Have Your Say On Our Socio-Economic Future!

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
ALIHAYMEG wrote: dws - We
ALIHAYMEG wrote:

dws - We agree here to a point. There is surprising waste. Stupid stuff should not be made. A Prada hand bag might be a good example. However, if people want to work and use their income (their private property) buy stupid stuff it is their right to do so. Once again, there is this little thing called Tyranny that we need to avoid if we are going to survive as a civil society.

Tyranny wears many faces. One of them is the forced subsistence by the majority due to the greed of the minority. I really don't care how many houses, cars, boats, etc. the wealthy man wants; not so long as there are 20,000 children dying every single day from poverty and preventable diseases. Again, the "spear" wants the freedom to skewer as many of the little fish as he sees fit, and considers it a limitation of his freedom to be kept from it. That is usually what politicians mean when they use the word "freedom"; "The power to take as much as I want; without regard for any other or the planet; and I will consider any challenge to that "divine right" to be an act of tyranny." I would suggest that a new definition of freedom is needed. One that doesn't defend exploitation of one group to benefit another; one that is balanced and reasonable; taking into account the sustainable practices that will allow our species to survive; without all of the religious notions of some divine "invisible hand" guiding markets and providing prosperity for a privileged few. We can no longer afford such childish notions.

Tyranny is when the government controls everything and confiscates your assets for themselves and/or for redistribution. The government should be minimized - both in size and power. The constitution did a pretty good job of that. But we slipped up and allowed our government to violate the constitution. A lot of the mess we are in now is due to that one issue. For instance, why is there a Federal Reserve ? Why does America have to borrow all its money from a banking consortium ? That is crazy. The constitution clearly states that the Federal Government as the authority to create money. The Federal Reserve should be nationalized - the sooner the better. I can not imagine what possessed people to allow the creation of the Federal Reserve. We pay enormous sums to a banking consortium for the privilege of borrowing our own money ? That is clearly broken. I can not imagine why this is tolerated.

 

ALIHAYMEG's picture
ALIHAYMEG
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2010
Posts: 22
The fallacy of the "Meritocracy"

It seems clear at this point there are some problems in this topic. There are always going to be some people who are more intelligent or industrious or just plain lucky than other people. On the other hand there can be excesses. We have excesses. Compared to say the 1950s we have a very different wealth distribution now. This is a problem. History has shown that nations become unstable when wealth distribution becomes to lopsided. We are heading that way right now.

I'm in complete agreement with everything you wrote in that post dshields. I think maybe one problem may reside in the differences in our individual worldview. Although I agree that there will always be those who have varying measures of intelligence, determination, and luck, I don't see those things as being reason enough that those individuals should have more than anyone else for the sake of their talents and abilities. That may sound like an unreasonable thing to say, but let me explain why I have come to feel this way.

We had no say in where, when, or into what situation we were born; that was purely the luck of the draw. Some may hold to the notion that they were somehow pre-destined to be whom and where they are, but i see no evidence to substantiate such a belief. If we accept that our birth circumstances were "accidental" and not "determined", then we must also recognize the truth of the matter; namely that all that we are is the result of things that are out of our control. It is a short trip from there to realize and accept that what we produce, invent, or imagine is not really our property. It belongs, because of the myriad of influences and happenings that conspired to make us who we are, to every human being. I see no justification for the concept of "intellectual property", nor do I see any usefulness in the concept other than to hoard and control an inordinate amount of wealth and influence in the world. It's a foreign concept, I know; but one that I think needs to be considered in order for us to get to the kind of world we all want to live in.

I have many talents and abilities that the majority of human beings do not poses. Does that give me the right to claim ownership of the resources that you need to survive? I think not. Does it somehow make me a more valid or valuable human being than you or any other? Of course not! This is the "revolution in consciousness" that is happening around the world right now. Human evolution is leading us into new territory; new ways of seeing one another and the world. Viewing the world this way does not allow for inequality. It demands that every human being be granted an equal "right to life", and that NO ONE be allowed to jeopardize that right by having infinitely more than they need; so long as that situation leads to suffering for others. I have yet to hear an argument that could make me see it otherwise.

ALIHAYMEG's picture
ALIHAYMEG
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2010
Posts: 22
Almost Complete Agreement... Almost

Tyranny is when the government controls everything and confiscates your assets for themselves and/or for redistribution. The government should be minimized - both in size and power. The constitution did a pretty good job of that. But we slipped up and allowed our government to violate the constitution. A lot of the mess we are in now is due to that one issue. For instance, why is there a Federal Reserve ? Why does America have to borrow all its money from a banking consortium ? That is crazy. The constitution clearly states that the Federal Government as the authority to create money. The Federal Reserve should be nationalized - the sooner the better. I can not imagine what possessed people to allow the creation of the Federal Reserve. We pay enormous sums to a banking consortium for the privilege of borrowing our own money ? That is clearly broken. I can not imagine why this is tolerated.

Of course you are absolutely correct about everything you said there. I see reversing all of those things as the beginnings of the solution; I'm just not stopping there. The current system is tolerated because none of us were alive to see it any other way. It is the epitome of normalcy to us. There was always going to be a “Federal Reserve System” implemented; of course there was. It is a mathematical certainty when the underlying system rewards greed and encourages manipulation for personal gain. Getting to the place that you want to get would be a great start, but we will end up exactly where we are again if we stop there. It is "the system" itself which is the problem. As I said before, continuing to do the same things expecting different results is insanity. Nothing will change so long as we ignore the fact that we must change our goals from self-serving personal interest to serving the common good and identifying with EVERY other person on the planet as kindred. That is the emotional and logical transition that will lead us to finally understand what it means to be "civilized". We have a very long way to go.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
ALIHAYMEG wrote:It seems
ALIHAYMEG wrote:

It seems clear at this point there are some problems in this topic. There are always going to be some people who are more intelligent or industrious or just plain lucky than other people. On the other hand there can be excesses. We have excesses. Compared to say the 1950s we have a very different wealth distribution now. This is a problem. History has shown that nations become unstable when wealth distribution becomes to lopsided. We are heading that way right now.

