got while trying to raise me and my 5 siblings, it often seemed like a catch 22 Huh What I mean is that in terms of yearly monetary benefits it was something like 20,000 per year. If she got out and worked she was required to report any outside income and if the amount went over 14,000 welfare was revoked. Whatever she made, or was given as a cash gift like at christmas etc., was then deducted from her monthly check. It made it almost pointless for anyone to help us. If you wanted to get ahead or allow outside help you had to be dishonest about it. At times it felt like the "net" was on top of us instead of below Confused

There's got to be a better way


Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2012, 08:59 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
I'll respond to the rest later, I just wanted to respond to a few quick things first.

Firstly, New Zealand, not Netherlands. I'm not Dutch.

Second,
Quote:I didn't say there should be no profit. There are actually several ways to go. One is that a businessman should receive a percentage of profits from the company, additionally to his welfare per head.

This defeats your entire idea.
This is exactly what we have now (ie: a small mom and dad business earn less then say the CEO of Coke because of size) and so this idea that everyone is equal which is what you were pushing, this idea that money isn't an issue, is all completely moot.

You'll again have rich and you'll again have people who are poor complaining about those rich people.

Quote:George Soros or Bill Gates have let's say 100 billion dollars and then they give 50 billion on charity.

Bill Gates has given over 28billion to his charity (over half his wealth) that helps rid the world (Poor countries) of diseases that can easily be rid of (by vaccination).
This money is then put back into the economy in the sense that people have to make the vaccines (and Bill Gates pays for them) etc..

Quote:It's a tricky question of tuning, but there is such a thing as Laffer's curve, a curve that shows whom to tax to get most money.

The rich are taxed more. Here, if you earn under around 30k you pay no tax (you pay tax but you are entitled to welfare that effectively means you pay no tax). If you earn 30K+ you pay I believe 17% where as if you earn over 100K you're paying 33% income tax.
But it's progressive, so the first 30K you pay whatever the tax is (12% I think), then on the next 30-50K you pay 17% etc...

Basically, the rich do get taxed more.

Quote:The purpose is to motivate them without stuffing their pockets too much.

That's why they're businessmen! To stuff their pockets.

Why the fuck would I risk starting my own business (because it is a risk, a big risk) if I knew I wasn't gonna be able to stuff my pockets with the result. I wouldn't, I'd play xbox all day.

Nobody actively enjoys accounting. If they're not gonna get paid well for it then they're gonna find something else. Business is not exactly the most exciting field of work, most businessmen become businessmen with the idea that they can earn big dollars that then allow them to live a nice desired life style. They're not gonna do it if they have the exact same life style as their housemaid.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2012, 04:25 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2012 04:32 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(28-09-2012 08:59 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  That's why they're businessmen! To stuff their pockets.

Why the fuck would I risk starting my own business (because it is a risk, a big risk) if I knew I wasn't gonna be able to stuff my pockets with the result. I wouldn't, I'd play xbox all day.

Nobody actively enjoys accounting. If they're not gonna get paid well for it then they're gonna find something else. Business is not exactly the most exciting field of work, most businessmen become businessmen with the idea that they can earn big dollars that then allow them to live a nice desired life style. They're not gonna do it if they have the exact same life style as their housemaid.
I see, there need to be smaller steps. Instead of reforming business, it might be better (and very necessary) to start with politics. Which is not the topic, so I didn't mention it. But I am convinced by living in my thoroughly corrupt state, that transparency, direct democracy and checks on personal finance are of utmost importance. Politicians must declare property regularly, plus specially after they pull off an extremely unprofitable state order with some private foreign company.

Non-profit businessmen are a great ideal of distant future, but non-profit politicians are a dire need of today and yesterday.
Basically, politicians do not produce anything and all they have is from tax money. Therefore, there must be hell of a difference between a politician and a businessman. A constitutional wall between them, at best. They must "go native" and face economic reality. They must be "everymen", only not stupid. As I wrote elsewhere, a political seat is today like a big shiny luxurious car that outruns all others and attracts worst kinds of jerks on power trip. (just read Wikipedia pages of some of my politicians)
With the reforms that my nation calls for so badly, the political power would become a tractor. A machine that does the job and attracts people interested in getting the job done, but won't make you a king of the road.

As they say, there's more than one way to skin a proverbial cat and some of these ways aren't bloody and murderous. It's not just tax ceiling. In my vision the tax ceiling is not necessarily lowest, I am concerned with people who privately concentrate money and wealth. If I can show them how this wealth can benefit the society, it might be a good solution for those who just have no idea what to do with it. If a government program gathers the best project-makers and sociologists to prepare and guarantee plans of regional development, then rich people can "shop for sponsorship" as easily as 1-click buy on Amazon or a pledge on Kickstarter. And perhaps get some personalized artistic souvenirs of their good deed, if that's what gives them good feeling. It's a question of enlightening people, creating a culture of enlightenment. Such a culture consistently supported by personal examples in government and media may overturn the culture of greed and selfish over-achievement. We already have TED conferences, so you might have an idea of this culture too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: