The Mutualist Philosophy

[ConservativelyRadical]

Alright, well I honestly don't know how to start here as experience has taught me I usually get dismissed after the first paragraph or two regardless how I start it, so let me start by trying to give a succinct summary of what Mutualism stands for:

Mutualism is simply the recognition that with 33+ million Canadians today with their own views NOBODY will be able to have the exact perfect system they want, they can only hope to compromise and find common-ground between the large majority to agree on and work together for.

I'll post the introduction I have put together here first as it explains the main philosophical system behind it and leave the more detailed policy stuff for the "Mutualist Cooperative" structure later when I get it worked out a bit better. It may not seem like it given the name but it's is actually very nationalistic while still being "globalist" - but not "ultra-nationalistic".

This whole thing is subject to constant change of course and I encourage constructive criticism fully, my ultimate goal is to try to come up with a radical new system that people from all political persuasions can support at least in principle - to do that I need people providing opinions from all perspectives on it.

And this is a very rough draft "dumbed down" to a simple point by point format for easier reading, hopefully. It is a bit repetitive though now, lol.

Also I am not referring to Proudhon's or anyone else's anarchistic economic views, though there are some aspects of this system that are similar.

An Introduction to Mutualist philosophy:

A good example of Mutualism would be a community garden, wherein every person who contributes time and resources to the garden receives a portion of the produce from it.

Mutualism can be more than just a principle of business however, it can be a philosophy, a form of social and political order, a way of life. But Mutualism is an anti-ideology.

The human race can only continue to progress for a limited time as long as our scientific and technological advancement is based almost entirely on our striving to exterminate each other in more efficient and effective ways.

The human race needs to begin focusing our advancement on coming together and solving problems peacefully and ensuring that our global society can be sustained in harmony with both mother nature and human nature.

If it is true what the violence and hate apologists say about human beings ultimately being just another kind of animal with basic, selfish and often violent instincts that can’t be overcome then all I have to say is that it is time for the intelligent people of the world to step up and to force ourselves to evolve beyond this primitive behaviour that will ultimately destroy us(provided mother nature doesn't do that first).

However I do believe that Darwinism, “survival of the fittest”, giving in to natural animal instincts or whatever you may wish to call it is not a normal human condition, the ability to overcome those instincts is what makes us human and makes us superior to most other beings on this planet.

Only in heightened emotional states do human beings generally give in or revert to their most basic animal instincts, especially in fear and anger.

Combine a constant culture of fear and anger instilled or instigated by Hollywood and the media with a society built on corporate Darwinism and competition in which everything is a contest for physical goods or money, jobs/careers or just popularity(perceived social status) and in which if you can‘t “make the cut” you either live miserably or just don‘t survive at all and you have masses of people programmed to be animals who think “it is only natural” for human beings to behave like animals.

Human beings are not naturally violent, but the fact is neither are most real animals who only hurt and kill others out of self defence or personal survival, but we humans are the only creatures that hurt and kill others for no good reason - profit, sport/ego stroking or just “because we can”. We only do it because we have been programmed to accept and support such behaviour by the very people who are ultimately responsible for most of it.

Hatred and violence does not make the world go around today, it just seems that way because our collective heads are spinning from all of the lying, cheating, hating and manipulation that is forced upon us by those we put in power by our own heavily “influenced” choosing.

Our entire lives have become propaganda and we are programmed from birth to think and behave the way they need us to think and behave in order for them to maintain control and profit excessively from our collective stupidity.

Those spiders that spin all those intricate webs of lies are guilty of numerous crimes against humanity of a magnitude that most people in western society can‘t even begin to imagine, and those who can are just ‘conspiracy theorists’ and such that are easily dismissed by the masses.

It’s time that someone did something to try to break that cycle of hatred that now threatens the human race, and I believe Mutualism may be of some use in that.

----

So then what is Mutualism?

Mutualism is simply the intelligent way to do things if the human race wishes to survive in the long term.

Mutualism does not care what any single person believes or does not believe, Mutualism understands that it is always of greater benefit to everyone to put aside their differences and work together on the things they can agree on for their mutual benefit.

Mutualism knows that you do not have to agree with everything another person thinks or believes to be able to benefit from cooperating with them rather than fighting them.

Mutualism is tolerance of any and all belief’s and having the will to compromise and work past differences for the greater good of the global human society.

In the western world there has long been an ingrained distinction between ‘business’ and ‘personal’ when it comes to conduct. Business is no no-nonsense because it’s what ‘brings home the bacon’ and allows families to survive.

That serious ‘all business’ mentality applied to everyday life and all human interactions is Mutualism.

Economically it is a form of State Capitalism, socially and politically it’s more like an idealistic form of communistic ‘direct democracy’ combined with libertarianism.

As radical as that may sound the end result is not much different than the modern western capitalist system in it’s ideal form, except that the people who currently are exploited by that western system would be the ones with all of the power in this form of Mutualist Cooperative system.

Mutualism does not support ultra-nationalism, it supports populism. If even half of the pride that is put into modern ultra-nationalist causes in the world today were put into being proud of simply being human instead then there would be no need for any change today as the world would be a far more peaceful and advanced place than it currently is.

What separates human beings from ‘the rest of the animals’ is our ability to have a great variety of opinions, ideas, beliefs and cultures. Those different cultures that make us human beings should be celebrated together for their individualities, not simply amalgamated down into a broad, dominant “super culture”.

Mutualism does not support playing blame games or scape-goating over who is responsible for the state of the world today, nor does it support militarization in opposition to those manipulative ‘spiders’.

Hating those who are haters just makes the cycle of hate and violence continue going around and around, Mutualism is about stopping that cycle through education and understanding of why all that hatred and violence exists and persists despite the seemingly advanced state of the human race today.

Mutualism is about love, if not for your fellow man or woman then for yourself and your own family and the fact that they deserve to live in peace, safety and comfort in a global society that puts the success of everyone at the top of it‘s priorities.

Violence should only be used in self defence, after all diplomatic options have failed.

As for the general "government" structure for now I only say that there are 5 sections to it:

The People

The People’s Trust

The People’s Network

The Council & Chairman of The Council(essentially PM and Premiere's)

The Economic Bureau(Corporate Leaders & Executives)

As scary as that may sound it truly ends up with a system very similar to our current society in most of the significant ways, but with everything simplified as much as possible to reduce bureaucracy - it sounds like "big government" but since it is "streamlined" it would end up being a physically smaller government than we currently have, I can guarantee that.

PS - I apologize for all the "The People" references, but honestly this system would mostly appeal to leftist leaning individuals and it makes sense to gear it toward them with some of the language.

Especially since the Mutualist policy of "cultural harmony" that I will get to sometime soon goes against much of what every Liberal today believes in... compromise in personal belief's "for the greater good" is essential to Mutualism. That is the main deal breaker though for most people today unfortunately whether on the political Right or Left.

Of course this system provides an option that covers "none of the above" with the ability to transfer your status to that of a "Natural Citizen" essentially "opting out" of the Mutualist society - but you dismiss society and you get none of the benefits it offers either beyond the right to remain here and retain ownership of anything and everything you legally possess - contractually agreeing to never do anything that poses a threat to the main society either of course.

It offers an option for the truly independent people and all the anarchists out there anyways.

But I'll get into that later, I'm interested in opinions on the general philosophy first off. Don't pull any punches but please try to be respectful.

[Shwa]

Let's start here:

A good example of Mutualism would be a community garden, wherein every person who contributes time and resources to the garden receives a portion of the produce from it.

But essentially everyone contributing to the community garden would be required to contribute more than their fair share to produce a surplus to take care of those who are unable to contribute to the garden. This will require oversight and each garden will have to be managed so that it is producing enough to cover off those who cannot contribute to the garden directly, including the managers who are busy overseeing the garden. These garden managers will require regular reports on the garden so there will have to be staff to produce reports, to be delegated manager functions and to enforce a standard set of care for the garden in the form of rules. And if there is any sort of "nationalistic" cooperation between these gardens, there will need to be managers of managers, and managers of those managers, and so on.

So now you have a bureaucracy that has to also receive a portion of the proceeds from the garden. Our original contributor is one busy little bee. Never mind the suppliers of seeds, fertilizer, garden implements, etc. They are all contributing to the garden indirectly, but still are due a "portion."

