New Rules for a Better Economy

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 

before everything imploded, we had people graduating from college hoping to start a new teaching career, but finding that the pay they were getting wouldn't be enough to pay back the debt that they incurred getting the degree to teach....
so, well, they did, they ended up working in the financial sector, where the reward was greater, at least enough to pay the loan back....
so, what's more important to society?? robosigners and the like, or good teachers teaching our young???




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The economy untouched works. Read Freakonomics or Superfreakonomics, or take an economics 101 class.

Every single time social engineering or politics gets involved in economics, it creates a financial catastrophe. Government pushing banks to give loans to people who have no sense of responsibility or the capacity to understand the ramifications of a loan caused the latest cascade of problems. Once irresponsibility becomes a way of life for people, it becomes a way of life for governments, and suddenly there are risks of default everywhere.

FORTUNATELY economics impose darwinism.

The 'new rules' proposed by the OP are a recipe for disaster.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Dbriefed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay
 


What's a "simpletant"?
Enterprising and brilliant people won't bother joining such a society. I know I wouldn't.


I'm enterprising and brilliant...at least I've been told from business partners. Changing the rules to benefit the whole more than the individual isn't bad. I don't need a billion to be happy and content. No one does and if you do, than it's an addiction to money itself or the power that it brings.

Here's something to think about:

THE RICH ARE ADDICTED TO MONEY

Adrenaline addiction is induced through drugs and/or over stimulation. Gamers, such as video gamers and gamblers, receive excitement in the form of adrenaline infusion from the brain in a constant or constantly repeating stream due to the excitement of winning or playing. That leads to addiction if prolonged. Rich people see money-making in the EXACT same fashion. It's a game plain and simple! Making money makes people excited directly causing adrenaline to release form their brains, especially when they receive money. After so many years of it and the pleasures/excitement that it brings with it, like social status, woman and fame, it leads to a serious addiction. Unfortunately our society finds this form of addiction normal. It's not! It's a sickness like all addictions. It impairs rational thinking and awareness of your environment (like empathy for others).

So the question is:

Would you allow your world/country/economy be run by crack addict and money-making-rich addict? They're both the same - adrenaline addicts.

Back you to you:

Why wouldn't you be part of a society that considers the well being of the whole and not just the individual?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed
The economy untouched works. Read Freakonomics or Superfreakonomics, or take an economics 101 class.

Every single time social engineering or politics gets involved in economics, it creates a financial catastrophe. Government pushing banks to give loans to people who have no sense of responsibility or the capacity to understand the ramifications of a loan caused the latest cascade of problems. Once irresponsibility becomes a way of life for people, it becomes a way of life for governments, and suddenly there are risks of default everywhere.

FORTUNATELY economics impose darwinism.

The 'new rules' proposed by the OP are a recipe for disaster.

edit on 18-9-2011 by Dbriefed because: (no reason given)


Oh man you are soooooo misinformed. The government didn't force anyone. The government, because of private lobbying (privately induced corruption) deregulated the US banking systems and loosened the restrictions on what banks can do in the US, like giving loans to people that shouldn't get loans because they haven't proven themselves to be responsible financially. It was private lobbying from the private companies (banks, financial firms) that forced the REPUBLICAN government under Geoge Bush to deregulate the banking system. This allowed banks to package bad debt in pretty little boxes and sell it to the world (where they the rich Wall Streeters made billions) creating an economic time bomb for the whole world. This caused and cascaded the current economic meltdown by then forcing government, again lobbied by private banks, all over the world to inject trillions of stimulus money from their national reserves back into the banks that caused the problem in the first place bankrupting those nations or severely crippling them AND SCREWING THE LITTLE GUY!

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!!! WAKE UP!!!



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by CantSay
 

before everything imploded, we had people graduating from college hoping to start a new teaching career, but finding that the pay they were getting wouldn't be enough to pay back the debt that they incurred getting the degree to teach....
so, well, they did, they ended up working in the financial sector, where the reward was greater, at least enough to pay the loan back....
so, what's more important to society?? robosigners and the like, or good teachers teaching our young???



