I...have..an..idea!

a reply to: RAY1990

I may be wrong but doesn't it look like when extremist polarity gets too crazy people start moving to the middle ground?

So 19Bones79 your shareholder idea would work better with more of society in the middle then at least we can assume rational thought prevails.(?)

a reply to: RAY1990

All I'm proposing is to relieve the banksters of their privilege and invest in the hardworking taxpayers by distributing ownership among ordinary Americans.

You can still have your capitalism but while citizens pay tax everytime the government loans money from the fed the interest is payable to the taxpayers.


Sounds like the perfect check and balance to me instead of it going to some obscure money mafia who nobody allegedly knows who that is.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'd say that's usually the case but getting there usually requires visionaries or a lot of self reflection.

Anarchy would've been my answer when I was younger, these days I struggle to see a stable world without modern economics. I'd probably lean towards regulating capitalism than changing or removing parts. We'd need the engine to keep running...

The way I see it the world has universal regulations and rules as it is, we just need to improve them and actually enforce them. Top heavy international systems dominated by national interests never work out though. Anarchy might be the easiest option but I reckon in time we'll end up with a similar system.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Sounds like commie talk to me

I always supported the idea the worker should own stock in his workplace. Investment can't hurt production can it, worker and workplace investing in each other sounds rather harmonious.

The world currency is dollars, the milking goes way beyond the US shores. Seems that perpetual debt is good for the US? It's everyone else that needs to keep up.

a reply to: RAY1990

Sounds like commie talk to me

By the people, for the people.


👌🏻

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: quintessentone

I'd say that's usually the case but getting there usually requires visionaries or a lot of self reflection.

Anarchy would've been my answer when I was younger, these days I struggle to see a stable world without modern economics. I'd probably lean towards regulating capitalism than changing or removing parts. We'd need the engine to keep running...

The way I see it the world has universal regulations and rules as it is, we just need to improve them and actually enforce them. Top heavy international systems dominated by national interests never work out though. Anarchy might be the easiest option but I reckon in time we'll end up with a similar system.

So are you suggesting becoming a country not being reliant on any other country for anything? I think that ship has sailed.

a reply to: quintessentone

What country could survive on it's own in the 21st century? Due to technology our needs are global, at least in modern nations.

Isolationism won't work. Top heavy systems dominated by certain cultures/nations won't work forever either.

I'd suggest a reworking of old institutions that have barely changed since post WWII. Do away with founding member vetoes and bring the likes of economics, human rights and representation into the 21st century.

Basically I'm talking NWO super scary stuff
Given mankind's capabilities we'll probably kill ourselves going down the path of national interests and as you say self-reliance on a national scale is a thing of the past.

Maybe my glass is half empty though...