Forum Post: Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism .... We need to Advance our way of thinking
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 10, 2012, 8:44 a.m. EST by BradB
(2693)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
When are we are talking about economics... are we talking about capitalistic economics or socialistic economics ? they are different...
- Economics from a mathematical view... looking at the ideals .... in a simplistic, pure sense....
in this approach there are different systems to project economic outcome, one system is based on the ideals or goals of insuring;
- Individual Freedom & Economic Prosperity ....
this system is based on monetary incentives provided from free-enterprise .... the pure model includes; no restrictions, free-markets & unlimited incentives
in practice... the system prospers & grows rapidly... and then fails when the monetary wealth falls into the hands of the few.... and the systems collapses on itself.... however with every cycle there is much progress, much innovation and discovery... as well as much suffering by the majority at the time of the collapse...
through real-time analysis & projection.. we attempt to predict when to slow it down in effort to stall or bypass the collapse... which is done by applying restrictions...
eventually when it does collapse .... the people start to demand Economic Freedom ...
- we must understand that this system is cyclic by nature ...
the other, seemingly opposing system is based on the ideals or goals of insuring;
- Economic Freedom & Individual Prosperity ....
this system is based on common & shared property & resources... the pure model includes; guaranteed economic wealth, healthcare, education, food, etc. near total restrictions and limited incentives...
in practice... the system prospers & grows when first established ... all are taken care of, all have the necessities, and all have work.... and eventually the system starts to slow ... the growth stagnates due to lack of incentives ... and productivity fails ....
through real-time analysis & projection.. we attempt to promote productivity through reducing restrictions and applying non-common & non shared incentives .... eventually the monetary wealth falls into the hands of the few.... and the people start to demand Economic Prosperity...
another cyclic system by nature ...
- Funny how it all works ....
so... a simple fricking question .... why one or the other ? why not all ?
why not a system based on the ideals & goals of insuring;
- Individual Freedom, Economic Prosperity, Economic Freedom & Individual Prosperity
all working together... checking and balancing themselves
the simplest approach to building this is to use what is already in place...
a "Federal Reserve Bank" and a new "Social Reserve Bank" working together in harmony
Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism... are meaningless words because these "systems" are corrupt. The competition between them is deceptive, they all achieve the same thing - covering up corruption. The result is the same, only the methods differ. At the moment, there's NO social theory that pays due attention to corruption.
The most corrupt notion of all is the belief that randomly thrown buzzwords will magically check and balance each other. That notion seems to have started with Adam Smith and his invisible hand, which is still missing in action.
The Constitutional checks and balances are quite insufficient and easily defeated by private groups, they can collude with the government and use it for their private interests. There is a lot of theoretic and legislative work to be done - loopholes to be closed, principles to be reconsidered, etc.
The largest problem is the lack of properly educated people - our economics and law schools produce biased and indoctrinated graduates which know nothing but the status quo. It's up to the voters to start from square one and try to find reasonable solutions - both theoretical and practical. Check votersway.com, an attempt to do just that.
looks like a good start saboro ,,, I'll finish reading it tonight ;)
A cap on sales profit would correct capitalism while leaving all incentive in place for growth and production, and adding a balanced distribution of wealth.
maybe so... but a lost fight imo.... it will never be approved ... it's against free-enterprise ... and America would rather go bankrupt than abandon free-enterprise...
Than America must be against equality and fairness. They didn't give up slavery without a fight neither.
FriendlyObserverB, ;) I do agree with you that a cap on sales profit would fix a lot... and it really should something that competition self provides... but honestly trying trying to legislate that is near impossible ..imo
Yes it would fix a lot. It would refloat the economy. it would provide monetary strength and equality amongst the classes. And it would expand freedom from the hands of a few to the many.
The dream grows stronger.
the best way to insure individual freedom is to end the governments regulation over our freedom, if a man wants to drive a car let him, dont charge him for this right, if a man wants to build a house from some trees, let him, dont withold the trees saying, thats federal land and you need a permit to build here, or you need to pay the owner of that acre a million dollars if you want to build there.
;) and ...... what does that mean ? ... that you don't want socialism ? ... if so ... do you think I am suggesting socialism ?
i dont know exactly how to define what im saying, im just trying to describe what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, used to mean in this country and expose how far we , (not we but the government and busy bodies involved in other mens matters ) have drifted away from it.
I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying here. So, my first question would have to be "do you believe in no private property"?
You write that you shouldn't have to pay an owner of an acre for the right to build on that acre. But, if that is the case, then what is there to stop me from coming onto that acre later and taking half of it and claiming the half that you have built your house on?
You write that you should be able to cut down a tree to build yourself a home. So what is your stance on conservation? What if that tree is an endangered tree? (And which side of the political spectrum is it that has actually made it so that private property owners can't take down certain trees on their property or farm a field because of a wee mouse or have access to water for their crops because of a wee fish?)
Honestly just trying to understand what you believe.
great debate content. 1. why would a man need to take my acre, when 95% of land is open available for occupation. I believe this is self evident. 2. Im speaking more for those who own 6 houses, and hundreds of thousands of acres. this principle can be compared to the corporations who hoard the wealth. We should focus on those who are getting rich off of others, such as the poor people who forever rent in trailer parks, I have a friend who pays 450 a month for his trailer and 600 a month for his space rent. I think the rest of this point should just fall into place in the intelligence of the neurons.
On regard to the lack of trees, or endangered tree, who really gives a rats ass, if something becomes extinct, did the majority ever vote on this? Name one extinct animal or plant that EVER directly affected me or my family? Things have been going extinct for billions of years now with or without man's help.