I like your response. Good teachers - where ethics philosophy is taught front and center.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


They're the ones printing the magik money. So it belongs to them. If you have a problem with that, use clams or something.


Go cap everything like they did in the Soviet Union. See how that turns out.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay
 


They're the ones printing the magik money. So it belongs to them. If you have a problem with that, use clams or something.


Go cap everything like they did in the Soviet Union. See how that turns out.


Let me restate this in plain English. This proposal is not a Soviet or Communist economic system which is a "Command Economy". It is a form of "Mixed Economy" much like what we have today but with limits on wealth. There will still be poor and rich people, the only difference are that the rich will have limits in this new game and the poor will have jobs they choose. Social assistance in this system would actually diminish as there will be plenty of private jobs to fill because corporations would want to increase their wealth limit by hiring more people. Education and the medical industry would remain the same, but with the extra money saved on social assistance, governments could offer more grants to schools reducing education costs. Since there would be more money, government (or private companies as long as it increases their wealth limit) could also start a program to assist people who wish to change jobs by assisting them financially as they take college courses.

It's a new system unlike anything before! It is an "incentive economic" system. Government bribes corporations to increase their civic responsibilities by increasing their wealth limit every time they benefit a citizen financially through full-time jobs, paying their education or paying their transition into another career. The more corporations benefit the fabric of society the more their wealth limit increases.
edit on 19-9-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by CantSay

Oh man you are soooooo misinformed. The government didn't force anyone. The government, because of private lobbying (privately induced corruption) deregulated the US banking systems and loosened the restrictions on what banks can do in the US, like giving loans to people that shouldn't get loans because they haven't proven themselves to be responsible financially. It was private lobbying from the private companies (banks, financial firms) that forced the REPUBLICAN government under Geoge Bush to deregulate the banking system. This allowed banks to package bad debt in pretty little boxes and sell it to the world (where they the rich Wall Streeters made billions) creating an economic time bomb for the whole world. This caused and cascaded the current economic meltdown by then forcing government, again lobbied by private banks, all over the world to inject trillions of stimulus money from their national reserves back into the banks that caused the problem in the first place bankrupting those nations or severely crippling them AND SCREWING THE LITTLE GUY!

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!!! WAKE UP!!!
Sorry but you're wrong.

The St. Louis Fed has a good writeup on subprime mortgages. Subprime meaning the borrowers have very low credit ratings, or they should never have been given a mortgage.
research.stlouisfed.org...

Take a look at the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and 1977, and 1980, and 1987, and 1992. These Acts were passed by Congress to increase the percentage of homeownership. Giving mortgages to communities of people with low credit scores gave rise to subprime mortgages.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed

Originally posted by CantSay

Oh man you are soooooo misinformed. The government didn't force anyone. The government, because of private lobbying (privately induced corruption) deregulated the US banking systems and loosened the restrictions on what banks can do in the US, like giving loans to people that shouldn't get loans because they haven't proven themselves to be responsible financially. It was private lobbying from the private companies (banks, financial firms) that forced the REPUBLICAN government under Geoge Bush to deregulate the banking system. This allowed banks to package bad debt in pretty little boxes and sell it to the world (where they the rich Wall Streeters made billions) creating an economic time bomb for the whole world. This caused and cascaded the current economic meltdown by then forcing government, again lobbied by private banks, all over the world to inject trillions of stimulus money from their national reserves back into the banks that caused the problem in the first place bankrupting those nations or severely crippling them AND SCREWING THE LITTLE GUY!

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!!! WAKE UP!!!
Sorry but you're wrong.

The St. Louis Fed has a good writeup on subprime mortgages. Subprime meaning the borrowers have very low credit ratings, or they should never have been given a mortgage.
research.stlouisfed.org...

Take a look at the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and 1977, and 1980, and 1987, and 1992. These Acts were passed by Congress to increase the percentage of homeownership. Giving mortgages to communities of people with low credit scores gave rise to subprime mortgages.


