How to fix the economy

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

Lol, wrong.

Yes, it is called a free market, where banks don't get bailed out by people robbed at gunpoint and so have an incentive not to lend out at 7 x your wage.

I agree, but the question was how to fix the economy, which is by massive reduction in violence aka cutting back the size and power of the State.

What will actually happen is that control freaks like jonb2 will get their commie paradise.

They are the figurehead which helps maintain the illusion that the government actually exists.

The sole purpose of the government is to extract on behalf of the politically well-connected the maximum amount of resources from the populace, while minimising the chance that they will successfully rebel.

Welcome to the world according to Locke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals

[Locke]

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

Welcome to the world according to Locke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals

Corporations are a branch of the government, so you are simply supporting my position.

 

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

People that love money will do anything for it. Always will. The more money they have, the more corrupt they become.

Which is why we cannot have an institution which claims the exclusive moral right to initiate violence against peaceful people.

1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

It's the reason why your Ayn Rand wet dream cannot ever work.

You seem not to know the first thing about my position, although I have laid it out often and clearly.

Initiating violence against peaceful people is always evil.

Everything else flows from that.

If anyone disagrees with me, it is because they think it is ever right to shoot innocent people.

That is the bottom line.

If you believe you have an example of a government action which does not have a direct chain of causality to shooting innocent people, I can break down for you how it does.

Similarly, if you believe that peaceful (non-government) actions are ever initiating violence (some people have been brainwashed into "property is theft"), I can break down and demonstrate how they are not.

[jonb2]

3 hours ago, Locke said:

Corporations are a branch of the government, so you are simply supporting my position.

 

Which is why we cannot have an institution which claims the exclusive moral right to initiate violence against peaceful people.

You seem not to know the first thing about my position, although I have laid it out often and clearly.

Initiating violence against peaceful people is always evil.

Everything else flows from that.

If anyone disagrees with me, it is because they think it is ever right to shoot innocent people.

That is the bottom line.

If you believe you have an example of a government action which does not have a direct chain of causality to shooting innocent people, I can break down for you how it does.

Similarly, if you believe that peaceful (non-government) actions are ever initiating violence (some people have been brainwashed into "property is theft"), I can break down and demonstrate how they are not.

Governments are a branch of corporations. And this is the problem. Revolving door corruption and lobbying. Money again.

In your deregulated world. A dystopia of private police forces, private prisons, private education, private infrastructure and private healthcare. It's the men with the most money that dictate to all. The men with the most guns. The men with the biggest drugs network. Life will be dirt cheap.

Let's have a look at countries with little governance:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-dangerous-countries/

And you're complaining about tax being violent?

[FANG]

6 hours ago, LetsBuild said:

I was thinking this myself, would take a very brave self sacrificing politician to do this - and they don’t exist.

I think that they will also have to claw back the billions of tax that's been evaded in offshore accounts first.   

[Locke]

19 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

A dystopia of private police forces, private prisons, private education, private infrastructure and private healthcare.

As opposed to the absolute dog (and rapidly declining) public versions of those we have now?

20 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

The men with the most guns.

AKA the government

20 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

The men with the biggest drugs network.

AKA the government

22 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Life will be dirt cheap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47056339

22 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Let's have a look at countries with little governance:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-dangerous-countries/

Do you think that the governments of the West going in there using our stolen cash and blowing up brown children might have had an effect on the regions? Yes, I know you're going to say "Well clearly a government is needed to protect you from other governments". This is identical to saying that women in forced marriages should accept being raped daily by their husbands in order to protect them from being raped weekly by strangers.

At some point, you need to start presenting arguments which support your position and not mine.

26 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

And you're complaining about tax being violent?

Nope, I am stating the fact that it is morally indistinguishable from robbery.

[jonb2]

5 minutes ago, Locke said:

As opposed to the absolute dog (and rapidly declining) public versions of those we have now?

AKA the government

AKA the government

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47056339

Do you think that the governments of the West going in there using our stolen cash and blowing up brown children might have had an effect on the regions? Yes, I know you're going to say "Well clearly a government is needed to protect you from other governments". This is identical to saying that women in forced marriages should accept being raped daily by their husbands in order to protect them from being raped weekly by strangers.

At some point, you need to start presenting arguments which support your position and not mine.

Nope, I am stating the fact that it is morally indistinguishable from robbery.

All our institutions have been purposely de-funded to make way for privatisation. Let's have a look at the consequence of Locke's World.

