How come no one has come up with a system that aims to make everyone properous?

[Dominus]

Every political/economic that's ever existed depends on the few on top hogging all the resources and the vast majority at the bottom. Even communism/socialism depends on almost everybody being dirt poor serving the mighty leader.

How come no one has come up with a system that aims to make everyone prosperous?

Before you knee-jerk respond, know that my family came from a communist country. Trust me, you don't want to live where they make former college professors work as ditch diggers and former school teachers work in sweat shops. They will assign you your career not based on your capabilities or what you want to do.

 

[Peloso]

Every political/economic that's ever existed depends on the few on top hogging all the resources and the vast majority at the bottom. Even communism/socialism depends on almost everybody being dirt poor serving the mighty leader.

How come no one has come up with a system that aims to make everyone prosperous?

Before you knee-jerk respond, know that my family came from a communist country. Trust me, you don't want to live where they make former college professors work as ditch diggers and former school teachers work in sweat shops. They will assign you your career not based on your capabilities or what you want to do.

Because capitalism.

 

[rareboy]

To be fair, Baltic state and Canadian socialism attempts to make everyone prosperous...but prosperity has to be measured differently than how many toys you can buy.

 

[metta]

Social democracies generally do a better job.

 

[peeonme]

First, what is prosperous? Is it a new car, home, clothing, medical care? Some who have these things still call themselves poor because they don't have a mansion and a yacht. Maybe a decent used car and a decent apartment and then they can point at homeowners with new cars and hate on them.

Then again, what is "dirt poor"? Some live hand to mouth or pay day to pay day. Our system in America is now "rigged" to keep some people living "hand to mouth" (at best). This in my opinion is intentional to keep inflation under control. Things get too good? Raise the prime, interest rates climb reducing purchasing power and the economy slows, people stop buying as much and inflation goes down.

Who the hell cares about how many workers lose their homes and autos? The UAW was on strike this past summer and I heard folks bitch that the car prices would go up if they were paid more. Fast food workers wanted $15.00 per hour and some bitched that their Big Mac would cost too much. In 1968 I was paid $17.25 per hour ( in today's money) to flip burgers. The powers that be (both parties) have screwed over the working class for decades. The crime is that they start a war and send the working class (or their children) to go and get wounded (mentally and physically) while the military industrial complex makes money on that war.

Now, let us ask who inflation hurts the most. You might think that it's the working class, however, again, in my opinion it's those who have the most money. In a hot economy an employer will have to give annual raises to keep their workers or risk losing them to a better paying job (that a hot economy produces). But the wealthy person That lives from investing their money can't find a stock or investment that keeps up with inflation. Their holdings and net worth go down.

Nafta, gatt and WTO, coupled with the Federal Reserve make sure that this doesn't happen. What fueled inflation this last go-round was the stimulus checks that were sent. Along with that were the workers that got used to being free from the time clock and found other methods to make cash.

So, is there a better way to have an economy where all people "proper"? Probably not. The poor you have with you always. Their will always be some that just don't make it for a variety of reasons.

 

[Kahaih]

But;

Where would organized religion be without the needy?


And, if young people had a little hope, a little promis, for their financial future, there would be a lot fewer of them joining an all volunteer army.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Small problem. Any socialist system, no matter what name you call it by, would require humans.

Humans are genetically programmed to be communal beings. We live in herds.

Unlike our neighbors in the insect world, we are not born to the roles we have to play in the community. That reality has selected genes that make us competitive and combative.

We struggle to succeed, at the expense of our fellow humans, but just. The colony must survive in order for us to have goods and resources that the colony procures and creates. So, it's a dance between cooperation and competition.

In every system we'll ever devise, that will be true.

And, add into that the additional behavioral expression of competition that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and you have an institutional guarantee that those at the top will almost invariably cheat. The few who do not are justifiably worshipped.

 

[NotHardUp1]

But;

Where would organized religion be without the needy?


And, if young people had a little hope, a little promise, for their financial future, there would be a lot fewer of them joining an all volunteer army.

