We are the Foundation

Banking and financial regulations similar to what are in place in Canada would be a good start - there's a reason the Canadian dollar went up when the US currency was dropping like a stone. The current head of the BoC is nominated for the international body that regulates banks - and he has said he will enact the same sort of regulation globally.

Don't cut down on taxes - especially not corporate taxes. Taxes pay for civilization.

there is no one school solves all problems solution, but the Keynesians at least take into account human irrationality and emotions (animal spirit). Plus mainstream economic talking heads always always ignore the other side of Keynesian - which is to save during times of surplus. They always harp on about the spending during recessions.

the socrates project? do you mean the project to understand communications networks and try and make them self-organizing? or the Reagan era economic program?

  On 10/17/2011 at 10:02 PM, chenGOD said:

The current head of the BoC is nominated for the international body that regulates banks

There you have it folks... finally a reason for the album delay

  On 10/17/2011 at 10:02 PM, chenGOD said:

Taxes pay for civilization.

 

the socrates project? do you mean the project to understand communications networks and try and make them self-organizing? or the Reagan era economic program?

True, taxes are necessary. I am not saying abolish them, I'm saying balance and diminish them temporarily while increasing a tariff on heavy industrial goods (say, 4-5%) by increments over the course of 5-10 years (so that the tariffs can provide extra income for the budget while meanwhile giving some relief for the middle and lower-classes, allows increased consumerism (without driving prices up insanely high). Once the US is on more of an equilibrium, we start lowering tariffs, increase income tax back to normal levels.

yeah, the Reagan program. its now mostly discredited, but i think there is a point to be had in the fact that we export plenty of low-skill jobs at the expense of the middle and lower classes, but none of the high-skill jobs- we sell technology, they sell us finished product for cheaper, but with a declining domestic labor market consumers are less likely to afford these products. Meanwhile our economy is based on speculatory forms of liquid income..seems to me like speculators are holding westernized economies hostage while claiming they are the sole arbiters of economic progress. I think you know shit is hitting the fan when the service sector and consumerism starts to decline.

Speculators are the bane of capitalism. Once people started using the stock markets/currency exchanges simply as a means to make money instead of a way to finance capital industry that's when shit hit the fan. I would get rid of derivatives to start with.

For taxes - I'd say leave them as they are on the middle class and poor (who aren't paying much in income tax anyways, which is fair) and increase them on the rich. Definitely increase them on corporations - and eliminate as many of the tax loopholes as you can.

The thing with tariffs is you have to be careful for a couple of reasons - they can in fact increase your nation's terms of trade. But if you set them too high, you can start a trade war. Additionally, you have to make sure that you set them in correct industries, cause what you're doing with tariffs is decreasing relative prices of items that you would normally trade for, which could cause shortages elsewhere (lower prices means less incentives for firms to produce but increase in demand by consumers). It's tricky business, plus the US would get pilloried for effecting tariffs as they've been the leading proponents of free trade for so long.

  On 10/17/2011 at 9:03 PM, chenGOD said:

Talk is talk autoPilot - sell your computer, stop buying fruit and produce that's not local to where you are, don't drive a foreign made car, don't use your mobile phone.

I already only buy local produce from farmer's markets. I drive a Dodge Neon when my destination is too far to walk. I don't have a cell phone. Selling my computer won't really accomplish anything because it's already been made (though I haven't upgraded it despite it being almost 8 years old now).

You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, which was that I wouldn't miss the specific benefits of globalization that you listed, because for years I've already been making an effort to eschew those things, as they tend to be both unethical and environmentally unsound.

Yeah and the Neon (although a remarkably American produced automobile) uses a SOHC engine which was based on developments made by Japanese automakers, and the US imports nearly half of it's petroleum.

that's great about your computer. I'll bet money that there are components in there manufactured by foreign nationals.

you post using communication protocols and programs that were created by foreigners (http, PHP). And you continue to benefit from those technologies.

I could go on.

My point is this: people benefit from globalization in so many ways that are hidden from plain view. Your choices are great, and I applaud them wholeheartedly (especially about the food, very important for local production to be strong). But pretending that globalization doesn't make lives better the world over is just silly.

The irony of a US marine screaming about harming unarmed people when ~100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead as a result of US military actions is kind of too much.

[youtubehd]Tj8UlxhfJLw[/youtubehd]

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-must-occupy-congress-ag-offices/

Wtf has anyone heard about this "progressive stack" at occupy all street? Why do people struggle with the concept of equality so much? This is what i was saying on a previous thread where people joked (though it was quite telling, i thought) that in the future women would rule the world. People have this bizarre instinct to avoid equality at all costs. They seem only able to favour one or the other, so in other words, if you have one group who are disadvantaged, you fix it by giving them all the advantages and then neglecting the group who previously had it better. Why are people so retarded?

that seems pretty over-done, non?>

once again, the majority says we want a fair chance, not that we want to destroy capitalism.

  On 10/18/2011 at 4:06 PM, theSun said:

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

 

http://www.ritholtz....ess-ag-offices/

Summary for those too lazy to click:

1. No more bailouts: Bring back real capitalism

2. End TBTF banks

3. Get Wall Street Money out of legislative process

And those are three excellent points - although I would say that i you can institute #3 - the rest comes much more easily. Politics should not be driven by corporate money.

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:45 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 4:06 PM, theSun said:

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

 

http://www.ritholtz....ess-ag-offices/

 

Summary for those too lazy to click:

1. No more bailouts: Bring back real capitalism

2. End TBTF banks

3. Get Wall Street Money out of legislative process

 

And those are three excellent points - although I would say that i you can institute #3 - the rest comes much more easily. Politics should not be driven by corporate money.

Any form of capitalism doesn't fundamentally work. It encompasses private ownership of wealth - we need a system that shares/allocates resources equally so that social stratification in terms of wealth is eliminated (that means social class is removed, which thus means a healthier society [more equal societies do better in many areas - see the Spirit Level by Wilkinson]) and staying with what resources are available instead of leaving things up to the market (the market is not scientically based).

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:57 PM, Bread said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:45 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 4:06 PM, theSun said:

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

 

http://www.ritholtz....ess-ag-offices/

 

Summary for those too lazy to click:

1. No more bailouts: Bring back real capitalism

2. End TBTF banks

3. Get Wall Street Money out of legislative process

 

And those are three excellent points - although I would say that i you can institute #3 - the rest comes much more easily. Politics should not be driven by corporate money.

Any form of capitalism doesn't fundamentally work. It encompasses private ownership of wealth - we need a system that shares/allocates resources equally so that social stratification in terms of wealth is eliminated (that means social class is removed, which thus means a healthier society [more equal societies do better in many areas - see the Spirit Level by Wilkinson]) and staying with what resources are available instead of leaving things up to the market (the market is not scientically based).

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say this will never ever work.

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:44 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:57 PM, Bread said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:45 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 4:06 PM, theSun said:

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

 

http://www.ritholtz....ess-ag-offices/

 

Summary for those too lazy to click:

1. No more bailouts: Bring back real capitalism

2. End TBTF banks

3. Get Wall Street Money out of legislative process

 

And those are three excellent points - although I would say that i you can institute #3 - the rest comes much more easily. Politics should not be driven by corporate money.

Any form of capitalism doesn't fundamentally work. It encompasses private ownership of wealth - we need a system that shares/allocates resources equally so that social stratification in terms of wealth is eliminated (that means social class is removed, which thus means a healthier society [more equal societies do better in many areas - see the Spirit Level by Wilkinson]) and staying with what resources are available instead of leaving things up to the market (the market is not scientically based).

 

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and say this will never ever work.

what won't work?

The sharing resources equally part.

marxism-flavored utopias

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:47 PM, patternoverlap said:

The sharing resources equally part.

not enough information in your answer I'm afraid...

If everyone said "it won't work", and if people do not actually take the time out to examine information critically, we as a society would get no where.

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:48 PM, eugene said:

marxism-flavored utopias

utopia is a flawed concept as it implies "finality" and "perfection" - both of which do not exist as we live in an emergent, physical world, with no finality.

and that's exactly what everyone is saying, so why continue trying to pump it tirelessly rather than try to work within the current mindset and system ?

maybe because he's tired of going nowhere

  On 10/18/2011 at 5:45 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 4:06 PM, theSun said:

i like what barry ritholtz says about ows

 

http://www.ritholtz....ess-ag-offices/

 

Summary for those too lazy to click:

1. No more bailouts: Bring back real capitalism

2. End TBTF banks

3. Get Wall Street Money out of legislative process

 

And those are three excellent points - although I would say that i you can institute #3 - the rest comes much more easily. Politics should not be driven by corporate money.

i'd agree with that, and guess that #3 is a requirement for the other 2.

the big thing for me is that you can buy anything with enough money. money=power (this is bad)

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:56 PM, Bread said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:47 PM, patternoverlap said:

The sharing resources equally part.

not enough information in your answer I'm afraid...

If everyone said "it won't work", and if people do not actually take the time out to examine information critically, we as a society would get no where.

Okay, let's look at it simply. We'll look at food. Food is an important resource which I assume is a part of these resources that you want distributed evenly. There are too many factors in play that would create complexity: size, age, activity level, strength, etc. I assume that the task of dividing up the food would be given to a group of people. What would stop them from taking a bit extra off the top for their own families? Let's say you account for the complexities and you vary the amount given to a family based on certain factors. Let's say Family A gets a bit more food than Family B to compensate for their having more growing children. Why wouldn't Family B take exception to that and try to come up with some factors that would give them a bit more food than they usually get?

The only way it would work is for everyone to magically become completely selfless or to have a totalitarian leader in place to keep everyone in line.

  On 10/18/2011 at 7:07 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

maybe because he's tired of going nowhere

you said it yourself, in that thread where you kept misreading my arguments while pumping historical determinism, that capitalism is very flexible and adjustable.

  On 10/18/2011 at 7:13 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:56 PM, Bread said:

  On 10/18/2011 at 6:47 PM, patternoverlap said:

The sharing resources equally part.

not enough information in your answer I'm afraid...

If everyone said "it won't work", and if people do not actually take the time out to examine information critically, we as a society would get no where.

 

Okay, let's look at it simply. We'll look at food. Food is an important resource which I assume is a part of these resources that you want distributed evenly. There are too many factors in play that would create complexity: size, age, activity level, strength, etc. I assume that the task of dividing up the food would be given to a group of people. What would stop them from taking a bit extra off the top for their own families? Let's say you account for the complexities and you vary the amount given to a family based on certain factors. Let's say Family A gets a bit more food than Family B to compensate for their having more growing children. Why wouldn't Family B take exception to that and try to come up with some factors that would give them a bit more food than they usually get?

 

The only way it would work is for everyone to magically become completely selfless or to have a totalitarian leader in place to keep everyone in line.

if there's one thing we know about human nature it's that people are generally selfless