Lonnie Clay.... I see your latest post....I think I get the message, you are asking me to study your view more, I gather....That's a lot of material.... I'll try (at least some of it)..... But I think that you and I are focusing on different "things"... you seem to fault the "government" for taxation and budget surpluses.... but I tend to fault the private economy, myself.... Can you, on the other hand, consider my side of it (the argument) in return?... After all.... it was the Wall Street banking and financial "private" sectors that put us all in the current post 2008 collapse mess..... what do you say?
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:31:57 PM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/epistemology/bifkhGn816g > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/talk.politics.misc/QHC5EmTCysc > > 1) Economies are the aggregate activity of millions of businesses > patronized by consumers, employing workers. > 2) Businesses are controlled by investments of the wealthy top 1% of > population and banks. > 3) The wealthy are taxed by governments. The decision of how to invest > wealth depends upon taxation. > 4) Government taxation is determined by legislators. > 5) Legislators are controlled by the population at elections. > 6) The population is controlled by selective information distribution > rather than objective reporting. > 7) In the case of legislative and executive elections, advertising is paid > for by wealthy campaign contributors. > 8) Those contributors seek to minimize their taxes and maximize control of > the population through social programs. > 9) Social programs in reality are a bribe for the unwary to keep them in > mental darkness and dependent upon government. > 10) By decoupling the decision of how to invest from taxation, the > incentive for the wealthy to control government is reduced. > 11) By the elimination of elections using proxy legislators, the incentive > to keep people misinformed is reduced. > 12) The result should be increased investment, employment of marginal > workers, reduction of social programs, and prosperity. > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > On Sunday, April 14, 2013 11:31:14 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >> >> Lonnie.... I might (which is a polite way of saying I do) disagree with >> some of your proposals of ways to get there.... but I think your "heart" is >> in the right place about trying to solve the problem ... >> >> entertainment.... and personal pleasure-seeking.....as a guiding >> principle....hedonism in its worst sense.... but then there was Epicurus >> who "moderated" it a bit and made that "pleasure-principle" work, too...... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism >> >> I will grant that there is a lot of misguided personal pleasure driven >> motivation out there.... >> >> But then, there are other personal "motivations" too... apart from >> "pleasure" vs "pain"....There are all sorts of other different motivations, >> for different people.... I won't try to list them...... >> >> Broadly speaking, I don't think that all of it (the problem) can be laid >> at the feet of the person... the individual. >> >> I'm more interested here to bring up the issue of whether there's a >> "system" bias (or problem) in the "real-world" economies that are socially >> instated... Im interested in how the "big-picture" Capitalist economic >> game is played (because, I've faced it.... Capitalism is the only >> "presently standing" actual economic "game" left out there). The problem, I >> think, is in the system... the Capitalist "game" is not working, >> either.....it needs to be "tweaked" somehow... or directed/regulated so >> that the "destructive" parts of the "capitalist" game are stopped.... >> that's my counter, Lonnie..... Bank failures.... high unemployment (no jobs >> to have)... etc...... A lot of that is over and above the capacity of the >> person to fix "inside" of him or herself.... >> >> Even if the "single person" is motivated the best that he or she may >> be......the system "in place" still would not work right...I think..... the >> proof is in the fact that with all the bail-outs, quantitative easeings, >> government austerity... etc....the problems persist.... >> >> WHY?... I say it's because the basic "Capitalist" mechanisms that spawned >> the economic collapses have not, themselves, been changed (either at all >> or enough).... Bring back Glass-Steagall -plus- banking regulations.... >> clean out all the banking dodges and havens.... prosecute and recoup as >> much of the stolen funds possible,then maybe economies will start >> "working".... instead of "stealing"... HAR >> >> On Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:55:10 AM UTC-4, Lonnie Clay wrote: >>> >>> http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS >>> Nations whose governments give free handouts to the unemployed have a >>> falling workforce rate. >>> >>> Lonnie Courtney Clay >>> >>> On Saturday, April 13, 2013 8:16:06 AM UTC-7, Lonnie Clay wrote: >>>> >>>> Worldwide economies are foundering upon the rocks of modern >>>> entertainments. I'll make the case for that. The rational response of a >>>> person to a stimulus is to do more of those things which bring pleasure >>>> rather than punishment or boredom. With the rise of fiction in all of its >>>> forms, a person can gain pleasure from imagined world-scapes outside of >>>> the >>>> "real" world's boundaries of experience. The pleasure of working life >>>> achievement is limited to those who are both talented and trained to >>>> exercise their talents. So which one do people choose when given the >>>> alternatives? They increasingly choose entertainment, escaping from their >>>> fruitless humdrum day to day existences into imaginary worlds of >>>> achievement. One reason for that is the lack of opportunities in the >>>> modern >>>> economy resulting from the failure of the educational systems to prepare >>>> people for productive working careers. Another is the cultural shift >>>> towards self-gratification rather than service to society. A third is the >>>> diminished rewards from working resulting from the marginal reduction of >>>> income increase resulting from government's taxation of wages economic >>>> activity. Why work harder to gain more income when the government takes >>>> away more and more as your income rises? Yet another is the diminished >>>> cost >>>> of life's necessities and modest luxuries due to increased efficiency of >>>> production from product mass manufacturing. Why work harder when you have >>>> everything which you need? >>>> >>>> These factors result in diminished work force participation, the rise >>>> of the welfare class, fewer employees working hard, market dislocations, >>>> and diminished work ethics. >>>> >>>> Lonnie Courtney Clay >>>> >>>> On Friday, April 12, 2013 7:48:51 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Because it is so screwed up throughout the world that not fixing it is >>>>> bound to lead to great social upheaval?????..... I think so. >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