Naturally, some gardens will do better than others resulting in surpluses for some gardens and deficits for others. There will need to be some sort of equal distribution system that will require some sort of trade agreements, transportation methods, all of which will require infrastructure, which will need to be built and so on.

So, to break down your analogy - is the garden the country and the "contribution" taxes and the "portion" they receive back services?

Need to clarify that a bit.

[August1991]

CR, take a basic course in economics, think about what you learn and then come back and edit your post.

Hint: If you open up any standard economic textbook, the first sentence will be a variation on: who will produce what and who will get what is produced.

Life is too short to waste it attempting to solve problems that have already been solved.

[Michael Hardner]

Hello CR. It all sounds good, but I'm trying to imagine the details. The 5 section government structure already hints at major changes. If that's at the core of implementing this idea, then we already may be on our way to an academic exercise and not anything real.

What are the real political changes that have happened in the past generation ? The Reform party ascending to power, the rise and fall of the Bloc, the birth of the Green party, arguably. The thing to note is that none of these new players challenged the structure of our institutions in a significant way.

[ConservativelyRadical]

Let's start here:

But essentially everyone contributing to the community garden would be required to contribute more than their fair share to produce a surplus to take care of those who are unable to contribute to the garden. This will require oversight and each garden will have to be managed so that it is producing enough to cover off those who cannot contribute to the garden directly, including the managers who are busy overseeing the garden. These garden managers will require regular reports on the garden so there will have to be staff to produce reports, to be delegated manager functions and to enforce a standard set of care for the garden in the form of rules. And if there is any sort of "nationalistic" cooperation between these gardens, there will need to be managers of managers, and managers of those managers, and so on.

So now you have a bureaucracy that has to also receive a portion of the proceeds from the garden. Our original contributor is one busy little bee. Never mind the suppliers of seeds, fertilizer, garden implements, etc. They are all contributing to the garden indirectly, but still are due a "portion."

Seriously, the first sentence using a general analogy I admitted was "dumbed down" is your focus? (I shouldn't have removed the "to the politically uneducated" part I suppose)

I asked for serious discussion and constructive criticism, I don't see much that fits the bill in your response, but then that is my fault. It's impossible for you to see right now the "big picture" and realize most of your arguments are null and void.

The garden was a general example of the philosophy behind it of 'everyone who puts in and gets something out', nothing more. But regardless, in that case your example is also subject to large numbers of variables as I myself have tended relatively small gardens all by my lonesome and given away large portions of it without hurting my own supply(if I didn't give it away it would have rotted and been wasted).

Yes some gardens do better than others, but comparing a personal garden run by people of questionable botanical/agricultural skill and knowledge to a group system whereby typically someone who actually knows what they are doing is in charge and you will always yield a decent output, unless God/Mother Nature or some human asshole intervenes.

The input is far lesser than the output and that increases with the number of people involved(limited by space obviously though), thus it is possible to cover those who are not capable of chipping in their share, and even providing the bare minimum for survival to those capable but unwilling.

Many community gardens exist in places like Detroit today with none of the bureaucracy you speak of - when everyone is directly involved they don't need to pay other people to manage other people managing other people and telling them how things are going with the garden and so on - one or two volunteers out of every few hundred participants and one central organizer is enough to organize things well enough.

And believe it or not you only need to buy seeds once every few crop rotations if you are smart, after that quality of food may start to suffer though. And natural fertilizers are available all around us in abundance, though it may not be a pleasant matter to deal with... And although it sure makes life easier all those "garden implements" and tools are not necessary to getting the job done.

But dealing with the real issues by addressing them in analogy form is retarded anyways.

I do not favor a welfare-state myself so if the people decided as such we could possibly force those who do not want to contribute to society to become "Natural Citizens" and thus not be covered by society in any way, but that would probably make them hostile to our society and lead to security issues which I prefer to avoid.

The economics are far more complicated than that community garden example, but still very simple in principle - The corporations/economy work for the people with the "government" providing management but The People having the ultimate power.

The largest part of the bureaucracy is "The People's Trust" and "The People's Network" - the former is simply a national bank system in the form of a national credit union(every citizen has an equal share and vote in executive matters) that handles all banking needs and manages "The People's Treasury" for which all government funding is drawn.

The Network is a series of online databases and "portals" where anything and everything government related is announced, discussed and debated and possibly even voted on publicly with full transparency and minimal activity on the part of most citizens(how hard is surfing the web and clicking and typing?).

Both the Trust/Treasury and Network would require fairly large amounts of personnel to make it work(some possibly transferred from existing banks), but almost everything would be carried out under the "The Economic Bureau" as nationalized corporations with elected CEO's(Chief Elected Officers) and an executive cadre all subject to approval of the people(a simple discussion board type polling system would suffice possibly).

Standardized salaries, a few Corporate Laws and their being subject to the whims of the people will ensure, in theory, that those CEO's and executives are always working for The People as a whole, and not for any private or foreign interests.

Not all corporations would be nationalized though, only those that serve the "Public Interest" - those that do large-scale mega-corporation level business or are involved in natural(national) resources and that start the "trickle down" process in our economy.

With all CEO's and executives being "public servants" on reasonable standardized government salaries a lot less money would end up in the pockets of a few big-wigs and more would "trickle down" and eventually reach the true backbone of any economy - the "small businesses".

A portion of the nationalized corporation's profits would go into the Treasury to pay for government operations and some directly into the People's Trust where it is even distributed among the people, the rest goes to it's employee's.

Naturally, some gardens will do better than others resulting in surpluses for some gardens and deficits for others. There will need to be some sort of equal distribution system that will require some sort of trade agreements, transportation methods, all of which will require infrastructure, which will need to be built and so on.

All the infrastructure is in place, or most of it anyways. If we tear everything down and start over from scratch then yes all the infrastructure needs to be built, but that would just be stupid.

There is deconstruction involved in some areas in regards to the existing bureaucracy but mostly it simply involves adapting existing infrastructure and systems and not destroying them and starting all over.

As for establishing trade agreements and all that - are you afraid of doing any actual work?

I don't get it, why is getting people to do some work a problem when everyone is already used to that?

So, to break down your analogy - is the garden the country and the "contribution" taxes and the "portion" they receive back services?

Need to clarify that a bit.

No, actually that is backwards - in this system the government works for the people, the people don't pay taxes to or serve any government. The government only provides a bare minimum for survival to any citizen, it is up to every individual citizen to work and achieve more than that if they want to enjoy their life's and do more than just survive.

By your logic no system in the world should exist because it takes work too much investment to get it going?

The "it's too much work so why bother" excuse isn't an intelligent or constructive response, our entire world today is built on people doing "too much work".

I admit I am not providing a very good "big picture" to grasp right now, but the "big picture" as I've said before isn't much different than what we have now as far as "lifestyles" or the core principles (work and you shall succeed) are concerned.

But many of the changes needed to get from the "now" to the end product that isn't much different are very radical changes, and it is easier to break down the discussion so that there aren't too many "radical changes" together that would naturally scare people away.

[ConservativelyRadical]

CR, take a basic course in economics, think about what you learn and then come back and edit your post.

Hint: If you open up any standard economic textbook, the first sentence will be a variation on: who will produce what and who will get what is produced.

Try waiting for the whole picture to be presented before jumping to your conclusions please, I am well aware that everything has to come from somewhere and someone.

The only big difference in the end is that the wealth that flows into and around this nation will no longer primarily be in the pockets of a minority, but will be "trickled down" throughout society at a level that will actual benefit us all.

@ Michael Hardner - yes the structure of the government involves radical changes and hence I wanted to get some input on the basic philosophy of it first, it's far too easy to dismiss the entire package without understanding what the primary objective(s) of the system is.

Of course it's easy to dismiss the whole package even understanding the primary objective(s), such is the uncompromisable nature of political beliefs.

Even those who like my ideas in general(yes, even a few highly educated people) admit that they, like all human beings, are naturally hostile to any new viewpoint presented to them and will seek to find any and every flaw in it in order to dismiss it, the 'big picture' be damned.

EDIT: I have been told that I can't fight that nature, but I don't mind trying.

Edited May 31, 2011 by ConservativelyRadical

[Michael Hardner]

@ Michael Hardner - yes the structure of the government involves radical changes and hence I wanted to get some input on the basic philosophy of it first, it's far too easy to dismiss the entire package without understanding what the primary objective(s) of the system is.

Of course it's easy to dismiss the whole package even understanding the primary objective(s), such is the uncompromisable nature of political beliefs.

