On 2007-10-02, rem460@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<rem460@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> crossposted:
> 6>
> DEMOCRACY For ECONOMICS
>
> Much has been said and written about the virtues of
> democracy. The United States CLAIMS to have it, and has
> been SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY trying to IMPOSE it on other
> countries such as Haiti, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, even
> Kuwait and Iraq. Other western countries also CLAIM to
> be democratic, and democratic reforms have been sweeping
> the communist world.
Note that Communism was started to try to implement democracy in
a dictatorial world. Communism/Socialism was later totally put on
its head with the loss of the Russian Revolution and especially the
failure in Germany, only retaining the name `communism/socialism,'
(for PR purposes, they couldn't get away from it, altough eventually
they could in 1989).
What caused the failure of the Revolution in Germany, and therefore
probably the world, perhaps resulting in the world-wars and continued
suffering under Capitalist mismanagment ... ?
One idea is: the theory of these socialists/communists was too
wrong and/or too scetchy. It didn't bring in enough people to the
revolution because it was not being convincing enough, therefore the
opposing block (convervatives, rationalists (who might have opposed
aboli****ng markets and the plan-economy error), regressives, criminals,
ex-nobility, Capital, liars & cheats, etc) remained too strong. It
is therefore very im****tant, to get things right this time. Not only
to win the revolution, but especially to create a stable situation
afterwards that is actually an improvement, also for the (very)
long term (centuries, millenia, more).
Therefore we should be discussing the proposals, whatever they
are, to make the best system we possibly can.
> But a TRUE democracy can NOT exist, in the United
> States nor anywhere else, unless and until the
> PRINCIPLES of democracy are FULLY applied TO ECONOMICS,
> where they COUNT the most.
There can always be more and less democracy, it depends with what
you compare it. Americans like to compare their society with the very
worst in the world, at least that idea I'm often getting. As if the
entire world is some kind of savage place full of dictator****ps and
total misery, where the light of American liberal democracy is some
kind of guiding star.
> Economic democracy for the United States has three
> main requirements, which should also be established in
> ALL other countries.
>
> First, ALL cor****ation$ must be REPLACED with
> COOPERATIVES.
This is a very good idea. I note that I have my own ideas
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/democracy.html
(we are competing now
I guess) where companies become democracies once the entrepreneur
leaves. I think it is im****tant for an economy to allow single-person
start-ups, which can grow, but remain dictatorial under the starter.
The starter is like a super-boss, he can work, he can organize, he
has found a gap in the market ... great ! This will also provide
a place for workers who don't want or are too crude for democracy.
If you want only cooperatives, maybe that will work, but wouldn't
it be better to allow for entrepreneur-dictator****ps ? With most
people working in democratized businesses, and the possibility
to start cooperatives, what's the loss. Many businesses won't
be run by their entrepreneur anymore, at the same time a lot
would, so that is an interesting mix which should be good for the
economy.
> Simply change the federal and state
> cor****ation laws, so there is one vote per share HOLDER,
> rather than per share of stock. REPLACE the bank$ and
> $aving$ and loan a$$ociation$ with CREDIT UNIONS in the
> same way, so there is one vote per depositor and
> shareholder.
You'll have to nationalize all private finance, bring it under
democratic Government control. There is no function for for-profit
finance in the economy - especially business start-up and expansion.
Worker-based finance or public-based finance with a profit motive
still doesn't work. The only thing that might work is employee
finance in their own company, but that isn't enough, as lack of
personal funds is the reason finance is needed.
Private for-profit finance of whatever form always pushes the economy
in the wrong direction. Simplest is to nationalize the investment
banks, pass laws against commercial (investment) loans - really not
a big deal at all. It only seems a big deal, because the bosses of
today don't like it. But they won't be bosses then, so no problem.
> Second, require the ELECTION, rather than
> appointment, of ALL financial, economic, and banking
> officials. For example, the person occupying the
> position now held by Alan Greenspan should be
> periodically and directly ELECTED on a national level.
> There could even be added a 4TH BRANCH of government,
> for "Banking and Finance".
Exactly, something like that, this would work.
> Third, establish a GUARANTEED MONTHLY INCOME, just
> enough for basic food, clothing, and shelter costs,
> given to each and EVERY person REGARDLESS of his or her
> wealth, wages, salary, or other earnings. CREATE the
> money for this OUT OF "THIN AIR" by simply having
> computers OFFICIALLY print out and mail monthly
> allowance checks. IF THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY.
