Discussion Random Discussion

[SaintsSeptember]

You a

You are right that a world war would cull people...the only two significant types of events that have culled global population have been war and disease. Overpopulation has never been an issue, and really isn't an issue, globally. These matters are particularly local and tend to sort themselves out.

Unless you have a theory for space travel , i consider we are in a confined space.
Algae in a pond if you like.

 

[mightymalaka]

See i can't buy the "technology will fix it " argument. We are in a confined space, and we keep adding more population.
I don't buy the "some countries " argument as more and more issues are becoming global, which means we are even less able to address them. (For example shipping transport emits more greenhouse gasses than Australia ) .
Just because technology has fixed things in the past doesn't mean it can continue to do so.

Inequality of wealth? Take it and spread it evenly ( globally ) and we are all poor, one big shade of grey.

Where does the wealth come from? The more you distribute the source of that wealth, the thinner it spreads. The more people the less wealth each.

Understand your theory but if we did spread it evenly, the reality is at the very least we would see a return to some semblance of middle class
As opposed to 2% of the worlds population controlling over 90% of the worlds wealth!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Understand your theory but if we did spread it evenly, the reality is at the very least we would see a return to some semblance of middle class
As opposed to 2% of the worlds population controlling over 90% of the worlds wealth!

Only if the wealth was generated in the first place. How do people get wealthy?

Shares and stock markets are really a horrible thing, and i sometimes wonder what the world would be like if all companies were limited to the number of shareholders they can have. ( Jeff Bezos - former hedge fund manager Warren Buffet -Investor -- money from nothing ).

It depends how things are looked at whether they are good.
Its good to be able to buy things cheap on Amazon. But the process of us ( general population ) saving a few dollars to buy things cheaper means that traditional retailers are suffering. The traditional retailers meant that things cost more, but there were probably supplying a lot more jobs to people.
Most technology is about using less labour to achieve something, which means less jobs.

In the old days things like cars were expensive and unreliable.
You bought one ( Retail ) , you couldn't afford another one when it buggered up, so you got it fixed (Mechanic ) , then it buggered up even more so you got the engine reconditioned ( engine reconditioning/recycling used to be big business ).
Everything now, is streamlined. Mining--->China--->Ship---->Sale---->Garbage

If your food mixer stuffed up, you got it repaired.

We are trying our hardest to deplete resources ( stuffing up the environment along the way ) as quickly as possible.

I'm always amazed at what a "nice" image Apple have , given their forced redundancy ( no i'm not buying their BS excuse ) and lack of tax contributions.

A lot of the really rich people get that way from people throwing money at them.
Kylie Jenner FFS? ( And just about any fashion label owner ).

 

[VDS66]

All depends on how you define wealth.

I would have thought food, shelter, education and health care would be a good start.

We have an abundance of resources to go round whereby poverty should not exist.

The system is broken.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

All depends on how you define wealth.

I would have thought food, shelter, education and health care would be a good start.

We have an abundance of resources to go round whereby poverty should not exist.

The system is broken.

How do you convince me to develop my idea of a new agricultural system that will improve food production?
Its a lot of work, and i'm not going to do it for fun.

Revolutions happen when people get fed up enough, but the outcome isn't always great. Generally creates a re-distribution of the wealth/power, but the poor remain poor and sometimes become poorer.

 

[VDS66]

How do you convince me to develop my idea of a new agricultural system that will improve food production?
Its a lot of work, and i'm not going to do it for fun.

Revolutions happen when people get fed up enough, but the outcome isn't always great. Generally creates a re-distribution of the wealth/power, but the poor remain poor and sometimes become poorer.

If you say so...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If you say so...

Its my observation.
I'd like to hear your idea's of a successful revolution, and how to motivate people to improve without capitalism.

 

[gringo2011]

How do you convince me to develop my idea of a new agricultural system that will improve food production?
Its a lot of work, and i'm not going to do it for fun.

Revolutions happen when people get fed up enough, but the outcome isn't always great. Generally creates a re-distribution of the wealth/power, but the poor remain poor and sometimes become poorer.

