Jump to content

How do you see the future?


Peter

Recommended Posts

Words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you forget to mention is that the company is paying the workers award wages which barely cover the living expenses while they are producing widgets that are sold at extreme mark-upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s which is passed back on to the rich investor; where is the social responsibility in that? The company makes money for the people who don't really need it off the labour of the poor people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you say the company is giving the person the job but if the company was run by the government for the benefit for the people then the profit will be going back as public spending, better working conditions and a more effective social support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hang on if these companies were run by a government wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t people just be spending their wages to the government company and therefore be spent back on them? Then a way to combat this endless cycle could be to sell these good's at cost + overhead which will just be pumped back as wages and public works; this means that a hell of a lot of thing's just came affordable to the working poor and the small overheads they collect can be sent back to the government for reallocation after a certain accruement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This system benefits everyone except the very rich; which in effect removes the thing that makes them rich (investing in a company which uses economies of scales to pump of products at excessive mark-ups), however there is one thing that they can't control democracy. If the American government put out a binding referendum (which is a problem since there is no provision for a national Referendum in America) asking if they should "Corner the American economy and when that is achieved return the profits as lower costing goods and better working conditions", most poorer people (and some coasting on living comfortably) would vote for the motion, which in turn would most likely exceed that of a super majority (2/3's of the vote) and be enacted; direct democracy that rich people could not stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The black box comment is what I refer to most investors that use investing as a secondary source of income; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically inspect each company and their policies they just throw money at some investment firm and expect more to come back hence the investment firm could be considered a black box (you know what goes in and out but not the processes inside it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand the reasoning behind a public company however if all of this was run by a not for profit body (for e.g. the government) then the pooled resources would be so huge that financial budgets would be eased and any company that would need to grow due to demand would have their finances looked after (and in turn make a return back to the government and therefore the people).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it I possible to have linear returns introduce a tax that grows in relation to the money you make leaving you with a flat % of return (Which will be kept slight above interest rates to attract investment in the first place). Cavemen didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a government body to regulate their trade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure there may be some sort of power play coming in if you hand over your economy to one body (the government) but thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s where democracy comes in (or direct democracy even) just vote out the power hungry party and replace it with a lesser one or if all else fails take back power by force. It's not communism it's a combination of both systems one which fail to realise that in ideal conditions it works and if enough law is written; the real world. Even if this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it to referendum it should be let out in public so it can get its chance in the spot light and create debate (which could in fact in turn help improve neglected policies such as social welfare). I mean most people didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care about PVS cases until the whole Terri Schiavo thing blew up recently; same deal here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

 

Actually he was determined, something a lot of kids are missing these day's, they are thrown in a world where no one cares leaving them aimless; that and the fact Einstein had a deformed brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*cough* humans are equal? einstein was different? you just ruined your whole humans are equal point, and just affirmed that humans are NOT equal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think that you got to university mean's that you beat the poverty cycle (just because you were brought up by red necks doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically make you one, however if they treated you like one then it could not have helped); engineering? There are quite a few engineering courses where IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ am it's not exactly difficult to get into. Going to a university is half the battle to getting a decent income you need a fair bit of luck to get picked up by a good company that are willing to pay a little more for quality staff and hope they hit it big in order for you to get treated better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

