View Full Version : (NWO) New World Order
KanadaHye
04-02-2009, 02:00 PM
G20 commits to $1-trillion global stimulus package
Another wave of invisible money being pumped into the system, surely to cause more inflation and interest rate hikes in the future
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/02/g20-summit-london237.html
Brown said the summit represented a "day the world came together to fight back against the recession."
"Today the largest countries in the world have agreed to a global plan for recovery and reform," he said. "I think the new world order is emerging and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international co-operation."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Capitalism has come to a crashing halt by greed and corruption – without regulations, Corporate Capitalism has taken over and North American's still refuse to remove their blindfolds.
The wealthiest 5% now own approx. 90% since they have successfully monopolized everything from resources to retail to mass media, and have even taken control over our governments … that’s why they have the power to give themselves trillions in bailouts with the OK of our governments.
Corporate Capitalism is like Communism – in that, it benefits only the few, the invisible elite, and destroys free markets & competition.... in turn destroying democracy & freedom.
Those that support Capitalism in it's current form will brand you as Communist or Socialist ... lazy and uneducated because they are blind to see that the same system they support and live under is the same system that is destroying them.
The trickle down in the pyramid scheme is gone. The wealthy are benefiting from big corporations with welfare bailouts on the backs of the working class. The invisible hand has become greedy, corrupt and destructive. Welcome to the New World Order, aka happiness in slavery.
ArmSurvival
04-03-2009, 04:32 PM
Good post. The G-20 summit was rife with calls to establish a "New World Order".
Its interesting, the same statesmen who call it a conspiracy to believe that they are planning a New World Order, are the same ones who talk about it at every available opportunity. People need to wake up.
hipeter924
04-10-2009, 05:02 PM
As for new economies/societies Anarcho-Capitalism is so much better, since some versions of it eliminate corporations and government, and form a society based upon free will.
As for new economies/societies Anarcho-Capitalism is so much better, since some versions of it eliminate corporations and government, and form a society based upon free will.
hipeter, I take it that these versions you mention are just theoretical?
Various economic/political/social theories are excellent until people are put into the equation.
The bulk of these ideas on social reconstruction should stay, where they are now, on college campuses and surrounding coffee shops.
KanadaHye
04-19-2009, 10:02 AM
hipeter, I take it that these versions you mention are just theoretical?
Various economic/political/social theories are excellent until people are put into the equation.
The bulk of these ideas on social reconstruction should stay, where they are now, on college campuses and surrounding coffee shops.
Who's to say what system is better or worse? There have been successful societies formed with Socialism, Communism, Capitalism and variations in between. They are merely different ways of distributing the land's natural resources FAIRLY to the people. However, with Capitalism, the wealthy remain wealthy without ever being in the same system as the slaves below them provided they aren't complete morons.
Who's to say what system is better or worse? There have been successful societies formed with Socialism, Communism, Capitalism and variations in between. They are merely different ways of distributing the land's natural resources FAIRLY to the people. However, with Capitalism, the wealthy remain wealthy without ever being in the same system as the slaves below them provided they aren't complete morons.
Where are the successful Communist states?
Have you lived in one? I'd love to hear your point on these.
A good book to read would be "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
KanadaHye
04-19-2009, 08:43 PM
Where are the successful Communist states?
Have you lived in one? I'd love to hear your point on these.
A good book to read would be "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.
I've read Animal Farm, 1984 and Brave New World.... Communism fell for the same reasons Capitalism hiccups... greed and corruption. Might I add that with the advancement of technology and the possibility that you might be tracked via satellite and be taxed according to mileage traveled along with many other possible methods of privacy intrusion, the world isn't too far off from total robotic control. Big brother doesn't have to watch, machines will do the work for him.
Brave New World:
Although the novel is set in the future, it contains contemporary issues of the early 20th century. The Industrial Revolution had transformed the world. Mass production had made cars, telephones and radios relatively cheap and widely available throughout the developed world. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the First World War (1914–1918) were resonating throughout the world. Many characters in the story are named after influential people of the time, for example, Benito Hoover and Bernard Marx.