Back to the point on the trees: I have a weed tree in my yard that grows from seed to 10 feet tall in a year without any care. and produces plenty of wood to burn to keep warm in the following winter, why one tree even planted its seed in the side of a concrete wall.
You see when we the people are suffering, and have been enslaved by our brothers as I have been complaining about for 25 years now, what does a endangered tree or frog mean to them? Nothing, it just takes focus off meatier topics.
Okay, so you don't believe in private property. We have established that. And we have established that you believe that the inherent "goodness" of people will stop takers from coming in and taking over 1/2 your acre. And that inherent "goodness" will stop someone from coming in to your house and taking it over because they don't want to build one of their own because they haven't learned how to do it; you believe that there will be no one who believes that they have a "right" to your house because they don't have the skills to build one of their own.
As for trees...and wee mice and fishee's....I think we can agree that those environmentalist groups who are placing more importance on those items than on the need for human beings to be able to build a home and grow their crops are in the wrong. But I wonder if you realize that those groups are usually liberal ones and not conservative ones? I mean, take the pipeline project just shut down for environmental reasons - regardless of the jobs it would create and the security it would offer the US regarding our energy needs...those were liberals who were against that project...right?
Your friend, who lives in a trailer for which he pays $1050.00 per month could buy a pretty nice house for that monthly amount. There are FHA loans out there for those with little to no down payment. Oh, but I forgot that you don't believe in private property rights so I guess he should just be able to live in that trailer on that land for nothing.....
the problem is he doesnt qualify for a 1050 house payment because on paper it shows he only entered into contract for $450. the 600 a month is just another scandal by the rich to persecute the poor (for lack of another description). I do believe in private property, however, maybe we should limit people from owning more than 1-2 acres, with some strict and closely watched exceptions such as farming. My question is where is my acre? I have paid out all I have made in my life in rent, (for the same reason as the trailer park example) finally bought a hosue last year, but dont have the 1200 taxes i was billed so i am in year one of tax default on my new home.
as for the inherit goodness of someone taking over my property, his name is smith and wesson, and his buddy remington. i dont need another man to protect me, why id rather that man go fill out a resume somewhere, they usually go overboard in their protection of our rights anyways.
Then to whom is he paying that $600 per month for the land rent? Why is there no record that he pays that on time?
Also, you say you bought a house yet don't have the money to pay the taxes. I have to assume then that you paid cash for the house and have no mortgage because mortgage holders pay the property taxes and homeowners insurance out of the part of the monthly mortgage payment that is not principle and interest.
How do you "label" yourself? Conservative or liberal? I ask because despite your belief that no private property should exist, you don't like environmentalists and appear to support gun ownership rights.
i dont know that im left, or right, or conservative or liberal, why be categorized at all when we are all individuals, and as individuals are entitled to certain inalienable rights ? There is no contract for month to month rent on trailer spaces, with exception of yearly leases, just as a person who rents an apartment doesnt get credit for renting the apartment. I say, i see lots of open land that poor people could move onto and live, and actually own it one day.
Yes my house was paid for with cash, but not my cash, the banks refused to give me a loan, cause of them being in bed with credit reporting agencies, and some black ball railroading that occurred but that is another story. Fact is I have begun the 30 year repayment process and am seeing 82% of my monthly payments going to rich bankers, and 19% going towards principle on my paid for cash home monthly repayment plan. Things are not always what they seem, and I have no blame in it. For example, eventhough I am a working man with 100k-200k sales in my small business, I dont show a profit so dont qualify for any financing, nevermind the fact that I have been paying rent, somewhere nonstop for 25 years, which should be based upon a home loan that is secured, but the geniuses behind our current system just dont credit that. The banks are fine with giving money to my almost dead parents who are retired from work and one of them has full scale alzheimerz disease. See the complexity of how people need to work thru things? This isnt my mess. But I have seen and heard much.
Something sounds just a bit fishy with your friend's story. Because, if he has paid his rent on time, along with all his other bills, and can prove that he has the monthly income to pay a $1050.00 loan monthly payment, then he should qualify for an FHA mortgage regardless of whether or not there is a legal record of that $600 per month being paid.
Sounds like you entered into a lease to own contract but didn't negotiate for the seller to pay the property taxes out of what you are paying per month. (?)
oh well the 450 a month trailer payment was privately financed, maybe that is the part I didnt mention also. plus isnt the ratio of debt like less than 50 percent? i know this guy doesnt make 2k per month, but whatever, I dont have all his financing details in front of me.
Your right on the 2nd point, I have attended some property tax auctions and have a large 1/3rd acre lot and can afford to lose 1 foot of property off each side which will satisfy the 6k in taxes for each sequential 5 year tax period that will be in default, (this was the result b.t.w. of every single property tax auction each home only lost one foot) i figure I can stretch this out twenty years, and only lose 4 feet of property, which will keep $24,000 in my family's hands and out of government where it belongs.
I have thought that there is no 'one' system that has ever been successful for a lengthy amount of time. I have come to the conclusion, as you, that it will be a combination of systems and possibly some that haven't come to the table yet, that will work for an evolving society. The only stumbling block is that we have to wake up to the fact that we can't expect the older systems to keep working when the global population is changing. We have to evolve with it. or stagnate. there are basics that MUST never change, like our sovereign bodies, in that our personal freedoms or human rights can never be taken away. The rest is up to us.
Renaye, I'm with ya ... I think we are saying the same thing ;)
Sorry, didn't mean to be repetitive, but sometimes when others see several people of the same opinion, it opens doors for them. Many people don't want to be the first to jump on board with anything for fear of being berated.
no I LIKED your post ;) Thanks
much obliged!