Organized religion, as an attribute of its success in being adopted by the masses, reflects the profile of the masses. So, there are wealthy congregations and poor. By no means does the religion itself today tax their adherents in the developed world to any degree that makes them poor.

To the military, the poor have always been more represented, but it is again more of an attribute of the society and the fact it represents an avenue for potential social mobility (and economic), with better odds than pro sports by far. And, as the army becomes more remote controlled, the lower achieving poor students who fall into it because they didn't value education to get into college, will be less and less represented. Our military needs less and less fighters, and more and more geeks, and factory worker to make the missiles. Is this a good point to mention that the regionally poor South in the U.S. has an abundance of factories where undereducated people make missiles?

 

[peeonme]

Organized religion, as an attribute of its success in being adopted by the masses, reflects the profile of the masses. So, there are wealthy congregations and poor. By no means does the religion itself today tax their adherents in the developed world to any degree that makes them poor.

To the military, the poor have always been more represented, but it is again more of an attribute of the society and the fact it represents an avenue for potential social mobility (and economic), with better odds than pro sports by far. And, as the army becomes more remote controlled, the lower achieving poor students who fall into it because they didn't value education to get into college, will be less and less represented. Our military needs less and less fighters, and more and more geeks, and factory worker to make the missiles. Is this a good point to mention that the regionally poor South in the U.S. has an abundance of factories where undereducated people make missiles?

Many religions get hi-jacked today. In the Christian faith the evangelical/ fundamentalist groups are renown for twisting scriptures and guilt shaming people into "paying" 10 % plus to the church. Get into the "word of faith" folks and the poor give to get rich and the preacher lives in a mansion.
As for valuing education so you can go to college, I am all for it if the college degree is something that makes a person productive and self-reliant. I have found myself explaining fractions, decimals and angles to guys that had at least 2 years of college under their belts.

Let's not forget that learning is a lifelong experience and the world is a classroom.

 

[Dominus]

First, what is prosperous? Is it a new car, home, clothing, medical care? Some who have these things still call themselves poor because they don't have a mansion and a yacht. Maybe a decent used car and a decent apartment and then they can point at homeowners with new cars and hate on them.

How about this. Prosperous means we set the minimum at a lifestyle where all basic needs are met. And when I say basic needs, I don't mean just the bare minimum to breathe. I'm talking about actually being able to live and enjoy life.

I don't have anymore specifics. I'm not a philosopher.

The reason I am absolutely against achieving this goal with communism is my family came from a communist country so I know how they try to achieve equality. Just make everybody starve. And waste talents. Over here, my big brother is a big shot engineer managing hundred million dollar projects. Back in communism, they assigned his career to be a ditch digger. Over here, my big sister is department head in research and development at an international microchip corporation. Back in communism, they assigned her career to be de-shelling cocktail shrimps to be exported.

My mom was a teacher before the communists took over. After they took over, they assigned her to work in a sweat shop sewing clothes. Care to guess what my dad was good for to the communists? Hint. He was a musician before the commies took over.

So, when I say I want everyone to be properous, I don't mean let's make everyone equal by making doctors dig ditches. I also don't mean everyone needs a mega yacht or a mega mansion. The minimum doesn't have to be either rock bottom or sky high. Why does the minimum has to be we all eat dirt or we all are billionaires?

Then again, what is "dirt poor"? Some live hand to mouth or pay day to pay day. Our system in America is now "rigged" to keep some people living "hand to mouth" (at best). This in my opinion is intentional to keep inflation under control. Things get too good? Raise the prime, interest rates climb reducing purchasing power and the economy slows, people stop buying as much and inflation goes down.

I actually am pretty bad with economic theories. I'm the last person that should get a say in what system we need to pursue. All I know is the end result should be no one should be stressed out financially. That everyone can work or not work based on personal choice.

I envision a future where the minimum is where one doesn't work and still is properly sheltered, properly fed, properly clothed, properly transported, etc. And for those with miminimal ambitions or a lot of ambitions, they can work for more.

