The solution to economics

well my criticism, though maybe not necessarily thoughtful as I am sure you’ve spent a lot more time on this than I have, is that it sounds a lot like what we already have, as i stated above

high-end manufactures making high-end products to sell to high-end consumers for a lot of money
mid-range manufactures making mid-range products… et cetera
throw some magical welfare dust on it to subsidize lower costs for the poor and give bragging rights to the ones doing the welfaring
did I get it completely wrong, or does this sound about right?

if you’re basing it off on the pareto distribution, then there will always be an extreme low end just as there is an extreme high end
and I’ll go on a limb here and say that the distribution of wealth right now falls into a pareto ratio, naturally
so… what is it solving?
i mean what great advantage is there to warrant the disruption of the current system?

do… do I get a 130ft boat, for cheap? some rich ass motha is going to fund it?
does everybody get a boat?
hahahahah

Oh I was responding to something ecmandu said… along the lines of creating ‘actual capitalism’, as he put it.

Actual capitalism is how it works when smaller business fail. But at a larger scale businesses cant be allowed to fail because they provide so many jobs. The government is then forced to artificially support (ignoring the principle of free market) big businesses to avoid mass unemployment and low tax revenues.

So the situation for at the last hundred years at least has been this vicious circle of nonsense… all because the working class cant take the government themselves… cant become the governing power… cant take control of the means of production.

Seriously though, imagine the unemployment problem that would result if a major automobile manufacturer went out of business, for example. The government cant risk letting that happen, so it takes the money made by the workers and gives it back to the business so they can continue exploiting the workers.

Its the dumbest shit I ever seen.

If it shuts someone up, shall I just agree to the above, and done?

Tee hee hee

This idea is pretty good Silhouette. In fact it is quite robust.

It relates nicely to value ontology as well; a person is compelled to value outward in terms of his own wealth. The phenomenon of wealth, a systemic relation, is mitigated by the deeper phenomenon of value, of actual relation.
This would probably stabilize the social fabric.

I think this is worth developing.

What is especially worth while about this idea is that it creates a new dimension of merit/worth, which can be attained through the more superficial dimension of wealth - namely, social status based on actual merit.
I Have always found it unfair that people who pay enormous amounts of taxes don’t get any credit for what they pay for - it is a bit of a waste not to acknowledge these merits, as they are very real and such acknowledgement would, as you suggest, form an impetus for spending on the social cause.

If we can integrate the unorganized impulses to be charitable and valuable to the community in a mathematically calibrated social reward system, this would in fact produce an upward motion of cultural growth.
Yes, very good.
“Value” would acquire a dimension beyond both surplus and need, a dimension addressed only in terms of, well, actual value.

Alright MagsJ (and these comments are short Sil, and your thread is so good it’s not remotely a hijack… MagsJ and I have issues to resolve in brief posts)

MagsJ, every being in all existence is currently in hell. It’s not a matter of ‘if’, it’s a matter of ‘how bad’ and “what are you going to do about it.”?

Lack of contradiction protects. Preaching “zero sum consent violating realities don’t work” is the only memory you won’t have to regret … regretting everything else keeps you out of hell. Do I still contradict myself occasionally ? Hell yes I do!

Unlike a lot of posters here… I know for a fact that the spirit world exists. I’m fucking grand central station for the spirit world!

That’s why they donate to charities, it’s 100% tax deductible.
Makes you look charitable, but it’s actually just your taxes going elsewhere.

It’s all for show. The super rich don’t even have to pay any taxes (tax loopholes with lawyers only the super rich can afford)… some super rich people do pay taxes (for appearances) but it doesn’t matter Because of corporate welfare. Everyone else’s tax money is going into their pockets. They’re playing a zero risk game. These are not the brave and the brilliant… it’s a zero risk game. Anyone at my level of intelligence and even much lower can do this.

Silhouettes argument fails because sociopaths will never let it occur as a “gentlemen’s agreement”.

Laws need to be rewritten by the people, and I mean everyone but the ultra rich!

why don’t you make your own thread about your own plan, and stop trashing his?

You’re feeling protective of silhouette, I understand this.

Silhouette is a man who is more than capable of responding to criticism. I know this about silhouette.

If someone states something like we should all be Keysnians, and someone else states “there are other options. That’s not trolling, that’s standard debate.

Just because Silhouette and I both came to different solutions independently !!! Does not make either of our ideas garbage. I used to hate message boards where all they said was “cite”. Fucking hated those fucks! I’m sure silhouette does too. As if someone can’t possibly come up with their own idea.

So the question is, am I bullying silhouette?

I don’t think so.

No, you’re derailing a thread by going “mine is better”.
It’s not about you, stop acting like a fucking kid.

If you want to give criticism, give it.
No need to insert some other idea into a thread already devoted to the discussion of one, like an attention whore.