The problem with wealth when it gets stuck up in the top part of societies, is that the worst off end up wanting balance. Thomas Picketty has the stats and he claims that the wealth distribution is as unbalanced as it was in the feudal days now. The problem with the idea of wealth accumulation is that the rich tend to not spend it, they hide it away in the Caymans, invest it in things to make more money or keep it banked. Basically if you give. rich guy $10000 he will chuck it away from when he needs it, give that to a guy on $20,000 a year and he circulates every cent back through businesses and the economy. The bottom 70 percent still pay the bulk of taxes etc.

Like the franking credits, if they stopped giving cash back to people who don't actually pay any tax on that money, it would be enough to fund all the public schools in Australia every year. No one wants to miss out on that money who is currently getting it but it's not fair. Enough of those loop holes and we start to miss out on essential services. Once they go and people feel poor....well revolutions happen. I heard a segment on radio he other day claiming that people who earn under 6 figures have less discretionary spending money at anytime since the end of the second world war.

 

[VDS66]

Its my observation.
I'd like to hear your idea's of a successful revolution, and how to motivate people to improve without capitalism.

OMG where do we start?

No doubt t we could write volumes!

I hear you.

In summary...

You can't change the world, so you can only work on your own back yard.

That said...

Real representative government.

No lobby groups.

Public funded election campaigns.

Essential services to be government owned and not seen as a business, but a service.

Public owned bank, yes get the delorian.
See purpose is for housing loans and profits go back to the public coffers.

Separate commercial lending from home lending.

Strict regulations of corporates.

Closing of tax loopholes.

Eliminate state governments and expand councils into regional governments.

Government to find and create framework for private enterprises to flourish.

Shift to renewable energy to lower input costs.

Proper internet to encourage more work in regions and therefore discourage people from having to move to the big smoke.

Appoint actual experts to ministry and pay them accordingly, not the hacks we currently have.

Etc etc.

Ps: one thing I like about Italy is their public housing set up.

25% of income is your rent. Then after x Yeats you can choose to buy the place.

This would have to be funded by the public purse, obviously. So with the above reforms it's unaffordable here.

 

[VDS66]

The problem with wealth when it gets stuck up in the top part of societies, is that the worst off end up wanting balance. Thomas Picketty has the stats and he claims that the wealth distribution is as unbalanced as it was in the feudal days now. The problem with the idea of wealth accumulation is that the rich tend to not spend it, they hide it away in the Caymans, invest it in things to make more money or keep it banked. Basically if you give. rich guy $10000 he will chuck it away from when he needs it, give that to a guy on $20,000 a year and he circulates every cent back through businesses and the economy. The bottom 70 percent still pay the bulk of taxes etc.

Like the franking credits, if they stopped giving cash back to people who don't actually pay any tax on that money, it would be enough to fund all the public schools in Australia every year. No one wants to miss out on that money who is currently getting it but it's not fair. Enough of those loop holes and we start to miss out on essential services. Once they go and people feel poor....well revolutions happen. I heard a segment on radio he other day claiming that people who earn under 6 figures have less discretionary spending money at anytime since the end of the second world war.

That is just example of governments not governing for the national interest and goes to my point above about lobby groups influence on both sides.

The Nats are now seen as representing coal over their own. And for good reason.

Pollies are too scared to do anything. Witness the mining tax fiasco.

Notice how the banking rc has fallen by the wayside?

Its all about dancing to the tune of the donors.

Both sides are the same. Get up and unions are no different.

So for me the question is which one of these philosophies aligns with my values system... And the kind of world I want to see my kids inherit.

Globalisation and trickle down has failed and led to the inequality we now see.

So why not try something different?

 

[mightymalaka]

That is just example of governments not governing for the national interest and goes to my point above about lobby groups influence on both sides.

The Nats are now seen as representing coal over their own. And for good reason.

Pollies are too scared to do anything. Witness the mining tax fiasco.

Notice how the banking rc has fallen by the wayside?

Its all about dancing to the tune of the donors.

Both sides are the same. Get up and unions are no different.

So for me the question is which one of these philosophies aligns with my values system... And the kind of world I want to see my kids inherit.

