The Impending Death of Modern Capitalism
Let's make sure we're all on the same page on the definition of capitalism.
It's basically a system in which private owne
forcing people into prison camps with mandatory labor to meet your environmental goals?
.
If you difficult to interact in civil fashion when your political opponents just invent lies in their minds and represent these delusions as facts.
If you look at my advice on international travel for example ..... my policy would be that if you want to go bad enough, you should be willing to go by ship instead of extremely emission intensive jet aircraft.
How do you come up with this vision of the word prison in anything I have ever written. I have specifically noted that rotating between communities based upon its fit with their personal interests would be a desirable feature.
The world is not necessarily well served by people remaining in the same small place their entire lives. The world in which we experience other cultures first hand instead of through the mass media voices who have tapped into our addiction for tribal rivalry.
You are so incapable of engaging in a mature discussion about the potential pros and cons of my proposals, that your only defense is to spit out random words like prison.
Go find a dictionary and look up the definition of the word prison.
We should get rid of capitalism entirely but that would require us to socially construct something better than money. I don’t think humans are capable of that right now. Maybe in the future when we have better people.
Money was a pretty wonderful human invention in terms of assigning value to a valuable piece of metal which had some inherent industrial or artistic value.
The lubrication it provided to economic trading relationships was a facilitator in incredible progress and experimental risk taking. The promise of riches and glory provided incentive for people to collaborate.
The past is littered with currencies of historical regimes gone bust. That "money" became worthless when the stability of those societies crumbled. A stable society is a priceless virtue which is unfortunately best appreciated when the stability disappears.
Money and important resources seem to be subject to a cyclical path in which it goes through a contraction phase and becomes too densely controlled by a small group of people such that it leads to some kind of revolutionary explosion and redistribution. These cycles seem to occur more than once per century and my intuition tells me that we're approaching an explosion in the near future.
How do you come up with this vision of the word prison in anything I have ever written. I have specifically noted that rotating between communities based upon its fit with their personal interests would be a desirable feature.
The part where you mentioned mandatory compounds with every person assigned work for with the reward being to serve the environment.
Then you mentioned this...Every citizen would be registered and local community captains would be available to ensure that national directives are carried out at the local level. Our lives would no longer be private and we would no longer be little Gods allowed to operate in world's which were disconnected from the well being of the world at large
I’ll concede that I shouldn’t have used the word prison, since in order to go there, I'm guaranteed a trial and can get out when served - unlike your setup with no real resolution or end point.
...but I won't comment on your living arrangement ideas anymore.
That's the real message from your post. Surrounded by a bunch of meaningless word salad that sought to obfuscate from that essence.
I forgive you formula72. To err is human and none of us is immune to that, including me.
The deeper message of my posting is that I am attempting to articulate a pathway which in my opinion is a necessary fork for the survival of human civilization. Is it a utopian ideal with erotic fantasies of material abundance ? No. I'm not here peddling any fantasy scenario. I'm peddling a survival scenario which is intended to be contrasted with a death scenario.
We are somewhere near the cusp of inducing environmental apocalypse that had previously been the exclusive province of non-human nature. Human intelligence is an incredible amplifier of our primitive nature. Our primitive nature involves programming designed for success in inter-tribal warfare.
Our DNA teaches us loyalty within our respective tribes. Global unity across tribes is not in our DNA. But we are all dependent on resources which are not confined to tribal boundaries. The atmosphere and water cycles are globally interconnected.
Do you have an alternative survival scenario to present ? Thus far, no. All you want to do is try and diminish the pathway I am trying to illuminate. You seem to be on the side of darkness.
One of the difficult lessons that we encounter along the path of maturation is that a conscience is not a common feature in humans.
We are largely tribal conformists. Zombies. The ancestors of people who survived the Neolithic Revolution by learning how to be subordinate creatures in the new steep hierarchical societies of large population cultures.