"Purdue Pharma and other companies promoted their opioid products heavily. They lobbied lawmakers, sponsored continuing medical-education courses, funded professional and patient organizations and sent representatives to visit individual doctors. During all of these activities, they emphasized the safety, efficacy and low potential for addiction of prescription opioids."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02686-2

As to guns and drugs. If the government have the most, why do we have such a massive a problem on the street? Who the feck is going to pay your private police force to clean it up? You, on your own?

The reason the government get involved in war is to support the massively powerful corporations making weapons for profit.

"Al Yamamah (Arabic: اليمامة‎, lit. 'The Dove') is the name of a series of record arms sales by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia, paid for by the delivery of up to 600,000 barrels (95,000 m³) of crude oil per day to the UK government. The prime contractor has been BAE Systems and its predecessor British Aerospace."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-uk-trade-yemen-war-crimes-a9073836.html

Governments are owned by corporations.

 

[Locke]

4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

They lobbied lawmakers

The government

4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

sponsored continuing medical-education courses

The government

4 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

sent representatives to visit individual doctors

The government

5 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

The reason the government get involved in war is to support the massively powerful corporations making weapons for profit.

Yes, that is my point

5 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Governments are owned by corporations.

No, they are the same thing. Corporations are a part of the government.

7 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

As to guns and drugs. If the government have the most, why do we have such a massive a problem on the street?

The government

1. Uses guns (or hyperviolence) to punish people for manufacturing, selling and using drugs. This means that only criminals profit off of drugs, which is why there is so much violence around them
2. Steals from non-criminals, pushing down their fertility rates and economic influence in society. Evolution (in the darwinian sense) towards a criminal archetype because...
3. it gives this stolen cash to irresponsible people (single mothers, criminals etc), pushing up their fertility rate and economic influence on society

No government = no scope for a black market = less economic opportunity for irresponsible people

11 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Who the feck is going to pay your private police force to clean it up?

As stated above, the problem will automatically be smaller to begin with.

I, and I'm sure most people, would be happy to pay for a patrol and rapid response team. As weapons of all sorts will be available, it will be extremely risky to rob productive people, who may well kill you in response. 

 

15 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

"Al Yamamah (Arabic: اليمامة‎, lit. 'The Dove') is the name of a series of record arms sales by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia, paid for by the delivery of up to 600,000 barrels (95,000 m³) of crude oil per day to the UK government. The prime contractor has been BAE Systems and its predecessor British Aerospace."

You seem extremely confused. Are you trying to convince me that governments are a bad thing?

[Simhadri]

17 minutes ago, Locke said:

The government

1. Uses guns (or hyperviolence) to punish people for manufacturing, selling and using drugs. This means that only criminals profit off of drugs, which is why there is so much violence around them
2. Steals from non-criminals, pushing down their fertility rates and economic influence in society. Evolution (in the darwinian sense) towards a criminal archetype because...
3. it gives this stolen cash to irresponsible people (single mothers, criminals etc), pushing up their fertility rate and economic influence on society

Perfect. Agreed 100%. But if you say above things on public domain, they will accuse you as racist, bigot, anti-social element.

[markyh]

On 02/04/2020 at 10:34, regprentice said:

Politicians serve no purpose. 

What's the point of  putting men of the people in charge, why not simply put the people themselves in charge via an app or terminal that would allow people to sit down for an hour once a week and vote themselves on that weeks parliamentary business.

1-2-1 representation, one vote per person, no more voting in Eton schoolboys who vote for the party whip instead of the local electorate 

Then you would quickly discover how racist people are, I would vote to pass a law to have black youths in big cities under curfew after 5pm-8am and weekends, on a be shot in sight policy of breaking the curfew.  Then pretty sure deaths by stabbing would stop. 

[longgone]

21 minutes ago, markyh said:

Then you would quickly discover how racist people are, I would vote to pass a law to have black youths in big cities under curfew after 5pm-8am and weekends, on a be shot in sight policy of breaking the curfew.  Then pretty sure deaths by stabbing would stop. 

?

[jonb2]

19 hours ago, Locke said:

The government

The government

The government

Yes, that is my point

No, they are the same thing. Corporations are a part of the government.

The government

1. Uses guns (or hyperviolence) to punish people for manufacturing, selling and using drugs. This means that only criminals profit off of drugs, which is why there is so much violence around them
2. Steals from non-criminals, pushing down their fertility rates and economic influence in society. Evolution (in the darwinian sense) towards a criminal archetype because...
3. it gives this stolen cash to irresponsible people (single mothers, criminals etc), pushing up their fertility rate and economic influence on society

No government = no scope for a black market = less economic opportunity for irresponsible people

As stated above, the problem will automatically be smaller to begin with.

