Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

If we wish to be honest and to know the truth (you don't), there is most definitely a need to correctly blame the privileges that made them rich, and continue to make them richer, at the expense of everyone else.

Such as cowardice, dishonesty, laziness, greed, dishonesty, ignorance, stupidity, and dishonesty, which are the only reasons one would attempt to evade the fact that the rich have almost all been enriched UNJUSTLY, by privilege, at the expense of the productive.

Unless you own land, in which case you rise effortlessly on the escalator that is powered by the treadmill the productive are on.

To increase them.

No, let us make one more rule which will help the poor by not robbing them to help the rich.

 

There is no need to blame the rich. We all possess weaknesses. To fall is easy, to rise takes an effort. The system is at fault. Societies make rules to limit the impacts of these weaknesses. We have laws to curtail the expression of many vices we all have, violence, indecency, stealing, cheating... Let us make one more rule, which will help the poor to come out of deplorable conditions, and the rich to rid of their disease of greed which is equally detrimental to contentment.

What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued meddling by the government.

This can be achieved by limiting the number of persons any business can employ. In conjunction with this there has to be a limit to the maximum percentage interest an individual can own in all other businesses.

A community cannot function without some socialism. By definition, socialism is nothing but taking away some individual freedom for the good of the whole community. Even law of land is socialism. But in-here we are addressing financial socialism. Countries around the world try it in varying degrees and by different combinations. But so far most of the experiments have tried to shift the control from money to authority. USSR was an extreme example of this. This cannot work for long, because human greed for power, wealth and fame, has a high tendency to take over the process. The axiom, ‘the rule that rules the least is the best’ applies to any power. A community left virtually to its own devices has the highest potential of prosperity, only proportional to its level of ideological social justice. Additionally, relatively free and prosperous atmosphere allows voices of wisdom to be heard louder, thereby enhancing positive social values.

No entity associated with life, be it a living being, a business, a system, or an idea, ever wants to compromise its existence. Governments only strive to get larger. Departments never want shrink. Larger a government, more inefficient and lethargic it gets. Also there is always a chance of ulterior motives playing role.

Democracy is the best format available, since its governance is more in tune with the well being of all citizens. But the activities of a government should be confined mainly to security from outside factors, order within and disaster relief. It should not try to micromanage civilian systems. It should only watch out for trouble spots. Its micromanagement often creates wrong/ineffective controls, hurdles and red tape. It should only make blanket laws on society related issues. A rule that rules the least is the best. Governments are hardly ever proactive, are slow in reacting, and often come up with off or bad remedies.

 

I already corrected all those errors and explained why they are wrong. You just ignored the corrections and repeated the same errors.

 

I don't know how to get to your post with correction. Please help.

 

#374 and #376

 

Wealth is accumulated, NOT distributed.

 

The term "Free Market" as used today takes into account the creation and application of necessary laws preventing monopolization of the market, allowing competition to exist. I doubt anyone truly supports the elimination of ALL market regulations, but only those which hinder the ability of others to compete fairly and safely with those that already exist, or bring about a new market.
After all, our founding was based on the principle of individual freedom governed by laws the majority found reasonable and necessary. Freedom exists only when the governed are in control of their government.

 

Think about it like this... Bricks are not houses like dollars are not wealth, but just as houses are made from the skillful deployment of bricks, wealth is made from the skillful deployment of dollars.

People need more bricks.

 

Wealth is produced by its producers, and is then distributed from them to non-producers like landowners, banksters, etc., who are thus enabled to accumulate it.

 

Then people should put their labours to work creating more bricks, selling them at the market and deploying the dollars earned skillfully.

 

Curious to see if your mantra has changed, I unblocked you to read your post.
Obviously it hasn't changed, but the obvious response remains, become a landowner enabling you to accumulate wealth, recognizing the fact that government taxes land owners regardless of any production on the land.
Don't bother to respond as I rarely unblock.