In other words, billionaires can still exist in such a system. But the poorest members of this society still has a home, car, etc. Raise the minimum standard.

 

[peeonme]

How about this. Prosperous means we set the minimum at a lifestyle where all basic needs are met. And when I say basic needs, I don't mean just the bare minimum to breathe. I'm talking about actually being able to live and enjoy life.

I don't have anymore specifics. I'm not a philosopher.

The reason I am absolutely against achieving this goal with communism is my family came from a communist country so I know how they try to achieve equality. Just make everybody starve. And waste talents. Over here, my big brother is a big shot engineer managing hundred million dollar projects. Back in communism, they assigned his career to be a ditch digger. Over here, my big sister is department head in research and development at an international microchip corporation. Back in communism, they assigned her career to be de-shelling cocktail shrimps to be exported.

My mom was a teacher before the communists took over. After they took over, they assigned her to work in a sweat shop sewing clothes. Care to guess what my dad was good for to the communists? Hint. He was a musician before the commies took over.

So, when I say I want everyone to be properous, I don't mean let's make everyone equal by making doctors dig ditches. I also don't mean everyone needs a mega yacht or a mega mansion. The minimum doesn't have to be either rock bottom or sky high. Why does the minimum has to be we all eat dirt or we all are billionaires?


I actually am pretty bad with economic theories. I'm the last person that should get a say in what system we need to pursue. All I know is the end result should be no one should be stressed out financially. That everyone can work or not work based on personal choice.

I envision a future where the minimum is where one doesn't work and still is properly sheltered, properly fed, properly clothed, properly transported, etc. And for those with miminimal ambitions or a lot of ambitions, they can work for more.

In other words, billionaires can still exist in such a system. But the poorest members of this society still has a home, car, etc. Raise the minimum standard.

I would suspect that the commies were acting in retribution towards your family for not subscribing to the orders and dictates of Ho Chi Minh. We know from history that communism does not work.
Your vision of a society where everyone has the basics won't work inasmuch as the groups who receive something for nothing will grow, mankind by nature is lazy and needs a reason to work. A catalyst such as hunger, housing and basic needs provokes many to get out of bed daily and get into the dread rat race.

The problem we see today is that not all people have the same tools in their box, let alone the same size box. Not all people can be geeks, scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. Some are better working with their hands, not just in menial jobs. Plumbers, electricians, auto techs and so on are in demand. Unfortunately many public schools decided that all should get a degree. Shop, auto and industrial arts programs were cut.

Classes for the average person who is more comfortable with building something with their hands need to come back. Of course, we should have a safety net which would provide aid to the downtrodden in our society, but it should not be a place to hang for those that lack motivation.

 

[Dominus]

I would suspect that the commies were acting in retribution towards your family for not subscribing to the orders and dictates of Ho Chi Minh. We know from history that communism does not work.

Probably. Retribution or not, my family is proof that communism wastes talents. And it doesn't give anyone a choice.

Your vision of a society where everyone has the basics won't work inasmuch as the groups who receive something for nothing will grow, mankind by nature is lazy and needs a reason to work. A catalyst such as hunger, housing and basic needs provokes many to get out of bed daily and get into the dread rat race.

I really really believe that the vast majority of people once all basic needs are met will want to seek out recreational work.

I mean, perhaps this is the bias in me talking. I technically don't have to work. But i start having an anxiety attack if I'm not out there being productive. This is why I have voluntarily gone to work every day of the week for the past month.

I'm sure you have heard of the FIRE movement that my generation started. Stands for financial independence retire early. After I achieved financial independence I couldn't bring myself to retiring. So, I have modified it to Financial Independence Recreational Employment.

Yes, some people given a chance will become dead weight for the rest of their lives. I've seen it. But my reptilian brain really do firmly believe that the vast majority of people will choose to continue to be productive if all their needs are met and all financial stressor removed.