true, the engineering part isnt going to be hard to get in at all, all you need is something like a "b" average in school. they have co-op things at purdue that will set you up with a job during school, if you choose to. and if i dont beat the poverty cycle it will be my own fault, i would never blame it on someone else, just because they are richer, more successful, and better than me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even then you have still lost as the rich get richer by reinvesting their earnings; it's exponential (basically the longer you re invest the easier it gets, something that defies logic; almost seems like something comes from nothing after a while) the more you put in the more you get back like a run away train; that is something that should never be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so what if i lose ground on the rich, if i do it will just be because i wasnt smart enough to get a good job, or was to lazy to work too much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what you forget to mention is that the company is paying the workers award wages which barely cover the living expenses while they are producing widgets that are sold at extreme mark-upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s which is passed back on to the rich investor; where is the social responsibility in that? The company makes money for the people who don't really need it off the labour of the poor people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you say the company is giving the person the job but if the company was run by the government for the benefit for the people then the profit will be going back as public spending, better working conditions and a more effective social support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hang on if these companies were run by a government wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t people just be spending their wages to the government company and therefore be spent back on them? Then a way to combat this endless cycle could be to sell these good's at cost + overhead which will just be pumped back as wages and public works; this means that a hell of a lot of thing's just came affordable to the working poor and the small overheads they collect can be sent back to the government for reallocation after a certain accruement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This system benefits everyone except the very rich; which in effect removes the thing that makes them rich (investing in a company which uses economies of scales to pump of products at excessive mark-ups), however there is one thing that they can't control democracy. If the American government put out a binding referendum (which is a problem since there is no provision for a national Referendum in America) asking if they should "Corner the American economy and when that is achieved return the profits as lower costing goods and better working conditions", most poorer people (and some coasting on living comfortably) would vote for the motion, which in turn would most likely exceed that of a super majority (2/3's of the vote) and be enacted; direct democracy that rich people could not stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The black box comment is what I refer to most investors that use investing as a secondary source of income; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically inspect each company and their policies they just throw money at some investment firm and expect more to come back hence the investment firm could be considered a black box (you know what goes in and out but not the processes inside it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand the reasoning behind a public company however if all of this was run by a not for profit body (for e.g. the government) then the pooled resources would be so huge that financial budgets would be eased and any company that would need to grow due to demand would have their finances looked after (and in turn make a return back to the government and therefore the people).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it I possible to have linear returns introduce a tax that grows in relation to the money you make leaving you with a flat % of return (Which will be kept slight above interest rates to attract investment in the first place). Cavemen didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a government body to regulate their trade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure there may be some sort of power play coming in if you hand over your economy to one body (the government) but thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s where democracy comes in (or direct democracy even) just vote out the power hungry party and replace it with a lesser one or if all else fails take back power by force. It's not communism it's a combination of both systems one which fail to realise that in ideal conditions it works and if enough law is written; the real world. Even if this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it to referendum it should be let out in public so it can get its chance in the spot light and create debate (which could in fact in turn help improve neglected policies such as social welfare). I mean most people didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care about PVS cases until the whole Terri Schiavo thing blew up recently; same deal here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why should we be required to help other people? thats like going to the bank to cash your paycheck, walking out, and dividing your paycheck equally between yourself and every begger. the biggest problem with your system: there is no incentive to succeed. why would anyone ever want to invent anything in your socialist society? as soon as they invent it, the government would take it, and produce and sell it how ever they want. you just traded a society where the best live really good, the average person lives good, and the laborers still live ok, to a society where everyone lives bellow average, with no progress at all. 100 years from now your society would be at the same level in technology, medicine, and general welfare. in a capitalist society, the general welfare of the people would go up(this is just a side effect, its not the purpose of capitalism) and newer better things would be cheaper and more available to everyone.