CIA - Police agency? or Crazy Illegal Agency?

[gunner154]

Well, I always thought of capitalism as being a system based on the idea that an individual has as much opportunity to make as much or little money as he desires, but this only only a "fair" system in today's society when assuming that everyone has an equal playing field as far as education is concerned (which is not the case). however, I believe the advent of free information via the internet could quickly fix that problem to a degree. but i digress, despite what capitalism is based on, the result has nonetheless been that the people w/ money are the people with more political power/voice in democracy.  I think that with the rise of the internet it is possible to once again have a direct republic instead of a representative republic.  I haven't thought it all the way through but it seems feasible to me.

That's an idea that could work, except that the richest people are not the most qualified ones - but rather the richest people are businessmen, those who control the means of production. Learning through the Internet to equalise skills is one way to improve your financial position, but that's nothing compared to the rich man with his towers of gold.

Yes, but if making money (as well as spending money) is an expression of a human right, then how much you money you decide to make/spend is a reflection of how much you choose to take advantage of your human rights.  So, no money=complacency.  The rich are the motivated once the poor/middle class are the complacent onces.  This is assuming many things, z.b that everyone has made their own fortune and that the economic/social/educational playing field is equal.  These are not the cases so, this idea is really worthless.  (but slightly fascinating.)  But this means that economic competition in capitalism means competition for human rights among people.  it turns human rights into a currency (and thus makes it a limited resource in someways).  It's quite disgusting really. so i'll stop entertaining this idea.

wait.....wasn't this the cia thread?  lol. oh well.

I don't exactly get the money and complacency part, especially how the rich become motivated once the poor/middle class are the complacent ones. Huh? I don't know how human rights became a currency. So far, in this discussion, I've observed it to be a commodity, rather than a currency. With more money, I can "buy more rights" because of the free speech advantage I get in campaigning.

[Anathema]

As far as a federal representative democracy goes, I agree that the German system is the best in the world, and probably one of the best possible systems.

But that's only if you want a federal representative democracy. I think the whole idea of representative democracy as it stands today is fundamentally flawed and bankrupt. Elected politicians are less and less representative of the wishes of the people. The fact that choices are restricted by a rather small number of parties and the fact that people have no input in the making of actual laws and policies has resulted in politicians basically ignoring the vast majority of the people and trying to please only those whose votes are strictly necessary to win an election.

I think that this has always been more or less the case, but nowadays people tend to be better informed (at least on specific issues that are important to them) and thus are quicker to notice. It can, and not rarely does, result in electoral losses in multi-party systems like Germany.

I think the UK system looks worse on paper but works better (or less bad) in practice. Both the US and UK systems are awful because they are first-past-the-post, but the US one is worse because you need more money to win and there are only 2 major parties.

Well, the flaws of the FPTP system are more noticible in the UK because there are more than two parties. The Liberal Democrats, while it can sometimes rival the popular vote of either the Tories or Labour, always gets a tiny amount of seats. In 1987 (I think) they ran as a combine with another party and got over 20% of the national vote, yet only about 3% of the seats in the Commons.

The only imaginable advantage I can see for electoral districts is that elected politicians have a more tangible bond with their voters- but not in the UK, because politicians that are valued by the party but not necessarily popular are assigned to run in districts that always vote for the party in question.

Now in the USA there are only two "real" parties, but there are at least primaries in wich the populace can influence what their choice on the ballot will be. There also is far less party discipline in the US Congres, so that Democrats from New York generally vote more progressively than Texan Democrats, for example. So there are only two parties represented in Congres, but they're not uniform voting blocs like in the UK.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I don't exactly get the money and complacency part, especially how the rich become motivated once the poor/middle class are the complacent ones. Huh? I don't know how human rights became a currency. So far, in this discussion, I've observed it to be a commodity, rather than a currency. With more money, I can "buy more rights" because of the free speech advantage I get in campaigning.

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.  The idea was purely hypothetical, but what i meant was that in a purely equal capitalistic playing field, people BECOME rich because they are motivated to gain the training/means to become rich.  If every one were born with the exact same resources and opportunities (obviously not the case in our world) then people's monetary status would be left free to their choice and desire.  this is just silly though, and not a realistic scenario, because as long as their are social classes and a pre-existing, functioning economy in place when individuals are born,then there can never be a "level" playing field.

Now in the USA there are only two "real" parties, but there are at least primaries in wich the populace can influence what their choice on the ballot will be. There also is far less party discipline in the US Congres, so that Democrats from New York generally vote more progressively than Texan Democrats, for example. So there are only two parties represented in Congres, but they're not uniform voting blocs like in the UK.

Primaries and caucuses only give the populace significance influence in some states. If i'm not mistaken, it's often the regional party delegates and not the populace that have the real voice in choosing the candidate for the party in question.  In my state, I may cast one vote for whomever i wish, regardless of the party, however in some states independent voters are not so lucky because they must  be either a registered republican or democrat (or libertarian, green party) to vote in the caucuses/primaries, and may only vote for their respective "parties".  So in the recent primaries, the only portion of the populace that had a significant voice were the registered democrats that were able to vote between Clinton and Obama in the key states needed to gain the Democratic nomination.

I'm no expert so please correct me if i am largely mistaken.

Also, yes there is less uniformity in US party voting, probably due to the fact that there are only two parties in Congress.  To make up for this vacuum effect, parties must be able to cover a wide spectrum of ideologies in order to please their constituents, thus you get many variations on the labels, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal.  It's almost to the point where the word Democrat/republican looses any meaning beyond the fact that you carry a plastic card that says you belong to their "party".

[gunner154]

Sorry, guess I wasn't clear.  The idea was purely hypothetical, but what i meant was that in a purely equal capitalistic playing field, people BECOME rich because they are motivated to gain the training/means to become rich.  If every one were born with the exact same resources and opportunities (obviously not the case in our world) then people's monetary status would be left free to their choice and desire.  this is just silly though, and not a realistic scenario, because as long as their are social classes and a pre-existing, functioning economy in place when individuals are born,then there can never be a "level" playing field.

Not only that, but also the evolving nature of the playing field results in the emergence of capitalists who tap on their already-hoarded wealth to maintain their position of financial power by controlling the means of production. A hardworking family of bakers would eventually become a family of businessmen, already dissociated from their original line of work. And of course, it could only get easier for them to be richer.

[Sneakgab]

Why should additional motivation to make money justifiably give access to further voting rights anyway? Simply due to more motivation? But others can be motivated without financial interests.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

in response to sneakygab,

in a capitalist community, theoretically if you are generating more money, then it should follow that you are providing more services/products that are beneficial to fellow man.  thus you are awarded more voting power, but that's only in a system where your political voice is deemed as being justifiably increased with how much you do for society.  and there are so many loop holes to making money these days that you could trade stock all day and make millions just by sitting on your ass, not doing a damn thing for society.

[Tatar Khan]

and there are so many loop holes to making money these days that you could trade stock all day and make millions just by sitting on your ass, not doing a damn thing for society.

While speculation on stock market might seem nothing but gambling it is a provision of service. This is what keeps the stock market liquid and this is what assures that the stock prices react to the news about the companies that allowing the company to see the response to their actions and allowing the shareholders to hold the companies's management responsible for the screw ups.

[nemafakei]

On the other hand, if any government ran anything so labour-intensive and expensive as the stock market, then even if it were ten times as effective, it would be lambasted as an enormous waste of taxpayer money... and not without reason.

[Tatar Khan]

On the other hand, if any government ran anything so labour-intensive and expensive as the stock market, then even if it were ten times as effective, it would be lambasted as an enormous waste of taxpayer money... and not without reason.

The reason is that the government would be wasting the tax payers money and the stock traders are wasting their own money and putting their own money at risk not somebody's money.

[Edric O]

The reason is that the government would be wasting the tax payers money and the stock traders are wasting their own money and putting their own money at risk not somebody's money.

Err, actually, stock traders gamble with other people's money all the time. They don't personally own all the shares they trade, you know.

[Tatar Khan]

Err, actually, stock traders gamble with other people's money all the time. They don't personally own all the shares they trade, you know.

You talking about the fund and portfolio managers who are paid to do that. They are investors and do not actively speculate. The daily speculation is accomplished through the people doing it personally,  and the special speculators and arbitragers who are employed by the financial institutions.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

lol, sorry i didn't actually mean stock brocker. I meant personal investors who do daily traiding.  not the same thing by any means. you can sit at your computer and trade personal stock all day, and no company will see the long term stock investment for too long.  not that those are common, but it is a skill i suppose.  now counting cards there's another one. take the house's money. heheh.

[Tatar Khan]

Yeah as I said daily traders provide the necessary liquidity to the market.

Actually without them the hedging markets would not be functional.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

so this liquidity of money is actually good for ...hedging...markets?  sorry, what are hedging markets?

[Tatar Khan]

Liquidity is good for stock market because it allows the value of stock to respond to the news.

By hedging markets I mean futures markets and spot markets and options markets. The speculations o these markets allow the companies that use them to hedge to always find the other side to the deal and to close their position once hedging is done.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

that is interesting.  i should take an economics course or something.  if i have the time, which is, never.  oh well.  Surely though there is an example of a way to make money in capitalism that contributes absolutely nothing to society.  milk and cookies to whoever comes up w/ a good example first.

[Edric O]

Inheritance.

And also rent and profit, since those are forms of income derived from mere ownership of property without any kind of productive activity whatsoever on the part of the capitalist. Basically, rent and profit are a way of getting money as a reward for the fact that you already have some money.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

yay. you get the prize :)

yea,  hate paying rent so i'm all for getting rid of that one.  what a waste of money. I could buy an xbox every month if i didn't have rent to pay :O

but really I'm curious what would be your kommunistic alternative, Ecric O, to paying rent?  how would that work.  its hard for me to imagine since I live in a capitalistic nation.

[Khan]

You wouldn't need rent as the land is owned by the state, not an individual. Thus no profit needs to be made for it.

Don't take my word for it though, my text isn't nearly green enough to have authority on such matters.

[Edric O]

you get the prize :)

yea,  hate paying rent so i'm all for getting rid of that one.  what a waste of money. I could buy an xbox every month if i didn't have rent to pay :O

but really I'm curious what would be your kommunistic alternative, Ecric O, to paying rent?  how would that work.  its hard for me to imagine since I live in a capitalistic nation.

Property, property, property. When comparing capitalism and communism, the issue is always property. :)

What is rent? It is a sum of money that you must pay to a landlord in order to live on his property (actually the term is used with a broader meaning in economics, but let's stick to that example). The landlord isn't providing any service or doing any work in exchange for your rent; he is able to charge you money simply because he controls some property and you don't. In other words, rent exists because of an imbalance or inequality in property ownership - those who own more are able to extract rent from those who own less. Rent can therefore be eliminated if all people are given an equal amount of power over property - if all land is made common property with each individual having an equal amount of power (an equal vote) in determining how that land is used.

So rent is unnecessary. In communism (or socialism for that matter), all land would be the common property of the people and you wouldn't have to pay rent because you would not have a landlord. Decisions about the use of land would be made by a democratic state (in socialism) or by direct vote of the community (in communism).

The function of rent in a capitalist economy is to create a distribution of land - to decide who gets to live where, based on how much rent they can afford to pay. In socialism or communism, rent would be abolished and the distribution of land would not be based on ability to pay. It would be based on factors such as proximity to your job and the goal of reducing transport costs. More productive workers would also presumably get the higher quality houses. Any housing development in a socialist or communist society is likely to consist of houses of similar size and quality, but we can expect that newer houses will be better than older ones because of technological improvements.

You wouldn't need rent as the land is owned by the state, not an individual. Thus no profit needs to be made for it.

Don't take my word for it though, my text isn't nearly green enough to have authority on such matters.

You got it right, though, at least for the case of socialism. :)

[Khan]

Actually (in the UK at least) there is a bit more responsibility for the landlord as they are largely responsible for services and utilities (at least when they break down). You can get your money's worth if enough things go wrong and they can't prove it was your fault. That's what I'm doing.

[Edric O]

Actually (in the UK at least) there is a bit more responsibility for the landlord as they are largely responsible for services and utilities (at least when they break down). You can get your money's worth if enough things go wrong and they can't prove it was your fault. That's what I'm doing.

I believe that is covered by the same type of legislation that deals with fraud, and the goal is to hold landlords responsible if they trick you into living in a crappier house than what you paid for. It doesn't mean rent is justified, it only means they can't get rent and cut corners to save money.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Ah, I'm begining to understand.  The tricky bit is exactly who decides how the land is distributedl. is it through a representative republic or a direct republic.  I would asume it would be a regional thing of sorts.  elected counsil or public vote. perhaps some sort of agreed upon system or chart taking into account work location and work productivity and living situation preferences?  sounds like it could be a potential disaster or perhaps it could be fairly smoothe.  how do you envision it's execution edric o?

[Khan]

I believe that is covered by the same type of legislation that deals with fraud, and the goal is to hold landlords responsible if they trick you into living in a crappier house than what you paid for. It doesn't mean rent is justified, it only means they can't get rent and cut corners to save money.

I know I just wanted to point out that it was slightly unfair to say that rent is money for nothing. It's money for a little but if something breaks down its still their responsibility.

[Edric O]

Ah, I'm begining to understand.  The tricky bit is exactly who decides how the land is distributedl. is it through a representative republic or a direct republic.  I would asume it would be a regional thing of sorts.  elected counsil or public vote. perhaps some sort of agreed upon system or chart taking into account work location and work productivity and living situation preferences?  sounds like it could be a potential disaster or perhaps it could be fairly smoothe.  how do you envision it's execution edric o?

There are many ways to organize the decision-making body that oversees the land and decides how it should be used. I'm a pragmatic communist; I firmly believe that society should be organized on a socialist framework (and later a communist one in the more distant future), but within that framework I am perfectly open to variation and willing to support whatever works best.

With that in mind, here is one way it could work: To begin with, we should have elected councils at the local level that would be responsible for the administration and distribution of land. These councils would not have complete independence; the central government should be able to overrule their decisions if it requires land for the construction of large-scale projects (e.g. railways, highways, bridges, power plants, factories). But the day-to-day business of allocating land should be left to the local councils, and it should also be their task to decide where to put new housing developments. When a new house is built, the local council should draw up a list of job criteria that a person must meet in order to live there (e.g. the person must work somewhere within an X-mile radius, at Y type of job). Then people who want to live in that house should send in applications, and if there is more than one applicant that meets the job criteria, the house should be assigned by lottery (anything else would be an invitation to favoritism and corruption). If a person feels that the job criteria for a certain house are unfair, he or she would have the option to sue the local council and take them to court.

That was just one proposal. Maybe it would work and maybe it wouldn't. If it turns out to be a bad idea, another arrangement is always possible. The trick is to achieve a good balance between the needs of the individual, the needs of the local community (represented by the local council), and the needs of the whole country (represented by the central government).

I know I just wanted to point out that it was slightly unfair to say that rent is money for nothing. It's money for a little but if something breaks down its still their responsibility.

Yes, but since they own the property, wouldn't it still be their responsibility if something broke down regardless of whether you lived there or paid rent? The act of paying rent does not place any responsibility upon the landowner that he did not already have.