Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I'll only address the parts that don't leave me going "lolwut?"

Obviously you have a better grasp of crazy then me if 7 does not make you go lolwut.

Teach me oh master to understand crazy.

[Chunes]

No. They don't. No one seriously thinks that. We act as if it is so because it does not work if we go around saying "Oh hey! I got a piece of paper that says it is worth 50 arbitrary units! How about some goods and/or services? I am sure you can trade it for more goods and/or services later!"

I agree that arbitrary payments would never work. There would need to be a singular system of trust. My point is that it should be designed to benefit the most people possible.

What exactly are you suggesting as a alternative? Cause there is a reason we don't barter with rocks anymore.

Money represents value vs. money represents debt.

In other words, having money in your hand means that you contributed something valuable to society (and obviously society would decide what it values, rather than bankers), rather than now when it means you're an immanent creditor. Most people think money is created by making things of value, but they are mistaken. New money only enters the money supply by indebting people at interest.

[RedKing]

1. Eliminate currency.
2. Eliminate interest.
3. Eliminate corporations.
4. ?
5. PROFIT!!

It's the Underpants Gnomes of Zurich.

[Sowelu]

And who determines what "something of value to society" is?  Clearly, if it's a government-recognized currency, the government is the only one who can determine value.  And probably, under your system, they would only really be able to give out this money to people who did things for the government.  But who do citizens give the money to?  Back to the government in exchange for services?  Well, I guess that's taxes, but suddenly you have a 100% tax rate.  Why would people give money to each other, ever, in that situation?

Oh, but people would just naturally start using it arbitrarily for barter, regardless of what it really means?  That's what we're doing now.

...Caps on wealth made me lolwut, the abolishing banking part looked like just a troll.  A) Why would you cap wealth on someone who made an enormous contribution to society?  B) HOW would you cap wealth on a corporation?  A corporation is made of many people.  Do you cap it per-person?  What if it's a charity?  What if it's a major manufacturer of a highly standardized good, with an efficient process, such that breaking it into smaller corporations would make it less efficient?  If you cap wealth, how do corporations or individuals survive an economic downturn?  Having a large buffer that you don't spend is, after all, an important part of being responsible.

[Chunes]

stuff

I'll only address the parts that don't leave me going "lolwut?"

4.  The military industrial complex is very well entrenched.  Any effort to root it out will necessarily cause collateral damage, politically and economically.

7.  Well-established, healthy financial systems have a strong correlation with economic growth.  Economic growth is a good thing, both in theory and in reality.  Hell, with no financial industry there can be no electronic transactions.  That alone would have a very broad and serious impact on life as you know it.

EDIT:  I don't like to knowingly (key word) be a dickhead, but I'll go ahead and unload both barrels.

FYI Chunes:  You are not a uniquely rational and brilliant person.  You are not the first person to think such "revolutionary" tripe would cure the world's ills.  The rest of the world's best and brightest, a group to which you almost certainly do not belong (by statistical likelihood alone), are not merely corrupt benefactors of the system (because why else wouldn't they already be enacting your superior policies).  You are as ignorant and short-sighted as anyone else (myself included, and how!).  When you're done extolling the virtues of your latest brainchild, please step off your podium and join the rest of us here on the ground.  The world doesn't look so deceptively simple from down here.

EDIT 2:  Botched my first edit.  Overwrote instead of appended.  :/

Fair enough, and I'm content to leave it at that. The only thing I ask is that the current system never be regarded as hopelessly unchangeable.

[Criptfeind]

I agree that arbitrary payments would never work. There would need to be a singular system of trust. My point is that it should be designed to benefit the most people possible.

1: I did not say that, I was pointing out how arbitrariness works, as long as we do not act like it is arbitrary.
2: I do not believe in any economic system that was the word 'trust' in it.
3: Sure sure. Why not? So like, socialism if you swing that way? That's cool, but it does not seem to be what you are suggesting.

In other words, having money in your hand means that you contributed something valuable to society (and obviously society would decide what it values, rather than bankers), rather than now when it means you're an immanent creditor. Most people think money is created by making things of value, but they are mistaken. New money only enters the money supply by indebting people at interest.

You... Think.... Banks print money.... or something? I am not sure. You seem to be saying that banks are giant evil things that suck money out of people.

You are seriously sounding like one of them 16th century yokels that went around lynching Jews in hard economic times.

Edit: Or, maybe more politically right, lynching money lenders.

The thing is, when the money lenders leave they take your economy with them.