Globalisation and trickle down has failed and led to the inequality we now see.

So why not try something different?

I like the jib of your cut!

If only you didn't have links to the Mafia!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

OMG where do we start?

No doubt t we could write volumes!

I hear you.

In summary...

You can't change the world, so you can only work on your own back yard.
* I can't agree with this policy, it doesn't help if you stop getting your groceries in plastic bags if it wasn't you putting them in the ocean , If Australia stopped emitting ANY CO2 , it would not make very much difference to the world. International shipping puts out more CO2. If we tax emissions locally, it only encourages importing ( effectively outsourcing our pollution ). In some instances you literally do need to change the world. *

That said...

Real representative government.

No lobby groups.

Public funded election campaigns.
*Good idea, albeit would need controls to ensure that a gazzillion little political parties weren't formed all grabbing their funding.
Video Gaming Party anyone ?*

Essential services to be government owned and not seen as a business, but a service.
* good in principal, but government owned departments don't necessarily provide better service. They tend to become inefficient Bureaucracies. Something like Electricity is a commodity , so if its not run as a business at all, how do you determine who gets to use how much electricity. IMO Government owned entities need to become better at ensuring a reasonable amount of efficiency, and privately owned entities need to be able to be better stipulated/enforced to provide customer service standards *


Public owned bank, yes get the delorian.
See purpose is for housing loans and profits go back to the public coffers.
* State Bank of Victoria....What Profits ? I see the issue as no different to that of your previous point. Why banks? You could also include government owned car factories, government owned insurance companies, government owned construction companies , government owned model railway supplies ... What's the point when government entities have been show to become largely inefficient over time.? *

Separate commercial lending from home lending.
*Not sure what your issues are here* .

Strict regulations of corporate.
*YES*

Closing of tax loopholes.

Eliminate state governments and expand councils into regional governments.
*I'd rather eliminate councils , they are horrible corrupt inefficient entities.*

Government to find and create framework for private enterprises to flourish.
*Morrison wants to encourage immigrants into regional centres. I agree that we need to make more use what we have outside the main cities, but i don't think dumping people there will help. I'd like to see businesses encouraged in those area's , even allowing them years of operation tax free. In general i don't think we have a framework that encourages much apart from retail. Many of the smaller private enterprises, are simple service providers , fighting over the scraps of the remaining large businesses. *

Shift to renewable energy to lower input costs.
*I don't think there is a lot of correlation at this point in time - in short , simply shifting to renewables will not simply lower the costs *

Proper internet to encourage more work in regions and therefore discourage people from having to move to the big smoke.
*Many businesses in the Urban area are still operating on ADSL or Satellite. I don't agree that we should fix the Internet at Walhalla before These area's. If you need fast Internet you can get fibre optic speed at places like Ballarat, or Morwell. People need to get their head around internet as a basic need , the same way they consider gas , electricity , and water as a basic need. Not just move to Sleepy Hollow then scream when you find out the internet is crap.*

Appoint actual experts to ministry and pay them accordingly, not the hacks we currently have.
YES
Etc etc.

Ps: one thing I like about Italy is their public housing set up.

25% of income is your rent. Then after x Yeats you can choose to buy the place.

This would have to be funded by the public purse, obviously. So with the above reforms it's unaffordable here.

Even if you had a revolution , the problems are inherent in human nature sometimes.
Someone will work their ass off to try to get ahead. Some will cheat or steal for the same. If you can't get ahead, why bother.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The problem with wealth when it gets stuck up in the top part of societies, is that the worst off end up wanting balance. Thomas Picketty has the stats and he claims that the wealth distribution is as unbalanced as it was in the feudal days now. The problem with the idea of wealth accumulation is that the rich tend to not spend it, they hide it away in the Caymans, invest it in things to make more money or keep it banked. Basically if you give. rich guy $10000 he will chuck it away from when he needs it, give that to a guy on $20,000 a year and he circulates every cent back through businesses and the economy. The bottom 70 percent still pay the bulk of taxes etc.

