New Rules for a Better Economy

Originally posted by St Udio

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

In my opinion most social programs in the US are a complete failure because they don't address the underlining issues. I don't agree with eliminating them, but making them better by making the poor productive and self reliant people. There are internal issues why people are poor and external issues. I really hate the external issues like innate social classes and greedy people ill affecting their neighbor allowing or forcing them to become poor. Why has job outsourcing been allowed to happen eliminating millions of jobs in the US. The only proven key to success in this country is education and no social program has delivered this in good quality to any of the poor. Education increases reasoning, understanding and responsibility. It also increases one's ability to start their own businesses or get a better career. Education (post-secondary) in the US is virtually inaccessible to the poor. That is one root of the problem. The other is a lack of empathy for others and lack of ethics in general which is the source of greed. The two combined sum up America.

Originally posted by CantSayIn my opinion most social programs in the US are a complete failure because they don't address the underlining issues. I don't agree with eliminating them, but making them better by making the poor productive and self reliant people. There are internal issues why people are poor and external issues. I really hate the external issues like innate social classes and greedy people ill affecting their neighbor allowing or forcing them to become poor. Why has job outsourcing been allowed to happen eliminating millions of jobs in the US. The only proven key to success in this country is education and no social program has delivered this in good quality to any of the poor. Education increases reasoning, understanding and responsibility. It also increases one's ability to start their own businesses or get a better career. Education (post-secondary) in the US is virtually inaccessible to the poor. That is one root of the problem. The other is a lack of empathy for others and lack of ethics in general which is the source of greed. The two combined sum up America.

It depends on what you define as problems. Say you have three people in poverty (because they had low SAT scores) and they have six kids. Now you have nine people in poverty. In 15 years say that group has grown 6x to eighteen people. Now the banks won't lend to those people since they have no history of stability. Government steps in and incentivizes banks to lend to those people. In another 15 years that group has grown 6x to one hundred eight people, maybe more because of government support. I would define the problem as a lack of birth control and the wrong incentives.

A new rule for a better economy would be to not incentivize poverty and make it comfortable, but to incentivize people working their way out of poverty through education, taking menial jobs and birth control. It's far better to subsidize a 'below minimum' wage than to send out welfare checks and penalize recipients who work.

Originally posted by CantSay
Why? Because that's the way it's always been? The world is becoming a smaller place. Old rules no longer apply.

They can starve then.

Originally posted by Dbriefed

Originally posted by CantSayIn my opinion most social programs in the US are a complete failure because they don't address the underlining issues. I don't agree with eliminating them, but making them better by making the poor productive and self reliant people. There are internal issues why people are poor and external issues. I really hate the external issues like innate social classes and greedy people ill affecting their neighbor allowing or forcing them to become poor. Why has job outsourcing been allowed to happen eliminating millions of jobs in the US. The only proven key to success in this country is education and no social program has delivered this in good quality to any of the poor. Education increases reasoning, understanding and responsibility. It also increases one's ability to start their own businesses or get a better career. Education (post-secondary) in the US is virtually inaccessible to the poor. That is one root of the problem. The other is a lack of empathy for others and lack of ethics in general which is the source of greed. The two combined sum up America.

It depends on what you define as problems. Say you have three people in poverty (because they had low SAT scores) and they have six kids. Now you have nine people in poverty. In 15 years say that group has grown 6x to eighteen people. Now the banks won't lend to those people since they have no history of stability. Government steps in and incentivizes banks to lend to those people. In another 15 years that group has grown 6x to one hundred eight people, maybe more because of government support. I would define the problem as a lack of birth control and the wrong incentives.

A new rule for a better economy would be to not incentivize poverty and make it comfortable, but to incentivize people working their way out of poverty through education, taking menial jobs and birth control. It's far better to subsidize a 'below minimum' wage than to send out welfare checks and penalize recipients who work.

Surprisingly, I don`t disagree with some of what you said. The law in the animal kingdom are that people take the path of least resistance. Currently the path of least resistance is to go onto social assistance because the hard path due to non-sufficient funds is education. What social programs should be doing is aligning the path of the least resistance for people to become productive members of society through education and quality job training. The problem, and this is the external issue I referred to, is that our society limits jobs for all due to the impossibility of sustaining everyone in a 100% capitalist environment where self-interest and greed are championed and rewarded. It is an animistic, and sometimes cannibalistic, environment that is unsustainable. In capitalism, the winners of this game impose restrictions and limit competition by lobbying government to pass rules in their favor. They also do this by suing everyone who threatens their business directly and indirectly just to burden competition with exuberant financial costs crippling small businesses. This is not freedom!!! 5% of the rich and to 1% of the ultra rich cannot be allowed to impose rules and limitations on the rest of society that only benefit them. This was not what capitalism was meant to be, and once again it is not freedom!

