Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Satisfying basic needs

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 22, 2012, 2:31 p.m. EST by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We don't need to philosophize about ideals and utopias because, in the 100 or so years of "modern civilisation", have not yet achieved anything even close to satisfactory as a society under any of those models.

It is the concern for individuals that matters, not the big picture.

"Economic Philosophy" seems to be just a ruse to eliminate most people from the conversation by requiring a degree in political systems just to participate. Those high-falutin' conversations don't allow ordinary average people to say "ya, but what about ME?".

We don't need grand schemes, we are still trying to achieve "satisfactory" - a nation that satisfies the basic needs of everyone.

"Satisfactory" would be to allow every able bodied person to support themselves and their families. That has not been the case.

Maybe we need more options than "employment" for people to support themselves - alternative factories that simply allow workers to produce goods at a cheaper cost to consumers because the "owner profit" would be removed from the cost of the goods. Sure, that sounds like socialism or communism, but there is room for such a factory within a non-communist nation, especially now that so many factories sit empty in America. We could call such places a "satis-factory" [sorry, just goofing around with word play there].

And how about HOUSES that cost something close to what it costs to build them? Do people even realise that a building lot + materials to build a 1200 sq. ft. house + the labour only costs around $100,000?? So why are houses like that selling for $300,000?

China and India are producing electric cars that cost only $5000 US. They work just fine. I would love one of those, why can't we have them?

People first, THEN systems of economics and philosophy. When every willing, ready, and able-bodied person can find an outlet for their energy that allows them to support themselves, we will be approaching "satisfactory".

Maybe we have to be willing to give up the possibility of "making it big" in trade for "making it work for everybody"? I think most of us, the 99%, would agree to that.

"How we get there" will be the first question after we decide what we want.

44 Comments

44 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

You are on to something with this post. We need an economic system that works for the benefit of all human beings and not vice versa.

How do we get there? We start thinking outside the box and start setting ourselves up in ways that are outside of the normal economic system they expect us to participate in.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Well put - human being working for the economic system [or, the 1%] is a type of slavery. We are the 99%, we can break these chains!!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22091) 2 years ago

We need to examine why we are here on this earth. Are we here to have decent lives or to enslave ourselves to some economic system (and you are right, the 1% or wealthy and corporations benefit from it, it is set up for them) that means nothing to us and oppresses us.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

my recovered rebuilt car cost me $2000 dollars after registration

great gas millage

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6472) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In years past people understood that in the free market wealth would concentrate, it was a role of government to redistribute that wealth so that the system would not become too unbalanced, the folks at the top started working through the media and think tanks the ideal that all redistribution was evil and they have upset any chance at balance. I think the best way to move forward would be to provide health care to all based on need and education to all based on ability, those two things, paid for through a fair tax system would go a long way, we also need a living wage.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

AN interesting tibdbit of history is that the early US leaders sought to start factories and build railways by collecting taxes and providing that money as CAPITAL to certain "trustworthy" individuals to get things started with a few initial enterprises [the factories and railroads]. I don't think that the plan was meant to go so far as putting "90% of the nation's wealth in the hands of just 5% of the population" AFTER things got started. The profits from those first few enterprises should have allowed tax money to be put towards schools and, later on, building an electricity grid and so on. In fact, the electric grid WAS built with tax dollars - at least in Canada - and then the grid was basically given away to corporations to profit off.

The original intent of collecting taxes appears to have been abandoned in favor of creating an "uber-wealthy class".

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6472) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know I was unaware that we created the first robber barons, interesting I will have to read more about that and incorporate it into my world model, it seems relevant to me.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

"And how about HOUSES that cost something close to what it costs to build them? Do people even realise that a building lot + materials to build a 1200 sq. ft. house + the labour only costs around $100,000?? So why are houses like that selling for $300,000?"

Simple, it works like this. Fed money printing and mandatory insurance increases the demand. As demand goes up, so does prices. When companies can make tons of profit because of fake demand, they have no incentive to lower prices and compete with each other, they just sit back and let the money pour in. If consumers couldn't get insured loans for 300k, houses wouldn't cost 300k. Land wouldn't cost 300k, because it would take one person a decade to make the money. The easy money and insurance props up demand, allowing companies and bankers (and their political allies) to make a killing off of the working, indentured servant.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 2 years ago

"China and India are producing electric cars that cost only $5000 US. They work just fine. I would love one of those, why can't we have them?"

Because the people with guns who decide what you get--call themselves the government--won't let you. Duh.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

Can't have China and India electric cars because of the EPA.

[-] -1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Is that because they are "unsafe"? It cant be because they pollute... but the EPA heads are often former oil industry and auto industry humps so they don't have to make sense.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I am sure the coal burnt to make the electricity to charge your car did indeed pollute.

And look at the pictures and specs of those $5K Indonesian electric cars and compare them to the types of cars the vast majority of Americans drive and you will see why they are not sold here. People don't sell things there is very little demand for.

[-] 2 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

I can see the cars would need some improvements, taking the cost up to $10,000, but the point is we want, need, and CAN HAVE cars we can afford.

As for the coal -fired needed to power the EVs, there is a bit of an argument there - there are experts who claim that there is an overall reduction of CO2 compared to gas engines even if only coal was used to create the electricity for EVs. But thats not nearly the end of the equation when you figure in that HALF the EVs will be running on solar panel generated electricity, AND, as I mentioned, the coal-fired grid will be much more efficient if EVs are charged at night so the power plants can run steadily instead of gearing up for the daily peak demand hours then shutting down at night.