Huxley was able to use the setting and characters from his science fiction novel to express widely held opinions, particularly the fear of losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future. An early trip to the United States gave Brave New World much of its character. Not only was Huxley outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, sexual promiscuity and the inward-looking nature of many Americans;[4] he had also found a book by Henry Ford on the boat to America. There was a fear of Americanization in Europe, so to see America firsthand, as well as read the ideas and plans of one of its foremost citizens, spurred Huxley to write Brave New World with America in mind. The "feelies" are his response to the "talkie" motion pictures, and the sex-hormone chewing gum is parody of the ubiquitous chewing gum, which was something of a symbol of America at that time. In an article in the 4 May 1935 issue of the Illustrated London News, G. K. Chesterton explained that Huxley was revolting against the 'Age of Utopias'—a time, mostly before the First World War, inspired by what H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were writing about socialism and a World State.
I've read Animal Farm, 1984 and Brave New World.... Communism fell for the same reasons Capitalism hiccups... greed and corruption. Might I add that with the advancement of technology and the possibility that you might be tracked via satellite and be taxed according to mileage traveled along with many other possible methods of privacy intrusion, the world isn't too far off from total robotic control. Big brother doesn't have to watch, machines will do the work for him.
Brave New World:
Although the novel is set in the future, it contains contemporary issues of the early 20th century. The Industrial Revolution had transformed the world. Mass production had made cars, telephones and radios relatively cheap and widely available throughout the developed world. The Russian Revolution of 1917 and the First World War (1914–1918) were resonating throughout the world. Many characters in the story are named after influential people of the time, for example, Benito Hoover and Bernard Marx.
Huxley was able to use the setting and characters from his science fiction novel to express widely held opinions, particularly the fear of losing individual identity in the fast-paced world of the future. An early trip to the United States gave Brave New World much of its character. Not only was Huxley outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, sexual promiscuity and the inward-looking nature of many Americans;[4] he had also found a book by Henry Ford on the boat to America. There was a fear of Americanization in Europe, so to see America firsthand, as well as read the ideas and plans of one of its foremost citizens, spurred Huxley to write Brave New World with America in mind. The "feelies" are his response to the "talkie" motion pictures, and the sex-hormone chewing gum is parody of the ubiquitous chewing gum, which was something of a symbol of America at that time. In an article in the 4 May 1935 issue of the Illustrated London News, G. K. Chesterton explained that Huxley was revolting against the 'Age of Utopias'—a time, mostly before the First World War, inspired by what H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw were writing about socialism and a World State.
Great points, another novel with a similar theme is H G Wells' "Time Machine".
Basically, they make my point, Kanada, that, regardless of which system is operated, greed & corruption will erode the original principles, no matter how laudable.
hipeter924
04-20-2009, 02:54 AM
hipeter, I take it that these versions you mention are just theoretical?
Various economic/political/social theories are excellent until people are put into the equation.
The bulk of these ideas on social reconstruction should stay, where they are now, on college campuses and surrounding coffee shops.
What part about medieval economics do you not understand? A capitalist system with small business as opposed to corporations existed for thousands of years quite well.
Removing the government and corporations from the equation wouldn't cause society to collapse because moral groups would still exist along with the infrastructure and money.
People just freak out when anything with anarchy is mentioned....when anarcho-capitalism means rule through capitalism as opposed to rule through government.
Anyways it hasn't been tried yet but what I do know is the current capitalist, socialist, communist and democratic socialist systems have failed miserably much due to fact few care about the system that runs their world and most only care about how they can personally manipulate its flaws.
KanadaHye
04-20-2009, 02:38 PM
What part about medieval economics do you not understand? A capitalist system with small business as opposed to corporations existed for thousands of years quite well.
Removing the government and corporations from the equation wouldn't cause society to collapse because moral groups would still exist along with the infrastructure and money.
People just freak out when anything with anarchy is mentioned....when anarcho-capitalism means rule through capitalism as opposed to rule through government.
