Why conventional banks and Wall St is "obsolete"? What`s first hand wealth vs second hand wealth?

16 posts / 0 new

In a finite world,how far can profits go? When the 1% own all the first hand wealth(farms/factories/energy/etc..) the only thing left is speculation on the second hand wealth for the 99%. If banks and Wall St has reach the limits of extending first hand wealth,what`s next? In a finite world, do the community economic interests supercede the individual private interests? First hand wealth will need to be share and made sustainable for all to survive,the world cannot live off speculation,we`re killing the planet earth by doing so.Something have to go,banks & Wall ST or the planet earth? Cooperation will have to replace competition,dog eat dog will become dogs eat together! No unity on earth,there can be unity in "Hell" on earth. The 99% save the 1% in the biggest capitalist meltdown in history,so in reality everything of wealth is own by the 99%.How do the people take power they don`t know how and how to use yet?? We better start "Learning"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Tayl, the trick to this is that we, the 99%, have to forget what we have been taught by the 1%, namely that "this is a finite world." The 1% want us to think we're living with limited resources so we can be too pessimistic to feel that we (every single individual in the 99%) can be self-realized and liberated, and so that we, the 99%, will bring our individual, creative & unlimited minds to a great big HALT!

One way that every person in this world would feel united with every other person in this world would be if right now, instead of our "world leaders" working on organizing WW3 to possibly let them maintain their power as the world economy collapses, ALL NATIONS were working on increasing our extraterrestrial safety and expansion, i.e. protection of the planet from asteroids and such, in the part of the Milky Way where we are heading now, and exploration & eventual colonization of the solar system and the whole galaxy. This was why Kennedy's time was such an optimistic era—watch some of his speeches about what the plans for the moon and Mars were back then! Everyone, all over the world, was living in the USA "Camelot"!

But then Kennedy was killed—big demoralization for every individual who ever wanted progress in the world. For the next 10 years, the 5:00 PM News Hours every evening began with videos of the day's murder & torture episodes of US & Asian humans in Vietnam. On-going demoralization of every individual who wanted harmony and unity in this world.

We potentially have a whole Universe to explore and colonize in humanity's future. Of course, after this economic collapse is resolved ... we first have to reopen NASA!

At least Russia and China are still focused on the infinite potential, which no doubt is why they seem to be making every effort to avoid WW3. Russia has even proposed a Moom-Mars program as well as an Artctic Development program with the US.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Karolina,i couldn`t agree more with you on "deprogramming" our minds with 1% education.I would say the world is finite in relationship to "greed" and the 1% that control most of the world.If we control our money away from the 1%,the 99% economic possiblities can become infinite.I agree with your very progressive outlook in the rest of your post.I would add,i think 9/11 started WW3 already,it`s a economic war.It seem the terrorist wanted to bring down the West economic system as they did the Soviet Union.Let's hope we 99% get our act together before something else happen.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ooops! I just realized a silly typo—Russia proposed a Moon-Mars & Arctic Development program with the US!

Actually, we are being steered toward thermo-nuclear WW3 pitting Russia & China against the USA. The 1% wants to reduce the world's population and to hold on to their unprincipled power as the Euro collapses and they lose their grip on all world economies.

I personally believe they will not succeed in any of their Machiavellian plans. Their time is done, and the new era will be focused on science, production and progress for everyone everywhere.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I agree,there is still some sick minds outthere that believe a N-War is winnerable.Yes there time is done,but the new era need to be "cooperation replacing competition". The dog eat dog mindset is destroying the planet and life on it.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually, our economic system requires a continually expanding population.The population's rapid decline with the merging of economic, resource and environmental collapse will be collateral damage in an attempt to maintain an economic/social system that no longer works ....except for a very, very few.

Like all previous systems...it's run its course.

Natonally, wages are never sufficient to buy an industrialized nation's entire production. They used to sell surpluses....what couldn't be sold domestically.... to non-producing colonies/countries. Some nation's began addressing the problem by taxing high profit/income and spending it back into their economies instead of having it siphoned off into financial paper. National governments became the market that bought up surpluses. Now that bankers have claims on the entire economic ouput, governments can no longer do that. Every dime possible has to be directed to finance.

. All nations now have the same problem...what to do with products their own workers don't receive enough income to purchase. As yet, there are no non-producing colonies on Mars or the moon to peddle the surplus to. Not likely to be any in the near future.