[Lagslayer]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted someone here, but nobody seems to acknowledge that currency in any form is arbitrary. Why does a piece of paper worth $100? You can't do anything with it, it has no value except what we just gave it on a whim. Gold and other precious metals used to be the same way, only having value because they were shiny and hard to find, but nobody had a real use for them until relatively recently Notice how they are no longer used as currency. Further, at least precious metals are in limited supply, but modern currency can be manufactured to infinite amounts.

I think currency is like a promise to receive the same amount that you gave. When people can no longer keep their promises, all trust in them fails. People are slowly responding to this, weather they realize it or not.


Anyway, back on topic. I doubt this government shutdown thing is much more than a show. They have exemptions so they can still fund pretty much anything they want.

[GlyphGryph]

In other words, having money in your hand means that you contributed something valuable to society (and obviously society would decide what it values, rather than bankers)

This is how it works now. The problem, of course, is that significant chunks of our society have some pretty messed up value systems.

[Chunes]

I knew I said I would bow out, but,

You seem to be saying that banks are giant evil things that suck money out of people.

*hearty chuckle*

I am amused there are those who would not agree with such a statement. Anyway, I'm sorry if I derailed the topic at hand.

[Criptfeind]

And now we are back at you are a crazy person.

Shall we take the spin again, or go see another ride?

[lemon10]

In other words, having money in your hand means that you contributed something valuable to society (and obviously society would decide what it values, rather than bankers)

This is how it works now. The problem, of course, is that significant chunks of our society have some pretty messed up value systems.

No, its not. It's how it's supposed to work, but it's not how it actually works for the most part.
Unless you are saying that average generic CEO is 600 times more useful to society then his average worker.
And the stock market is another example, for the most part, their is a disconnect between money earned and benefit to society.

EDIT: on topic, im fairly sure that we could solve the budget crisis with
A) higher tax on top 2%, much higher on top 1% and even higher on top .25%
B) fix all the corporate tax loopholes other tax avoidance problems
EDITEDIT:
Not that i'm delusional enough to think that the republicans would ever even think about passing either.

[Earthquake Damage]

average generic CEO is 600 times more useful to society then his average worker.

What is with people and their insistence that "CEO" and "corporation" translate to "big business"?

[RedKing]

EDIT: on topic, im fairly sure that we could solve the budget crisis with
A) higher tax on top 2%, much higher on top 1% and even higher on top .25%
B) fix all the corporate tax loopholes other tax avoidance problems

SOCIALIST!!

Sorry, I'm just used to hearing that screamed whenver anybody anywhere ever suggests raising taxes. On anything.

Albeit, if the Dems had had the balls to fight and let the tax cuts for the rich expire...the budget problem wouldn't even be a problem.

[Lagslayer]

In other words, having money in your hand means that you contributed something valuable to society (and obviously society would decide what it values, rather than bankers)

This is how it works now. The problem, of course, is that significant chunks of our society have some pretty messed up value systems.

No, its not. It's how it's supposed to work, but it's not how it actually works for the most part.
Unless you are saying that average generic CEO is 600 times more useful to society then his average worker.
And the stock market is another example, for the most part, their is a disconnect between money earned and benefit to society.

EDIT: on topic, im fairly sure that we could solve the budget crisis with
A) higher tax on top 2%, much higher on top 1% and even higher on top .25%
B) fix all the corporate tax loopholes other tax avoidance problems
EDITEDIT:
Not that i'm delusional enough to think that the republicans would ever even think about passing either.

A. Higher taxes on the rich would not be enough, even if they paid what you call "their fair share".
B. These loopholes you speak of are deductibles. With enough deductibles, they can move to a lower tax bracket, which wouldn't exist in the first place if there was a flat income tax rate, or no income tax at all (just a sales/service tax). While I agree some of these deductibles are a load of bull, to remove all of them AND keep the taxes incredibly high on the rich would devastate a lot of charities that rely on their deductible donations.

You don't seem to understand the full ramifications of what you are proposing. Even everything in this thread that has been listed is barely scratching the surface of the issue.

[Leafsnail]

A. Higher taxes on the rich would not be enough, even if they paid what you call "their fair share".

It would still contribute rather a lot though.

B. These loopholes you speak of are deductibles. With enough deductibles, they can move to a lower tax bracket, which wouldn't exist in the first place if there was a flat income tax rate, or no income tax at all (just a sales/service tax). While I agree some of these deductibles are a load of bull, to remove all of them AND keep the taxes incredibly high on the rich would devastate a lot of charities that rely on their deductible donations.

They're not really.  Loopholes are generally found by moving money around in really odd ways (putting it through certain skeleton companies or holding it in certain countries) decided by accountants in order to minimize the money you have to pay in tax.  Exempting charities from taxes would be completely separate, surely.