 

Yes, dollars represent wealth creation whilst manufacturing bricks is wealth creation.

 

You missed the point of the analogy.

I believe the topic of was the oft repeated saying "money isn't wealth". While that's true, earning money and using it wisely can and does create wealth. We've created a society where the large scale creation of wealth isnt practical without money.

Like I said, bricks aren't houses, but with hard work and the right skills you can build one.

 

Money is a transaction medium. It represents the human capital that has been expended in the form of labor in the creation of wealth.

 

The facts have not changed, nor has your refusal to know them.

Would my becoming a slave owner have solved the problem of slavery?? Would my becoming a drug dealer solve the problem of drug dealers corrupting the police and judicial system?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine could be responsive in your response? If I decry the taking of sex slaves by ISIS, do you think it would be responsive to recommend that I go out and get some sex slaves of my own, problem solved? Do you think if I note that predominantly Muslim terrorist groups are creating a famine in Africa, it would be responsive for you to recommend that I find another country to terrorize, get together my own army of destructive losers, and create a famine there, too?

When a champion of liberty, justice and truth identifies an example of oppression, injustice and dishonesty, there are few responses less responsive than recommending that he try to solve the problem by making himself the beneficiary of that same oppression, injustice and dishonesty.

But much less than it should, as the land's value proves. Land value is NOTHING BUT the market's estimate of how much more the landowner will take from society by owning the land than he will pay in taxes on the land.

I am not responding for your benefit, but for the benefit of honest, intelligent readers who are interested in the truth, and in knowing the crucial facts that you refuse to know.

 

Which is why forward looking policy makers are exploring concepts such as Universal Basic Income,
as the realities of free trade and technological change in an environment of globalisation result in
socially unacceptable outcomes in many sectors of society.

(My preference is for guaranteed universal above-poverty-level participation in the economy, which
would require global economic oversight, because it's unacceptable that even ONE nation should be left
to flounder in an unguided, competitive global economy).

 

Eg, Venezuela: The Opposition (representing the wealthier sector of society) is baying for the President's blood, because
the price of oil - and with it the economy - has collapsed, but the Opposition has nothing to offer except a return to
pre-Chavez conditions, ie, entrenched poverty for the bottom 60%.

 

So your point is that dollars exist because of wealth creation. Correct? That the dollars would not exist without the wealth that is the human capital and raw materials used to make things of real value?

I'd argue that was true when we backed our money with a commodity in that, in order to create money you needed gold. In order to recover gold, you had to do real work first. But today we live in a different economy. It works the other way around. Because we are no longer confined by gold, rather the real capacity of we can create. We are no longer bound by the artificial constraint of the acquisition of a particular element/s.

For example, under a gold standard, if the government owned $1 billion in gold, there could only be $1 billion dollars in circulation. But what if the economy could do more productivity than the number of dollars in circulation allowed? Assuming that the level of gold was as high as it otherwise could be, the government would have to sell bonds in order to draw money out of circulation* into savings (thus removing that money from the economy) so that the government could increase spending and put unused productivity, human capital, to work.

(* When I say out of circulation I don't mean out of the hands of the private sector, rather someone has agreed to trade a bond for dollars. The sale of the bond means that someone in the private sector no longer has the use of highly liquid dollars to create demand for goods and services until they sell the bond back for dollars, as a result the government can now create new money and spend it without fear of inflation because if the number of bonds sold equals what is spent then there is no net gain or loss in terms of liquid dollars in the economy).

Today we don't have that limitation. Today, the amount of money in circulation does not determine the rate of inflation because money isn't tied to a particular commodity. Today it is the demand for goods and services that determine the level of inflation. If the economy is underperforming, the creation of new dollars increases the chances those unused assets will be put to work if the new money ends up in the hands of potential consumers who drive increased demand (the government is the single largest consumer), which in turn gives firms the money needed to pursue new higher levels of demand. Supply is elastic. Firms create supply in anticipation of sales up to some peak level (inventory). If inventories run low that signals firms they need to increase production. If production can be increased before inventories run out, prices remain stable. Creation of goods to keep up with demand can be funded by investors or by money borrowed. Either way, it is demand and money in the hands of that doing the demanding that drives the creation of real goods, but it's real goods that drives the need for money.

