Wipe slate clean with debt amnesty

dopester

ninky wrote: »

hat i am offering is very different to communism not least in what it offers to the current wealthy as well the current poor.

I once read a tale about a well known chemical company, from the point of view of an ex-employee, a lab scientist.

The author was disturbingly intense, and made me wonder if his experience had pushed his scientific mind slightly too far over the edge. Nevertheless, the story stuck in my mind.

The story strongly suggested that new management brought in to his company, began shifting the company away from capitalistic asset builder, away from objective profit-orientated principles of short-range and long-term growth, and took a new path that would go on to damage shareholder value.

From objective, value-producing, pro-capitalistic asset builder - into altruistic, "social-conscious" orientated business-leader.

It gets way way too heavy to really go in to here.. but how management embraced altruism and egalitarianism, to the detriment of the company and the honest value-producing employees that worked hard for it, developing new value enhancing products - putting them in a situation of guilt and undermining their happiness.

The head of the company going on to give interviews to magazines and newspapers on how private enterprise has a duty to cure "social ills", "serve society." - when it was not their duty to serve society with the wealth, earnings and property that belonged to the company - destructive altruism versus productive profits.

Altruism is a morality based on the philosophy premise that man lives for the sake of others, that man's life and property are available for sacrifice to "higher causes" eg. the common good, the good of society, the needy, the world, the country.

Whenever long-range values are created by business, society benefits. By far the greatest beneficiary of a profitable business is society. But the basic reason for operating any business can never be to "serve" society at the expense of long range assets and earnings, lest the business be eventually drained and stagnated.

The only just and moral reason to operate a business is to benefit its owners through the production of competitive values for others and society. Consequently, a business run for the best long-range financial profit of its owners will always yield the maximum long-range financial benefits to society, and long-range profits for its owners in the shareholders.

dopester

ninky wrote: »

How many children dream of changing the world, of helping the worlds needy, or curing illness, or working towards a more sustainable environment, and how many of them must lower this standard when they are face with the realities of adult life in our current capitalist system.

In the Economics of Humanity yes there would be less business start ups.

And let me be clear... the language in many of your posts, with all your lofty words about "humanity", "curing illnesses", "the needy" - are all empty.

Nothing gets done without a competitive framework. Man requires self-interest motives to be productive and create efficacy. Altruistic minds try and distort reality, rather than earn their way to competitive power and wealth.

Since selflessness and sacrifice are contrary to value production and competitiveness, the producer's efficacy diminishes - under your system. Look around at how 70 years of capitalism has lifted society's standards of living - (until it was allowed to get totally out of hand in the quest of short-term gain and massive risks and lack of adequate regulation)

Your system wouldn't produce anything of value and I doubt it would produce any product which worked that well - and eventually probably living in a dictatorship run by the leaders of your "economics of humanity".

All of the higher causes you cloak your all your "good intentions" and desires with, smack of someone who is unable to contribute as a genuine value producer - but instead wants to feed on the value producers, to usurp unearned power and reward on the back and to the cost of value producers themselves.

ninky_2

dopester wrote: »

All of the higher causes you cloak your all your "good intentions" and desires with, smack of someone who is unable to contribute as a genuine value producer .

yes indeed, dopester, too busy producing those property shows you love watching. although i don't do daytime, only primetime. peace and love....

dopester

ninky wrote: »

In the Economics of Humanity yes there would be less business start ups. Each would only be funded after prudent analysis. But this would also mean less business failure. Less waste of lives and natural resources. Fewer, and ideally no, McJobs.

You ask how the "less desirable" jobs would be filled. How are they filled now? Through necessity. Well this would be the same in the Economics of Humanity. There would be no such thing as a free lunch. Everyone would be expected to work. Jobs would be allocated on a meritocratic basis. Even criminals would be expected to work. There would be no unemployment benefit as work would be provided for all. The difference is that everyone (except criminals who according to crime would receive a pro-rata reduction in the "quality of life" section of their income) would receive the same income. Compulsory working hours would be reduced to around 20 a week for all, leaving high-flying driven achievers time to work on their own projects, research etc.

Don't get me wrong - I'm hoping one day we can advance in to become a real Utopian-Communism style society.

Advances in technology, AI, "Minds" (fully self-conscious state / self-awareness, compared to the hazy self-awareness of the human mind and it's glacial slowness)...

When we can do away with money after we can tap unlimited new energy resources, nano-technology to build whatever we want and so on... (although those who cling to certain social structures of order/class.. might not want to give it up so easily.).

"Money is a sign of poverty, meaning that money only has a function in a scarcity economy, and therefore its existence betrays a pre-abundant (poor) society."

It is just we are not there yet, and I your way of doing things seems likely to put back our chances of such advancement - sending us in to a new dark-age.

Already you seem to be denying my basic freedoms. I guess the few successful, intelligent and creative decisions I've made in my life - combined with risk and hard-work - which have given some level or reward and security, counts for nothing.

I'd like to remain in a position where I can decide on how to invest, start or rebuild a company.. with which to offer jobs to honest value producers and provide society with products of value to assist or better their lives, whilst making a profit reward for the company, myself, and sharing success with employees who are rewarded for their work and input at market-rates to a shared success.

Except you would require people like myself to go through your new authorities give me permission to trade, and require useless bureaucratic red-tape "prudent analysis" on my business choices - to having my independence and freedom removed... work every day, can't decide where I want to take a holiday (if I'm allowed one)... might as well send me to plough the fields now.

chopperharris

Yes it was a good post ninky , I read it too , it sounded one step short of a true utopian want or a religous nutters rant depending on the reader.