“Solution” to economics he says… LOL, when will you learn Sil? Ever?

Let me guess, your “solution” is to take my taxpayer money, and dole it out among the poor and whomever else YOU decide, with MY money?

Am I the only one who has understood this thing?
I don’t see anyone addressing its particulars.

Fine, I’ll take the bait…

Economics is not ‘divided’ left and right inasmuch as it is divided up and down. Almost everybody is concerned about class and wealth, having money, not the left-right divide which is as I will outline here…

Left & Right is divided by two primary factors:

1. How to make/aquire money.
2. How to spend (whose) money.

The “Right” promote and encourage, believe in, a system of making money by “hard work”. Work 9-to-5, and you deserve your money. Furthermore, the Right believes the government should tax employer and employee very little or not at all (going all the way to Libertarians, which is as “Far Right” as you can get). Libertarians want a Privatized Economy, meaning, that people would need to pay for “government services”, such as privatized police, firefighters, doctors, and even Military. The problem with Far-Right economics is, a weak military, and infighting. A nation is only strong through public military, meaning, everybody pays, and pays a lot, to gain and keep Military strength. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand “Right” economics.

The “Left” promote and encourage, believe in, a system of making money by “entitlement”. By merely being born, you deserve your money. Thus it is Government, Culture, Society, Religion, Parents, Evil-Whitey, who ‘owe’ everybody, especially the poor. According to the Left, the poor, are poor, and will always be poor, not because of their work-ethic, lack of ability, lack of ambition, but rather out of oppression. The rich “keep” the poor down, using and abusing them. And so, based on (In)justice, The Left is less concerned with actually “making money” as opposed to Redistribution of the current economy. Thus the Left focus on high taxes, increasing taxes, government subsidies, welfare, “social programs”, social justice, etc etc.

(you can keep your “math magic” to yourself)

The biggest divide between “Left and Right”, economically, is the ability to work.

The Right believes, if you are disabled, and physically cannot work, then you should receive NO money.

The Left believes, if you are disabled, and physically cannot work, then you SHOULD receive money.

This is the fundamental rift between left & right economics.

Furthermore, the SOLUTION, of the Right, is that disabled people should depend on family, friends, church, God, when it comes to disability. But “the government”, and taxpayers, are NOT responsible for others fundamentally. “It’s not my fault that you’re disabled, single-mother, injured veteran, etc.”

The SOLUTION of the Left, is redistribution of taxes. The Left claim, that if you do not or will not “redistribute”, according to their discretion and control, then it is a matter of injustice. This spills over immediately into “Healthcare”, which also symbolizes, clearly, the division between left & right economically.

Are you truly “entitled” to healthcare, just for being born? Or must you work for it? What if you can’t work? And how hard should you work, how many hours? Should “the government” be in charge of health?

Right says “No.” Left says “Yes.”

Forget about left and right.
This proposal is interesting because it eliminates taxes and allows for maximum spending on the state nonetheless.

Why are all the extremely rich liberal idiots? Because they feel guilty. They have too much money to understand what they’re supposed to do with it.
If this is regulated with some intelligence, such people can basically pay for all the things taxpayers normally pay for,- provided, that the military is included in Silhouettes plan.

There are two concerns that do need to be addressed in our economy:
-growing deficits
-growing waste
this is because value of money and value of value aren’t properly connected.

an agent was missing from the math; a dimension, namely: humanity. Aka free will.
Freedom of enterprise would be guaranteed here. I don’t see a downside yet.

Every idea of “this is better” is what every fucking debate in the world is about! You mean to tell me that silhouette hates debates.

Honestly! You don’t know Silhouette at all!

Your posts are absurd to me.

Tax free systems only pave roads for the super rich. I have actually (when I was much younger) had the distinction of living on a private road. It’s the twilight zone of America !! All the houses on this road paid for the upkeep of this road.

If taxes are eliminated … the poorest roads would never be maintained! Hell! Without taxes Eisenhower couldn’t have built all the transcontinental highway system we all take for granted (also corporate welfare!).

What would happen if all roads were suddenly privatized? A fucking shit show! Taxes matter! Public roads matter! How would you like to be going down interstate 5, and the road owner decides they don’t like red cars, so their private security forces pull you over and shoot you for trespassing!

People don’t think this shit through!

Public land is awesome!

That’s what tax dollars do for us

A system that fostered indefinite economic stability, low taxation, a realistic living wage for grown people working full time jobs to support their families, affordable essential goods produce and services, and other such essential consumer needs, would be more than well-met I’m sure.

The only tax-free countries I know of are those who have oil bolstering their economies, so what would be the bolster for countries that don’t?

Have you tried running a SIM on it Sil, to see how it would fare over time? now that would be interesting.