Your stance are that the problem are the poor and the helpless. My stance is that the problem are the greedy rich who perpetuate the poor by directly and indirectly creating a society that only favors the rich and severely limits the poor to climb out of poverty and compete on equal footing. Our society needs serious makeover because it is not sustainable the way it's going.

Once again, government didn't force banks to do anything the banks themselves didn't lobby for in the first place. Banks saw a gold mind in offering more loans to more people. That was plain and simple. This is what they lobbied government for and they got it and screwed over the world economy in the end, but since they're rich, there're ok. The poor on the other hand are worse off.

If there is any future for the world economy, it is to limit and control greed and not allow it to flourish. Greed got us here and greed will make it worse for everyone. In turn, real freedom must be championed and not just the illusion of it. Everyone must have equal means to achieve equal wealth AND everyone must realize there are limits to wealth globally (resources and ownership - there is only soo much land and resources on this planet) which plays into the division of equal wealth potential. Right now equal anything doesn't really exist. There is only the illusion of it. Don't fool yourself, there are a lot of rich people around the world, in particularly in the US, that are purchasing ad campaigns and spread propaganda telling everyone it was the poor who cause this mess. It wasn't!!!

In addition, I believe ethics should be taught in all schools so that future generations know their actions have consequences for everyone if they only think of themselves and that greed is not sustainable for the human race or the environment.

Originally posted by eldard

Originally posted by CantSay
Why? Because that's the way it's always been? The world is becoming a smaller place. Old rules no longer apply.

They can starve then.

Dude, there is something wrong with you. Either you don't see the big picture or you have a serious lack of empathy. Nothing is black and white.

Originally posted by CantSay
Dude, there is something wrong with you. Either you don't see the big picture or you have a serious lack of empathy. Nothing is black and white.

You're the delusional one. Most farmers are in it for the money. If you stifle their income potential, they wouldn't bother growing whatever.

Originally posted by eldard

Originally posted by CantSay
Dude, there is something wrong with you. Either you don't see the big picture or you have a serious lack of empathy. Nothing is black and white.

You're the delusional one. Most farmers are in it for the money. If you stifle their income potential, they wouldn't bother growing whatever.

I'm not against them making money and profit. If commodity prices were fixed, profit would still be allowed but limited forcing farmers to produce more to make more therefore having more food for everyone solving world hunger.

Llike I said. Deluded.



Yeah, because you can have more land, fertilizers and pesticides and send storms and calamities away just like that.

I just want to add that I thinking taxing accumulated wealth is a much better path than limiting wealth. using your 37.5 million number, just tax any wealth above that level at 10% a year. The barons would be forced to sell off pieces of themselves on a regular basis thus forcing them to slowly divest themselves of their empires. It would serve to decentralize corporate economic power.

Bottom line is a billionaire holds wealth that is equal to the income needed by tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. There is a limited pie of wealth and money due to how the money systems are set up. Unless the billionaire ends up with less money , it becomes impossible for all the rest of society to meet their own needs. mathematically it can only work out that we have more and more unemployed as we have more and more billionaires. Simple math folks. the lower classes HAVE to take the wealth from the top or they simply can't survive.

I don't think the OP's idea is reasonable or well-founded. Let me offer my own 'new rules outline':

1. Taxes --- manufacturing, agriculture, industrial R&D are taxed at lower rates (since we desperatley need to retrun this to the USA); money made through investing, other than retirement-based vehicles, is taxed up-the-wazoo since this contributes nothing to the country as a whole; money sitting in static 'investment pools' is taxed up-the-wazoo (we want money to be put to work).

1b. Taxes, inheritance --- beyond a threshold determined by the country's median estate size, taxed at a set rate with exemptions for amounts placed directly into individual named college/education trust accounts, health savings accounts, care for the elderly trust accounts and the like. Allow people to help their families but not create/endorse the 'idle rich'.

2. Investment rules --- stocks/bonds are directly tied to raising capital for businesses; speculation is either ended or taxed until your eyes bleed.

3. Job-jacking --- any company that establishes locations outside the USA has to file financials on all of their activities both domestic and non-domestic; they cannot deduct any expenses accrued by activities associated with non-domestic locations. They are, however, taxed on 100% of the revenue they make regardless of where. Any company whose financial activities are disproportionately non-domestic get taxed up-the-wazoo. In the event that some disaster occurs in a non-domestic location (social unrest, natural disaster, etc.) that requires assistance from the US government (read: tax payers), that assistance will be provided at RETAIL COST to the corporation.

4. Legal standing --- corporations are NOT people

5. Lobbying --- all lobbying has to be done in a public forum or a certified transcript of all meetings has to be posted online. Any non-listed or private meetings constitutes a felony and the politician, lobbying firm and the lobbying firm's client are fined (up-the-wazoo), politician is automatically impeached and the lobbying firm's license is revoked.