Anyways it hasn't been tried yet but what I do know is the current capitalist, socialist, communist and democratic socialist systems have failed miserably much due to fact few care about the system that runs their world and most only care about how they can personally manipulate its flaws.
Few even realize they are living in a structured system of hierarchy. American's were told to hate "commies" yet the majority of the population didn't even know what "commie" meant. How many people truly understand the underlying principles of Capitalism?
What part about medieval economics do you not understand? A capitalist system with small business as opposed to corporations existed for thousands of years quite well.
Actually, I think I understand medieval economics quite well, it's just that I don't want to live in a medieval society. Do you?Try for a week to deny yourself all modern technologies.......
Modern technologies need mass labour........end of.
Removing the government and corporations from the equation wouldn't cause society to collapse because moral groups would still exist along with the infrastructure and money.
So, these "moral" groups, let's call them "angels", what's their function? Similar to a police force (Spanish Inquisition). How is the infrastructure maintained? Who regulates, controls and supplies the money?
Oh, we're moving on from my understanding of medieval history.
People just freak out when anything with anarchy is mentioned....when anarcho-capitalism means rule through capitalism as opposed to rule through government.
Words that don't belong in the same sentence = anarchy/rule. chalk/cheese.
The current order of things is that Capital already rules the world, governments are effectively powerless. Are you niaive enough to think that international corporations have any loyalties other than to themselves and their profits?
Anyways it hasn't been tried yet but what I do know is the current capitalist, socialist, communist and democratic socialist systems have failed miserably much due to fact few care about the system that runs their world and most only care about how they can personally manipulate its flaws.
Half of the world has suffered from decades of social experimentation in the last 100 years.
Perhaps you should petition for your home city to be the guinea pig. Revert to basic "medieval" levels, be quarantined from the rest of the world totally for a period of say, 2 years. Let's then review the results.
Personally, I think within 6 weeks you'll be dreaming about your PC, TV, air travel, ipod and your campus coffee shop.
Who's to say what system is better or worse? There have been successful societies formed with Socialism, Communism, Capitalism and variations in between. They are merely different ways of distributing the land's natural resources FAIRLY to the people. However, with Capitalism, the wealthy remain wealthy without ever being in the same system as the slaves below them provided they aren't complete morons.
So where are the successful Communist states?
KanadaHye
04-21-2009, 12:56 PM
So where are the successful Communist states?
They weren't evil enough to use nuclear weapons.
KanadaHye
04-21-2009, 01:04 PM
Personally, I think within 6 weeks you'll be dreaming about your PC, TV, air travel, ipod and your campus coffee shop.
None of which you need to survive. However, you do need a roof over your head, and food in your stomach. Let me know how well Capitalism treats you once you leave the comfy confines of your campus and enter the real world.
They weren't evil enough to use nuclear weapons.
Kanada, so successful = non-use of nukes?
North Korea?
Albania?
None of which you need to survive. However, you do need a roof over your head, and food in your stomach. Let me know how well Capitalism treats you once you leave the comfy confines of your campus and enter the real world.
treats me fine, no different from the socialism & communism I've lived under.
Basically, for John Doe, whatever political/social structure is in place, his life is not too different. Obviously there are extreme exceptions, but the majority are the same.
BTW, I've been "off campus" a while. (& these discussions were taking place then too, every generation of students discuss & re-invent a better social structure, encouraged by professors/tutors who spout the same lectures for decades about change but do absolutely nothing except secure their tenure.)
Interesting that rather than answer questions posed, you choose to make rather aggressive statements instead........does that mean you don't have the answers?
hipeter924
04-22-2009, 01:58 AM
Actually, I think I understand medieval economics quite well, it's just that I don't want to live in a medieval society. Do you?Try for a week to deny yourself all modern technologies.......
Modern technologies need mass labour........end of.
So, these "moral" groups, let's call them "angels", what's their function? Similar to a police force (Spanish Inquisition). How is the infrastructure maintained? Who regulates, controls and supplies the money?
Oh, we're moving on from my understanding of medieval history.
Words that don't belong in the same sentence = anarchy/rule. chalk/cheese.