Like the franking credits, if they stopped giving cash back to people who don't actually pay any tax on that money, it would be enough to fund all the public schools in Australia every year. No one wants to miss out on that money who is currently getting it but it's not fair. Enough of those loop holes and we start to miss out on essential services. Once they go and people feel poor....well revolutions happen. I heard a segment on radio he other day claiming that people who earn under 6 figures have less discretionary spending money at anytime since the end of the second world war.

So why the hell do people keep throwing money at Kylie Jenner?

 

[gringo2011]

That is just example of governments not governing for the national interest and goes to my point above about lobby groups influence on both sides.

The Nats are now seen as representing coal over their own. And for good reason.

Pollies are too scared to do anything. Witness the mining tax fiasco.

Notice how the banking rc has fallen by the wayside?

Its all about dancing to the tune of the donors.

Both sides are the same. Get up and unions are no different.

So for me the question is which one of these philosophies aligns with my values system... And the kind of world I want to see my kids inherit.

Globalisation and trickle down has failed and led to the inequality we now see.

So why not try something different?

Democratic socialism works well in Scandinavia, and yes like everywhere, it's not a utopia but it's a fairer system. Norway collected their royalties and taxed oil production and invested it in a peoples fund. They have over $1 trillion in the bank or investments now. It's the peoples money and is a pension fund and is used to make the peoples lives better. It's almost ridiculously simple and good but vested interests will spend a lot of money convincing people they really shouldn't want that system for any reason.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Democratic socialism works well in Scandinavia, and yes like everywhere, it's not a utopia but it's a fairer system. Norway collected their royalties and taxed oil production and invested it in a peoples fund. They have over $1 trillion in the bank or investments now. It's the peoples money and is a pension fund and is used to make the peoples lives better. It's almost ridiculously simple and good but vested interests will spend a lot of money convincing people they really shouldn't want that system for any reason.

Yeah i don't mind that system.
But its back to all the wealth coming from minerals in the ground, and if the population increases, the percapita wealth goes down or the tax has to go up.

 

[gringo2011]

So why the hell do people keep throwing money at Kylie Jenner?

That I can't answer. There are always outliers that give people hope that they will one day become part of the upper parts of society, in reality they are more like zoo animals, captive to the grotesque lifestyle that is thrust upon as as something to aspire to. In reality that is small fry to the mega rich in the world. They have enough to play dress ups but they are no actual financial threat. Hollywood actors get crazy money for playing dress ups too, but it's really selling your anonymity for money and becoming a symbol of garish aspiration again.

Guys like that ave political clout aren't media sluts. They are like the Koch brothers that spend unimaginable amounts of money to change political views of the general public.

 

[gringo2011]

Yeah i don't mind that system.
But its back to all the wealth coming from minerals in the ground, and if the population increases, the percapita wealth goes down or the tax has to go up.

At some point they will end up having to limit population growth. The system isn't really sustainable as you say, the model now couldn't be further from being in the humans best interests. As you say racing to deplete everything and hoping for a miracle isn't a great model. The whole economic model based around manufacturing and mining is going to have to change, by design or by necessity. Still should have banked some of it while times were good. It's like some one doing FIFO work who spends everything they make, then the ore price drops, job ends and they have nothing to show for any of it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

At some point they will end up having to limit population growth. The system isn't really sustainable as you say, the model now couldn't be further from being in the humans best interests. As you say racing to deplete everything and hoping for a miracle isn't a great model. The whole economic model based around manufacturing and mining is going to have to change, by design or by necessity. Still should have banked some of it while times were good. It's like some one doing FIFO work who spends everything they make, then the ore price drops, job ends and they have nothing to show for any of it.

I'm just not sure of any economic model that doesn't require growth of some form. Sometimes in my paranoia i think the Chinese are accelerating the depletion of resources to hasten the demise of capitalism.
I'm not sure i'd like the world that would come from that.

 

[gringo2011]

I'm just not sure of any economic model that doesn't require growth of some form. Sometimes in my paranoia i think the Chinese are accelerating the depletion of resources to hasten the demise of capitalism.
I'm not sure i'd like the world that would come from that.