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone arguing that humans are biologically equal is crazy; easiest example people have different colour skin so they must be biologically different. We are not talking about biology we are talking about social equity stop trying to find an easy flame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m glad you brought up my social frameworkÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâflawsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as I can explain how it would work in further detail but would fill up a book but since you requested it IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m more then happy to provide how it can work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My framework takes capitalistic ideas as well as social ones (such as the idea of businesses, currency and wages as it needs to accommodate with other countries frameworks); people still get paid wages and businesses still compete with each other. People are motivated by choosing a profession they enjoy and doing it well or if they mind as much they can select one of the many provided by the government (boxes need to be filled, supermarket checkoutÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s staffed etc) knowing that the government can provide a wage were you can live. If the profession is popular then you are going to still compete with others to get a job but you can always fall back on job vacancies that the government provides. Wages may be slightly higher for some jobs but that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter too much when everything is cheaper and the government makes sure everyone is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An incentive to work; the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide on going support for people who are physically and mentally able to work, sure there are situations where you can qualify for subsistence payments for a few months but after that if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put in then you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put out. As long as the government can provide you with a job to suit youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re physical and mental handicaps then there is no reason why you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be working or trying to work. However if they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you then you probably are not in a position to work and should be supported until you are able to or you eventually pass away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researchers still have motivation to invent as they will be helping themselves get better technology and more job opportunities as well as helping others benefit from the technology maybe even getting a small bonus for a breakthrough. The same system for grants will apply so you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go off and research stuff that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a real purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope this clears things up a little ask more questions if you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i do have a question, what gives you a right to take other peoples freedom away, and if you do that, how could you consider everyone to be equal if you treat the businessman differently than a proletariate? capitalism treats everyone equally, the richest person in the world has absolutly no right to take a poor persons property away (if the poor person is in debt to the rich person, and they cant pay it back, the rich person can take HIS property, since it is no longer the poor persons). capitalism also gives you social equality, you can do what ever you want with yourself and your property (not infringing on the rights of others). nothing is illegal that doesnt infringe upon another persons rights. i see no freedom in your society, the government can do whatever they want. i see no political freedos in your society, all i see is a dictatorship. i still prefer to live my life free, and i think most people would agree.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how does the government get the money to pay for those wages if there's no foreign capital flowing in at all (or investing is discouraged by heavy taxes)? A government itself never has money; the money comes solely from taxation. But if the government in the first place has no money to build factories, shops, create jobs etc., it obviously has to take a big foreign loan (how are they going to tax people who have nothing?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the loan takes place, it might take many forms, let's say government/treasury bonds. This means the government guarantees a 3 to 4% annual profit on the investment, if the investor decides to keep the money in that country for at least 5 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That also destroys the whole meaning of the system where everybody will be equal; since other people will be investing in a country and get profit, other people will want to invest as well. Smarter people will then pool all of their familys money together and invest into foreign government bonds, while others do nothing at all. This again creates inequality (through wealth).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's nearly impossible for a government to expand without taking any loans, even the roman empire had government bonds (and that was a long, long time ago where my 'caveman' example almost applies). This in return means that yes, the government can use that money to create jobs, but there will always be some smart people who will pool money from everybody they know and then distribute the profit every year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they can select one of the many provided by the government (boxes need to be filled, supermarket checkoutÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s staffed etc) knowing that the government can provide a wage were you can live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless the taxation percent is outrageous (near to 100% of salary), the government will never have enough money to create good paying jobs to every citizen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's assume the average tax rate was 30%. Out of a $2000 salary, that means the government gets $600. If we assumed that in a country of 50 million people everybody earned that salary, the government would get $30 billion a month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That means, in return, the government now has $600 dollars per each citizen (not to mention other expenses they will have like restoration of buildings, hospitals, health care, medicine, social security, welfare) which is nowhere near enough to pay a salary good enough for the average person to live a good life on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though, I can't defend capitalism in this case (because in the current system, most government jobs in USA have an absolutely crap salary, sometimes even as low as $900 a month for accountants but if there was less foreign capital flowing in to be taxed, they couldn't afford paying even that wage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the government makes sure everyone is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a nice idea, but let's take a look back at USSR where they tried to implent that exact system (nobody unemployed): In a bookstore, there would be 1 person to direct the customer on which book to buy, one person to confirm the reciept for it, one person taking the book out of the bookshelf and giving it to the customer, and a fourth one, the cashier, taking the payment for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's simply a crap system and you must admit it, it causes huge losses to the company (in the USSR case, the government). Why employ 4 different people when 1 person could do it all and you'd save a whole lot of money? Sure it created everybody a job, but it also made the government go bankrupt very fast as it was very dependant on western loans and could never pay them back (since their employment system was totally ineffective).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