I'm in complete agreement with everything you wrote in that post dshields. I think maybe one problem may reside in the differences in our individual worldview. Although I agree that there will always be those who have varying measures of intelligence, determination, and luck, I don't see those things as being reason enough that those individuals should have more than anyone else for the sake of their talents and abilities. That may sound like an unreasonable thing to say, but let me explain why I have come to feel this way.

We had no say in where, when, or into what situation we were born; that was purely the luck of the draw. Some may hold to the notion that they were somehow pre-destined to be whom and where they are, but i see no evidence to substantiate such a belief. If we accept that our birth circumstances were "accidental" and not "determined", then we must also recognize the truth of the matter; namely that all that we are is the result of things that are out of our control. It is a short trip from there to realize and accept that what we produce, invent, or imagine is not really our property. It belongs, because of the myriad of influences and happenings that conspired to make us who we are, to every human being. I see no justification for the concept of "intellectual property", nor do I see any usefulness in the concept other than to hoard and control an inordinate amount of wealth and influence in the world. It's a foreign concept, I know; but one that I think needs to be considered in order for us to get to the kind of world we all want to live in.

I have many talents and abilities that the majority of human beings do not poses. Does that give me the right to claim ownership of the resources that you need to survive? I think not. Does it somehow make me a more valid or valuable human being than you or any other? Of course not! This is the "revolution in consciousness" that is happening around the world right now. Human evolution is leading us into new territory; new ways of seeing one another and the world. Viewing the world this way does not allow for inequality. It demands that every human being be granted an equal "right to life", and that NO ONE be allowed to jeopardize that right by having infinitely more than they need; so long as that situation leads to suffering for others. I have yet to hear an argument that could make me see it otherwise.

I think people should be paid for their talents scaled within something called the labor market. While it is messed up right now due to other craziness the labor market itself allows resources, people and their talents, to be scheduled in a reasonably efficient manner. Let's take me as an example. I am a Senior Engineer and a I manage a team of 5 engineers. It is difficult for my mind to comprehend the 30 years of hard work and periodic death marches I have endured to get to be a Senior Engineer. The vast majority of the population would not even consider doing what I have done. And it is not just me, every person that works for me feels the same way. Because the people on my team have very special skills I pay them pretty good. If they quit there would be great pain for me and the Company. As a result they are valuable. So I pay them decent. They also have decent benefits. I don't think they are going anywhere. I would be really surprised if one quit. My team performs a valuable service to the Company. It is one of the reasons the Company makes money and employees a number of people. We are all getting paid because we generate a product that is in demand - a foreign exchange trading system. Other people are willing to pay to have us create, maintain, and enhance a foreign exchange trading system they want to use. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  People who are willing to do difficult things that others are not willing to do should get paid more.

 

ALIHAYMEG's picture
ALIHAYMEG
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 1 2010
Posts: 22
We Walk With Blinders On

I think people should be paid for their talents scaled within something called the labor market. While it is messed up right now due to other craziness the labor market itself allows resources, people and their talents, to be scheduled in a reasonably efficient manner. Let's take me as an example. I am a Senior Engineer and a I manage a team of 5 engineers. It is difficult for my mind to comprehend the 30 years of hard work and periodic death marches I have endured to get to be a Senior Engineer. The vast majority of the population would not even consider doing what I have done. And it is not just me, every person that works for me feels the same way. Because the people on my team have very special skills I pay them pretty good. If they quit there would be great pain for me and the Company. As a result they are valuable. So I pay them decent. They also have decent benefits. I don't think they are going anywhere. I would be really surprised if one quit. My team performs a valuable service to the Company. It is one of the reasons the Company makes money and employees a number of people. We are all getting paid because we generate a product that is in demand - a foreign exchange trading system. Other people are willing to pay to have us create, maintain, and enhance a foreign exchange trading system they want to use. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. People who are willing to do difficult things that others are not willing to do should get paid more.

Can I ask an honest and sincere question though dshields; Is money the only reason that you do what you do? There is no doubt in my mind that you are a brilliant and accomplished engineer, and probably contribute more to society than 90% of the rest of us; possibly more than that. Would you stop doing what you do if it didn't bring you more wealth and comfort than other people enjoyed?

You see, in my vision of the future, you would still be held in the highest regard. The reason for that admiration would be different though. It would be an honest admiration based on a lifetime of contribution and dedication to the betterment of humanity. In my vision of the future, you and those like you would be the ones guiding things; not because you are better or more deserving of input, but because engineers and technicians actually know how to solve problems. Politicians have little to no technical knowledge of the issues that they are making decisions about. But it wouldn't be decisions made in the interest of maximizing profit and squeezing out the competition. There wouldn't be any competition.

Imagine a situation where there are no longer any borders or barriers in the world. You could go anywhere you wanted and work with the top minds in multiple disciplines without worrying about giving away trade secrets or compromising intellectual property. You could use your talents and skills solely for the betterment of mankind; reaping the direct rewards of that service through public recognition, autonomous self direction, and salient evidence of the positive effects of your work on the lives of people. Tell me, if all of your baser needs were met and you had access to all of the "things' you could ever want or need, would that not be reward enough? Imagine the world we could create if we were able to get all of you amazing people together cooperating to make the world better. There isn't anything that you couldn't accomplish. As it stands, that kind of global cooperation is not possible, nor is it desirable in the context of protecting corporate profits.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments