Spew All About Politics Here

[emprworm]

nema, you havent really stated what I asked for. i will never understand your system until you take me through it. practically

[nemafakei]

As to the quality of pancake the chef makes (or whatever profession)... well, we already know what the chef is capable of (work capability tests, remember?) - I'm not sure yet who should decide how well he is performing to his maximum capability (and thus how well he gets paid).

He doesn't incur the expenses of whipped cream and maple syrup, the community does, if it sees fit to get maple syrup. If it is judged too much of an expense until basic foods are distributed to Africa, then so be it - let them eat artificial syrup until the world's economy is sorted out (if, of course some production needs to be retained for it to restart, then there will be a limited supply of home-made cream or whatever).

I need people's help on fine detail such as assessment systems.

[emprworm]

People should go by the spirit of the law, not its letter.

you are in for a drastic wakeup call then.

you encourage going by the spirit, but there must be a letter in place, because people in a system like yours will do whatever it takes to find loopholes.

If it is judged too much of an expense until basic foods are distributed to Africa, then so be it - let them eat artificial syrup until the world's economy is sorted out

And when you encounter perhaps millions of tribal people in Africa that want no part of your government and want to remain faithful to their tribal religions, is the rest of the world still obligated to feed them even though they refuse to have their work monitored and have no desire to 'work' for the new world order?

And who decides which foods are "luxury" and which are not? WHy not feed the population daily protein-vitamin health bars and water? That will be very cheap and will sustain them. Anything above and beyond that would be indulgent luxury. Deserts? Pies? Caviar? Fine Wine? Capellini Pomodoro? Fettucinni Alfreo? Forget about it! Such a gluttonous waste. Forbidden in the new society. Make them eat standard government issue generic protein-vitamin health bars until the rest of the world is fed. So long as there is even one person somewhere hungry, everyone else gets the health bars- cumplusory. And if they dont like the bars, then they go hungry. Too bad. I bet all your people would really be happy wouldnt they? Every day they wake up with a big smile as they sit around at the table eating their protein-vitamin health bars with a nice tall glass of plain water, then go to work so that they can work HARD and be MOTIVATED- full of enthusiasm, drive, incentive so that they can get flat rate pay with subjectively determined "incentives" (determined by some "effort monitor" government worker) and eat more health bars for lunch. Then, when they save up enough money...O WAIT...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SAVING MONEY". THAT KIND OF GREED IS PRACTICALLY A CAPITAL CRIME. Ooops, guess that speedboat I've always wanted will never happen. But HEY! :) Everyone will be SOOO happy. FUll of joy. They will hold hands, sing Kumbya, and dance through the night. Happy, happy happy they will be!! Sing songs and hold hands with lovely smiles! Yaaaay! :D :D :D

(someone please put me out of my misery before I have to endure such a meaningless existence)

[nemafakei]

"Such a gluttonous waste"

No, happiness also has a value. But so does misery; for every 10 just-about-content people in my system, there are now about 5 very impoverished, 2 just-about-content, 2 more than content, and one with more money than they know what to do with (and not proportionately more happy than the previous category).

"And who decides which foods are "luxury" and which are not? WHy not feed the population daily protein-vitamin health bars and water?"

Councils who will not be stupid, and will not feed people rubbish.

The whole of the councils is that they will avoid the extremes you suggest, because there is no way a council of (say) 15 people will agree to feed everyone 'daily protein-vitamin health bars and water' just because someone else is hungry.

The extremes you fear will be prevented by people like you who make decisions in councils.

Yes, everyone in more developed countries will, to start with, have to suffer some hardship, so that, eventuially, we can all eat blueberry toppings.

Now, I think it's my turn to ask you how, in your system, someone living in, say, a poor village in west africa can get his "blueberry pancakes with whipped cream and pure maple syrup".

"is the rest of the world still obligated to feed them even though they refuse to have their work monitored and have no desire to 'work' for the new world order?"

No. If they are so isolated, then we will not need to feed them, and not require any work from them. It is likely that they will have nothing we need; I take it that they are not a required part of our ecosystem (in economic terms, in ecological terms (damn this combined-meaning 'eco' root)), so we will not need them to be involved.

[emprworm]

Yes, you may ask me questions.

Now, I think it's my turn to ask you how, in your system, someone living in, say, a poor village in west africa can get his "blueberry pancakes with whipped cream and pure maple syrup".

First you must ask: Is (a) that animistic religious tribal village in west Africa PART of my government or (b) did they freely choose to not join my government?

If answer is B:

In my system, the people in a poor village of west africa are not part of my government. Though I personally don't want them to be hungry, I cannot force it upon the working people of my government to sacrifice their happiness in life to feed other people in other societies. You can't force people to do what is right, you can only encourage it. Taking their money against their will and giving it to people who are not even part of our society is not moral. That would be unjust and cause great despair. I give them the option to donate money and food to them out of the goodness of their heart. Making it cumpulory is out of the question. Donating money to help the poor is honorable and noble, and that is the only way it should be done in this case.

If answer is (a): you will see the answer to that question in the first post of this thread. Those people, if they are going to have any hope at all in my society, will have to cut with all the shamanism tribal crap and get educated and find work. They receive tax-payer government substinence while they go to school. Sustinence continues unless they get lazy and abuse the system, in which case they receive nothing from the government and will then have to beg from the churches.

If they CHOOSE in my society that their shamanism/animism crap is going to take precedence over college education, then they have that freedom! But they are CHOOSING to reject the governments offer to them. In this case, they are choosing a life of hunger in order to preserve their tribal beliefs. Their children could be forcibly taken and raised in modern foster homes by the state if it is deemed they are unfit parents (allowing their children to starve to death because they would rather do rain dances than learn about meteorology).

[nemafakei]

Someone remove the "Reset form" button. I lost a rather long post by pressing Esc inadvertently.

Assuming you get enough money from tax on the west to build enough schools in Africa for people to get themselves educated, two more problems face you.

Why will western businessmen (ie ones with enough cash to invest) start up businesses which will provide work for the africa to get a job.

Where's the profit for the businessman? That's what'll be driving most, in a capitalist economy

And once he has a job, assuming he manages to scrape together enough of his money (remember wages will have to be low for the investors to get profit and the business to continue) to buy a blueberry pancake, where will he get one? Will he get freshly whipped cream? Who made the restaurant selling blueberry pancakes? What was in it for them?

"people in a system like yours will do whatever it takes to find loopholes"

There are no loopholes in spirit-of-law; if someone is clearly doing something wrong and trying to manipulate the system, the councils who judge his case will exact a suitable punishment (for the offence he was trying to get away with, perhaps plus some more for trying to undermine the sytem). Remember, the community makes the rules, not the other way around. The rules restrain individuals to protect the community.

[emprworm]

Assuming you get enough money from tax on the west to build enough schools in Africa for people to get themselves educated, two more problems face you

First of all, we can assume that there will be enough money in the west to do this. There is enough wealth and food in the world to feed everybody. The richer you are, the higher your taxes. In essence, this means it is good for the poor if people get wealthy because they will be paying more. You always seem to think that wealth cannot exist without poverty, but that is rediculous. Lets take your society, for example: if 6 bililon people in nema's society all gave me one dollar, there would still be no poverty. And I would be wealthier than Bill Gates.

Model of wealth is a complex one indeed. You define it too narrowly, Nema.

You can have a model that allows for distribution through taxes that relieves poverty, yet allows for wealth. Anti-trust laws are a must, hence I am not a "pure capitalist".

Let me illustrate my model:

Suppose we have a society with 100 people. In this society, an annual income of 100 units is straight, pure middle class. An annual income of 50 units is poverty. Annual incomes of 150 units or more is upper class and beyond.

This economy is currently generating 10,000 units annually.