capitalism also gives you social equality, you can do what ever you want with yourself and your property

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, in a capitalist system the holders of capital have no specific responsibility on spending it, that's why it's called "freedom". They are free to decide what to do with that money without the government interrupting their privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though, I can't defend capitalism in this case (because in the current system, most government jobs in USA have an absolutely crap salary, sometimes even as low as $900 a month for accountants but if there was less foreign capital flowing in to be taxed, they couldn't afford paying even that wage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats just the USAs psuedo capitalism economy. in an anarchocapitalist society there are no government jobs, so you wouldnt be defending capitalism, by agreeing with the current system, because there is no government. people would just hire the services they need, such as police protection. in a capitalist society there is a small government, military(only for defense from other countries), police(to protect peoples right to their property), and courts(to solve civil disputes over property). i have no idea how these are supposed to be funded with out taxes, and for the life of me cant find the answer anywhere (i admit i havent looked very hard, but i just started reading a capitalist book so im hoping she says it in there), and thats why i consider myself an anarchocapitalist rather than just a capitalist. although if a feasible answer to my problem exists that doesnt infringe upon peoples freedoms, like police and military being sent down by God, then id like to know, if anyone has studied capitalism and knows.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really taking any freedoms away, the government buy's back all domestically owned companies and restructure them to better serve the community. The only big freedom I would see being taken away is the ability to open any business you like (if you had the money to do so); I see creating new businesses would be sending a proposition to the government with the benefits and feasibility (much like a proposal to a bank for a new business loan); I guess you could reward the person with giving them management powers (or paid under a different title) of the place if they show they can look after it to promote people finding new opportunities to better the area.

 

 

 

Could you be a little more specific with what freedom's it would be breaking?

 

 

 

The only thing that makes people not equal in the system is what they get paid and that is just a return on the time it takes people to learn a new skill and apply it or an incentive for people to learn skills for job's that need filling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea where you come up with where you find capitalism means equality; the more money you have the better you get treated simple as that. There is no way someone with no money can get given a fair chance at making it big, they just don't have the start up capital to compete in modern capitalism which is dominated by large corporation which pick out the best opportunities and fund them with their huge cash reserves, leaving the common person with the lesser (and usually poorer in return) opportunities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stated in my original post that my framework has direct democracy (something America does not have). Basically I would imagine there would be building where you could either change your preference to another person to lead (there would be minimum terms to prevent people from constantly getting new people to lead), read up on candidates and the ability to submit a candidate (provide a vision statement and all the likes). The government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have control of democracy and if they tried to change it they would be getting trouble from its people (look in history you will see any radical change towards totalitarianism is met by protest or the seizure of parliament to enact a new government).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My frame work is not a move away from capitalism, it removes the gigantic profits and replaces them with smaller incentives (which you don't need if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re doing a job you enjoy) and sends the large returns to be used to make products cheaper, increase research, increase public works and in general provide a fairer system for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The initial step would be domestic investment in business (which comes from taxes) these profits will in turn create more investment until the market is cornered and they basically control everything after which it can start to build on it's social framework; this process is not expected to be short it can take decades. Investment is derived from taxes which will means the shares are solely owned by the government and dividends used to reinvest (the initial investment will have to eat into the budget of other departments such as defence but after enough investment the shares should be enough to sustain further investing without outside support; unless you want to acceleration acquirement of shares).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure it can be difficult to expand without loan's you can use them to speed it up but it can be done. I wouldn't think government bonds would be a problem for initial investment (government bond's are generally low return but offer the highest security) as these types of bond's donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t encourage big investment (they just offer the person with a return in line with growth) as the risk and return are very low. Although I have not gone into number with everything (as it would take forever for someone who is only really talking his opinion/doing it for a hobby) but logically it should be possible with or without loans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A government's responsibility to provide jobs is in proportion to the amount of domestic business they own. When the plan first starts out (and almost to complete buy out) everything will continue as is since it is almost impossible to help people out if you are giving money everywhere (buying business, public works and looking after everyone). When the government has a complete grasp on the market then they can make good paying jobs for everyone how can they do this; people will be spending their wages on government owned business, the local supermarket, the bank, electric company you name it so most of the wage will be flowing back to the government and money that people decide to save will be compensated by the overhead tacked on to the cost of providing the service (if it costs 0.20 to make a loaf of bread then they may charge 0.22 or 0.30 to help compensate for people saving their wages). DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget wages grow/fall in line with the cost of living so wages will eventually fall to small amounts but the buying power of that wage will be greater then current wages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign capital can be sourced by exporting excess good's (which could be one way for job's to be filled) or selling technology. Since the buying power is increasing so would the value of the dollar (I'm not saying the government will be gaining/losing money from these fluctuations, I'm just stating this to get you thinking about what the price of goods will look like; smaller numbers like in the 1950's).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That example of the USSR is quite an ineffective way to supply job's; I was thinking along the lines of building complexes that don't rely on being in specific locations (call centre's, research labs etc) and building them (as they are needed) in towns where employment is low. As a result this could stimulate further job production and opportunities (like shops and services); this means that people will have a job doing things that are needed and have some use unlike the USSR case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An important thing that is missing in capitalism is responsibility and that comes automatically with any rights ('freedom' and the ability to spend large amounts of it). If you are free to do anything with your property and money then why are there so many laws preventing you to do such freedom's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really taking any freedoms away, the government buy's back all domestically owned companies and restructure them to better serve the community. The only big freedom I would see being taken away is the ability to open any business you like (if you had the money to do so); I see creating new businesses would be sending a proposition to the government with the benefits and feasibility (much like a proposal to a bank for a new business loan); I guess you could reward the person with giving them management powers (or paid under a different title) of the place if they show they can look after it to promote people finding new opportunities to better the area.

 

 

 

Could you be a little more specific with what freedom's it would be breaking?

 

 

 

The only thing that makes people not equal in the system is what they get paid and that is just a return on the time it takes people to learn a new skill and apply it or an incentive for people to learn skills for job's that need filling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea where you come up with where you find capitalism means equality; the more money you have the better you get treated simple as that. There is no way someone with no money can get given a fair chance at making it big, they just don't have the start up capital to compete in modern capitalism which is dominated by large corporation which pick out the best opportunities and fund them with their huge cash reserves, leaving the common person with the lesser (and usually poorer in return) opportunities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stated in my original post that my framework has direct democracy (something America does not have). Basically I would imagine there would be building where you could either change your preference to another person to lead (there would be minimum terms to prevent people from constantly getting new people to lead), read up on candidates and the ability to submit a candidate (provide a vision statement and all the likes). The government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have control of democracy and if they tried to change it they would be getting trouble from its people (look in history you will see any radical change towards totalitarianism is met by protest or the seizure of parliament to enact a new government).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My frame work is not a move away from capitalism, it removes the gigantic profits and replaces them with smaller incentives (which you don't need if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re doing a job you enjoy) and sends the large returns to be used to make products cheaper, increase research, increase public works and in general provide a fairer system for everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you are taking ALL of the freedoms away, under your society people own NOTHING. at any given time the government could take away all of your wealth. tell me, what freedoms do you have? if you want to go into a buisness that 95% of the country also wants to go into, is the government going to let 95% of the country do that particular job? all that would happen under your government is complete government control, eventually the gov would designate people from birth what job they are going to get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

everyone under a capitalistic society has an EQUAL right to live, and do what ever they want with their property. if someone has the ability to make it big, they have a good probablity of making it big, no matter how poor they are when they are young. the main concern of companies would be running at maximum efficiency, therefore hiring the best people for the job. if someone with great ability tries, then he can get a good job. yes, the common, average person will have less oportunities at getting a job that they are NOT qualified for. if someone cant do a job, i see no reason why a company should be required to hire them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, your socialism is a movement away from capitalism. taking away someones property and giving it to someone else is distinctly not capitalist. how do you think companies make these "gigantic profits"? people elect to buy these products, basically just voting on what company they want to succeed. capitalism gives you direct democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

capitalism would in a sense, require businesses to make things cheaper and better, or else a different company will and put the first company out of business. there are still no incentives to invent anything new under your economics. the system isnt "fairer" for everyone, the smart, inventive, creative, and hard working are being oppressed by the "needy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are free to do anything with your property and money then why are there so many laws preventing you to do such freedom's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION RUINED THE ECONOMY AND THEY BLAMED IT ON CAPITALISM. STUPIDITY ON PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTS US FROM BEING FREE.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You are taking ALL of the freedoms away, under your society people own NOTHING. at any given time the government could take away all of your wealth. tell me, what freedoms do you have? if you want to go into a buisness that 95% of the country also wants to go into, is the government going to let 95% of the country do that particular job? all that would happen under your government is complete government control, eventually the gov would designate people from birth what job they are going to get.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People own what they want to own; however the government will tussle you out of company investment. You have a wage with that you can buy land, buy a TV and food no one is really stopping you from buying what you want. However it will be useless owning a share in a government majority owned business as it will not be running for a profit and creating new businesses will be basically funded by the government so that it will be majority owned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually jobs will pretty much continue the way it will, new jobs will open up as they are required; if people want to get into a saturated field then they will need to compete for it; not only does it remove stagnation it also differentiates between the people who really want to do it and the others that can be bothered; this will further be pushed by maintaining a limit on the number of university entries (much like now).