I think capitalism is a flawed model, it requires people to buy stuff, if no-one is employed then no-one can buy. Globalism was meant to stop that by allowing mega corps access to markets in new countries as they develop. To me the world order is changing and I for one welcome our new ant overlords. Seriously though, when commies were coming the west held up the freedoms that we all had as what made us special. Now they do the same shit as the commies, spy on citizens, detain whistle-blowers etc.

Post war the economies were in good condition as we had enough work and the tariffs kept local workers employed in producing our own stuff. The global model is all about minimising the costs of production and selling more and more product. It's not sustainable and more like that Hungry Hippos game, just grab as much as you can before the game ends.

With a global model you need a global authority, but how the hell would that ever work. We can't agree globally on anything.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think capitalism is a flawed model, it requires people to buy stuff, if no-one is employed then no-one can buy. Globalism was meant to stop that by allowing mega corps access to markets in new countries as they develop. To me the world order is changing and I for one welcome our new ant overlords. Seriously though, when commies were coming the west held up the freedoms that we all had as what made us special. Now they do the same shit as the commies, spy on citizens, detain whistle-blowers etc.

Post war the economies were in good condition as we had enough work and the tariffs kept local workers employed in producing our own stuff. The global model is all about minimising the costs of production and selling more and more product. It's not sustainable and more like that Hungry Hippos game, just grab as much as you can before the game ends.

With a global model you need a global authority, but how the hell would that ever work. We can't agree globally on anything.

BINGO!!!

 

[StCicatriz]

See i can't buy the "technology will fix it " argument. We are in a confined space, and we keep adding more population.
I don't buy the "some countries " argument as more and more issues are becoming global, which means we are even less able to address them. (For example shipping transport emits more greenhouse gasses than Australia ) .
Just because technology has fixed things in the past doesn't mean it can continue to do so.

Inequality of wealth? Take it and spread it evenly ( globally ) and we are all poor, one big shade of grey.

Where does the wealth come from? The more you distribute the source of that wealth, the thinner it spreads. The more people the less wealth each.

there are things happening now that were not possible before. basically we are becoming more efficient with less space.

for example we are now growing food in semi arid land here in WA that was not possible before.

things like drought are less critical for the population thanks to desal plants.

i don't agree with the wealth comment, all it really is the spreading of resources and the quality of life it brings. right now its being accumulated and pooled. its not getting to the people compared to previous generations.

 

[StCicatriz]

Yeah i don't mind that system.
But its back to all the wealth coming from minerals in the ground, and if the population increases, the percapita wealth goes down or the tax has to go up.

does it? what is their investments go up due to growth in other areas? what if costs for the government go down due to new found efficiencies?

 

[VDS66]

Even if you had a revolution , the problems are inherent in human nature sometimes.
Someone will work their ass off to try to get ahead. Some will cheat or steal for the same. If you can't get ahead, why bother.

Absolutely. There is no denying it.

Its one of those things you accept it will happen and just get on with it.

Greed and stupidity... Can't fix either. No point trying.

 

[VDS66]

Yeah i don't mind that system.
But its back to all the wealth coming from minerals in the ground, and if the population increases, the percapita wealth goes down or the tax has to go up.

True.

The issue of poverty cones down to cost of purchase and income.

It will take a massive paradigm shift for this to change.

The problem I see with modern capitalism is the way it is now structured to perform.

Capitalists used to start a factory and employ locals etc. Communities were built on this.

These days it's all about shareholder returns. And the incentive for execs to increase that return.

Hence you find decisions being made to boost bonuses, and bean counters making job cuts, take overs and mergers.

None of these have the community in mind.

Social democratic countries make decisions that will benefit society whilst allowing capitalism to thrive.

As I said above, until you cut lobby influence on policy, nothing changes.

Governments make the rules and the lobbyists with the most money influence that policy which works to their best interests.

This IMO is where the real corruption exists in our system. Elected politicians doing the bidding on behalf of their donors.

On the flip side, people are mostly ignorant and vote along party lines, regardless if it's within their bests interests or not.

 

[VDS66]

I'd also to see a system where candidates are selected at a local level, by the people. Then they can run at elections.

If it means more independents and minority governments with power sharing arrangements, then so be it.

At the moment the choice is black or white and nothing in between.