Actually I am wrong but not of what you said. I said George Bush was who signed the deregulation of the banking system. Actually it was under Bill Clinton and a Republican house. George Bush if anything could have only supported the deregulation from 2001 to 2009.

www.wsws.org...

This article is very interesting given the date it was published 1999, and it states the following about the deregulation:

"This comment underscores the greatest irony in the banking deregulation bill. Legislation first adopted to save American capitalism from the consequences of the 1929 Wall Street Crash is being abolished just at the point where the conditions are emerging for an even greater speculative financial collapse. The enormous volatility in the stock exchange in recent months has been accompanied by repeated warnings that stocks are grossly overvalued, with some computer and Internet stocks selling at prices 100 times earnings or even greater." ~ Martin McLaughlin

Essentially Mr. McLaughlin predicted what would happen 8 years later.

In Canada for example, no bank is allowed to lend to anyone with a bad credit. No one! And they're better off for it. They also didn't buy a lot of the US bad debt. Their stimulus package was about $30 billion if I recall correctly. This is what was deregulated. The requirement for loan approval and the ability for banks to offer loans to bad creditors. The deregulation was lobbied by the banks because they saw it as a cash cow. They were only thinking in the here and now unfortunately. This is what caused an economic time bomb and the financial meltdown.
edit on 19-9-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
It started farther back even. Banks didn't want to lend without guarantees. Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) were the mortgage guarantee institutions that allowed banks to issue subprime borrowers at higher interest rates than for qualified borrowers.

1938 - Fannie Mae created by T. Roosevelt and Congress, to ensure banks continue issuing mortgages to low income (low credit prior to credit ratings) people
1968 - Fanne Mae privatized by L. Johnson, to expand government debt
1970 - Freddie Mac was launched by R. Nixon (Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970)
1989 - Fanne Mae went public

We are now winding down these GSEs seeing they were a primary cause of the economic problems we're facing. Ironically Fannie Mae was created as part of the post-Depression New Deal which was supposed to provide Relief, Recovery, and Reform. Sort of like Obamas' Job Act which digs us half a Trillion deeper in debt and will at best create 100,000 jobs. To pay for the half Trillion spent who knows how many jobs we'll need to create after he's gone (average salary of $33,048 and an average 12% federal tax rate).



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


So you want to limit paper wealth i.e. non-existent wealth? Good luck with that.




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


Exactly!!! At least someone gets it!!!



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay
 


So you want to limit paper wealth i.e. non-existent wealth? Good luck with that.



In order to make a system that I'm proposing work, commodity prices need to be fixed otherwise paper money will have no value...like it does today. Supply and demand, or deliberate scarcity, directly affect the purchasing power of the dollar.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


You know I was being sarcastic there, right? I believe people should be able to earn whatever they want.

Start a business selling widgets that everybody wants and make a million gazillion dollars? Good On You!

Take you million gazillion dollars and buy a super duper shiny corporate jet airplane? Even Better On You!

Capitalism, it's the real thing.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CantSay.


Oh man you are soooooo misinformed.
The government didn't force anyone.
The government, because of private lobbying (privately induced corruption) deregulated the US banking systems and loosened the restrictions on what banks can do in the US, like giving loans to people that shouldn't get loans because they haven't proven themselves to be responsible financially.

It was private lobbying from the private companies (banks, financial firms) that forced the REPUBLICAN government under Geoge Bush to deregulate the banking system. This allowed banks to package bad debt in pretty little boxes and sell it to the world (where they the rich Wall Streeters made billions) creating an economic time bomb for the whole world. This caused and cascaded the current economic meltdown by then forcing government, again lobbied by private banks, all over the world to inject trillions of stimulus money from their national reserves back into the banks that caused the problem in the first place bankrupting those nations or severely crippling them AND SCREWING THE LITTLE GUY!

