. . Subject: Re: FREE MARKETS ! . . . . . . > ... Correct, they do. But you have to outlaw theft. And that's more involved then you understand, isn't it ? > ... Partially correct. You can trade over borders no problem, but you have to be careful with nations that use slave labor and do economic warfare. > ... > ... Well ... indeed ! > ... Agreed, why ? Can you show the strand of logic unto which that issue is latched ? It's the problem of competition, the whole essential point about markets is that free new initiative would drive an unfair price to a reasonable level again. Therefore a monopoly, for example when it is kept is place through backstabbing, murder & blackmail: you can end up with a bad price. In theory, a monopoly as such doesn't have to be bad yet, but it tends to go bad (imho). > ... > ... Yes, but how do you 'keep them adequate,' that is the whole problem. What is 'adequate' ? The answer: destroy all abuses of power that are not connected to labor, to work. Because power abuse means unfair price increase. You may buy a loaf of bread for 1,50 and call that fair. With a knife on your arm, you'd agree to 500,- wouldn't you. But not to 500.000,- perhaps. If the knife moves to the throat, you might accept that also. It is so subtle, it can probably only be properly understood by smart people :(. How can you be made to understand that a business owner has more power then an employee ? And although that's not a problem if the company is small and the starter rules, in general it is an abuse of power. Or the same problem with land or capital. It is subtle as a principle, while it is major in its effects. > ... > ... Indeed. Always ask: who made this ? Who made the land for example ? If nobody made it, nobody should be selling it, basically. In that sense, perhaps there can be an adaptation to the law for companies as I've proposed it: the original starter can sell it, but the next owner can only sell it to the employees, because he didn't manufacture the company itself. -> Capital must be socialized. -> Companies must by & large be in employee group ownership. -> Land must be distributed. -> Government power must be distributed. You can also say it differently: -> Capital must be distributed, investment capital. All issues of 'power' must be 'distributed.' Because that takes power-difference out of the markets as a factor defining prices. Thus, if prices conform to the trade principle and not to power difference, then all get what they work for, and then it works. > ... > ... > ... Only if there is a price/slavery-production war going on imho, such as with China who basically use slave labor, or India same story. If you're faced with such economic cross border economic warfare, you need to fight power-abuse with power: tarrifs on thex border, even close th eborder, quotas, etc. If you don't you better know what you're doing. Your economy may end up gutted in the long run, can't compete. You better be ready to rebuild that once the production influx of goods is cut off when that slave-abuse country implodes (or whatever may happen.) > ... You appreciate free markets, along with the power abuses in them. It's usualy called 'capitalism,' although there is another variety of the same thing that centers not on money-power-abuse but on soil-ownership-abuse, called feudalism. Feudalism & capitalism are two evil twins. Both destroy the function and purpose of free markets, even if they use many of the free markets rituals and mechanisms too. > ... > ... It has been horrid, and very destructive for you. You just don't look at the social cost, and that too can be seen as a cost of capitalism: the inhumanity of it all. > ... > ... You allowed your capitalists to do economic warfare on your people using offshoring and whatever else they did: an investment war against the people which is the predictable result if you allow a free market for investment capital (most profitable with tiranical businesses and where labor is CHEAPEST - do note the cycle effect of that, which is now eating you up). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... You still understand nothing yet. Look into: effort versus power, that's the key to understand economics. -- http://www.socialism.nl . . Subject: Re: FREE MARKETS ! . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Well, they are resourcefull, but so are we ! > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Agreed. > ... We don't need /strife/ as such i think, because the market should balance around fair prices if power is distributed well enough. A big issue with this is to get the corporation organizations right, so that low prices are not achieved over the backs of (powerless) labor. We would achieve the goals if simply everyone had their eye on a fair price, and would act if they noticed an unfair price occuring. So that they would then jump into that hole to fetch a high price, which is a signal that the markets are under-supplied somewhere. If you are the only swimming pool in 100 miles around, you may fetch an unusually high price for the amount of work / cost going in. High price signals more supply needed. But then it balances back if all is well, and we could target for that balance just as well, which is the end-result anyway in the long run. Strife could do the same thing, so it's not a problem i guess. But it's not strictly needed I guess, and striving for balance as such seems superior. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Well ... markets are a very complex entity all together, and the problem is that power-abuses can find cover in the naturally occuring price differences that dynamically occur in markets and that may be associated with certain 'rare skills.' This is what the exploiters do after all: they say their services are very unique and require/deserve high pay, as if that is a natural way the markets react supply/demand. This isn't actually true, they merely abuse powers, but it's not obvious to many people. So they in fact can fuzzy it up to a degree. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... It worked very bad in your USA imho. Your founding fathers also lived in a different time, USA was notoriously violent in its beginning. It may be a correct estimate of them that 'rule of the majority' would not work very well at that time, I don't know. Rule of the majority is preferable to rule of the minority, and you can solve the minority being oppressed issue by having them have the right to split away and become sovereign. That is the system i'm proposing for democracy/republic here: http://www.socialism.nl/law BTW, you might want to realize that the peculiar jargon the 'founding fathers' used, namely to oppose democracy with republic, it is not shared in much of the world or really anywhere. Republic in Holland means a chosen head of state, while democracy is the general term for a system where the people rule as opposed to having an abolute tyrant or some such (evil) oligarchy. Your use of these words appears to be very peculiar and unusual, using 'democracy' for "people rule without it being structured in law" and 'republic' for "people rule with it being structured in law." Nobody understands that weird jargon but Americans. Res-publica means 'public case' or some such. When Europeans use the word "democracy," it seems we mean the same thing when you use "republic." When you use the word "democracy" as in unstructured ''mod rule on a whim'' I guess we would use the word anarchy for that. The entire cross-atlantic political/philosophical debate is poisened by these different uses of words. Basically we talk different languages. I suppose nobody can be blamed for that ... but it is confusing for all concerned ... Europe, *obviously* we all reject 'anarchy.' And *obviously* all we want is a republic, in the sense that it is structured people rule. In our vocabulary the USA constitution appears to be an attempt at democracy. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Uhm.... it may appear a distraction because our economies have most people working in manufacturing and services now, where we used to have a lot more farming. Still, the 'given world,' is an entity in the economy that shouldn't be ignored in principle, farming is also still the basis of everything (can do without computers, not without vegetables). Considder also that if people own land, an equal share, this gives them power and opportunity. They can very cheaply build a manufacturing factory and join the free markets ! They can also till the land if they get unemployed, thus obviating the need to have a welfare state (in theory at least.) The land should be in some kind of system one way or the other. Selling is no option, the feudal system is hell itself, so the obvious answer: distribute it. With a right to rent out, but not sell. Ppl who do nothing with land can extract a little soil rent, or leave it to nature. It's fun to own land, isn't it ? If you leave (part of it) to nature, you can enjoy your own little patch of Earth, that must be great. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... ... yeah, but these 'labor' ppl, if they're really incapable of management, they can try to hire a manager for them. Then that manager will manage them properly in return for what that labor wants to pay for that, becomes a real part of the labor markets and that's just ... how it should be. > ... > ... > ... The founder is kindof unique, he made that thing. In practice a business founder often works like crazy on his own company, big effort. As an owner the founder is totally unique as compared to all further owners that may follow, even if they buy it that doesn't make them founders. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Sigh. How can you say something like that ? How dare you call employees a slacker class by the way. Did you do that ? Pay attention: people work in corporations, if these are founded by a founder that founder is boss there. If the corporation loses its founder, then the employees become boss. They make money by working and selling their produce, and if they can't manage themselves they will hire a boss. You know who the slacker class is ? Bosses and finance parasites, they are the worst slackers because a) they do nothing, and b) they cost thousands upon thousands of dollars more then anyone on welfare does. A top boss of a corporation, not a founder: he is costing society maybe the same as 20 or 40 welfare slackers (many of whom might be on a job if they had had the chance, by the way; because the corp bosses only want the most obedient lakeys who don't fight for the wages they rightfully should demand). I know I will never get through to americans, because americans can't understand someone both being on the side of labor, while being against finance AND company bosses, and on the side of founders of businesses. In the american mind: either you are a capitalist, or you are a marxist. But I'm ... against both. And pro-free-market for all *effort* but against a free market for all *power* which is NOT the same thing as skill or work ethic (that goes to effort). Sorry, but it is a subtle thing I guess ! Please do bother to understand it what I'm saying, we're all on the same side here: have good nations, no corruption, people that work should get what it's worth and not have it stolen; EITHER by the slacker class of 'we don't wanna work' and neither by the corp bosses who abuse their powers to gain wealth they shouldn't get. That's why I want to put power with the employees, so that they can determine how much the corp boss is worth ! Right ? You're smart enough, you see that working, even if merely in principle. And don't forget that at the same time, i'm allowing the founder to be total boss, he can take out of the corp what he wants, employees can only strike or leave that corp, they have no power over a founder. So founder is special in this model I want. It's all kindof subtle and complex, but you can understand it if you want to. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... So do observe what may have happened in my model: strictly speaking my model does not prescribe any form of welfare, that is not in my Constitution (i wrote a constitution for my model, comes to mind that I made a special version for the USA with your Bill of Rights in it: http://www.socialism.nl/post/002/merged/usa-BillOfRights-merged-constitution-.txt ) Ok where was I .... oh yeah: what would happen in my model. Say you use a sparse welfare system that says 'you get 1 year worth of welfare.' Why even that ? Well, because you want dead bodies lining the street if ppl go unemployed ? It's kind of a general insurance policy as well note, everyone can go bankrupt. You could say 1 year, because after that year that person could be growing his own food on his own plot of land he owns. Yeah, I know that sounds hard .... but it'll be real work wouldn't it. And you could also soften that up again saying: 'you get 1 year of welfare, and you better take up any job offer you get, but if there's no jobs anywhere and you happen to have a bad crop year so you would die, then we'll come inspect your efforts and maybe we give you some coupons for the soup kitchen.' See ? And that would already be a partial welfare system, because the bare bones model would be "you better find a job or have a good crop year, or you might die." Anyway, you figure out what you want with welfare, it's a political issue not a system issue in my model. > ... > ... Who wants to reward slackers ?! Why are you talking about rewarding slackers ?! ! Slackers shouldn't be rewarded, and at the same time labor shouldn't be exploited by that other kind of slackers: bosses on absurd payrates. I'd say this system we have now, it makes working such a pain, it breeds its own slacker class of people who say: I'm not the slave of these corporate thieves. Labor should be fair, then many people can be humans as employees, should reduce the amount of slackers. I don't think that fat dude is happy that way, he eats because he's unhappy. Had he had a good job, he might neither be a slacker or fat. > ... > ... > ... > ... Don't. It's too special, we're talking about entire nations, you can't use yourselve as the model for anything. > ... > ... > ... > ... Oh I quite agree, but you don't understand what I mean with distributing capital, sorry. I'm not one of those 'base income' idiots. No I meant capital business upstart *loans* on collateral. And with 'distributed' I mean to say that everyone can apply for a level of credit ON COLLATERAL, so that everyone who wants to take on that risk to start a company can in fact get a small business *loan*. That means it will have to be payed back. It's not a gift, it will be payed back either by the profit the corp is going to make, or by selling the collateral, and/or indeed by future employee wages made by failed corp owner. That's what I meant, not give away money for free, that would be sick. And with 'socialized investment' I basically mean the same, except that the money must be invested not by for profit banks, but by the Government. Not your style Government of course, but a democratic/republican government, and not an imperial Government either (such as the USA / Washington), but by a national Government (USA is to be cut up into many sovereign nations). So then that would entail business credit being passed out to corporations, also on collateral etc etc. But *not* with a view that these corporations would attempt to exploit labor to the max, which is what private investors have to be looking for to maximize the return on their investment. I'm afraid no American will ever comprehend this. So watch for new nations that might do my model, so that you can see this model in action and understand it by seeing it being done. I have a lot of experience now with debating Americans, and though the other nations neither seem to understand, the misunderstanding with Americans is most extreme. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Sweet. Yeah, we do need that solidarity, because nice on the whole as markets may be, it's merely a tool to get ourselves organized as nations. Keep corruption out, distribute the goods and the work. But ultimately, we're more then mere markets. There is more to life then economics. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... You make absolutely no sense to me so I guess I won't respond until I know what you are talking about there ... Markets make sure people will have to work: no work, no pay, death, simple. Hard work, comptetent work, high pay, buy a lot, have fun. Did you mistake the word 'power' for the word 'money' maybe ? > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Yes, you seem to mistake the word 'power' with the word 'money.' I use these words to mean different things. I'm not trying to rub your ears, merely being logical and clear up the possibly misunderstanding. > ... > ... > ... Yep, sadly. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Yes you are right, it's an evil triplet then :). The mistake of the marxists is to outlaw trade, big mistake, and then to forget to really provide a republican/democratic government. The power abused in marxism is the state power, and also the corporation management power (ironically). Communism how it went down, it was a total and complete corruption of its original ideals, imho. Very sad. Historically manipulated to go that way by the capitalist powers though, imho. Good point I must remember that: evil triplets. Or should I say: mistaken triplets, some ppl would champion capitalism / feudalism / plan-economism for a good cause, not intending evil. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... They all end and see total tirany, plan-economism and capitalism and feudalism, they all cause absolute tirany. You think capitalism doesn't ? Wrong, there have been and are loads of capitalist dictatorships. USA may start to have one in 10 years, then you'll know first hand. What the USA has done internationally, is to foment capitalist dictatorships in other countries. Feudal system: state tirany. Plan-economism: state tirany. Capitalism: state tirany. Why ? Easily really: misunderstood market mechanisms, and not a sufficient state democratic protocol. That's the thread between them all, allowing power to impinge on price, and lacking state protocols. Fix that, and tirany should never come back. Which is my goal with http://www.socialism.nl (In europe 'socialism' does not necessarily mean a plan-economy at all, another potential for misunderstanding between Europe & America ...). > ... > ... > ... And Fallujah. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... As just said: 'socialism' in Europe and 'socialism' in America are words which have different and even opposite meanings. I'm against the plan-economy, for example, but I do want it for capital investment in businesses, it is essential even. But to make that happen, the government must be an absolute ... democracy eh ... republic ;). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Sorry, I guess i'm getting hopeless. My bad to be rude :(. > ... > ... > ... I believe you, and it's the worst for these fat-slackers themselves. All they need, a social surrounding, a fair economy, a little with the carrot (good wages) and a little with the stick (you better work or else), who knows what that fat slacker might have for a good life. -- http://www.socialism.nl . . Subject: Re: FREE MARKETS ! . . . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... [...] > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... If you want to know what it's all about in the long run this is my opinion on it: http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/technical_darwinism.html From that you would not get a strong/weak class opposition, but a violent/peaceful-cooperative class opposition, where the violent class should die out eventually, by its own internal-class violence but also from its inter-class warfare with the peaceful class. How would that match with the dichotomy weak/strong class ? It is not a perfect match, but often it is the violence class which is mostly the "strong" class, while it is the peaceful-solidarity-cooperation class which is in terms of war and violence a "weaker" class, simply because by fighting less they are less well adapted for war. Basically: the criminal/parasitic/violent class should die out over time. Who is "strong" ? It is a matter of definition. Is a criminal strong because he trains for boxing and shooting guns ? Or is he weak because he is merely a parasite ? In any case: that criminal/parasitic class, hostile to other people, wishing to exploit the labor class, that class should wither from its own violence one way or the other. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Disagreed: power is an objective entity. If a land-lords owns 15 horizons, then that is an objective fact in the economy. If a robber barron owns a sprawling boat yard, then he is the boss and the others are the powerless serfs, an objective fact. This leads to the one with power to be able to sell his/her 'services' at a premium above what it is actually worth, usually vastly above what it is actually worth. Can such a 'worth' for that managing labor be objectively and practically established within the trade system ? Absolutely yes ! Hand the ownership of that boat-yard to the employees (at the point where founder leaves and receives rich compensation). Then let the labor get organized and select a new top-manager for the yard. It's not an owner-manager anymore, but a manager-service-provider person. Then let that go on for say 15 years to let the situation stabilize itself and maybe let the labor find a good manager for a price they want - basically: let the markets do their dynamic price adjustments which do take time - and then compare the old wage of the manager-owner with the manager-servicor. You could litterally compare these prices and end up with an actual phyical number in money and you could say: that difference represents the amount that the manager-owner was over or underpayed compared to what his/her