There you go wrong, that does not work. Don't give people free
money, that only inflates the currency and people will just sit
on their hands while the economy rots away. What people need is
not charity. You can give some conditional money to solve a specific
problem of specific group, but it is not a method to base an
economy on. What you should be giving to all people is a part of the
economic resources: land, fish-rights, etc. Then these resources can
be used by these people themselves. In case of unemployment one could
even farm on them, or show good will to earn unemployment benefits.
The resources will probably usually be rented out to a productive
company, who pays for this. This effectively results in some measure
of income for everyone. This rent system will not go out of control,
it balances itself (prices/income). Unlike your hand-out proposal,
which will mean endless trouble for politics, the economy, labor
availability, currency valie.
With resource-distribution, you will often get some income from
rent, unemployment has a fall-back system (use the land!), everyone
has a means to become creative and start a business.
> A fourth supplementary provision would be a 4-DAY
> (32-HOUR) WORK-WEEK. This would distribute the
> available useful work more evenly, fairly, and
> DEMOCRATICALLY among everyone who wants it, and give
> most employees an extra day each week for themselves and
> their families. SIMPLY CHANGE THE FEDERAL AND STATE
> OVERTIME LAWS, FROM 40 TO 32. Reduce this by one hour
> every year down to a 14-hour work week, as automation
> expands, and inefficient, worthless, or harmful jobs,
> such as in cigarette factories, and the military, are
> phased out and eliminated.
Not necessary once you have equalized the power in the economy.
People are only worked into destruction because the profits of
the work aren't split evenly. Once they are, people may well
find they have enough money after 4 days working, and some others
may not. A forced 4 days work week is a stop-gap measure that is
only useful if you keep the private financials and their
bosses in power. More hourly income from more power equals less
need to work additional hours to pay for the luxury of your boss and
banker.
> Such applications of DEMOCRACY to economics would
> eliminate or greatly reduce many of the problems now
> plaguing the People of the world--starvation,
> malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, poverty-induced
> crime, unemployment, the need for the legalized-
> EXTORTION and ARMED ROBBERY of alimony and "child
> sup****t", even taxation, etc., ETC..
>
>
> The present banking $y$tem in the United States
> ALREADY has a complex, perhaps misleading way, of
> creating money out of "thin air", involving the "Open
> Market Committee" of the PRIVATELY-OWNED "Federal"
> Reserve System, discounting procedures, loan procedures,
> interest rates, etc..
>
> The problem with it is that the few powerful
> banker$ DICTATE which people or enterprises receive this
> new money, and what it may be used for, and then demand
> that it all be paid back to them, PLUS interest, AS IF
> THIS NEW MONEY BELONGED TO THE BANKER$ ALONE! And the
> paper "currency" that we now use is NOT even real
> currency, because it is not redeemable in gold or silver
> on demand.
>
> In other words, money is something which the
> banker$ CREATE, OUT OF NOTHING, FOR THEMSELVES, TO
> ENSLAVE People. And the government is GUILTY of
> COMPLICITY in this ORGANI$ED CRIME. They CREATE money
> basically by LOANING IT OUT !
True. And they tend to invest in dictator****ps, because those
type companies extract most value from workers, meaning more
money for them.
Note that there is more wrong with Capitalism: trading entire
companies as if this is somehow normal and useful. In fact it is
a useles trade that only deprives the workers of their chance
to run their own business. The pretence here might be that the
original starter has to sell its company, after all he/she made
it, so why not sell it. This is also true, but the problem can be
solved in a way that should make both parties satisfied without
causing the company-trade problem: a (forced) fair trade to the
employees, company (employees) takes over debts, and original starter
will get a share of future profits.
It then falls to the Judiciary and law makers to make laws that protect
the business starter, and the employees. Once the entrepreneur has
been fairly reimbursed, the origin and reason for the trade in whole
companies is gone.
Since capital is derived from the Government finance monopoly and
to from private finance and it debt-trade and share and stock
option stuff, that means the end of these financial markets
entirely. No more debt trade, no stock-exchanges, no money markets.
That also means: no possibility of a sub-prime mortgate melt-down
because of re-selling of bad debt. Debt selling is to be prohibited
in whole, simple, because it serves no purpose. The entity making
the loan should keep it, if it doesn't want to, then it shouldn't
make loans. In Capitalism, everything starts to be tradeable,
but unfortunately it doesn't work.