[-] -1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Well, all too true - but do you agree that this is what we are working towards at OWS?

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 2 years ago

Sure we all want clean energy - however, it's not going to happen in one or two years.

If we continue on the track to produce electrical vehicles, the Electrical Grid in this country won't be able to handle it in 10 years. Something needs to be done about that.

We need more nuclear energy so we can be prepared to handle the load that electical vehicles of the future will present.

There is talk of commercial vehicles switching from diesel to CNG - I think that's a step in the right direction for cleaner air.

It is going to take time probably within the next 20 years you will see a big change - not until then -

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Well we will have to hash this out before we get into the White House :}

As for the GRID - it needs some work but the really great news is the electric vehicles [EVs] can be CHARGED AT NIGHT which will go a long way to "balancing the grid" - so power plants can run steadily all day and night. Shutting them down when the demand drops really wastes a lot of energy.

EVs can also use "a solar panel on the garage roof" to charge a spare set of batteries, and this idea: Vanadium batteries to stabilise the grid when wind and solar power are used http://www.americanvanadium.com/vanadium-flow-batteries.php

Is "CNG" natural gas? Yes, commercial vehicles should change to that.

My opinion is NO NUCLEAR power, we might have to butt heads on this one - It costs more than we know, nuclear power plants depend on subsidies to produce "profit" AND we have to count the cost of waste storage and treatment and accidents - Fukushima should tell you that nuclear accidents are the wildest card ever played.{"Its a helluva way to boil water" [Einstein].

Five years is enough time to make changes happen.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Hell yea... we want free Chinese cars. Definitely. What else ya got?

[-] 0 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Free land, houses built by barter, and hempseed for supper - come on down to Wall Street where our offices are going to be.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

GM just cut a deal with SAIC... SAIC loaned them 400 mil in exchange for half of GM's auto business in India; it ceded control to the Chinese. Chinese and Korean vehicles will very soon put all of our auto manufacturers out of work; this is what perpetual debt does - it eventually costs you everything you have.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

America should be making those cars. I think I see what you are saying though - is it about that the huge debt is making it hard to compete with foreign automakers, so they end up making our cars, and then the jobs go there too?

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I think Korean and Chinese auto makers will eventually put our American and Japanese auto makers out of work.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

Cheap labour, various subsidies, tarrifs, materials costs all factor into it. It turns into a bit of a dirty game, and the USA is not just a victim in that - African cotton farming died when US cotton subsidies made African cotton unmarketable, which is really unfortunate because cotton is one thing that Africa can grow well and a lot of Africans could be lifted out of poverty with cotton production. {this comes from a book by Stephan Lewis, a Canadian diplomat}

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

perpetual creation i drive a old car

i don't need a new car

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Does it have floor boards? Maybe you should think about a scoot - then you won't have to worry about floor boards.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

needs another seat cover if you'd like to send one

i'm picky about ads though

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

You know I put a whole scoot together that way - crazy bleeding heart Americans; they were mailing me parts from all over the country. All it takes is a whole lot of determination - the scoot was just a test.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I have but two needs - sunshine and a good cup of coffee in the morning. Given those two things and I am "satisfied."

What this country needs is testosterone injections and more coffee to energize our lazy, lethargic population.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sativa isn't as hard on the nerves

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3998) 2 years ago

I'm pretty sure you mean 'Stevia'...and yah, its way better for you than artificial sweeteners. So they've finally let it in to the US then?! That's good. For a long while they wouldn't let it in. Rumsfeld conspired with the FDA to get Stevia banned...and guess who is prominent in the artificial sweetener companies? Uh-huh...Rumsfeld.

Stevia is a natural product that is chock full of wonderful antioxidants.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23971) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The sugar substitute? I have heard that it is a healthier alternative - never tried it though. Like my coffee black no sugar anyway.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

my teeth can't take the sugar

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23971) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So - sativa - any good?

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3998) 2 years ago

Oh yes! See my reply to Matt above.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23971) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Oh - um - stevia - yep - that sounds right - any good(?) - I mean as a sweetener(?) - as many substitutes suck as far as taste.

[-] 2 points by Renneye (3998) 2 years ago

I like it. I just make sure I get mine from my local health food store where I know they haven't monkeyed around with it. I got it once at the grocery store and it tasted like chemical.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I've been drinking coffee since I was five... it has no effect on my nerves whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3998) 2 years ago

Sunshine...yaaayyy! Vitamin D!!!

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It's an idiotic post. Just give me another cup of coffee; I can pass on the sunshine 'till morning.

Some of these people really need to think about employment instead of sitting around crying about what they cannot afford.

[-] 0 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

oh golly ya, COFFEE, extra dark. Sept. has been great for sunshine here where I am...extra bright. However, I think I have to disagree about testosterone - some people seem way to sexcrazy, but maybe some good old methamphetamine in small doses, twice on sundays...[but not that awfull "crystal meth"]

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

You know we're all moving to BC, right? And this is the reason why...

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

LOLLLL!!! Well, don't expect methamphetamines, but we certainly have some terrific bud for ya'll. The Conservative [federal] Harper govt. in Ottawa is trying to reverse the trend to tolerance for pot, but so far it remains basically "ok" to have personal amounts here.

Ironically, I quit smoking pot after I moved here [just getting old, lol].

Are most of the OWS supporters in favor of ending the war on drugs? i.e. - "prohibition of certain drugs"? I am. Its a tool of the Elites, the 1%.

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

It would seem most of them are high, yea.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 2 years ago

To whom are you referring "most of them are high" - the 1%, the Harperites? It sounds a bit inflammatory.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that it is