I, and I'm sure most people, would be happy to pay for a patrol and rapid response team. As weapons of all sorts will be available, it will be extremely risky to rob productive people, who may well kill you in response. 

 

You seem extremely confused. Are you trying to convince me that governments are a bad thing?

The worst governments are lackeys of the super-rich and mega-corps, the footsoldiers, whose sole purpose is to enable deregulation to favour making the gilded elites more money. No point in killing the squaddies - kill the fecking generals. This lot

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

^ ... and since the title of the thread is "How to fix the economy".

The best governments prevent this onward march of enrichment for the very few by regulation and law.

There will always be governance. In your world, government (or rather dictatorship) would be the billionaires in their bunkers surrounded by a highly paid mercenaries. Mercenaries who, BTW, have no allegiance to anybody except the highest bidder. There will always be someone with more money than you. Your whole credo depends on human rationality. Libertarianism takes no heed of greed. And because of this, it's merely a house of cards. Winner takes all, and there can only be one. It's politics of the Mafioso where the most powerful Godfather controls all.

Who's productive? The virus has shown that the man that delivers your food and nurses your grandma is worth as much, if not more than, a hedge fund boss. Who decides who is productive?

Do you think Mad Max is a documentary?

 

[Manteiga3]

They have to drop the costs of starting up new small and medium sized business, if the economy is going to survive. This means making things easier and lower risk. A significant amount of the risk is due to high rents.

allowing property/ land/rents fall to a level that allows businesses to be profitable is the only way.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

58 minutes ago, Manteiga3 said:

They have to drop the costs of starting up new small and medium sized business, if the economy is going to survive. This means making things easier and lower risk. A significant amount of the risk is due to high rents.

allowing property/ land/rents fall to a level that allows businesses to be profitable is the only way.

Businesses don't cost any money to start up. Unless you need lots of equipment/plant. And little the government is going to do will help you with that.

Rents aren't really that high, or high risk. If you start a micro business you can get a serviced office for £500 a month, on a months notice, although most people would just do that out of their spare room until they were generating cash flow.

What costs real money is people.

[Locke]

7 hours ago, jonb2 said:

The best governments prevent this onward march of enrichment for the very few by regulation and law.

Name a single one which has achieved this. The US started out as specifically "by the people, for the people" and it has become the biggest, most controlling government in the history of the planet.

7 hours ago, jonb2 said:

deregulation to favour making the gilded elites more money

If deregulation favours the elites so much, why do the biggest corporations push for more and more of it? The nimblest, smallest businesses have the biggest advantage in the freest markets.

7 hours ago, jonb2 said:

Who decides who is productive?

The customer.

 

7 hours ago, jonb2 said:

In your world

You haven't refuted that initiating violence against peaceful people is always evil. It isn't "my world", any more than using mathematics makes astrophysics "my science"

Perhaps you simply are evil and we are dancing around that central point.

[Locke]

5 hours ago, Manteiga3 said:

They have to drop the costs of starting up new small and medium sized business, if the economy is going to survive. This means making things easier and lower risk. A significant amount of the risk is due to high rents.

allowing property/ land/rents fall to a level that allows businesses to be profitable is the only way.

Yep. Cut taxes, cut regulation, cut benefits.

That is not going to happen and we will see increases in all of these until society completely collapses.

[godnose]

On 02/04/2020 at 19:44, Locke said:

No government = no scope for a black market = less economic opportunity for irresponsible people

It's always the same with you. Honestly, drug manufacturers and dealers are not violent because the government makes them so or because a black market has been created as an effect of prohibition.

Drug manufacturers and dealers operate in a world outside of the law (a world you seem to advocate). If there was no government basically all business would be operated like drugs businesses work now. Drug dealers don't love drugs or care about drugs, they just want to run a business and make money fast and with relatively less work. Take away the government and housebuilders, clothing makers, car manufacturers, food businesses would be operating quite the same: murdering competitors, destorying competitor's products and businesses, and taking over eachother's operations with violence perpetually. The most violent and ruthless operators would win out.