Even those who like my ideas in general(yes, even a few highly educated people) admit that they, like all human beings, are naturally hostile to any new viewpoint presented to them and will seek to find any and every flaw in it in order to dismiss it, the 'big picture' be damned.

EDIT: I have been told that I can't fight that nature, but I don't mind trying.

We're here to discuss, so your flaws will be examined and revealed. That's what we do here.

If this is indeed an academic discussion, then there will be no need to dismiss the idea but at the same time don't expect hear anybody say that they think that it's going to happen.

[Shwa]

Seriously, the first sentence using a general analogy I admitted was "dumbed down" is your focus? (I shouldn't have removed the "to the politically uneducated" part I suppose)

I asked for serious discussion and constructive criticism, I don't see much that fits the bill in your response, but then that is my fault. It's impossible for you to see right now the "big picture" and realize most of your arguments are null and void.

Seriously? You provide a point of discussion and somehow it is my fault for not replying in the way that pleases you? LOFL! Let me give you a specific example:

But dealing with the real issues by addressing them in analogy form is retarded anyways.

Your whole OP was analogy son, your analogy.

But let me get back to your Utopia, in a sense, a restructured nation, your Garden of Eden if you will, to pick some cherries.

The problem I am having is trying to determine whether your system is fascist or communist; it can't be anarchist since that would require a fair deal of re-tooling and likely not very adapteable to the present infrastrcuture. Who gets to be leader and how are they chosen? Do we all "mutually" agree on the choice somehow via an on-line poll? Or is that too done through a sort of "executive cadre?"

As for establishing trade agreements and all that - are you afraid of doing any actual work? I don't get it, why is getting people to do some work a problem when everyone is already used to that?

Now all of those disabled, mentally challenged, old & frail or sick and cancerous people who simply cannot work - at all or for certain periods - to become "natural citizens" provided with the bare necessesities.

I do not favor a welfare-state myself so if the people decided as such we could possibly force those who do not want to contribute to society to become "Natural Citizens" and thus not be covered by society in any way, but that would probably make them hostile to our society and lead to security issues which I prefer to avoid.

It would make some hostile, but it might make others dead. But no worries, no more burden. Gotchya.

But many of the changes needed to get from the "now" to the end product that isn't much different are very radical changes, and it is easier to break down the discussion so that there aren't too many "radical changes" together that would naturally scare people away.

Ok, fair enough. So let's focus down to one real problem that society faces and how your mutualist system would deal with unemployment. Please show how the current system could be adapted to deal with unemployment in a mutualist way.

[Michael Hardner]

Is there democracy in this system ? What happens to private investment ? What about assets currently held ? What would stop people from fleeing the country with their skills and their money ?

It sounds like a modified communist system, with a technocratic central control via the economic bureau.

In short - it's a complete redesign of society, roughly along communist lines.

What isn't explained is the violent revolution that is necessary to make all of this happen.

[Shwa]

Is there democracy in this system ? What happens to private investment ? What about assets currently held ? What would stop people from fleeing the country with their skills and their money ?

It sounds like a modified communist system, with a technocratic central control via the economic bureau.

In short - it's a complete redesign of society, roughly along communist lines.

What isn't explained is the violent revolution that is necessary to make all of this happen.

It sounds more fascist to me, no revolution, the National Socialist and all that. Plus some corporations get to stay alive, while others are nationalized for the benefit of the People. Somewhat Orwellian, but I want to know how it deal with unemployment first.

[Michael Hardner]

Somewhat Orwellian, but I want to know how it deal with unemployment first.

Given what we've already stated about the scale of this change, it seems like a minor point. There was no unemployment in Socialist Russia - the state could pay people to dig holes and fill them in again.

[Pliny]

One thinks the plan is communist and one thinks it is fascist? I understand how that confusion could come about! It seems it is just another concept of a socially engineered society. I think it is based out of the Jewish socialist concept of the "kibbutz". I admit to a limited understanding of that so perhaps someone more familiar with it could make that comparison if they know the "big picture".

Your handle is "conservativelyradical", how did you arrive at that? Nationalistic, cultural and ethnic sentiments, perhaps?

In any respect, I agree with August that the fundamentally most important thing in considering the concept of a political philosophy lies in a thorough understanding of economics and human action.