 

 

 

Plus a system where 95% of people want to do one type of job is unrealistic as there will always be people who want 'simple' jobs without big responsibility and there are so many specialised jobs there is no way that everyone would suddenly want to become microbiologists for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually you are right about the designation of jobs however this is more futuristic then my framework; however such a proposition would only be made possible with the mastering of genetics and psychology, such people will be genetically and mentally designed for jobs; if you were thought you loved your job, where you lived, what you had and thought you had the best life, actually you lived in a state of total happiness then what would make you question your society? It may seem strange to you but what would you say it is happening now, it works that well that even this entire conversation was pre-determined through genetics behind a secret lab which we will never see; you really can't argue against this since all I can say to your response was we were genetically/mentally trained to overlook 'x' inconsistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

yes, your socialism is a movement away from capitalism. taking away someones property and giving it to someone else is distinctly not capitalist. how do you think companies make these "gigantic profits"? people elect to buy these products, basically just voting on what company they want to succeed. capitalism gives you direct democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

capitalism would in a sense, require businesses to make things cheaper and better, or else a different company will and put the first company out of business. there are still no incentives to invent anything new under your economics. the system isnt "fairer" for everyone, the smart, inventive, creative, and hard working are being oppressed by the "needy".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not direct democracy if you are being psychologically brainwashed to buy products; this is being done at such a young age now that children will grow up becoming loyal to a brand that was advertised to them as a pre-teen. You can't tell me that businesses throw million's (and billion's) on advertising to sell product's it isn't innocent buy 'x' like it was in the 60's or earlier they are designed by marketing consultants who in turn go to psychologists to find out what colours and patterns and styles will penetrate a mind the furthest; how is that fair for small business and individuals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are free to do anything with your property and money then why are there so many laws preventing you to do such freedom's?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION RUINED THE ECONOMY AND THEY BLAMED IT ON CAPITALISM. STUPIDITY ON PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTS US FROM BEING FREE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about social and ethical problems, things you can't throw money at? If you hired someone to be your sexual slave and servant would that be ok; on one hand she/he may need the money but on the other you can be mistreating them and taking advantage of them. How about luring someone to your property with money and then killing them; they are on your property so why can't you do what you want? Governments are here to police such problems, things that capitalism can not survive on itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all this talk about freedom, but you forget that freedom is not something you are born with, its something that you are given. The freedom to choose education is nonexistant for poor people. Other buyable freedoms are also unavaiable if you are born poor and cannot afford them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it comes down to is that you contradict yourself all the time. Enough is said by me in this discussion and i will now leave you guys to it. I hope that my message have gone trough, and that more people will start showing compassion for the rest of the population, they are after all equal to you, as humans. The worst that could hapen is what i first said, many would suffer from it. Work against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Johannes, now volunteerworking in the slum areas of Nairobi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People own what they want to own; however the government will tussle you out of company investment. You have a wage with that you can buy land, buy a TV and food no one is really stopping you from buying what you want. However it will be useless owning a share in a government majority owned business as it will not be running for a profit and creating new businesses will be basically funded by the government so that it will be majority owned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, people do not own what they want to own if the government and society deems that they dont deserve it. if they decide that you have too much and "needy" people need it more than you do, then they will take it from you. the result of this is a downward spiral of welfare overall, people will be more worried about showing how needy they are than about working. smart, hardworking individuals wont be able to show their abilities, because they will have to work harder for the same amount as someone who gets their money by taking it from those smart people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually jobs will pretty much continue the way it will, new jobs will open up as they are required; if people want to get into a saturated field then they will need to compete for it; not only does it remove stagnation it also differentiates between the people who really want to do it and the others that can be bothered; this will further be pushed by maintaining a limit on the number of university entries (much like now).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but dont they have an equal right to that job under your society? so those people who arent as smart arent as equal as the smart people? thats going against everything you said so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus a system where 95% of people want to do one type of job is unrealistic as there will always be people who want 'simple' jobs without big responsibility and there are so many specialised jobs there is no way that everyone would suddenly want to become microbiologists for example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that was just an example, but look at it like labor jobs and other jobs. no one will want to do the labor jobs, everyone will want the easy sit down jobs.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It is not direct democracy if you are being psychologically brainwashed to buy products; this is being done at such a young age now that children will grow up becoming loyal to a brand that was advertised to them as a pre-teen. You can't tell me that businesses throw million's (and billion's) on advertising to sell product's it isn't innocent buy 'x' like it was in the 60's or earlier they are designed by marketing consultants who in turn go to psychologists to find out what colours and patterns and styles will penetrate a mind the furthest; how is that fair for small business and individuals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no matter how much brand loyalty you have, if someone offers the same product for half the cost that is twice as good, then the people will buy that instead. if a company advertises heavily, but their product is in fact great, and worth what they are selling it for, then people will buy it. you are never required to buy any good or service, and nobody can force you to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about social and ethical problems, things you can't throw money at? If you hired someone to be your sexual slave and servant would that be ok; on one hand she/he may need the money but on the other you can be mistreating them and taking advantage of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ethical problems are things of religion, there would be freedom of religion, and you couldnt force someone to accept your religion. if you want to hire a sex slave, and someone wants the job, then you would hire them. they both have the right to do what they want with their property, which includes their bodies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about luring someone to your property with money and then killing them; they are on your property so why can't you do what you want? Governments are here to police such problems, things that capitalism can not survive on itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first of all, if you paid them to come onto your property but didnt say anything about killing them, then that would be a breach of contract. if you tell them that if they want the money, to come onto the property, where i will give you the money and then shoot you in the face, then it would be ok(yes, it sounds stupid, but you can do whatever you want with your property, as long as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others)