It wasn't just the animals like dogs and cattle which were domesticated. The people were domesticated as well.
Don't make waves. Don't stick your neck out. That was the recipe to stay alive and keep the DNA legacy intact. A conscience is a disadvantage. A conscience has the potential to get one kicked out of the tribe.
People with limited ability to feel remorse, guilt or shame exist, but they are pretty rare. You can take pretty much anyone from any culture on this planet, and if you can understand each-other and hold a conversation you could have a discussion about moral values and how we feel about going against norms or with them. While you would find great differences, you are also guaranteed to find big similarities.
Thus we know that a conscience is one of the most common joint features you find in humans. The moral values across cultures is certainly diverse, but they are also spectacularly similar to a point where it is pretty much impossible to ignore that instinct and biology plays a major part in its development. These factors did not come about in the mere 13000 years since the neolithic revolution.
As for conformity, you are making a dichotomy where one does not always exist. You can have a guilty conscience both for conforming or for not conforming. For that matter, conformity is not always a good way to "stay alive and keep the DNA legacy intact" either.
I suspect you just though the sentence "conscience is not a common feature in humans" sounded cool and went from there and you end up painted into an intellectual corner with an understanding of "conscience" that is not useful.
That's a good graphic but I would change it to make it totally policy focused, never mind the rhetoric. So I'd leave off the difference on climate change and put in the middle "Pump as much oil from the Earth as possible". And it needs to be updated for ICE "Fatso loser goon squad to intimidate, brutalize, and murder citizens who dissent from complete oligarchic control". Also something about Americans never having decent affordable healthcare or housing should be part of the bipartisan policy arch.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5713...
The US is headed for mass unemploymzent, and no one is prepared
For years, I opposed Universal Basic Income, firmly and reflexively. I treated it as a liberal fantasy — an invitation to idleness, a subsidy for stagnation, a sedative administered by a bloated state....
That position no longer survives contact with reality.
Save Capitalism: Redistribute Income!
When hasn't capitalism redistributed income?
From progressive Income tax to SS, Healthcare, etc. our capitalist system is laden with income redistribution. Usually just not so much in the form of non-qualifying or unconditional personal stipends like UBI.
That's the real message from your post. Surrounded by a bunch of meaningless word salad that sought to obfuscate from that essence.I forgive you formula72. To err is human and none of us is immune to that, including me. The deeper message of my posting is that I am attempting to articulate a pathway which in my opinion is a necessary fork for the survival of human civilization.
Your pathway is a super rigid top down approach with no room for flexibility or alternative solutions. We just have to hope and pray that this fragile one-way solution solves the entire world's problem. That's just idiotic.
Would you concede that these issues should be adaptable and open to debate, with room to test different ideas and approaches? It’s critique that ultimately makes strategies better, right?
Also, stepping back from fantasy, consider this - 7 billion people with different religions, principles, and resources cannot realistically be confined into some bunker with guitars and an art set based solely on your personal opinions. You're going to have to work with people you don't like. I get that commies hate that but I'm assured, by you, that this is solely for humanity and helping people so it shouldn't be a problem for you.
I mean, are you the one who's proposing these national directives? Or is this just a way to scratch that itch for from your living room onto some forum? Elaborate?
Every citizen would be registered and local community captains would be available to ensure that national directives are carried out at the local level. Our lives would no longer be private and we would no longer be little Gods allowed to operate in world's which were disconnected from the well being of the world at large
Probably necessary but it wont be enough if ownership isn't also tackled. The UBI system has to act against increasing equality
Otherwise the 'kings' become increasingly powerful and the UBI will become a dependence on their largesse. This is because they don't need us and they have all the power. This is a terrible idea to put it mildly.
Probably necessary but it wont be enough if ownership isn't also tackled. The UBI system has to act against increasing equality
Otherwise the 'kings' become increasingly powerful and the UBI will become a dependence on their largesse. This is because they don't need us and they have all the power. This is a terrible idea to put it mildly.
