What to do in the mad, mad world?

Of course tax cuts benefit the rich the most, if you pay little or no taxes there is little you can receive from a tax cut.

I would simply like to see government spending cut to equal revenues or less, and the elimination of all public debt in a reasonable period of time, not greater government spending and unsustainable debt and future liabilities. That is something the youngest among us should support more than I, who have nothing to lose in either event, while all future generations do.

 

Where is the wealth going to come from for government as you propose to provide for a growing population of equals?

Four pages is more than necessary, try keeping it down to a single post without so many FONT lines. I have some bugs that require attention so don't have as much free time until I've fixed them.

 

Indie

I see that you are once more posting in politics so I presume your bug problem is over and so will now reply to your last posts.

*

In the UK to be a member of a political campaigning group or institution usually involves some kind of subscription or fee, be that group or institution a charity, political party or union.
But such small contributions are not likely to corrupt the group or institution.
*

Why not? I mean a lot of laws and regulations that protect the public good are by definition enhancing people’s quality of life.
From the laws that protect our property, protect us from physical or mental harassments, protect us from unscrupulous traders, make sure our food, air and water are clean and so on and so on…
*

I have explained at length why I believe neo-liberal policies are at fault - can you explain you own thinking?
*

I know – you are a ‘free marketeer’ but you still have not addressed the many criticism levelled at your views.

*

Markets have existed it is just that no ‘free market’ has existed as presented by free marketeers as the answer to the worlds problems. As I’ve explained at length such a ‘free market’ is a myth, a fantasy and that is why you thinking and ideas are deeply, if not fatally, flawed.
*

That doesn’t address the criticism - as pointed out in the type of system you seem to be promoting wealth would gain the power to fix a tax rate that would work in its favour to the detriment of anyone else.

*

And again you don’t address what was raised and try to misdirect by asking a tangential question.

I explained at length why your views are flawed and since you don’t put up any counter argument the only conclusion must be that you accept the criticism as it stands and realises that your views are indeed flawed.

 

Indie

Yes I know you do – but just saying so isn’t an argument it is the lack of an argument can you actually explain your thinking?
*

And once again you are not addressing what I’ve raised is more evasion.
*

LOL – but since it seems anything to the left of your far right views you see as ‘socialism’.

I mean if you think having a balanced political system, is socialism

That a democratic system is socialism

That having a regulated market that works in the interests of all in society, is socialism

And that a Keynesian type economic system is socialism

You really must have a twisted view of the world, I goes some way to explaining why so many of your ideas seem so flawed.

*

Again you don’t address what I raised - that Reagan was actually following a perverse Keynesian economic policy – if he’d actually embraced a better form of Keynesian economic practice it would have served US a lot better.

*

And again this is not answering the question – you just seem to be saying that anything you don’t like is ‘socialism’ and socialism is bad because you think it is bad and so you don’t have to debate in anything like an honest way because you are right and so by definition any other views is wrong.

Sorry debate doesn’t work that way if you cannot defend your ideas from criticisms then they just seem like bad ideas.

 

Indie

This again does not address what I’ve said to repeat - That is what a house mortgage. Your idea is that a person should only buy the house once they have raised all the money from their monthly paycheque. So that they have to stay with there parents for 20-30-40 years until they have the money saved

Also while I agree that people should save neo-liberal thinking does not encourage that type of thinking.

And a business does not run on pay check to pay check, it is about income and outlay and as pointed out - Same with businesses, if they can only get equipment if they have raised the money means that if they have the chance at a contract they have to turn it down because they haven’t the money at hand.

To which you replied –

Which seems to be a contradiction to what you just said about not incurring debts.

*

It might not be necessary for someone who is already wealthy, that is my argument that wealth gives an advantage that the less fortunate do not possess. What you are saying seems to back up my argument not yours.

As I have argued before the problem with neo-liberal thinking is that it is about the rush for maximum short term profits which enviably leads to speculative bubbles rather over real investment which needs long term thinking and involves less (but long term) profits.

Neo-liberal capitalism is bad capitalism, because it is not aimed at benefiting the majority of the people, and can lead to prosperity for the few rather than the many.

In my view one of the roles of government is to encourage (and if needs be demand) good capitalism, and Keynesian economics is about creating good capitalism.

*

 

I'm waiting on feedback, so I can waste some time here periodically.
Keep the size down and I'll pay them some attention.

 

What if we were to devote the massive amount of energy used in trying to change the world, or discussing what would change it, towards changing ourselves? Change in the world would then automatically follow.

 

Would the resulting discussion be any different?

 

Indie

So are you going to actually address the things I’ve presented in may last few posts or is this more evasion?

 

Anyway back to the OP.

The big problem is that from the very beginning the United States of America was set up with the interests of wealth in the forefront.

It began as a property owning democratic republic that is that in many places only those of a certain property qualification could vote or hold office (only about 10% of the population). The Electoral College system was also there as a block on the popular vote (the mob) and the Supreme Count which was to be appointed by and from the political establishment was presumed to always favour that political establishment and therefore be a check on radical change.