services are ACTUALLY worth in the markets, if there is a market for his/her job. My guess ... my guess is that the manager-servicor job will probably not exceed the most expensive laberor wages by 100%, and often it will be something relatively equal to the norm of all other labor in that group. it may very well be that cleaners still make less money then welders, simply if there are more cleaners offering their services then there are welders and if the whole group has decided it wants to try to keep labor cost down by using different wages for different sorts of labor (not really necessary, but you can run a corporation that way if you want to). Say that a welder earns 30.000,- a year somewhere, then it would surprise me a lot that a manager-servicor would not make something like that. But say on top side they are earning double that is 60.000,-. Notice that all the other corporations have also democratized in this model, they all transition from manager-owner to manager-servicor (except the manager-founders not, they stay). So there is not this network of bosses that can exclude certain bosses that they find urderpayed, thus forcing that corporation to pay more for top management or be excluded from the markets (that's a from of cartelizing by top management, which is a danger to the open labor markets do note). Anyway: what does a manager-owner of a big corp make these days ? Even in Holland we have had a scandal (yes, that *is* a scandal!) earning 10 million a year ! Who hires such a piece of scum ? The share-holders, who are the external parasites on a corporation. They don't work, they suck its blood. They want to put their man at the helm, who will pass them the blood of labor on a silver platter. But why do they pay the top man so much, even more then they get a year themselves ? If you think they give the top man more then they want to for themselves you're looking at the wrong number. Don't look at yearly income, look at hourly income. Income / hour, worked hour that is. How much does a top man work ? In order to pretend that they are importand and are working they often pretend to work more then 40 hours a week. So, how much is that in money per hour ? Do the math to find out, but it's a finite number even at 10 million / year. How many hours do the shareholders work ? Nothing, you can't classify their activities as work. But even if you did, the amount of time they actually advice the company in a productive way, say that's about 10 minutes a year maybe ? Then they get their portion of the laborers blood, neatly bottled per share. Divide that over an entire year and multiply by 6 to get their hourly income on this thing. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the vampire class in this world, to know what the numbers usually are, but it's probably not insignificant if you're talking about the inner circle of the capitalists (never mind the idiots among the plebs who try to suck blood from their brothers too, and apparently usually lose because they're easy game for the proffesional traders). Realisticly speaking, managing a big employee owned corporation is not that difficult at all, because the employees have their won ideas on things and that helps a lot. And you're not having to suck yourselve in into a national / international vampire club anymore to get any trade. Hence I really don't see why an ordinary wage isn't sufficient to attract the people who could do a sufficient job. Of course to really know for sure we'd have to test this out, nationally and internationally. At this point we're doing the capitalist-vampire model, and hence we don't really know what management services would fetch in an open market controlled by labor and without the vampire network being there. My guess is that more then 90% of top managers income is based on power abuses and not on the open market value of their services. You can also look at it in another way: how much would labor want to pay ? You think that labor wants to pay 10 million out of their profits to get a specific person to manage their corporation ? Why ? For the share-holders it is relatively obvious why they want to pay such absurd renumerations: they need to bribe the managers to toss them the blood of labor, they want to use that manager as a weapon against labor. So you have to pay for that. You have to find the right psychopaths and they will want a serious share of that blood in return, and they know how to bargon with the other vampires in the game. But would labor want to pay that much ? Would cleaners, cassieres, truck drivers, accountants, floor managers, who earn say 25.000,- a year on average, would they want to pay 10.000.000 a year to get a psychopath to run them ? I don't think so. I think they would opt for a much lower price simply not prepared to pay that much. Which, mind you, is money coming directly out of their share of the profits. At some point there is an optimum: the amount the business would do better, translated in better total profit, compared to what that costs. Is a manager getting 1,000,000,- a year so much inferior to the one that costs 9,000,000,- more, that you see a wage increase a year that is more then 9,000,000,- ? Who says that a manager on an absurd income is even better then the one on a reasonable income ? I would think the one on a reasonable income is probably a lot more human, and therefore may very well be the better choice. ... As long as the vampire club at the top can get rid off, which means that most businesses should start to pay their top-managers