I think it is bit of an insult to kings to call the ultra-wealthy for that.
Kings, for all the horrors and flaws the institution carried with it, stood and fell with their state (or status to be more historically correct, since we're taking before modern states). And prior to the age of the autocrat kings, they were also expected to serve and even the autocrat kings were expected to perform civic duty. This of course is a short summary, we know the institution could be very corrupt, however the expectancy was there, which is what matters for this discussion. Basically, we can look to some specific king, queen or prince and see if they were a good one (or as good as they could be).
From today's ultra-wealthy we ask and expect no such thing however. We don't even expect them to pay taxes, but have instead devised financial systems where money can be hidden in loopholes big enough to stuff hundreds of billions through without anyone batting an eyelid. In effect, we barely count them as citizens, for the citizen is still expected to uphold a minimum of civic duty and law-abiding behavior.
Perhaps there is a counter-argument in stating that being extremely wealthy is not an institution and any issues related to morality or civic duty is therefore no more pressing than for any other person. However, if it is not an institution and it carries no expectancy, then why are we building an economic reality that uses it as a cornerstone? That seems analogous to building your house on quick clay.
Or perhaps I am rambling and this makes no sense, which I have no problems accepting.
They needed the poor. I dot think you can maintain the expectation of them doing something for the poor if we're superfluous.
Even so I don't think we would want to go back to that.
Probably necessary but it wont be enough if ownership isn't also tackled. The UBI system has to act against increasing equality
Otherwise the 'kings' become increasingly powerful and the UBI will become a dependence on their largesse. This is because they don't need us and they have all the power. This is a terrible idea to put it mildly.
What about a govt pension fund like Norway's oil fund.
Seems like goddamn socialism to me! 😀
Big fan of the approach. As well as the fund they have largely retained ownership of the resources
Seems like goddamn socialism to me! 😀
Big fan of the approach. As well as the fund they have largely retained ownership of the resources
It's literally a fund that relies on private companies and free markets with the govt using those profits to fund public services for the people within capitalism.
I may stand corrected but AI says:
The Norwegian State owns the country's oil resources, managing them through direct ownership in companies and a, comprehensive licensing system. The state holds a 67% stake in Equinor (formerly Statoil), the largest operator on the Norwegian continental shelf. Additionally, the state manages its financial interests directly through Petoro (SDFI system).
The fund is managed via state ownership. I'm not anti them using the money to buy stakes in other companies, real estate etc.
I may stand corrected but AI says:The Norwegian State owns the country's oil resources, managing them through direct ownership in companies and a, comprehensive licensing system. The state holds a 67% stake in Equinor (formerly Statoil), the largest operator on the Norwegian continental shelf. Additionally, the state manages its financial interests directly through Petoro (SDFI
Yea that looks to be true. Equinor appears to be a publicly traded company with Norway holding majority stake. They aren't running the company and Equinor still competes like any other company - it's just capturing the resource revenue. Which is what they should do.
I believe the ownership really matters. The difference between a majority state owned company charged with running a fund for the pblic good vs say Thames Water who are supposed to care about public water services in the UK is enormous. It's structural imo
I'd probably prefer the oil resources being 100% state owned but I don't know the details and it may be complex.
I believe the ownership really matters. The difference between a majority state owned company charged with running a fund for the pblic good vs say Thames Water who are supposed to care about public water services in the UK is enormous. It's structural imo
I'd probably prefer the oil resources being 100% state owned but I don't know the details and it may be complex.
I'd imagine that it really depends on each specific area. You're very likely going to benefit from having the govt control utilities and railways and critical finite resources, and healthcare or anything where public welfare matters.
You're probably very likely to have private operations do a far better job offering consumer tech and retail, or food and leisure, restaurants and hospitality and such.
... It just really seems to be impossible to go all in on one or the other - things are just too messy and intertwined.