Now that non-producing markets no longer exist, there is a problem. Instead of national problems of wages not sufficient to buy domestic production, now its a global problem. Most nations now have the capacity to produce ample goods. Globally, wages aren't sufficient to buy global production.

If the world produces 100 widgets, and pays wages sufficient to buy 50 of them...something has to give.

A monastery works differently. If we produce 100 apples, we distribute 100 apples. We don't produce 100 and dole out enough money as wages to buy 50 of them....and then fire the monks, throw them out of their homes and let them scrounge for food in the local dumpsters. because there is no "market" for the product..They just go on vacation until they eat up all the apples...and then get back to orchard.

A successful economy is nothing more than producing what's required and distributing it to those requiring it. There are so many ideological considerations about doing that, it's a wonder the system has lasted this long without a permanent meltdown.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is the permanent meltdown. Its over.

What no one seems to understand is that economy is not about "money"— economy is about people.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

It is about democracy and democratic, everybody participates in power, society. Diverting the issues to economics makes it possible to confuse the basic question with a pile of confusing theology. Keep it real.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Poly,"expanding economy need a expanding population" leads to "poor people make babies and rich people make money",is that reason for this logic? Karo,i agree,we live historic times,we`re seeing the end of the two biggest economic systems(capitalism & communism) in human history.They`re using each other trying to survive,and they`re getting the same unanswerable problems.You and DRC touch on a big problem,"language". Karo,you say economics is people,DRC, say it`s about democracy,i say both you`re right.The reason for the dismal science of political economy is not to factor in the human condition.Politics and human emotion can throw the best calculations out the window in no time,not to mention "corruption".We need to change the "definition of economics",we could solve a lot of communication problems.Poly,talk about the economics of monastery would be a good new definition.Produce only what you need,is how the rest of life live on this planet,our economic systems is "very un-natural"! Our problems is proof.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I completely disagree w/ you DRC.

Earlier this evening I looked out the window and saw a deer in my back yard, which is normal. It looked at me standing in the window and when it turned its head toward me for a few seconds, I saw that the other side of its face was severly disfigured, as though it had escaped from a fight with a predator. As it started walking away, I noticed that it was limping.

It is my nature (my human nature) to instantly start thinking how a problem can be resolved even if it someone else's problem—I want to help. The deer was already walking out of the back yard, and I was still trying to imagine in my mind a veterenary "health care plan" that the deer needed to recover from its injuries and be able to keep living its lifestyle of vulnerability.

The deer wasn't thinking anything—it was just reacting to the person in the window staring at her, making her nervous, making her want to get away.

That deer is not getting any help from a medical deer, as I write this. It is not even thinking of getting healed so it has a fighting chance to stay alive. And it is not getting together its deer credit or deer cash to go get some veterenary medicine.

Economy is only about humans. No humans—no economy. No humans—no democracy, either.

Humans too poor to live—no human economy. No human democracy either.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

You misunderstand my comment. Economics are important, but derivative of democracy instead of what determines it. Socialism and capitalism are economic theories, and both can be made into authoritarian or democratic social economies.

If we focus on what democracy is, and that is "self-government" and a broad and inclusive participation in power, the design of our economy must avoid authoritarianism. "Bosses" must be accountable to more than 'fiscal responsibility' or making a profit with little or no regard to the consequences to the community or the people involved. The presumption that capitalism is about freedom and socialism about government control of our lives makes discussions of economic theory confusing and a diversion from the essential issue.

Put another way, the State must regulate Commerce to fulfill its role as the guarantor of liberty and justice for all and to insure honesty and fairness in business. There is no justification for profits to be internalized and the public be left with the externalities. This is why I say that democracy is the issue of focus and how we use socialism and capitalism in our economic design for a democratic society must follow. Republicans act as if capitalism were democracy. It is not. But, Democrats have to do more than counter with "it's the economy, stupid." Stupid is way too much the point of that piece of electoral 'wisdom.' But, the power of money and the role of the economy is of prime importance for a democracy. In that sense, I do not disagree with you about a democratic economy as an essential for democracy and as a measure of it.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:The presumption that capitalism is about freedom and socialism about government control of our lives makes discussions of economic theory confusing and a diversion from the essential issue.

This is the propaganda that the entire Cold War was built on, which allowed the global 1% a nice, easy ride through that era, after they had "divided and conquered" the entire post-revolutionary global 99% with these ideas.