A problem of rising above our baser emotions and instincts, perhaps instincts is a poor choice of word, is raised in your opening presentation. How do we rise above greed, fear, anger, envy, aggression and all those things. Everyone has a different level of tolerance in suffering. Some will tolerate it and not succumb to those baser emotions under all circumstances - that would be one extreme and perhaps maybe a bit more preferable one, always tempered by circumstance, of course. On the other hand, some will tolerate little suffering before they give in to their baser selves, and some will have no compunctions about taking something and giving nothing in return - that being the basic definition of a criminal. It is easy, in a land of plenty, to philosophize and design ways and means for all to live in harmony and co-operation. When scarcity is prevalent is the time when those baser emotions, which I believe were intended by nature to enhance one's chances of survival, will kick in. We are civilized to the degree we produce plenty and are not forced by scarcity to succumb to those baser emotions. So this is basically an economic problem. In a land of plenty it is looked upon as a moral or ethical problem but essentially, plenty and scarcity, supply and demand is the arbiter of a society's general level of morality and ethics. Individually, we can set our own standards but the standards of others, as well as circumstance set by our self-image, are determinant factors in how true we remain to those standards.

Governments, with the ability to tax and commit itself to economic liabilities, current and future, assumes a certain amount of production; that is to say, creation of supply to fill demand, will always occur. It grows itself and develops from that assumption. Economic growth then becomes a necessity to the welfare of government and the commitments it has made. It panics under any drop in production.

As an example, if an alternative energy supply that was more plentiful and efficient than oil became available today governemnt's major source of revenues would disappear. An intolerable position from a government's point of view. It would be preferable that other forms of taxation were in place before that occurred. This would be a problem of government and it's revenues that are dependent upon a certain level and type of production. Energy as an industry, serves to illustrate how governments become dependent upon their sources of revenues and then feel the necessity to control the level and type of production in society to maintain stable revenues from that industry. I'm certain it can be envisioned that the collapse of government revenues would bring ruin to the entire heirarchical power structure and it would not be dependent upon whether there were a democracy, a dictatorship or communist regime in power. This is what all governments are struggling with today and what we have to put up with because we voted for what we got and those that live under undemocratic regimes have no choice.

If, on the other hand, some foresight had been employed and government kept to a limited mandate thus not encouraging horrendous levels of taxation, it too would have to and could ride out drops in production. I would submit though that barring their intervention in the economy, and other economic manipulations, especially of a monetary nature, there could never be a drop in the overall production of an economy. The artificial boom/bust cycle would disappear. Natural cataclysm would be the only producer of a general economic bust.

Political solutions to economic problems will generally favour politics and only sometimes, and for short periods, if at all, favour society.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny, I concur with the first part of your post - wherein you talk about the general problems with this new philosophy. As for the second part, to my mind we had more booms and busts prior to 1929 when there was less intervention. Government isn't the only thing that provides booms and busts.

I will concede that they tend to get in the way of change, though.

[Shwa]

Given what we've already stated about the scale of this change, it seems like a minor point. There was no unemployment in Socialist Russia - the state could pay people to dig holes and fill them in again.

No, no, no. I have graduated from the "garden" type variety analysis, so lettuce move on to the nitty gritty and how this problem will be rooted out.

[bloodyminded]

Oh, no.

All right. That's it. I'm outta here.

[August1991]

In any respect, I agree with August that the fundamentally most important thing in considering the concept of a political philosophy lies in a thorough understanding of economics and human action.

The following video presents the problem in a nutshell:

Cooperation is better than competition but people have a tendency to cheat. That is, they say that they will do something but them they don't.

No, no, no. I have graduated from the "garden" type variety analysis, so lettuce move on to the nitty gritty and how this problem will be rooted out.

That argument beets me.

[Pliny]

Pliny, I concur with the first part of your post - wherein you talk about the general problems with this new philosophy. As for the second part, to my mind we had more booms and busts prior to 1929 when there was less intervention. Government isn't the only thing that provides booms and busts.

I will concede that they tend to get in the way of change, though.