 

 

 

second of all, you saying this is my fault. i have been calling everything capitalism rather than anarchocapitalism (so far i havent had to discern between them, since the answer has been the same for both of them), and this situation has a better chance of happening in a anarchocapitalistic environment. in archocapitalism, there still could be a police force, they would just be hired by people. if you want police protection, you can pay for it. kind of like body guards today. but of course, not many could afford this. thats why a buisness man of a big company could hire an entire police force, and offer police protection as part of your salary. this is of course completely up to the buisness man, he doesnt have to offer protection. (but it would be a good incentive to get workers, and a companies not offering protection would lose good workers).

 

 

 

under a capitalistic environment, there is a government, consisting of a military (protection from foreign invasion, if the whole world became capitalistic this would no longer be needed), police (for the protection of peoples rights), and judicial (for the resolving of disputes).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, all this talk about freedom, but you forget that freedom is not something you are born with, its something that you are given. The freedom to choose education is nonexistant for poor people. Other buyable freedoms are also unavaiable if you are born poor and cannot afford them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it comes down to is that you contradict yourself all the time. Enough is said by me in this discussion and i will now leave you guys to it. I hope that my message have gone trough, and that more people will start showing compassion for the rest of the population, they are after all equal to you, as humans. The worst that could hapen is what i first said, many would suffer from it. Work against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Johannes, now volunteerworking in the slum areas of Nairobi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAHA, not born with freedom? who gives you freedom? are those people already free, or do they have to be given freedom to? as soon as you are born you are a slave? freedom to choose education? thats not a freedom, thats not a right. you have no right to force someone to teach you something. you have no right to make them your slave. freedom to choose education is saying freedom to enslave people who are smarter than you. contradict myself all the time? all i say is freedom. you have the freedom to do what you want with your property, and no one can take that right away. i cant see where i contradicted myself. i do see a contradiction in your post though: "people are equal" "people are free to choose education" so the people who are poor are allowed to enslave the people who are smart and make them give them education, but the people who are smart cant enslave the people who are poor? and waht does you volunteering have to do with anything? although it is a good lead into something i havent mentioned yet about a capitalistic enviroment. you are free to do what you want with your property INCLUDING giving it all away. if you want to equally distribute your whole paycheck to everyone poorer than you, you can (assuming they accept it, they are not required to accept it). you can also help people out if you want. hell, rich people could fund these schools for the poor people that dont charge any admission rates, but only if they want to do that. they have no legal obligation to do it. some rich people could be religious, and feel helping the poor is their duty. they choose to be that religion, and choose whether they want to follow it. philatrophy (that is a horrible version of the word i want, i cant remember it exactly and im already a horrible speller, so if someone could correct me that would be great :wink: ), or donating to a charity, could be fairly popular for the rich. bill gates has given millions of dollars away. but once again, i must stress its not an obligation to give money away, its a choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I envisage a futuristic world, far removed from today; one in which nobody flames, and everyone adds something new to the conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me and death by pod are having a discussion, there arent really to many flames involved. and everything that explains more clearly what we are trying to get at (as each post does) adds something new to talk about. your post, however, added nothing to the conversation.