I’ve suggested ways of curbing the influence of wealth (for example -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...7&postcount=89
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...0&postcount=90

But there would have to be a major shift in public opinion for them to be given an airing but let us say by some miracle they were voted for by a great majority of the US electorate and made into law, the political establishment would have them declare ‘unconstitutional’ by the Supreme Count.

It seems to me that it is not a matter of just getting the right person/people in government since the system itself is the problem so the question is what needs to be done to ‘mend’ the system.

 

No discussion, just change. Unless you and Balbus think that the last two thousand years of talking have achieved anything except more war, poverty, conflict, division, sorrow. In which case, carry on.

 

I'm watching. How long will it take?

 

Is that directed to me? I think the founders did a great job initially in bringing together immigrants from all over to form a government which allowed them freedom to control their own lives, and relative to the government of other nations, for the first time in history real individual freedom. Some changes, although desirable, were slow in coming as the priority was to first bond together the people and States into a single nation which could not have been accomplished initially with the abolishment of slavery, or even equal rights for women, which still remain to be problems in some parts of the world today.
Our primary argument is one of class envy, or rich versus poor, and although I'm not rich I don't see it as a problem at all. Politicians are not the innovators in society, and although they do take risks they do so with money that if lost is of no consequence to them directly as it was not theirs to begin with. The real innovators are those who take risks with their own money, and when they succeed they not only provide us with new products and services, but they innovate others to compete which creates more jobs as well. The option for those who do not wish to participate is to join a commune which I found there to be many in existence, over 100 in the U.S. alone.

 

especially from africa

 

I think I covered that, and slavery continues on the African continent even today, but then again didn't you once say that working, or having to work to sustain your life, was a form of slavery?

 

my apologies, i forgot to mention the outstanding job the founding fathers [and continuing great whites] did in diplomacy with the people who already lived here

kill 'em all and let adam smith sort 'em out?

or

nits make lice, but we haven't figured out how to market lice yet . . .

 

Try living in the present, learn from mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them, but it accomplishes little to use the mistakes of the past as justification to make mistakes in the present which only promote and provide ammunition for future generations to do the same.

 

Walsh

But how is ‘change’ achieved?

Say you have an idea – a great idea that you think would reduce war, poverty, conflict, division and sorrow.

It seem to me that the only way to stop that idea being discussed is if you keep it to yourself and go to your grave with it – which to me makes that idea useless.

I mean I cannot think of any idea that has not invoked debate to some degree or other.

 

Indie

Not particularly - BUT what was directed at you was – Indie, So are you going to actually address the things I’ve presented in my last few posts or is this more evasion?

And surprise, surprise you seem to be choosing evasion…again.

*

And another laugh

This is another of your tricks – if it suits your argument you bring up the past, if someone else uses the past to counter your views you tell them to ‘live in the present’

It is just another way of evading addressing your critics.

*

No that isn’t the argument – but it is how you would like to portray the argument.

We have been through this (as with nearly all your arguments) before and the criticisms of it are still outstanding (you still haven’t answered them).

I mean are you honestly arguing that every change that has been made in society to improve the lot of the common people was only motivated by envy?

To quote from a pervious post , “slavery was ended, later a decent working weeks was fought for and won meaning people had a life outside of work, health and safely laws were fought for in such industries as coal mining so that people didn’t have to work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, I could go on and on. But the point is many of the things that allow people to improve themselves and their lives come from government action of some type.”

Many of these changes did have an effect on the profits of the people running the business that were affected - but are you honestly saying that the only motivation for those seeking better working conditions was envy?

LOL – you were just saying that the politicians that foundered the United States were innovators (“for the first time in history”) and then in the very next breath you say politicians cannot be innovators.

Actually it would seem to me that most of the social innovations in history have come about through the actions of politicians and political thinkers.

Again you display that simplistic black and white view of the world.

Politicians bad, financers good.

I’ve never played down the contribution that financers can make to a society; the problem is that they can also work to the detriment of society as well.

And before you say it - politicians can as well - but in a properly functioning democracy the people can remove politicians that work to the detriment of society, but as seen in the last financial crisis many time financers can get away with it.

In politics and finance there needs to be balance brought about through regulation.

 

Change – again trying to get back to the OP here are some musings.

The system seems to be at fault so there are two options – throw out the system completely and start again or try and change the system to correct the faults.

Both have advantages and dangers.

But let us look at the second option in relation to the US.

To keep it simple there are three things that I think need to be changed to begin with.

Reform of the Supreme Court, abolition of the Electoral College, the bringing in of Proportional Representation.

The second two are self explanatory the other I’d pad out a bit more

Supreme Court reform

There should be set terms. The President should nominate a candidate, Congress should nominate a candidate and the Judiciary should nominate a candidate then an open vote would be taken between them by the electorate.