Now, in Nema's society each person would receive an equal portion of that generation with an annual income of 100 units. This is Nema's society. Full equality and distribution- all people are straight middle class- none poor, none rich.

At no time does anyone in Nema's society have any hope to aquire anymore than he/she is already getting relative to anyone else. You assume that people will be happy with this. I assume that will not be the case. Additional wealth will not be created very fast because there will not be any competitive cooperation, and there will be a tremendous lack of desire and contentment. After several years, your society will most likely still be producing 10,000 units annually. People will be apathetic and discontent.

My society is more flexible and grants more enjoyment in life, along with hope and at the same time eliminates the evil of hunger and poverty.

In my society, people may get wealthy. At the poors expense? Absolutely not! Anti-trust laws WILL prevent this, along with an unchangeable absolute moral law not subject to democracy and immune to any "council".

In my society, all 100 people can give 5 units to one person, making him exceedingly wealthy, and they will still not be in poverty. Because people can strive and compete, everyone will benefit because competition lowers prices and increases jobs. After a few years, the annual income will be much higher than that starting 10,000. Some people will be making 150 units a year, some will make 80 a year. None will be making less than 50. Those who make 150 units will be forking out a big chunk back into the system to help those who are not making as much, hence everyone will be at least at 50- enough for a decent life,though not opulent. Yet even those who are not wealthy still have the freedom to pursue that goal. They may not eat blueberry pancakes every day but they will most likely experience such a taste treat from time to time. Others may eat blueberry pancakes every day- big deal. At least in my society they would exist. Luxury items cannot exist without wealthy people. In a society with no wealthy people, indulgent luxuries would not even exist. Having them exist, I believe is a GOOD THING because it gives people things to look forward too. (ie. i can look forward to a vacation of skiing the swiss alps and relaxing in a warm chalet- i might have to save up for years to afford it, but it is feasible that I could do this once or twice in my lifetime). And if those who dont get to eat blueberry pancakes every day or get to ski the swiss alps every winter- but who at least have the necessities of a decent life- STILL want to whine and moan and be envious of rich people who DO ski the swiss alps every winter, well we know who the greedy ones are then.

You can have wealth and not poverty. it IS possible. And that is what my system strives for. You are at the "either or stage", Nema, and you need to think beyond that.

and, btw, you have yet to explain to me how US capitalism is causing the third world poverty.

[Anathema]

6 bililon people in nema's society all gave me one dollar, there would still be no poverty. And I would be wealthier than Bill Gates.

Eeeh...you wouldn't. Bil Gates has over 50 billion dollars as I recall.

Anyway, assuming each country can enjoy our level of wealth, how will you achieve it?

[nemafakei]

"there would still be no poverty"

Incorrect. The poverty would be split between everyone.

"Now, in Nema's society each person would receive an equal portion of that generation with an annual income of 100 units."

Incorrect.

Lazy ones might recive 80 or less, say, and those who work hard will get, say, 120.

"At no time does anyone in Nema's society have any hope to aquire anymore than he/she is already getting relative to anyone else"

By working hard, they will get more. No-one will be fabulously rich, but no-one will be ridiculously poor.

Keep remembering that money is a mere representation of production. It is not REAL. It is an expression of how much of the world's resources you can buy.

"competition lowers prices and increases jobs"

Lower prices means lower costs. This means quality drops, or the ('real' -ie taking account of inflation) pay of workers drops.

"well we know who the greedy ones are then"

So you're saying that poor people can either shut up and get on with life, or speak out, and their arguments considered flawed because you think they are greedy.

Remember that in no part of your systtrem is there a guarantee that the more productive work you do, the better you are paid; wealth is attributed almost randomly, in that respect. (ie stock-market investors get lots of money for doing very little of use apart from making themselves rich - which doesn't produce anything, so they eat from the toils of others), whereas farmers (the backbone of the economy of the world) get paid rather less. How is this justifiable?!

"You can have wealth and not poverty"

I agree, but only by increasing production. Simply creating more money doesn't make people richer, since each piece of money is then worth less.

It is a matter of choosing who should become rich, and who poor? Should the greedy or lazy be rich, and the hardworking be poor? I hope not, and that's what I want to solve.

[emprworm]

"Incorrect. The poverty would be split between everyone."

Nema, you cant be serious. Uhhh....Last I checked socialism is all about "splitting between everyone" thereby eliminating the state of an impoverished few. If everyone in your world- 6 bilion of them, was making 100 units a year, and they all gave me a one time gift of 1 unit. They STILL make 100 units a year. There is no poverty- period. And I am filthy rich. What is wrong with that? And what moral & legal right would you have to stop it?

[Edric O]

How exactly do you intend to get 6 billion people to give you a gift all at the same time, out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Anathema]

Because we all love Emprworm of course ;)

[emprworm]

lol, Edric, I am only pointing out that being filthy rich doesn't necessitate that anyone else is poor. Its an absurd equation:

People Being Rich = People Being Poor

Because it IS POSSIBLE to have wealth and not have poverty, I propose that we seek a government that accomplishes just that.

[Edric O]

Actually, Nema has already shown (quite a long time ago) that if some people are rich, others are poor. This is because the money you have reduces the value of the money others have. A monetary unit represents a percentage of the wealth of the world.

This is a zero-sum game. You can't get something from nothing. If you are rich, others are poor.

Of course, if there are few rich people, the resulted poverty can be "hidden" by distributing it evenly across the rest of the population, hoping that they won't notice.

[emprworm]

This is a zero-sum game. You can't get something from nothing. If you are rich, others are poor.

false. I showed this empirically in my example. As money changes hands, wealth grows. Zero sum game is a false idea about economics. I honestly know of no economicist that states such. If you are rich, others may or may not be rich and may or may not be poor.

Money I have does not reduce the value of any money any one else has. The value of money will actually increase as things are being produced, hence the government must manufacture more money. Wealth is not determined by how much money you have. Money is just paper and means nothing- governments that have mass-manufactured money in an attempt to "create wealth" have experienced first hand how utterly absurd such a thing was. Economics is not a zero-sum gain. That would only exist in a static system. But because humans work, produce, exchange money, and make progress, the concept of zero sum gain can be thrown out, because it is competely false. You are trying to take a simplistic view of a static system and apply it to a complex dynamic system. Of course, you cannot do that, which is why the study of economics is something that you can spend years in college learning. Zero-sum gain is basically what first year economic students think, but when they start learning theories and economic models, they quickly see that such a simplistic view of economics is highly inaccurate.

the resulted poverty can be "hidden" by distributing it evenly across the rest of the population, hoping that they

now this is rediculous. I am honestly shocked you even said this. I know that you and Nema are smarter than this! You are telling me that if 6 billion people making 100 units a year gave me 1 unit, that the RESULTING POVERTY would be "hidden?" WHAT POVERTY?

SOCIALISM is EXACTLY that! It 'hides' poverty by distribution, thus eliminating it. There is NO POVERTY. If you are claiming that there is poverty with 6 billion people having 99 units (when 100 units is middle class) for one year, then it becomes obvious to me that you are not willing to engage in beneficial dialogue but instead are going to latch on to your views no matter what despite an obvious and crystal clear example of them being false.

I will repeat this, Edric. There is NO POVERTY if 6 billion people give me a one time gift of one unit when they make 100 units a year. If those 6 billion people donated that same one unit to build a space ship, that wouldn't be poverty either. You and Nema are losing it!! Poverty is not some wishy washy concept that you can "hide" in a crowd. If that is how you define poverty, it is a disgrace. Poverty is a cold hard cold reality that means someone is suffering- PHYSICALLY SUFFERING. You do everyone in this world who suffers from real poverty a tremendous dis-service--- no-- you actually insult them to take their misery and minimize it to the point where you are equating the cold hard physical sufering with some ambiguous concept. If I was in real poverty and I heard you say this, I would be offended. You should not minimize poverty to the point where, if the ENTIRE WORLD was making middle class and each person gave 1 dollar to one person to then say that 'poverty exists again!' - that is a disgrace to what poverty actually is

i am ashamed that both you and nema both tried to do this.

poverty is a cold hard reality, not a mythical concept.

Obviously you and nema define poverty different than me. I didn't reazlie this until now. I define poverty as people who are so poor, they suffer from sickness, disease, hunger, thirst, and lack even the ability to stay warm at night. I define poverty as a human who needlessly suffers because others are not compassionate enough to lend a hand. I define poverty as those who are ignored by society, left to endure hardship, discrimination and humiliation. Mothers who cannot feed their children. Fathers who cannot find work. Children who are dirty, who have no clean water to drink, and spend their days digging for food in trash heaps instead of playing and laughing.

You and nema define poverty as some generalize ambigious concept that can get lost in a crowd of fully healthy, well fed, clothed, housed, and happily living humans. In your world, you could have 100 % of the population happy people- healthy, vibrant, well fed, well clothed.... yet still have poverty!!!???!???? What the???

That disgusts me. Sorry, but it does.

I find that disgraceful. I was once impoverished and I know what it is like. You cannot hide poverty in a crowd. It stares at you directly in the face, and you can see its eyes looking back at you.

WIth these latest surprises from you and Nema (that poverty is just some kind of conceptual philosophy), I think I am done with this discussion. I am no longer going to talk on this subject, because we define poverty differently and I have no intention of changing my definition.

[Edric O]

I am not aware of any college which teaches that things can come from nothing. An isolated system will ALWAYS be a zero-sum game, no matter how dynamic and complicated it is!

That is basic knowledge, and if you manage to create things from nothing, I suppose we could call you God.

Of course, the catch is that the world economy is not an isolated system. Input comes from outside in the form of natural resources. The combined wealth of the world increases. BUT the monetary system does not reflect that. Money is not a measure of how much natural resources we took from outside! That is beyond absurd. Money represents a percentage, a fraction.

Look at it this way: the wealth you have was not created specifically for you. You TOOK it from someone else. Yes, I know you earned it, but that doesn't change the fact that in order for your wealth to increase, the combined wealth of the rest of the world must decrease.

Input from outside the system (natural resources) does not change that, because the percentages stay the same. Let's say the combined wealth of the world is 100 monetary units. Person X owns 5 units. Input from outside the system is brought in. But that doesn't result in the printing of more money! The wealth of the world is still 100 units, except that 1 unit has more value now. So Person X just got richer, and he still owns 5% of the world's wealth. The difference in wealth between Person X and Person Y (who owns just 1 unit) got bigger. Thus the gap between rich and poor grows.

[Edric O]

You dedicated a lot of your last post to an argument on semantics: the definition of "poverty".

I admit that "poverty" is not a good term to describe what I meant. "Negative wealth" or "Lack of wealth" would be more appropiate. It's a mathematical concept. First of all, you need a reference point, a 0 level. A person that has a total wealth of 1 unit below the 0 level has a "negative wealth" of 1. (and, consequently, a wealth of -1)

Believe me, I know what poverty means. I have experienced it first-hand. I did not mean to be offensive in any way, and I very much agree with this quote:

I define poverty as people who are so poor, they suffer from sickness, disease, hunger, thirst, and lack even the ability to stay warm at night. I define poverty as a human who needlessly suffers because others are not compassionate enough to lend a hand. I define poverty as those who are ignored by society, left to endure hardship, discrimination and humiliation. Mothers who cannot feed their children. Fathers who cannot find work. Children who are dirty, who have no clean water to drink, and spend their days digging for food in trash heaps instead of playing and laughing.

Those are the people I fight for. Those are the situations I seek to prevent. If no one cares about them, I will. And I will dedicate my life to destroy and replace a system that allows such injustices to happen.