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but it did: I gave a legitimate view of the future, whereas you two have just been complaining about each other's views and arguing about what's likely to happen, using your own political viewpoints. Besides which, I said that it was far removed from today, ie I am not being hypocritical for flaming; I said that in the future IJ won't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, i left this post indy. It is useless to quote me because i wont answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you obviously didnt since you knew and just replied. i couldnt care less whether or not you did leave the post though, i wasnt looking for your reply. i quoted you to tell everyone why it wasnt right.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but it did: I gave a legitimate view of the future, whereas you two have just been complaining about each other's views and arguing about what's likely to happen, using your own political viewpoints. Besides which, I said that it was far removed from today, ie I am not being hypocritical for flaming; I said that in the future IJ won't do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah you did, sorry, the discussion got pushed a little off topic, and i didnt think about it.

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah but it did: I gave a legitimate view of the future, whereas you two have just been complaining about each other's views and arguing about what's likely to happen, using your own political viewpoints. Besides which, I said that it was far removed from today, ie I am not being hypocritical for flaming; I said that in the future IJ won't do it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, I post a legitimate view of what a future political viewpoint would be (your telling me youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve never heard of government mind control and ownership scenario's) and then I get a very hostile reception, I defend the idea a bit and then it turns from constructive criticism to arguing, that's why IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve stopped posting because it seems indyfan will keep going until he wins the 'internet argument' without noticing flaws in his own posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So either we get back to talking about the future (as I won't be continuing this in public) or this post dies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, I post a legitimate view of what a future political viewpoint would be (your telling me youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve never heard of government mind control and ownership scenario's) and then I get a very hostile reception, I defend the idea a bit and then it turns from constructive criticism to arguing, that's why IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve stopped posting because it seems indyfan will keep going until he wins the 'internet argument' without noticing flaws in his own posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

haha, that was a good laugh. but if everyone else is quiting, what am i to do?

q8tsigindy500fan.jpg

indy500fanan9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I envisage a futuristic world, far removed from today; one in which nobody flames, and everyone adds something new to the conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's way too idealistic, you'll give up that thought when you grow older. There are so many morons that know pretty much nothing you'd consider "useful" or "wise" that you'd get desperate if you met them all. You probably didn't take in account that those people who "flame nobody and add always something new to the conversation" are a minority, probably less than 2% of the population. You'll never get a world where everything is like you described it (except by watching a movie)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people just want to have a job and entertainment (i.e work 8 hours, go home and drink beer while watching TV, repeat), and later on, a family. Just like Caesar said over 2000 years ago, "The people need circus and bread". Most people will be never interested in real constructive discussion about the society, advance, philosophic matters, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the world will incinerate by the suns uv rays, world war 3 might happen. semi auto lazer weapons, blah blah blah, americans causing war on places with oil etc, although new medicines will be invented to cure cancer and aids, we will know what the bermuda triangle is all about and will start to learn about teleportation and there will be space outposts where people would live in space etc, or alternatively, a limit to 1-2 children per family

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.