The current order of things is that Capital already rules the world, governments are effectively powerless. Are you niaive enough to think that international corporations have any loyalties other than to themselves and their profits?
Half of the world has suffered from decades of social experimentation in the last 100 years.
Perhaps you should petition for your home city to be the guinea pig. Revert to basic "medieval" levels, be quarantined from the rest of the world totally for a period of say, 2 years. Let's then review the results.
Personally, I think within 6 weeks you'll be dreaming about your PC, TV, air travel, ipod and your campus coffee shop.
1. Medieval economics is part of, but not all medieval society. Nor does the notion of adapting medieval economic methods imply throwing away our technology, that would be crazy especially since even in the medieval era people were constantly adapting and using new technologies.
2. Okay then...you hate the church, amnesty international, and human rights commissions...and instead put your entire trust in your corporate police. Have fun...they won't give a damn about you though. You don't need corporate police to instil morality or order, people can find that order within themselves aka free will, and moral groups can led them in the right direction. This is not the Spanish inquisition...that occurred in a system of government.
3. Governments are not effectively powerless. They tax and regulate...you think business likes that? No they don't. Regardless corporations were formed as a response to deal with the tax and regulation of the market by the forces of government. International corporations have loyalty to their shareholders, and loyalty to their CEO.
Besides all the problems you worry about in today's world are a result of big corporations...instead what I prefer is millions upon millions of small independent companies competing (as a free market should be), and no one holding a massive monopoly like Microsoft or Apple does over computers and their software. If they were small (and thus you can go up to them as human beings) then they could care...big corporations can never.
4. Again Economics does not encompass all society, it is part of a society. Read a dictionary please. Also read point 1 again.
2. Okay then...you hate the church, amnesty international, and human rights commissions...and instead put your entire trust in your corporate police. Have fun...they won't give a damn about you though. You don't need corporate police to instil morality or order, people can find that order within themselves aka free will, and moral groups can led them in the right direction. This is not the Spanish inquisition...that occurred in a system of government.
Why do you think I hate the church? Amnesty International? HRC? Did I say that? NO!
I actually attend church regularly (weekly) I admire Amnesty, HRC is very necessary.
What I do dislike is people reading, not digesting but making their own assumptions.
3. Governments are not effectively powerless. They tax and regulate...you think business likes that? No they don't. Regardless corporations were formed as a response to deal with the tax and regulation of the market by the forces of government. International corporations have loyalty to their shareholders, and loyalty to their CEO.
Governments tax/regulate.......companies lobby those governments for their own ends. Companies re-locate from countries which don't respond to their lobbying, companies pay taxes in the most preferential country for them. How many CEOs have the loyalty of their company? Ultimately.....not many, if any!
Governments actually regulate and set different taxes in response to business, not the other way.
Besides all the problems you worry about in today's world are a result of big corporations...instead what I prefer is millions upon millions of small independent companies competing (as a free market should be), and no one holding a massive monopoly like Microsoft or Apple does over computers and their software. If they were small (and thus you can go up to them as human beings) then they could care...big corporations can never.
Again, you make an assumption, incorrectly. I mentioned large corporations in the context of the thread and smaller societies. Duh.
Small compact companies would be a very nice way forward, unfortunately, many of the products and processes we take for granted today, need mass labour and/or mass investment.
4. Again Economics does not encompass all society, it is part of a society. Read a dictionary please. Also read point 1 again.
This point is quite unnecessary and quite unnecessarily tries to be offensive.
Once more : aka = also known as (usually used for personal aliases), I think you use it mistakenly instead of : e.g. = for example.
Please re-arrange this sentence :
Stones, houses, people, throw, in, glass, shouldn't.:)
What part about medieval economics do you not understand? A capitalist system with small business as opposed to corporations existed for thousands of years quite well.
Please read !!!!!
Economics not Society!!!!!:wave:
KanadaHye
04-22-2009, 05:14 AM
Kanada, so successful = non-use of nukes?
North Korea?
Albania?