If you think that you could survive in such a world then you are deluded. Watch the show Top Boy (Top Boy: Summerhouse first, and then Top Boy) on Netflix and get a sense for how they - people in the drugs business - do business and what motivates them and the strategies they employ to out compete eachother. Each gang is basically headed by one or two capitalists that recruit wage labourers who do all the street work and then they war against eachother for the market. And it's not drugs that make this happen per se, it's the fact that the commodity they are selling is outside of law and the sellers of course can't have legal recourse if they get robbed, so they are vulnerable to that and thus need to arm themsleves, it's just a constant armed struggle between rivals who will play as dirty as they need to survive.

Also try playing the computer game Rust. You can just look at a video of it being played on YouTube to see how you would be obliterated within no time at all living in such a world.

[jonb2]

10 hours ago, Locke said:

Name a single one which has achieved this. The US started out as specifically "by the people, for the people" and it has become the biggest, most controlling government in the history of the planet.

If deregulation favours the elites so much, why do the biggest corporations push for more and more of it? The nimblest, smallest businesses have the biggest advantage in the freest markets.

The customer.

 

You haven't refuted that initiating violence against peaceful people is always evil. It isn't "my world", any more than using mathematics makes astrophysics "my science"

Perhaps you simply are evil and we are dancing around that central point.

Are you on drugs? China is the biggest, most controlling government in the world. I agree that American government are increasingly bad, but they are run by Wall Street and the mega-corps - not for the average Joe. Government is increasingly hard as money rules the roost. But I would say the Scandinavians come closest - New Zealand seems to be doing well. These countries are high on the 'happiness index' too. But then humanity doesn't exist as a thing in your weird dust-bowl world.

Oh yes, small business. The moment they manage anything they are gobbled up by the mega-corps. Something you approve of no doubt. Try competing against the continued favoured deregulation deconstruction and lobbying weight of big agriculture, big pharma, big healthcare, Amazon, Wall Street, Google and Facebook and come back to me. Resources dear boy. Your worship of money and power means small business doesn't stand a chance. You think government is the problem, when in fact it's the greed of money lovers. I say again, most Anglo-Saxon governments are now owned by money. Free markets can be bent and will be as long as greed drives them - unfettered by regulation.

So the customer decides? Another nice theory.

Who will stop a cartel forming in your free market world? Who will stop the sale of dangerous goods to turn an extra buck? Who will stop a company lying about their products? Who will stop a state of total propaganda by the billionaires and their media outlets (already bad enough)?

All violence is by motivation. The want of money is the root of all violence.

I'm evil? A question coming from somebody that shoots first and asks questions afterwards? A person that wants to see eternal blood on the streets? Someone that supports a system for the super-rich to excel and extend their realm? Someone that thinks pitching 95% of the world's population against each other is a great idea?

Someone that yearns for the age of the Neanderthal.

There will always be someone running things. A government, with all its flaws and capture by elites, is better than a fully armed psycho warlord with his own tribe.

 

[Biggus]

'After World War II the German economy lay in shambles. The war, along with Hitler’s scorched-earth policy, had destroyed 20 percent of all housing. Food production per capita in 1947 was only 51 percent of its level in 1938, and the official food ration set by the occupying powers varied between 1,040 and 1,550 calories per day. Industrial output in 1947 was only one-third its 1938 level. Moreover, a large percentage of Germany’s working-age men were dead. At the time, observers thought that West Germany would have to be the biggest client of the U.S. welfare state; yet, twenty years later its economy was envied by most of the world. And less than ten years after the war people already were talking about the German economic miracle....

...

The effect on the West German economy was electric. Wallich wrote: “The spirit of the country changed overnight. The gray, hungry, dead-looking figures wandering about the streets in their everlasting search for food came to life” (p. 71).

hops on Monday, June 21, were filled with goods as people realized that the money they sold them for would be worth much more than the old money. Walter Heller wrote that the reforms “quickly reestablished money as the preferred medium of exchange and monetary incentives as the prime mover of economic activity”

Output continued to grow by leaps and bounds after 1948. By 1958 industrial production was more than four times its annual rate for the six months in 1948 preceding currency reform. Industrial production per capita was more than three times as high. East Germany’s communist economy, by contrast, stagnated.'

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html

 

[Biggus]

 

 

[GregBowman]

3 hours ago, jonb2 said:

All violence is by motivation. The want of money is the root of all violence.

I'm evil? A question coming from somebody that shoots first and asks questions afterwards? A person that wants to see eternal blood on the streets? Someone that supports a system for the super-rich to excel and extend their realm? Someone that thinks pitching 95% of the world's population against each other is a great idea?

Someone that yearns for the age of the Neanderthal.

There will always be someone running things. A government, with all its flaws and capture by elites, is better than a fully armed psycho warlord with his own tribe.