[emprworm]

That is basic knowledge, and if you manage to create things from nothing, I suppose we could call you God.

we already went over this. knowledge is not a zero-sum gain. KNowledge increases, regardless of the environment or consumption of natural resources. With input from the sun, natural resources are replenished hence nothing on planet earth is isolated, including (and especially) human progress. Thus any zero-sum gain theories applied to earthly economics are false.

The combined wealth of the world increases. BUT the monetary system does not reflect that.

Edric, I can guarantee you that the monetary system of 2002 reflects far more wealth than the same system in 1002.

Look at it this way: the wealth you have was not created specifically for you. You TOOK it from someone else. Yes, I know you earned it, but that doesn't change the fact that in order for your wealth to increase, the combined wealth of the rest of the world must decrease.

wow, finally some truth. Everytime you spend, wealth is shifting. Big deal. Your community spends 1000 dollars, your combined wealth decreases. And? Thats why you work and bring the money back in. I said that these people were making 100 units a year and gave a 1 time gift. Money is supposed to be fluid, and shifting. You wont have an economy if it isnt.

the combined wealth of the rest of the world must decrease.

But poverty is eliminated. I THOUGHT that was the end goal with you and nema, I guess I was wrong. There is immense greed with someone who can look at a world full of healthy, happy well fed people and STILL get angry, jealous, envious over someone who has more than them. That disgusts me. At least your true agenda's are finally coming out.

[Dunenewt]

The problem is there are always people who want more than others and won't agree to those terms

[Edric O]

Ummm, I wasn't talking about increase/decrease in knowledge. The expression "this is basic knowledge" marks a well known fact...

The monetary system does not reflect the increase in total wealth = we don't print more money for every new "unit of wealth" that enters the system.

Hidden agenda? You're being paranoid, Emprworm. We have nothing material to gain from this. Eliminating poverty is my life's goal.

[Dunenewt]

If the stuff about money was true then a goverment could just print a load of money to make itself rich

[emprworm]

Eliminating poverty is my life's goal.

I want to believe this, but in light of your recent comments (as well as Nema's) I dont think I can.

I showed clearly how wealth can exist in an economy without poverty. I personally would rather live in a world where yachts exist- even if I never own one, I may be able to ride on one. I want to livein a world where there are luxury cars- maybe I wont be able to afford one, but perhaps i will ride in one with someone else. I dont get jealous over these things. I think your and nema's problem is one of envy and jealousy. If we can have a government that can eliminate poverty and STILL ALLOW for luxury things, that is the ideal government. I would not be happy in your mundane middle of the road government as would probably most others. Your goal is not to eliminate poverty but to prevent wealth. You and Nema could have a world where everyone is taken care of and you'd still get mad if someone had a mansion. I just cannot understand this. It is envy and greed of the utmost kind.

[Edric O]

Exactly, Dunenewt. But it doesn't work that way! Money doesn't represent an absolute value. It only represents a fraction of the total wealth. That's why a government can't just print loads of money and make itself rich.

[nemafakei]

"6 billion people making 100 units a year gave me 1 unit"

This represents the lack of distribution of wealth between rich and non-rich, not an actual gift.

They end up with 99 that year.

Now, given that the number of people that are becoming rich is greater than one per year, then we see that everyone is being minimally 'taxed' to feed the rich. You have ended up with 6bn units for doing nothing, others hve done work for 100, and ended up with less than they earned. THAT is the point about rich and poor. The rich effectively tax the poor merely by being rich.

Let me remind you, of course, that the more money that exists, the less of the world's economy each unit represents. That is fundamental economics. You cannot create something from nothing. That is basic physics. It is only by working (not stockbroking or whatever) that we can do more, and make more of what we have, useful.

Poverty, in my book, is: your income relative to how hard you work for the community, compared to the gross product of the world per capita.

Someone sitting on their rear end, making a big profit from clicking a few buttons to play around with the stock market is immensely rich.

Someone working his rear end off on a farm, making almost no money, yet working extrememly hard for it, is, therefore, poor.

[emprworm]

Nema, as I said on page 9, you minimize poverty and I resent that.