6a. Politicians, credentials --- In order to run for public office all candidates have to pass a basic skills/knowledge test designed and adminsitered by the private sector (say a collection of political science, ethics, economics, psychology and sociology professors from multiple universities). The results will determine not only their right to get on the ballot but which committees they can serve on if elected. In addition, they have to pass criminal, drug/alcohol and financial screening; no dual citizenship.

6b. Politicians, behavior --- Misleading, misrepresenting or lying to The People is a felony; They can be held personally laible for financial malfeasance; polticians are legally obligated to represent the 'will of the people'.

6c. Politician compensation --- First, term limits; pensions are calculated based upon the average private sector pension over the course of the politician's term; annual pay is some factor of the median income for that politician's district; benefit package (health care etc.) is paid for just like the rest of us do.

6d. Political campaigns --- campaign 'war-chests' are capped --- everyone gets the same amount from a common pool. Campaigns themselves are run like professional sports --- set schedules, season beginning and end. No more two-party stystem. Campaign promises are legally binding contracts.

7. Banking and finance --- banks are held to strict limits on investment and leverage; loan instruments (mortgages, auto-loans, etc) cannot be sold and must be held by the originating institution; Mega banks are broken-up to local banks.

8. Economic growth --- businesses are incented to grow (via tax rates and some partial subsidies for critical businesses); those tax rates increase after an established threshold is reached as the business gains market share within its sector; we want businesses to grow but we want to maintain competition and prevent hegemony within any sector.

9. Military --- to be used exclusively for defense and protecting the immediate interests of the USA; no more geo-political influence peddling and nation-building.

10. Social programs --- we need a safety net system. Businesses are required/incented to hire a certain number of jobless; all physically/mentally capable people receiving assistance must engage in some form of suitable 'community service'; part of corporate tax revenues funds a public job-training system.

11. The Federal Reserve --- do I really need to say it?

It's an uncomfortable and controversial issue but one of the largest sources of social instability in the world today is the dispartity of wealth between the rich and poor. It's pervasive and the root of most of the unrest both now and what is to come. People should have the ability to prosper relative to their effort but there is a threshold beyond which the society as a whole suffers.

Originally posted by eldard
Llike I said. Deluded.

Yeah, because you can have more land, fertilizers and pesticides and send storms and calamities away just like that.

edit on 9/25/2011 by eldard because: (no reason given)

Wow! I did say through innovation. Technological innovations as in reducing the amount of land needed to produce crops and live stock.

Problem is you can't conceive of the technological innovations possible to increase farming output therefore I must be deluded. I think you're deluded to think that things the way they're going is sustainable. You have to open your eyes and mind in a very practical way to the modern world and the technology we have at our disposal.

Right this very moment, many companies are genetically modifying everything to increase crop sizes, resistance to bugs, drought and other farming limitations. Live stock farming is changing considerably making it more efficient.

You think land is the issue. I don't think so because there is lots of unused land all over the world. Perhaps the trillions spend on warfare destroying land in the process can be put into making arid land in order to grow more crops. Again through technological innovation. And then there are golf courses. Why not convert them into farms because they are built on good soil.

In regards to calamities, think outside the box! Be prepared and anticipate the worst always. Build farms that are resilient to climatic change. Again the trillions spent on warfare can be used to build enclosed farms with self regulating climates powered by the wind and Sun.

Stop thinking as if you live in the 19th century.

reply to post by jtma508


I like this more moderate approach. Really I do! It's a good moderate first step. But I'd strongly argue without placing limits on wealth, corruption will remain and flourish due to the allowance of extreme wealth and associated power. Any new system should account for the ever present selfishness, greed and corruptibility of the human entity. A new system should curb these traits in favor of society (play along with them) and only in extreme cases punish it if people break these news rules. By imposing limitations on wealth then the system can be structured towards an incentive economy that increases the social responsibility of the wealthy and corporations by allowing the increase of their wealth limit for every social support they offer an individual citizen like a paid university/college education or hiring more people. We'd still be promoting an economic game to make lots of money, but rules would be changed a bit in favor of society.

For example, if for every 10% of their yearly revenue is spent on social benefit actions, than their wealth cap can increase by the same amount. If one year they offer few to no social support spending than their wealth cap decreases by the amount increased the year before. If a corporation refuses to spend anything on societal social support through this incentive economic platform and they reach their wealth limit, than all money and assets above the limit is taxed 100%.

A system like this would eliminate unemployment and poverty, and increase education.

I would add one more thing: WE DON'T NEED POLITICIANS!

The communication technology available today can make direct voting by the people a truly democratic form of government. All that would be necessary are administrators.

Take a look at this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CantSay


that's funny since innovations need a lot of money to be implemented widescale. And it's still cheaper to plow land than build a hydrophonics house. But apparently not wherever you live since you have flying unicorns and elves.