Booms and busts prior to 1929 did indeed occur. Monetary manipulation also occurred. The central bank was created to resolve the problems of the banking system and was supposed to eliminate the boom/bust cycle. After 1913 - no more depressions were supposed to occur. The fact they thought they could eliminate the cycle meant they were cognizant of the fact that standard banking practices at least contributed to, and in some cases may have been the direct cause of, the cycle. The idea of the central bank was simply monetary shifting to prevent bank failures while allowing them to continue generally accepted (income generating) banking practices and it was supposed to be all that was necessary as a cure for the cycles.

You have to admit that after 1913, their plan to eliminate any occurrence of economic depression/recession failed drastically, and today the economy is so unstable we are experiencing a "harrowing" economic roller coaster affecting entire econmies far beyond the "garden variety" ups and downs of an open, competitive market.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

You have to admit that after 1913, their plan to eliminate any occurrence of economic depression/recession failed drastically, and today the economy is so unstable we are experiencing a "harrowing" economic roller coaster affecting entire econmies far beyond the "garden variety" ups and downs of an open, competitive market.

Banking is one part of it, the other part is the SEC - excessive speculation and so on.

[Pliny]

The following video presents the problem in a nutshell:

Cooperation is better than competition but people have a tendency to cheat. That is, they say that they will do something but them they don't.

That was a good clip.

Once the rules had been explained I saw there was only one way to walk away with the jackpot - Get a committal to split and hope the other person is honest. She was playing all or nothing - maximizing risk. He was playing half or nothing - minimizing risk. You notice she never committed to saying she would split. She did say people would be disgusted with her if she stole it but that isn't saying "I'm going to split". That sweet little girl could never be that cold and calculating, could she?

The lesson here, I suppose, is to learn how to listen. He didn't get an outright committal to split and so can't even take solace in the fact she's a lying pirate instead of just a sly dog. It was just a game, with some high stakes mind you, but the rules of the game precluded trust. Open co-operation and real harmony, real life in general to be tolerable, requires trust. Politics is a shell game itself where, in order to be able to legally seize the property of another in order to pay yourself you must be a sly dog and say, "it's for the common good" or something similar, - and honest people wind up losing sooner or later.

I'm beginning to think that politicians should be part time volunteers, then "Sly dogs" would not be so tempted to run for office.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Banking is one part of it, the other part is the SEC - excessive speculation and so on.

Bankers would like you.

Speculation is a valid part of a healthy economy in regulating supply and demand. Creating heaps of money, inflating the supply, is what creates boom and bubble distortions. Unfortunately, the so called wealth that is used to create speculative bubbles today doesn't really exist and is generally written off. It just disappears from whence it came - into thin air. If it were real wealth it would go somewhere. Apparent wealth seems to just stay in the same hands, changing players once in awhile consolidating under different corporations but doesn't seem to fulfill the politicians dream of being redistributed. Can you explain that for me?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Apparent wealth seems to just stay in the same hands, changing players once in awhile consolidating under different corporations but doesn't seem to fulfill the politicians dream of being redistributed. Can you explain that for me?

That implies that relative wealth - the percentage of wealth that stays with the top 1%, say vs. the rest - is constant, which isn't true.

[Pliny]

That implies that relative wealth - the percentage of wealth that stays with the top 1%, say vs. the rest - is constant, which isn't true.

Aren't the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? I imagine that implies staying with the top 1%. Is that a fallacy perpetrated by socialists or not?

[Michael Hardner]

Aren't the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? I imagine that implies staying with the top 1%. Is that a fallacy perpetrated by socialists or not?

I don't think the poor are getting poorer in an absolute sense. Some people say that, but I disagree. Is it a fallacy perpetrated by socialists ? I would say that it is, yes.

[Pliny]

I don't think the poor are getting poorer in an absolute sense. Some people say that, but I disagree. Is it a fallacy perpetrated by socialists ? I would say that it is, yes.

I don't really care if the rich get richer but the marginally poor are affected by higher government fees, fines and taxes. Things like, mass transit systems, licences, parking, tolls, medical service premiums, inflation etc., all go up and the poor are the least able to afford these things. They eventually give up trying to keep ahead and wind up on government assistance. They become takers, getting subsidies, tax rebates, etc., adding even more to the cost of government.

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't think the poor are getting poorer in an absolute sense.

Then I guess the poor are getting bigger annual wage increases than I am. Mine have not matched the increase in cost of living due to inflation for many years now.