This propaganda is still being used, but since Russians are no longer "communists" it's not quite as effective, except with FOX watchers. That's why our 1%, or mean spirited, or frightened Congress members are passing or allowing bills to go through — step-by-step, inch-by-inch — that quietly create the "constitutional infrastructure" for a totalitarian government and a dictatorship. A police state needs to be established because much of the 99% are "too aware to be fooled at this point, and they must be completely controlled".

Quote DRC:In that sense, I do not disagree with you about a democratic economy as an essential for democracy and as a measure of it.

Is there something that we disagree about?

I think that we need to face that the only way we can keep growing as a species is if we adopt democracy globally, and keep educating and evolving our human minds, establish the future educating and evolving of the human minds of our posterity, and see ourselves developing everything that this universe gives us to work with in the future. Not just what the planet has, but way beyond. In the long term, of course.

If we don't think that way into the future, we will be mentally limited by what we percieve as non-renuable energy and finite resources. There is no way to stop wars from happening if this is the case. And no way to stop frightened and greedy people from fighting and conniving for supreme power and reduced world population. Do you disagree with me on this?

Science fiction was possibly used to make a mockery in our minds out of real extraterrestrial science and technology, so that we would stop thinking of space exploration and travel as a serious and neccessary national and international pursuit.

I find it ironic that at this moment the cradle of democracy—Greece—is the focus of the fight where we are watching ridiculous global corporate economic predatory measures being opposed by human beings who will not allow themselves to be treated as victims of the 1%'s greed and fear, and are willing to risk death to fight it.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

I was responding to your prior post where you made it appear that the economy was the issue instead of democracy. I was clarifying my position to help find agreement in bulk, but I still think that democracy is where the discussion about participation in power starts and more people will get that than the debate that has been poisoned about capitalism and socialism.

My better economic guru is David Korten whose AGENDA FOR A NEW ECONOMY: OR WHY WE DO NOT NEED WALL ST. is a fine piece of thinking. He was an IMF, World Bank guy who stopped when he realized that nothing he had worked on had worked. His analysis is to replace top/down with bottom/up and to go post-industrial and green. His key words for a successful developmental model are "indigenous" and "artisanal." Experts can help local ownership and knowledge, but they cannot bring in the plan for local franchises and adoption. Second, the value added is to come from human ingenuity and nature-friendly techniques, not from industrial technology and overwhelming nature.

In other words, I think we do agree about everything that matters.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It used to be that if a man (or woman) was a genious businessman and he had children, the children would inherit the business when he died. If the children were not quite geniouses, the business would fail, or at least not grow at the the same rate as it did under the father, so the competition could gain.

Nowadays, with complex trusts designed to prevent the children from blowing all the money, and with non-enforcement of anti-trust law, and historically low estate taxes, the wealth just seems to accrete.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

DieNasty is not exactly the American Dream, but it is the GOPimp cause. I have met a few, very few, children of privilege who get it and become real exponents of "noblesse noblige." Other than the children born into abject poverty, I can think of few greater curses than to have too much money given to you.

The idea that we all want our kids to do better would be fine were it part of a general sense of equality as human beings. But it is not. The preppies were, by and large, insensitive twits compared to those who knew what work was or saw real sacrifice. The exceptions were from families where there was a deep culture of community responsibility and corporate inclusion of workers and stakeholder community boards of directors.

The view from the top and the gated community is myopic and distorted. Among the best things that happened to Stanford students was to volunteer at the community "closet," where food and clothes were given to truly poor, largely Black folk across the freeway in East Palo Alto. The reason it was such a good thing for these kids of privilege, or at least of the chance to be in the elite, was not that they were doing something good for the unfortunates. It was that they learned how to be useful from a Black womand who did not have a high school diploma. They learned a lot more and got a lot more from her than they gave back by being there. That is what they all said, and it changed their lives.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Whether it`s a family business or complex trusts or children of both or the 1% learninng from the poor,the bottom line for them is "Power is Absolute". Karo, is right on point with Greece fighting disaster capitalism with democratic protests and being the cradle of democracy,it would be "real ironic" if they create "economic democracy" from this crisis? They should it`s only "common sense',and the same apply to "Power respect Power". Absolute power(1%) will respect the 99% power when they control their money,(give me my liberty/ money or give me death)case close! When the "David Korten's" start a "create a grassroots public bank" movement they really can gain some respect about solving a problem instead of talking about it.We need power to "first hand wealth",any talk other then controlling our money with a public bank is ignoring a "basic solution"! Greece is you "Listening"?? You can give birth to a "NEW BABY"!! AGAIN!!! If you don`t,somebody will!!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system