And I'm neighbors with corn farmers. They have to buy new seeds everytime they plant because the seeds (at $100 per bag) are Jew-netically modified to commit suicide after one germination. But I guess not in your deluded world.

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay

 

that's funny since innovations need a lot of money to be implemented widescale. And it's still cheaper to plow land than build a hydrophonics house. But apparently not wherever you live since you have flying unicorns and elves.

And I'm neighbors with corn farmers. They have to buy new seeds everytime they plant because the seeds (at $100 per bag) are Jew-netically modified to commit suicide after one germination. But I guess not in your deluded world.

I did say that exuberant military spending could be used for this. Didn't I. Also, it's a system of change, where capping wealth on everyone, not just farmers, and taxing those going above the cap, distribute more money into the system financing farms more readily indirectly and directly via government funding. The flow of money would be more fluid in this new economic system. Corporations like Monsanto in an incentive style economy with a wealth caps would not thrive with their genetically modified seeds because they would easily reach their wealth cap forcing them to do social support acts to increase their cap to retain this influx of revenue by their attempt to cripple/monopolize the farming industry. Actually they still might thrive, though resent supporting people and society. Also, in an economy championing innovation through increasing the wealth cap incentive, competitors to Monsanto style corporations can sell un-genetically modified seeds or modified seeds that commit suicide after 4 germination for the same price. Competition would still exist in this new system.

But you bring up a good point. Monsanto style companies enforce their product by lawsuits and patents. This something I mentioned in my first post that needs reformed. The law should be structured to support innovation and business for the better of society, not cripple it.

I'm not delusional. I think the world is believing things can continue the way they're going. I am a problem solver by profession. This is what I do.

reply to post by CantSay


Yes. Keep advocating economic models that are only good on paper. Like that deluded boy name Marx.

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay

 

Yes. Keep advocating economic models that are only good on paper. Like that deluded boy name Marx.

It's pretty clear the current working model is severely broken. All models start on paper, including the existing one...incrementally over many years. It was all on paper and passed into law restricting or loosing the existing model. You see, Marx wasn't deluded either. He was a critical thinker who analyzed the economy with the premise of designing a model that would benefit the majority. The deluded aspect was that someone along the way thought Marx's economic philosophy could be implemented without taking into consideration that humans are innately corrupt and prone to self-interest. Marx too failed to resolve this aspect in his model. My model takes this into account.

I'll continue saying this perhaps to the day I move on. Ideas are not deluded. Solutions are not deluded. Man is deluded for not seeing the bigger picture and not seeing past self-interest. Man's value structure is egotistical, which is not sustainable for a society to grow and flourish in peace and harmony. Man is ignorant and arrogant and resistant to changing their ignorant ways. Man acts like a cancer on this planet destroying it in the name of power. Man is the problem in this planet.

Star and flag for you. Just to add on - we need to get rid of war, lies and fear-mongering mainstream media.

These rules are the making of utopia.

Sad truth human beings will never change. All countries are corrupted and I really hope there will be a super reset like a global multi natural disasters.

reply to post by CantSay


Capitalism is not perfect, but it's still the best system. You are, deluded.

Originally posted by eldard
reply to post by CantSay

 

Capitalism is not perfect, but it's still the best system. You are, deluded.

It's not the best system. I think you're deluded to stick with the best we've got given that full knowledge it's broken and can break repeatedly given enough time until it's unrecoverable.

Seriously you can post a better response with some logical reasoning to defend capitalism and the state that it's currently in and try to convince me otherwise. I listen to reason. Throwing insults isn't very convincing. Perhaps you're financially doing well and you don't see the chaos happening around the world (worse yet you don't care) because of the financial strife that an unregulated capitalist economy has caused. Financially I think I'm also doing ok, but I don't see that continuing if for everyone else the system is failing them. Desperation leads to lots of stupidity from mild to disastrous. Add to that the people around the world, who have more time on their hands to research due to job loss and failed job hunting, are starting to wake up and see the bigger picture. Some of them aren't the brightest on the block and many will resort to basic primal behavior affecting the rest of us who are doing better than most plus affecting those who are asking for change peacefully. If you don't see that, than you too are part of the problem. I see the Big Picture. Always have. I see a nasty revolution coming. I think it's unnecessary because we can all do something to make it better without resorting to stupidity. The current system works well if there are no limits, but there are limits. My "prediction" is that things will worsen globally. Nations will financially collapse. Some say it's by design and others say no. Personally, I don't care either way. What I do care about is of the pain and suffering inflicted on the majority either through stupidity or designed stupidity. To add, we suffer at the illusion of money and value in a virtual system of economy which is ironic.

This thread is my pitch at a solution to avoid pain and suffering for the vast majority now and especially for the future of mankind. I think it would work with some tweaking. I've reasoned it out, given my logic and will continue to do so.