The problem we see today is that not all people have the same tools in their box, let alone the same size box. Not all people can be geeks, scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. Some are better working with their hands, not just in menial jobs. Plumbers, electricians, auto techs and so on are in demand. Unfortunately many public schools decided that all should get a degree. Shop, auto and industrial arts programs were cut.

I absolutely agree. I got an engineering degree and a PE license. I'll tell you this. Doing plumbing and electrical work for my rental properties with my own hands have been a hundred times more fulfilling than designing bridges and managing projects in my past life. So, I know exactly what you mean. I don't ever want to do white collar work ever again. I'm built for blue collar work. The only reason I went into white collar before this was to make my parents happy.

Classes for the average person who is more comfortable with building something with their hands need to come back. Of course, we should have a safety net which would provide aid to the downtrodden in our society, but it should not be a place to hang for those that lack motivation.

I completely agree about classes. I remember back in middle school and HS we had shop classes. I have 11 nephews/nieces and they have all told me they've never been given shop as an option in middle school or HS.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

No such system insofar as the meaning of "prosperous" varies from person to person. If you're talking about an economic system where everybody's a trillionaire, that only exists in your imagination sweetie.

 

[gsdx]

I really really believe that the vast majority of people once all basic needs are met will want to seek out recreational work.

I believe that as well, but it has never, ever happened throughout history. Humans haven't been able to figure it out yet, and they never will. There will always be poor people making rich people richer.

 

[Dominus]

I believe that as well, but it has never, ever happened throughout history. Humans haven't been able to figure it out yet, and they never will. There will always be poor people making rich people richer.

That's because there's never been any society that achieved what I'm talking about.

The few experiments about UBI have all shown that people start pursuing hobbies and never stopped working.

Let's be clear. I'm not saying get rid of the rich. There will always be people who want to achieve more than others. Even in communist countries, there were ultra rich.

What I'm referring to is having a society more or less like ours. But the bottom minimum isn't zero but somewhere above zero where there's no stress or whatnot.

Those who want to earn more than this bottom limit are welcome to do so. No doubt, a few will get to billionaire status. And that's ok.

It's about having choices and options.

 

[peeonme]

To me the term "recreational work" seems like an oxymoron. I suppose that if one likes working in a garden of some sort, be it flowers or vegies, then maybe the term could apply.
I knew an old southern guy that was interviewed for a position as a lathe hand. When asked if he liked what he did for a living he replied "no, but that's why they call it work". As a machinist I found the work enjoyable, it was mentally stimulating and provoked me into learning new math skills. Most guys that I worked with pissed and moaned their way through the day and avoided any complicated work.

Some of us are wired a little differently and dive into demanding tasks. Others are content to smoke a joint and sit on their asses. Maybe growing pot would be recreational work?

 

[gsdx]

That's because there's never been any society that achieved what I'm talking about.

I give up. Even when I agree with you, you argue back. You must be right at all times.

No system exists because no such system can exist. Why not? Because even you would never rent one of your properties to tenants who tell you that all they can afford each month is $100 inclusive. If you believe in your system so much, you would. You're in it for the money, just like everyone else, and that's why no such system can exist.

 

[Dominus]

I give up. Even when I agree with you, you argue back. You must be right at all times.

No system exists because no such system can exist. Why not? Because even you would never rent one of your properties to tenants who tell you that all they can afford each month is $100 inclusive. If you believe in your system so much, you would. You're in it for the money, just like everyone else, and that's why no such system can exist.

I'm sorry.

I guess I was just thinking out loud.

Remember that capitalism didn't exist until it did.

 

[Latimer]

It's known as Norway. And it's paid for by North Sea oil. Remember that: it's paid for by North Sea oil.

I have a cousin who married a Norwegian woman and lived there for a while, but they're now back in the US. He compared the country to a field of grass and wildflowers and said that whenever a wildflower grew higher than the others it was mowed down. I should have asked for specifics. I'd love to know the specifics--or is this simply an attitude which tells people to know their place and to stay there. This I don't know. I'll ask them next time we get together.

 

[Latimer]

Fucking hot picture. Best avatar ever. Much sexier than Henry. Worth the price of admission.