But if capital ownership is such a great idea in this era of globalization, why don't more people cut back on consumption to save more and become capitalists? Who knows, but instead of ranting about people wanting useless luxury items like SUV's and plasma TV's I'll argue that most people know nothing about capital ownership having become such a great idea. They aren't being wage earning capitalists because they don't know how good it would be for them.
Most people in the world are not wasting their money on SUV's and plasma tvs. They are wasting their money on food, shelter and clothes for themselves and their families. This is also true for much of the western world.
How your swiftian proposal will help aleviate the imbalances of globalisation I do not know.
Hell, the only thing that might save the moronic Revolutionaries-turn-Reaganistas of the Baby-Boom generation is the fact that so many actually have taken on investments during their march to destroy the safety net with tax cuts and federal spending sprees. </rant> WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Ownership Society Defining an Ownership Society By David Boaz President Bush says he wants America to be an "ownership society." What does that mean?
Defining an Ownership Society By David Boaz
President Bush says he wants America to be an "ownership society." What does that mean?
http://www.cato.org/special/ownership_society/boaz.html
But one should obviously never underestimate the knowledge of the ET community it seems.
* Just as he was inspired(?) by the Swedish pension system, a version of which he tried and failed to introduce in the US. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Which is all nice and dandy if you are already rich.
I know lot's of people from all different income brackets, and no matter their income some people always run out of money a week before the next wage while others save and put away as much as they can.
Of course, you write "Most people in the world", and in that way you are right. But I am not talking of most people in the world but of wage earners, the broad middle class mainly, in developed countries. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I am trying to help those who are losing out at globalisation, wage earners in developed countries.
Last time they said stop!, quite bad things happened. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
many of those who say they only spend money on food, housing etc,,,,just don't have this discipline. and don't look where they really are spending their money--eating out, TV's, wine and beer, etc.
This evening I invested in beer...and got back...well...
Things that money can't measure...easily... Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
that there should be two things society offers to the humans within it:
1) Protection in old age independent of material resources.
If you have known someone die young, you'll know that getting there...to old age...is an achievement.
If those rich people have lots of money, then design a system that encourages them to give it up and out...
Taking it away from the dead, for example. (Hand everything over to your kids when you hit sixty! What? You don't trust them? Well you f***ed up! The state will take it all. Don't have kids? Invest in local businesses...hand it out! Society will protect the old! )
There is the first mantra: Our society will protect the old.
Second:
"If you are sick you will get the best care possible. Money will not be an issue."
You smoke? You get the same treatment.
You're overweight? You get the same treatment.
You're rich? You get the same treatment.
You're poor? You get the same treatment.
Society will look after the sick.
Making fallible (oh so!) humans responsible for looking after a concept as abstract as money...through the years...because otherwise...no care in old age! No care when you're sick!
I think that is wrongheaded, because it says:
Society doesn't care about you. It only cares about your money.
Well, that's not quite my point. I think...well...if you're interested, there could be a good debate about how individuals with money can spread it wisely...questions about that word: "wisely"...
But I never doubt your good heart, wchurchill.
What I doubt is your sense of...how the world is constructed. And mine too!
Just one example:
At Mirror newspapers in England, a load of people got shafted over their pensions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2001/04/01/cnimro01.xml
..as an example. The workers did the best by what they were told...and got shafted...by some rich git.
I think, yes, people need to consider more, but not...money.
But we come from different areas in this regard. But seriously, I think a good discussion could be had.
And I will soon have some music that might...well...financing...
heh heh...
Money is a means....and if I can get the ends without money...all the better!
That's my--sort of--take. Good to read your reply! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
1) Protection in old age independent of material resources,,,,,,,If you are sick you will get the best care possible. Money will not be an issue." You smoke? You get the same treatment. You're overweight? You get the same treatment.
I would easily agree that there is a certain level of care that everyone in old age should have. But is there no reward for those that have managed their lives better than Mickey?
As you suggest in your comments, money is far from everything in our world.
I think...those who have managed their lives well have...their lives as their reward...
...maybe there's something here (not sure...): the idea of a reward in the future for...hmmm...you know, planting the best seeds so the next crop will be bigger vs. eating the best seeds so the next crop will be weaker...
And yes, I suppose scarcity leads to decision making...but the richest countries in the world...well...hmmm...I suppose I think sickness and infirmity should not be punished, no matter what the causes. (The victorians had the idea of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor...I think society got...healthier...when, after WWII a socialist govt. banished this...meme...and replaced it with...what was it? The four evils...ah, I have googled and the evils were five.
The Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services was published in 1942. It proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. Beveridge argued that this system would provide a minimum standard of living "below which no one should be allowed to fall".
Recommended that the government should find ways of fighting the five 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. This led to the setting up of the modern Welfare State (the culmination of the Fabians' project) with a National Health Service (NHS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Beveridge
(Don't worry about the delay replying...I'm off and on the computer at all kinds of strange hours at the moment...) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Another reason for rationing is cost. If artificial hearts continue to come along and become practical (outside my depth again, but I've read of some initial clinical trials), I doubt if as the baby boomers age in the US, and same phenom in EU, that either system will be able to afford to give a heart to everyone that needs one. This will certainly be true in the early days after approval as costs are bound to be high--overtime maybe they'll come down. so how does one handle that one? some approaches would be; o everybody or nobody o a lottery o rationed based upon age and maybe other overall health determinants--ie don't give it to someone with terminal cancer that has 3 months left anyway. or ration based on "qualies", a system developed primarily in the UK o have various levels of health insurance, so that some could choose to buy more expensive health insurance that would cover more and more expensive technologies. o I think in the above case, you would find charities forming to help families in particularly difficult situations.
the higher price for insurance policies doesn't have a great feel to it, in the benefit the rich sense. But it would also allow many people to make choices with how they spend their money--keep that car for 10 years instead of 5, and buy a higher level of health insurance, etc., etc. But the French healthcare system seems to have this concept, where higher levels of insurance are paid for. In the US it could have the advantage of getting everyone insured at a basic level, and maybe that level could be pretty high.