Another over-stretch of Capitalism is the trade in resources.
> And "capitalism" is NOT free enterprise.
Very true.
> It is
> COR****ATE SOCIALISM, which is the opposite side of the
> SAME coin as STATE socialism which we call "communism".
But now you are just as superficial as the "capitalism is free
enterprise" people! Socialism and Communism were/are social
movements that came up to fight the severe exploitation (especially
in Europe) under Capitalism infested (free) markets, early
industrialization period. The theories of these movements was
scetchy and sometimes wrong. Between the failure of those revolutions
and these errors, the total opposite of the original goals came to
be, especially thanks to Capitalist war on Russia that just
liberated itself from the Tzar and Capitalism. Hence, primarily
to blame for these failures are the Capitalists, they made the
socialist block what it came to be. They waged war on it, while
it had backed out of WW1. Why did they ? Because they defended
Capitalism, I guess.
So what was the late USSR ? The opposite of Socialism/Communism
mostly, there was no real Soviet power there (Soviet means
worker-parliament).
You know what you are ... ??? You are a socialist (that's good,
against private finance and for a `social' economy - whatever that
means (IMHO)) ! You want Soviet run businesses, because that is
*exactly* what cooperative means. Yet the word `socialist' you apply
to the plan-economy. And it must be said that this association is not
without good reason, this was the major failure of their theories IMHO.
> They are two different kinds of SLAVERY, and two
> different kinds of ORGANI$ED CRIME.
>
> Consider the ABSURDITY of such a money system,
> especially in a country that is SUPPOSED TO BE "free and
> democratic" !
>
> Consider also the ABSURDITY of forcing People to
> compete against each other for a chance to "EARN" the
> things they need and should receive regardless.
You are talking like a plan-economist. There is nothing wrong with
competition, that is how trade works, competing to please the
constumers. If the USSR missed one thing, it was healthy
competition, fresh economic initiative and (paradoxically) real
worker/people power.
> Look
> what happens to the LOSERS of such competition and their
> families ! Even the "winners" are SLAVES, when they
> have to settle for work they don't really want, and are
> forced to submit to the WHIMS of their bo$$e$. They are
> also SLAVES to the extent that they are UNDERPAID for
> their work.
>
> Newly created money should be PERMANENTLY and
> DEMOCRATICALLY distributed to ALL of the People, who
> are much better qualified than the banker$ to spend it
> properly.
Absolutely not. Money is to be earned, or it won't be worth anything.
If you pump money into the public for nothing, that is just going to
create massive inflation while many people stop working, and those
that keep working start either doing less or wondering why they
bother. In the end all you would gain is embarisement, because your
economy will slow down, until you have to reverse the measure to
get people back to work. If I give you 1 billion, will you go to
work tomorrow ?
> It is high time to stop being HYPOCRITES about
> freedom and democracy, and start fully applying these
> two principles TO ECONOMICS where they COUNT the most.
>
> See also these web pages:
> http://www.paoweb.com/sn080304.htm
or
> http://members.aol.com/rem460/sn080304.txt
or
> http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/sn080304.txt
;
> and http://www.nesara.us
.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/sheet1.txt
(phamflet)
> Robert E. McElwaine
> http://members.aol.com/rem547
PLUS
> http://members.aol.com/rem460
> Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUT
> ALSO http://www.geocities.com/remspiral7/
>
> P.S.1: "Legal" or not, EXTORTION and ARMED ROBBERY,
> committed against Individual People or Families,
> are CRIMINAL OFFENSES, REGARDLESS of who does
> them or why, and REGARDLESS of what they are
> called.
>
> P.S.2: The writer of this article deserves to receive a
> Nobel Prize in Economics for publi****ng it ! ;-)
The Nobel prize is sup****ted by a private investment scheme, note.
> P.S.3: PASS IT ON !
>
> "EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
1+1=2
> "The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
> "The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
> "OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
> "The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
These are the ingredients you need (competition model):
Democratic Authorities (Government +1)
" Ventures (/your cooperatives/ +1)
" Investments (/your banks with elected bosses/ +1)
" Demarcations (resources-distribution, land-distribution)
In my system you scored 3 out of 4, but the money-distribution
was wrong, so -1 for that, 50%. Ditch the money-distribution and
substitute resource distribution.
--
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb
|