a reasonable income, so that these would not exclude each other in an effort to game that labor market (which psychopaths are of course very interested in, being psychopathic.) ... You could even turn it around: if most businesses start to use sane renumerations for management, you could fight against the few that use absurd renumerations, and this way get rid of the psychopathic leadership. "No, we can't pay you 10,000,000,- a year, because other labor owned businesses won't accept that and prefer to trade with corporations who use a more normal price level for top management." Turn it around. Can't do that now, because the vampire club controls everything, and finance to boot. The mechanism is such that it brings bad people to power. It' not a conspiracy as such, the mechanism brings scum to the top. Only scum is willing to abuse labor, but they get rich that way and then dominate everything. > ... > ... > ... > ... Of course, what else do they have to do all day but keep the serfs under control. It's their entire job. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... The Greeks and romans never did real democracy imho, and when they finally may have done a little of that, obviously the common people wanted to take revenge and to get their fair share of the pie. Also note that Greeks and Romans had deluded their people extensively with false god cults, these people where poorly equiped to think about anything, and so where their rulers. And they didn't do a proper economic model so their whole system would be constantly destabilizing from not having soil properly distributed and the danger of money investment being dealt with properly. Then, in that 'poisenous social mix,' they did a very very think bit of pretence democracy, predictably it didn't work well. > ... > ... > ... > ... haha Typical chest pounding that all nationalistic people do. America is very nationalistic and myopic, that is a very dangerous condition because it means you can't learn any more from other nations, and you don't see your own mistakes anymore. If USA was more meek, you would see what the war on Iraq was, and maybe you would have restored the Republic of the USA. But the argument 'USA is the best nation anyway, even if we are the most evil one,' then you don't act anymore against your own corrupt governments. > ... > ... I'm often surprised at the wisdom that your founding father had. They also said that it would only work in a farming setting. Truth is they wher eright although they apparently didn't know why it wouldn't last. But you detroyed yourselves because you allewod free markets in soil and money. You should have continued with the original green backs, and nationalized/socialized money investment. Then you should have never begun to make yourselve an empire but maybe if you hadn't then there would be constant wars between the USA nations ? If so, then it was hopeless either way. But, here we are: we can still do things the right way. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... You're using the right word there: 'interest.' > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Yes. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Agreed. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... lol That's pretty extreme. But everyone knows: Americans are dumb. There are some bright ones sure, like little stars they shine all the more bright on the black background, but by en large it's pretty dumb. Not that Europe is that smart, I'm not claiming that, but it seem a little better. I guess that maybe it is because we have had more revolutions here, and more history. But we have our share of dumb people. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Correct. I think your Republic has already fallen, Congress has become a rubber stamp. How can you vote on 'legislation' that is books long ? That's absurd, and then it couldn't even be found ?! It's over. What we need in the USA is exactly what your founders wanted: revolution. I'm ready for that and it's all mapped out how it should go and why. Then, I hope, we can have an economy that DOES NOT CORRUPT !!! http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/sheet3.txt http://www.socialism.nl/gov.html Government system should be as democratic as it can possibly be, drawing on the lessons of history. I also disagree (extremely) with the notion that if you give the people the power that this destroys the nation. Because I say: so what ? If the nation is destroyed, who suffers ? The people ! They may destroy the nation, isn't it theirs to begin with ?! ISN'T IT THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? And then: they notice their suffering, and then they would re-erect their nation, in their own interest. If they destroy it again: isn't it their nation ? If they want to destroy it, who is anyone to deny them that ? And then they can re-erect it again. How ? It's all on my site how you erect a nation. It is not known now how you do that. But I wrote protocols for that, and they will work. People will in fact have the capability to erect their nations from nothing. They (we) don't have that now, but they will. Every time they do it, they'll get better at it as well. See what I'm getting at: democracy/republic is a way for the people to do what they want and to learn from mistakes. If you aren't allowed to make mistakes, you have no freedom. If you have no freedom to make the mistakes you want to make, then what's the use. Let's dig a grave and lie in it then. > ... > ... lol, no. The EU is one of the worst forms of government ever attempted. I think teh reason is that it was not build with any good intention in mind, it was build with the goal of worsening corruption in mind. It is designed to be corrupt. Have you read the Libon treaty, or skimmed through it ? It's not even a proper state model, it is ... a piece of dangerous garbage. It is very confused, it has lots on incomprehensible bodies and mechanisms, all designed to cut away the will of the people. It is also a Presidential model, like the USA, and to me that is both offensive and evil. I don't want to be in a presidential system, I don't accept one person to lord over me. In such a model I would have only one goal: to destroy it. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Oh I know, farming is a tremendous challange and often very difficult indeed. It's ... its tough, it's risky, it's not easy at all. But ... when I told you the basic model, that was about the power issue. In real life you get mechanisms, solutions to deal with the difficulties. People go unemployed ? Then they join a farming group, and they work for it and can put in their own land, and in a cooperative way even that can work out. They don't have to know how to farm then, they just need to do as they are told by those who do know. Effectively: they found themselve a job after all, even when there are no jobs. Note that I'm giving you these options because you said you where against welfare mostly, so I'm showing you the system under a people that don't like welfare and who would do a lot to minimize the cost and use of welfare. Such mechanisms/solutions are present in my systems, where in other model they simply don't exist. In this model, you do have your soil, you can build your life that way, even if there's not a job anywhere, nothing. You could at least try, and that' a lot more then you could in the capitalist model here you're totally depending on the markets to want you. But what if they don't: then you're screwed, and either die or need welfare. So that will then be welfare. The capitalist model breeds welfare this way. Because it denies people the freedom to be their own person apart from everything, to have their own 'base existence,' by having soil. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... You are so corrupt in the USA *because* you use the capitalist model of finance and tiranical business environment. That *is* the corruption in your model and what you get is corruption in the economy. Once the corruption ha basically taken over, you can't solve it on a company scale anymore, you have to solve it nationally. Good managers have a tremendous difficulty to operate in such a corrupt economy. I've not idealized it at all: the labor will have to try to find the best management that there is. If your nation is mostly incapable of management, then simply it will have a lot to learn in that area. That's no problem, obviously your economy will suffer a lot, and maybe you would be a 3rd world nation for centuries because of the lack of competence all around. Why is that a problem ? It's not a problem, it is a solution. Eventually you have the chance to fix this deficiency, to learn how management is done. But, you got to get rid of the national corruption and IMHO that requires a better system that's much better a) to supress corruption and especially b) to *get rid* of entrenched corruption once it's taken hold. I say my system is sufficient to do that: http://www.socialism.nl If you can't, as a people, do that system, problem ? Not at all IMHO, because like riding a bike you'd just fall off time & again. Problem ? Not at all: solution. You learn where you go wrong, you learn it is deadly to be so corrupt. That's magnificent ! Notice that I don't really care how many of yourselve you kill because of incompetence or corruption, we're talking about the life of an entire people here, not individuals. It's no use to live as individuals in a sheep pen and get fodder and then go to the slaughter. That's a worthless life, isn't it. I'm not looking at it from the perspective of 'it must work, everyone must eat.' I'm looking at it past the mistakes level, a mistake is not a mistake, it is an opportunity to learn. In an individual life you must survive, individual mistakes shouldn't get you killed as that's the end. But for entire nations that is different, you can afford to kill millions upon millions of yourselve, and still you'd live on as a nation. It hurts, but you can learn. If not that, then what ? Absolute dictatorship ? I think that is in fact far more deadly then this, then to accept that the freedom brings the risk of death and mistake. > ... > ... > ... Agreed !!! Labor isn't stupid at all, not at all. It'll work fine and I don't expect a lot of death from national mistakes at all either. Obviously I certainly hope there won't be any fatalities. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... I don't. But I would ask that groups can start up businesses also, and as cooperatives right away, and that this would not be destroyed by the economic warfare of the vampire class. only if that cooperative business upstart is allowed as easily as the individual upstart, is it fair to give the founder person or limited club those special rights because you can say: labor, if you had done your thing correctly and jumped into the market as a cooperative, then you could be working in a democracy right now instead of having to defer power to a limited founder club/person. > ... > ... > ... -- http://www.socialism.nl