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED!!! WAKE UP!!!



the 'ownership society' is what was being pushed...
see, the public housing programs with mass housing for the impoverished was a failure... it concentrated the underclass into sections of the cities and backfired....

the up to date solution was to thin out the concentrations of poor housing to every street and neighborhood by having home ownership available to everyone irregardless of ability to pay.... we see that even that experiment was a failure because government had no support plans in place to aid the unable to pay crowd(s)...
which was really the buyers fault in not reselling the overpriced house and moving on with a bit of profit on the excessively costly house to begin with...

all government social engineering projects have resulted in failure... but the velocity of the money in the housing industry made many people rich, employed, wealthy-on-paper but caged in a gerbils running device in practical terms



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CantSay
 


A farmer has the right to sell his hard earned produce to whoever offers the highest price.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
You are suggesting a cap of 37 million dollars from an arbitrary assumption that it's 10 lifetime's worth of income. What if due to inflation it becomes less than 10 lifetimes? And this is basically saying you can support your Great-times-10 grandchild, but not your Great-times-11 grandchild. And if you earn 50 mil, why should the government take it away? They didn't earn it. Why should it go to the people? They didn't earn it. Now government subsidy wealth is different, if the government gives a corporation money by printing it out of thin air, that should corporation should be boycotted.

How is it that a person who has 100 million dollars is destroying the world? I'd say the government spending billions or trillions is doing worse damage.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by survivalstation
reply to post by CantSay
 


You know I was being sarcastic there, right? I believe people should be able to earn whatever they want.

Start a business selling widgets that everybody wants and make a million gazillion dollars? Good On You!

Take you million gazillion dollars and buy a super duper shiny corporate jet airplane? Even Better On You!

Capitalism, it's the real thing.


That's the problem. There isn't a billion million gazillion dollars worth of wealth to make. Resources are limited. Wealth is limited. Making money is a game where most think there is no limit, but there is. 1% of the population cannot own 99% of the wealth on this planet because when 99% of the people wake up there will be a French like Revolution. I don't want to see that. That's why I'm proposing an incentive economy for people and corporations to take care of their fellow man in order to make more money. It's still a form of capitalism just with different rules.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay
 


A farmer has the right to sell his hard earned produce to whoever offers the highest price.


Why? Because that's the way it's always been? The world is becoming a smaller place. Old rules no longer apply. Either we level the field and eliminate poverty instead of increase it and minimize greed instead of allowing it to flourish or there will be a global revolution. There are signs of a revolution happening now. It might even erupt into a World War (yes I believe that). I'm a numbers guy and the probability is very high. I would not like to see that happen and I think this idea can curb that chance by leveling the playing field where you can still play a similar game but with new rules.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
You are suggesting a cap of 37 million dollars from an arbitrary assumption that it's 10 lifetime's worth of income. What if due to inflation it becomes less than 10 lifetimes? And this is basically saying you can support your Great-times-10 grandchild, but not your Great-times-11 grandchild. And if you earn 50 mil, why should the government take it away? They didn't earn it. Why should it go to the people? They didn't earn it. Now government subsidy wealth is different, if the government gives a corporation money by printing it out of thin air, that should corporation should be boycotted.

How is it that a person who has 100 million dollars is destroying the world? I'd say the government spending billions or trillions is doing worse damage.


You missed what I wrote. That is why I included point #3 which stated that commodity prices should be permanently fixed. Doing that would eliminate inflation over night to 0%. This would require producers to produce more in order to make more money eliminating scarcity. Imagine gasoline prices never changing and when it runs out we all have to switch to electric. Sustainability in this new economy would be very important in order to make continuous money. The Earth would be greener place because resource limitations in a commodity market where prices are fixed would be a big concern for producers forcing alternatives to be reached and implemented. There wouldn't oil tycoons any more but innovation tycoons. Indirectly this would make the world a smarter place as innovation would be very important to the bottom line of everyone. If the commodity cannot be produced faster or it limited, that innovation would take over to produce alternatives and new producing methods increasing global innovation and better mankind. That way $37.5M will be worth the same now as it is 150 years. What a concept.

We have to change the way we think!!
edit on 20-9-2011 by CantSay because: (no reason given)



  exclusive video


top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join