IT read as idealogy not that short of roddenberry's star trek.Where the needs of man are the only true payment for work and humanity goals of altruism are the only ones.Well it inst exactly work as defined in the dictionary sense in ST , as for it to be work there has to be a payment of some kind .If theres no payment is it not then servitude for the common good , ie percievable as forced slavery for the betterment of man?

As "prehistoric" the group need was to be fed and kept alive , this is how we survived .We hunted and gathered in units , the only true communistic need was really self driven even while in a group it was still intrinsically a selfish need.Greed is part of survival , its coded into dna , we cannot ever eradicate poor because of a genetic predisposition to self survival.... we are driven by our own greed.

In any commune there would still be the lions share for the group leaders/strongest.The strongest allowed the weaker to live within that community as only a benefit to themselves and not to the group itself.Although a group effort this can be seen the same as a form of altruism/socialism/communism in action but it really both was and wasnt.

This is where communism failed if it truly existed in the first place.The common good , and that all men are equal , was not and never will be applied defacto.Higher regard meant a higher personal wealth/reward .....and therefore all wealth was not dispersed evenly despite that being the goal , even if that "wealth" was not monentary but simply power to have something better over another person.

Just how you can have wealth in modern communism I have yet to fathom , ie the oligarchs/putin etc are superrich by even our standards but by russian commustic standards of income 1000x more so....if anything its now a dictatored capitalism using communism to enslave its communists.If one commuist is poor then all by defination/doctrine must be.

Sure capitalism is greed , yes greed is bad.Communism(socialism) is good on paper but broken by greed.So your theory is that greed is the enemy of utopian people and that unless everyone has no desire to have anything more than a basic need in return for basic work stands true.Like communism your idea in practice is that you are as rich/poor as each other for the same amount of hours worked , from doing the lowest job to professional , and that the best quality of life possible should be supplied to those that are disabled.

And I think by my understanding that is what your idea means , or am I wrong?

Here in lies the problem , the equality of income doesnt work out.If I am single and taking home the same income as those with children then I am wealthier than them in theory so someone will see gain and loss.Same goes for those with one kid v those with more.Do we then give extra credits akin to today , if so then those without kids , or have the least are in fact not equal at all and will be peeved just like today.

What about housing , do we all have identical "social" housing given by the state , maybe on a per square footage per worker basis?Again If I am single then do I get mandated a smaller home than the comrades with the family , or is it those with the most kids get exatly the same.This also falls down on the single parent working family too , do they get less sq ft allocated for being short of a parent?Either way someone will be peeved.

If however we choose the option of Roddenberry in that credits are ammassed for food , clothing , and shelter in return for work for both you and your family and that there is no consumerism at all then that is perhaps the best if not only option.Housing is not owned but allocated by the state equally on a need not want , medical needs are non payed but supplied , and schooling as a need is free , transport state owned .... sounds like what we had not so long ago before home ownership and privatisations.

Then the only way forwards is actually going backwards , even if it is just pre maggie.Perhaps all it will take is a small thing like global thermonuclear war for oil , maybe roddenberry seen the future , and its only 40 years away.

Roll on crispy irradiated utopia.I bags the blue bird.

bendix

To paraphrase Jim Royle, Economics of Humanity, my !!!!.

Why is it that the utopia ninky describes bears such an uncanny resemblance to that originally put forward by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge buddies, while they were all enthusiastic young students together in Paris in the 1930s?

THAT didnt turn out too well, did it?

chopperharris

bendix wrote: »

To paraphrase Jim Royle, Economics of Humanity, my !!!!.

Why is it that the utopia ninky describes bears such an uncanny resemblance to that originally put forward by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge buddies, while they were all enthusiastic young students together in Paris in the 1930s?

THAT didnt turn out too well, did it?

Historically yet imo nearly all of histories great dictators came in the guise of the love of the people and through their hatred of the common enemy and hardship.Just the same , our own heroes whom are considered great men some well they did the same or worse than those they opposed.

Washington and his men used the poor to keep them rich , and disguised it as the common good of defeating the enemy and their taxes , he lied about having relations with slaves yet dna proves otherwise.Same can be said of abe needing the slaves as troops more than the want to free them and to financially break the south war machine as they ran north.

Churchill was a warhog , and just like saddam a few decades later liked the idea of gassing the kurds....oh how easy it is to forget our own faults.At least it was saddams warring neighbour he gassed , we had to travel to the fight.But hey better you own a pitbull than a poodle in a dogfight.

As winnie once said " History will be kind to be for I intend to write it" , sound slike a dictator right there.

bendix

Anyway, back to the OP - might I venture to guess that those who support the proposition of wiping out unsecured debt have a fair chunk of it themselves (or are close to someone who has it), while those who vehemently oppose it have no major debt?

I thought so.

There you go, ninky. Human self interest and greed at its finest. Now, explain the Economics of Humanity to me again . . .

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Anyway, back to the OP - might I venture to guess that those who support the proposition of wiping out unsecured debt have a fair chunk of it themselves (or are close to someone who has it), while those who vehemently oppose it have no major debt?

I thought so.

There you go, ninky. Human self interest and greed at its finest. Now, explain the Economics of Humanity to me again . . .

i have no unsecured debt or personal interest in having unsecured debt written off.

MrFonzerelli

ninky wrote: »

i have no unsecured debt or personal interest in having unsecured debt written off.

Other than wanting us to live like Smurfs.
Who gets to wear the red hat?