 

The trouble with our friend Locke is he thinks it will be different people in his little people paradise - it won’t it will be the same  people totally unfettered - it’s Human nature 

Our system for all its flaws works generally - Nightingale hospital built in 9 days would the warlord do that in the Mad Max scenario ? 
 

The meek will never inherit the earth all we can is try to keep a lid on the power crazy psychos that have been with us since we first stood up and since we are chimps before 

Edited April 4, 2020 by GregBowman

[zilly]

On 02/04/2020 at 12:44, Locke said:

The sole purpose of the government is to extract on behalf of the politically well-connected the maximum amount of resources from the populace, while minimising the chance that they will successfully rebel.

You see Locke that really, really ISN'T the sole purpose of government - that's just the fundamentalist position you've been brainwashed into taking.

And because you accept false premises such as the one above as absolute truths - truths you get very, very angry about if challenged upon (a common trait amongst all religious fundamentalists) - every argument you make based upon these false premises is basically a bunch of nonsense I'm afraid.

After all - if you want to live in a society where there's little to no governance, no welfare, easy tax evasion etc. you can do it in an instant - there are stacks of them to choose from all over the globe. Go and give it a try!

[dugsbody]

On 02/04/2020 at 10:49, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Bail out/inflate away the debt of those living hand to mouth.

Take the money from those with savings (because by definition saving is a want and not a need) and give it to those that don't have it.

Retrospectively tax pension funds (because those taxes can't be avoided).

 

Basically permanently break society because no-one will ever save again. What would the point be if you can so fundamentally break the social contract like this?

 

[scottbeard]

On 02/04/2020 at 10:34, regprentice said:

Politicians serve no purpose. 

What's the point of  putting men of the people in charge, why not simply put the people themselves in charge via an app or terminal that would allow people to sit down for an hour once a week and vote themselves on that weeks parliamentary business.

1-2-1 representation, one vote per person, no more voting in Eton schoolboys who vote for the party whip instead of the local electorate 

Surely the Brexit debacle tells you that’s a disaster?

Taking decision making away from politicians advised by experts and driven by data, and deliver it to people who believe what they see on the side of a bus.

We’d be lucky not to be in anarchy by Christmas.

[regprentice]

54 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Surely the Brexit debacle tells you that’s a disaster?

Taking decision making away from politicians advised by experts and driven by data, and deliver it to people who believe what they see on the side of a bus.

Politicians only ever compromise, and compromise is failure. 

I think the hard part, and what would eventually become the 'politics' of the future would be writing the questions for the public to vote on. I'd imagine you would 'drill down' into an issue over a few weeks. 

In week 1 you might ask should immigration be higher/lower/the same

If the answer is lower then In week 2 you might ask should immigration be 0 a week, 500 a week 1000 a week then

once you've achieved a concensus then you could define what acceptable immigration was, perhaps by region of origin or by specialism

I believe personally no Law should be left on the statute books if its less than 75% effective. Being able to pass legislation past the public quickly and agreeing concensus in weeks would be key to achieving that. 

So, for example, I'm pretty confident less than 75% of speeders get punished. So in 'my world' I'd bring the speeding regulations back to parliament again and again until the law that was agreed could be clearly shown to be at the very least 75% effective. It appears at the moment the conviction rate for most crimes is less than 5%....

[scottbeard]

1 hour ago, regprentice said:

Politicians only ever compromise, and compromise is failure. 

I think the hard part, and what would eventually become the 'politics' of the future would be writing the questions for the public to vote on. I'd imagine you would 'drill down' into an issue over a few weeks. 

In week 1 you might ask should immigration be higher/lower/the same

If the answer is lower then In week 2 you might ask should immigration be 0 a week, 500 a week 1000 a week then

once you've achieved a concensus then you could define what acceptable immigration was, perhaps by region of origin or by specialism

What you're saying makes no sense at all.  So compromise is failure, yet your iterative "drill down" is building precisely that.  Ask 30 million people what the ideal amount of immigration is and you will get a variety of answers from 0 to Unlimited.  So whatever you end up with will, inevitably, be a compromise.

1 hour ago, Ghostly said:

Ah, the sweet lament of the bitter remoaner.

I wasn't really bothered that much about Brexit either way, actually.  I did vote Remain, yes, but I'm certainly not bitter about anything - had the wind blown a different way I could have voted Leave.  However, it is abundantly clear that most voters, both Leave and Remain - and including myself - were not equipped to make that decision.  The bus example I quoted is just a neat famous example of it.