When a system is backed by the largest military force in the world, people have no choice but to accept it. North Korea, Albania, Cuba, etc... are all symptoms of oppression from greater powers. It's not their system that makes them unsuccessful. Success also means different things to different people. How many countries tied to Capitalism are TRULY independent?
When a system is backed by the largest military force in the world, people have no choice but to accept it. North Korea, Albania, Cuba, etc... are all symptoms of oppression from greater powers. It's not their system that makes them unsuccessful. Success also means different things to different people. How many countries tied to Capitalism are TRULY independent?
I doubt any Capitalist countries are TRULY independent, far from it. But you posted "successful" Communist countries? Which are they?
BTW, I'm actually a Socialist......
KanadaHye
04-22-2009, 05:48 AM
I doubt any Capitalist countries are TRULY independent, far from it. But you posted "successful" Communist countries? Which are they?
BTW, I'm actually a Socialist......
I'm not really sure what I am. I believe hard work should be rewarded. However, I also believe everyone whether rich or poor should be entitled to a decent education and healthcare. Canada was heading in the right direction at one point....
Mizzike
04-23-2009, 06:24 PM
I'm not really sure what I am. I believe hard work should be rewarded. However, I also believe everyone whether rich or poor should be entitled to a decent education and healthcare. Canada was heading in the right direction at one point....
I guess you'd be what they'd define as a "social capitalist", similar to what they have in much of Europe.
hipeter924
04-28-2009, 04:55 AM
Why do you think I hate the church? Amnesty International? HRC? Did I say that? NO!
I actually attend church regularly (weekly) I admire Amnesty, HRC is very necessary.
What I do dislike is people reading, not digesting but making their own assumptions.
Governments tax/regulate.......companies lobby those governments for their own ends. Companies re-locate from countries which don't respond to their lobbying, companies pay taxes in the most preferential country for them. How many CEOs have the loyalty of their company? Ultimately.....not many, if any!
Governments actually regulate and set different taxes in response to business, not the other way.
Again, you make an assumption, incorrectly. I mentioned large corporations in the context of the thread and smaller societies. Duh.
Small compact companies would be a very nice way forward, unfortunately, many of the products and processes we take for granted today, need mass labour and/or mass investment.
This point is quite unnecessary and quite unnecessarily tries to be offensive.
Once more : aka = also known as (usually used for personal aliases), I think you use it mistakenly instead of : e.g. = for example.
Please re-arrange this sentence :
Stones, houses, people, throw, in, glass, shouldn't.:)
1. That still fails to answer the question. Why do we need police to instil social order? Why can't be rely on moral groups and free will. Which would gain greater acceptance than a policeman telling you can't do things...because if you believe in something you are less likely to work against it.
2. Actually no. Government imposed regulation. I think its bizarre that you could even suggest corporations develop regulation and tax...they don't...unless you are living in state capitalism like Singapore or China. As for CEO's they have to have some loyalty from the company or they wouldn't be a CEO (head of the company), duh!
3. Wrong there as well. Tons of psychological studies have been done showing that individuals are more productive than groups. As for mass production and investment...who is to say a person can't just sell their stage of the production to someone else?
4. Your last point doesn't make sense. Will leave it at that. We have modern economics, medieval economics, and so forth.
1. That still fails to answer the question. Why do we need police to instil social order? Why can't be rely on moral groups and free will. Which would gain greater acceptance than a policeman telling you can't do things...because if you believe in something you are less likely to work against it.
Didn't see a question, but unfortunately history tells us that all people aren't the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with.
2. Actually no. Government imposed regulation. I think its bizarre that you could even suggest corporations develop regulation and tax...they don't...unless you are living in state capitalism like Singapore or China. As for CEO's they have to have some loyalty from the company or they wouldn't be a CEO (head of the company), duh!
Example, I know, very well, a VP for a US multi-national who are considering closing some Scandinavian plants purely for reasons of tax and regulations. Why do you think governments offer tax-breaks to attract investment? A CEO is still an employee, I have a certain amount of loyalty from my employer so does the janitor, but it's not infinite even for the CEO.