 

[Emphisis mine]


Can you help me understand this concept of "privilege"? Because to be honest I can't say I really understand what that means in the context that you are using it. Please talk this as a serious inquiry.

In all honesty, I'm not convinced that the concept has merit, but I'd like you to explore it with me as a conversation between peers.

If I come off as skeptical it is because I am, but again, don't assume I'm being dismissive, rather just putting your ideas to the test.

Thanks in advance.

 

If wealth were not created there would be no need for money. Money is a store of value and it was invented to improve the efficiency of commerce. Money allows the shepherd to buy kitchen cabinets without the inefficiency of having to trade wool with the carpenter to get the cabinets.

 

That's the way it was, not the way it is now.

See if this makes sense....If I tell my children they owe me $500 "dad dollars" (dollars I scrawl out on paper in whatever denomination I choose) every week or they will lose privileges or be punished, then I tell them they can earn "dad dollars" by doing the work I want to be done in the house and set the amount paid for each job, then I've put my children to a choice. Is what they want, privilages and to avoid punishment, worth more than doing the jobs I've asked of them. Additionally, if I tell them that every dollar they earn beyond $500 they can spend at the mall, then I've created an incentive to exceed the goal set for them.

Productivity, in this case, does not create the need for dollars, but the authority to demand dollars of my children creates the desire to work to earn them.

In the exact same way, the government has imposed taxes and then it's supplied the only cure, earning the dollars that only the government or it's authorized agents can create. In the real world dollars are simply a tax credit that we've all adopted as our currency because the government also only recognizes it's dollar as legal tender.

It's extremely difficult to work and live in a society without having to acquire dollars. Land ownership comes with taxes, the holding of wealth, owning a business. Even if you only trade for the things you need, at some point you have to decide to trade for dollars or face the punishment the government can impose. Loss of dollars, loss of property and/ or the loss of freedom. Most people choose to deal in dollars because they like the alternatives even less.

 

There is a contract to produce between employee and employer. The employee uses their human capital to create wealth for the employer. The employer compensates the employee with money instead of bricks. Money is a medium of exchange. It's that simple.

 

You said, "If wealth were not created there would be no need for money."

I replied by showing that government creates the demand for money by imposing taxes. So you are either ignoring what I said or, with all due respect, you don't understand it.

The US dollar, as I'm sure we would agree is intrinsically worthless. However, despite some claims that it only has value because people believe it has value, are wrong. It does have value. Its value is measured extrinsically when people make the choice between paying taxes or suffering the consequences the government can impose on you. The Libertarians object on the grounds that dollar only has value because the government will use force to collect taxes. They are absolutely right, however, I tend to see the glass half full and I'd say the value of the dollar comes from the fact that most of us choose to cooperate and accept the rules imposed on us for the utility it provides to society as a whole.

 

That's right. But the creation of wealth does not require that a monetary system be created. Barter economies used to be the norm thousands of years ago. In early civilizations people did indeed pay taxes with crops, livestock, and services.

But you are correct - I am ignoring what you are saying. It makes no sense.

 

I agree, and in modern civilization today those who own property which can be taxed provides government with something it can confiscate if they are unable to pay their tax. While those who own nothing the government can confiscate actually benefit from the aid provided by government made available by taxing those who earn a taxable income or own property which can be taxed or confiscated.

The Dad dollars made no sense at all to me as what would Dad do with the child who refused to do anything? Government doesn't punish those who earn no income or contribute in any way to their existence, and would Dad provide him/her with a "guaranteed universal above-poverty-level participation in the economy" as suggested in a response to me?