3. Wrong there as well. Tons of psychological studies have been done showing that individuals are more productive than groups. As for mass production and investment...who is to say a person can't just sell their stage of the production to someone else?
Productivity of individuals as opposed to groups is not my point. Scale of production is and some products and raw materials need an awful lot of labor and investment. For example look at mineral industries or construction materials.
hipeter924
04-29-2009, 03:53 AM
Didn't see a question, but unfortunately history tells us that all people aren't the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with.
Example, I know, very well, a VP for a US multi-national who are considering closing some Scandinavian plants purely for reasons of tax and regulations. Why do you think governments offer tax-breaks to attract investment? A CEO is still an employee, I have a certain amount of loyalty from my employer so does the janitor, but it's not infinite even for the CEO.
Productivity of individuals as opposed to groups is not my point. Scale of production is and some products and raw materials need an awful lot of labor and investment. For example look at mineral industries or construction materials.
1. Excuse me? Are you blind or something? I quite bluntly said earlier moral groups include Amnesty International, the Human Rights commission, and so forth, not just religious groups but rational people who follow agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A huge number if not most people agree with these groups.
As for idealism (dictionary.com):
i⋅de⋅al⋅ist
/aɪˈdiəlɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahy-dee-uh-list] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc.
2. a visionary or impractical person.
3. a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are.
4. a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
5. a person who accepts the doctrines of idealism.
So you don't believe that we should have a world run by noble principles, purposes and goals? Then you must be a very lacking mind.
2. You proved my point...they are closing down because of tax and regulations. They don't like them...
They offer tax breaks for investment because they want to stimulate economic growth...if that means tax breaks for companies they will do it, also the governments have to stay competitive with other governments.
CEO loyalty doesn't have to be infinite...just the majority of the board has to support him.
3. Actually it is your point. You are claiming that individuals alone won't have enough resources and labour to do tasks. This I agree with you. But you failed to understand my point still.
1. Person A plants some trees
2. Person B transports all these logs and so forth
3. Person C processes the logs
4. People (furniture makers) use the processed timbers
So we have this dilemma. How can they get the equipment to make furniture and process and transport it without being a massive corporation with tons of money?
Well quite simple actually. Person A, Person B and Person C find investment from all the people who want furniture to be made. This is not a corporation being formed this is millions of companies contracting out for furniture. So all you are doing is getting money from millions of small businesses who independently of each other want furniture as opposed to a big corporate group.
As for labour itself. There is such a thing as a production line. Person A gives something to Person B which gives something to person C, and Person D transports it all. These people can work independently and sell their stage of production to each other. For example:
Person A makes object and sells it to Person B
Person B makes addition to object and sells it to Person C
Person C paints the object and sells it to Person E who wants to use the object.
Person D is paid by all three people to transport the object from Person A to B to C to E
Simple. ;)
1. Excuse me? Are you blind or something? I quite bluntly said earlier moral groups include Amnesty International, the Human Rights commission, and so forth, not just religious groups but rational people who follow agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A huge number if not most people agree with these groups.
But what of those who don't, (I do agree with them by the way)
So you don't believe that we should have a world run by noble principles, purposes and goals? Then you must be a very lacking mind.
Read my post here, my view is that unfortunately, a world run on noble principles, purposes & goals is practically a non-starter because of individuals/groups who would see such a society as a cow to be milked.
We're singing from the same songsheet here, I'm simply pointing out the probable weaknesses in such a society.
2. You proved my point...they are closing down because of tax and regulations. They don't like them... Actually they're negotiating tax breaks.
They offer tax breaks for investment because they want to stimulate economic growth...if that means tax breaks for companies they will do it, also the governments have to stay competitive with other governments.
You mean governments sometimes act like, like, hell, like companies!!??
So, local small-scale manufacturers, okay.
small scale production and processes.
slow transportation (No cars/trucks/ships/planes)
Nice, cottages industries........I like them, use them when I can.
[QUOTE]
So we have this dilemma. How can they get the equipment to make furniture and process and transport it without being a massive corporation with tons of money?
Well quite simple actually. Person A, Person B and Person C find investment from all the people who want furniture to be made. This is not a corporation being formed this is millions of companies contracting out for furniture. So all you are doing is getting money from millions of small businesses who independently of each other want furniture as opposed to a big corporate group.
As for labour itself. There is such a thing as a production line. Person A gives something to Person B which gives something to person C, and Person D transports it all. These people can work independently and sell their stage of production to each other. For example:
Person A makes object and sells it to Person B
Person B makes addition to object and sells it to Person C
Person C paints the object and sells it to Person E who wants to use the object.
Person D is paid by all three people to transport the object from Person A to B to C to E
Simple. ;)
The system is simple as you explain it, but what about the fabric required which you touch upon........money, so we'll need banks, mints and exchanges for currency. These are 'non-producing' groups so they need to turn a profit on the loans they made to the end users who upfronted the costs of the furniture. The more profit they make, they can increase by expanding and, and and, hey ,look there's Wall Street.
We can look at transport also, the transport company will eventually look at ways of transporting the largest, most profitable cargo, mmm, trucks are needed, steel, gasoline,rubber, asphalt, glass,etc.
What's the smallest steel rolling mill that could profitably run? How are the raw materials sourced and mined?
Didn't see a question, but unfortunately history tells us that all people aren't the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with.
Hipeter, check the bold.
KanadaHye
04-29-2009, 05:55 AM
Didn't see a question, but unfortunately history tells us that all people aren't the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with.
So I guess the police, government and all those who are given authority over the majority are the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with ;). What we are trying to say is if we were living in TRUE democracies, the people would have power over the government, not vice versa. In order for people to have power, they would have to have the ability to determine their own future and not be led through life dragged by corporate and government decisions.
So I guess the police, government and all those who are given authority over the majority are the idealistic moral-driven groups we'd all like to live with ;). What we are trying to say is if we were living in TRUE democracies, the people would have power over the government, not vice versa. In order for people to have power, they would have to have the ability to determine their own future and not be led through life dragged by corporate and government decisions.
Trouble is that politics became an industry for the pigs with their snouts in the trough and not a vocation.
hipeter924
04-29-2009, 03:41 PM
Hipeter, check the bold.
Actually the world today was made by idealists...so your point fails.
Read my post here, my view is that unfortunately, a world run on noble principles, purposes & goals is practically a non-starter because of individuals/groups who would see such a society as a cow to be milked.
We're singing from the same songsheet here, I'm simply pointing out the probable weaknesses in such a society.
Every view and opinion today was developed by idealists...the very fact you have democracy or dictatorship or modern capitalism is due to idealists thinking about society and figuring solutions to its problems. ;)
But what of those who don't, (I do agree with them by the way)
They go to where they go today...prison or rehabilitation. :evil:
Actually they're negotiating tax breaks.
That's why I prefer anarcho-capitalism...no tax..no worries. :cool:
So, local small-scale manufacturers, okay.
small scale production and processes.
slow transportation (No cars/trucks/ships/planes)
Nice, cottages industries........I like them, use them when I can.
1. It's not the size of the facilities that matter...but how many facilities there are. Individuals produce more than groups per capita...the more people you add to a group...the decreased level of productivity. It would be larger scale than today's corporations because production would require millions of small companies (consisting of 1 or 2 people each) as opposed to a big corporation.
2. As for the funding...as I said before people invest. Think about it? You want a new chair...you have to pay for it correct? So you do pay for it. You will invest in each part of production for the chair. Which would give you a cheaper price...and a better quality service, as today you are forced to buy a product whole...and you are not allowed to check up on each stage of production as a consumer. Also the biggest issue is freedom of choice...there is vast consumer choice under an anarcho-capitalist economy...today you are limited to a few big corporations that control everything.
3. Missed the point again....10,000 people could invest in a airplane because it is mutually beneficial to all their businesses to have one to transport their goods. So the fact is that it is people are uniting to buy things they can't afford alone...but at the same time staying independent companies.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.