+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 91

Thread: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

  1. Link to Post #21
    Europe Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th October 2014
    Posts
    1,140
    Thanks
    8,919
    Thanked 7,364 times in 1,109 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Universal basic income seen as a regular payment by a government to every citizen: that will never work. It sounds like charity and would make whole populations susceptible to blackmail. No government in any country (presence and past) has ever worked in favor of their citizens.

    It is no payment, especially not for free. It is not donated, given by someone who ownes it. That would be contrary to the original idea.

    It is every child’s self-evident right to breathe. Imagine a society where parents have to pay for the air their children breathe, from the first day. If one thinks consistently, that also applies for food, water, shelter, warmths, basic tools ... Why not? One day people will laugh in disbelieve when they are told about our current system of forced labor. No job, no food.

    The big challenge will be how the accumulated wealth, produced by communities (yes, communities!) is organised and distributed (by citizens’s organisations, councils of elders ... )

    Universal basic income will never be achieved through politics, governments and within current economical systems. The idea and potential will grow, with every public discussion it will gain momentum.

    Quote Posted by Omni (here)
    People would become entrepreneurs, musicians, artists, activists, be around their family, focus on self development, the collective would research the internet a lot more ...
    ... and they will work the land. Food has to be produced. Next big challenge will be land ownership. Who owns the land?

    Here’s an article about the concept of ‘Work Democracy’ (W. Reich) - please scroll down for Work Democracy and skip the first part, things there can be easily misunderstood without further explanation - some considerations about whether people will truly prefer to sit back and do nothing (and get depressed eventually) ...

    http://www.psychorgone.com/sociology...tical-insights

    Labor is something you engage in in order to get something else, like food, shelter, or to meet your other needs. Work is something you engaged in out of your humanness: it is an expression of your being, comes from your heart or your loins, not from external need.”

    Work democracy can be understood as the natural way people relate in the face of social needs and demands: they naturally organize themselves to take on the task before them. Reich firmly believed that within humans is the natural urge/need to work and to do so cooperatively.”

    “ ... it seems to me that we have to use the current legislative structures to guarantee a future that will then permit us to evolve into a people who won’t need those very legislative structures.”
    Last edited by Iloveyou; 23rd April 2018 at 20:46.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Iloveyou For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018), Zampano (23rd April 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member Omni's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st February 2011
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    3,814
    Thanks
    12,541
    Thanked 22,299 times in 3,448 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by Iloveyou (here)
    ... and they will work the land. Food has to be produced. Next big challenge will be land ownership. Who owns the land?
    There are solutions to any proposed problem. Like giving incentives for farming. Land ownership could be an incentive for gaining extra money. And just because government doesn't work now doesn't mean it cannot work. We need solutions, when Ai takes over the job market universal basic income is the clear solution.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Omni For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd April 2018), Iloveyou (23rd April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018), Wind (23rd April 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Albania Avalon Member Iceberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st February 2012
    Posts
    216
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 1,102 times in 197 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by Iloveyou (here)
    Universal basic income seen as a regular payment by a government to every citizen: that will never work. It sounds like charity and would make whole populations susceptible to blackmail. No government in any country (presence and past) has ever worked in favor of their citizens.
    If we think like government want us to think, than we are doomed. If you want to understand how corrupted is this system than we need to start to understand ourselves. Look how our brain reward system works to understand how a system need to be. Those who think that people will stop working after basic income will be implemented are wrong, people will work because they will always look for a more comfort life, but as for government all they perceive is quantity and they never see quality. Thats how our system has been corrupted because quantity has been our focus for all these time and few of us see quality as a solution. We need quality jobs, food, education, values. Thats what basic income do, it decline quantity and increase quality. Employers will focus more on workers conditions because workers will have economic security already. People will start to decrease the stress level because they can maintain a rent or families need, that will lead to a quality life. A quality life mean decreasing of criminality because of that economic security many will abandon that path. People will start to trust each other more and thats how healing will begin. But government will never focus on that thing because they want people to be poor so they can force them to follow in exchange for small goods.
    We need to raise our voice, beacause after a hard fight, we can see it implemented in this system. We don't need to crash a system but we can slowly change it, to a better one and thats what basic income can do.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Iceberg For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (24th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (23rd April 2018), Iloveyou (23rd April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018), Omni (30th April 2018)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
    Quote Posted by KiwiElf (here)
    Err no, communism is not what I was getting at... please scroll up to post #5 onward
    I read what you were talking about. Check the examples I posted. You were talking about communities where people only do whatever work they feel is suited to them, correct?

    So the examples I posted above should be entirely relevant to you, and yes, they are on the socialist/communist end of the spectrum. You may have used the word "commune" without thinking but this is in fact the origin of the term, exactly as you are imagining a utopia of only doing what suits you. The idea is that the rest of the community will pick up the slack from everything you don't feel like doing. It doesn't work so well.

    Quote (the word "commune" may not have been appropriate in this context - I'm pretty sure the concept of STAR TREK's economy wasn't based on communism )
    Don't be so sure. I know lots of fans put Star Trek on a pedestal, but it pushed social boundaries in its time and has only become increasingly SJW in more recent years. Remember who runs the film and TV industries. I'll do some deeper digging into Star Trek's creators later and I'll share with you what I find.
    Consider the words of an enlightened Indian mystic, [Lecture given November, 1985]... regarding 'communism' vs 'commune-ism'... Its a rather long piece, but he explains how 'communism' was basically a by-product of Judaism.


    Question:
    "Can you explain why are you against communism? And can we learn something from the demise of this ideology?
    I am against communism, but for a very strange reason. The strange reason is that it is not communism at all. The word communism is derived from "commune"; but communism is not commune-ism. It has no base in the idea of the commune -- on the contrary, it is simply anti-capitalism. Its name gives you the false notion of something positive, but in fact it is only a negative approach: it is anti-capitalism. And my understanding is that anything that is basically negative cannot help man's evolution in any way.

    It is because of this fact that atheism has not been of any help to man's evolution, his consciousness, his growth. It is just pure negativity. Just saying that there is no God, and basing your whole philosophy on the belief in 'no -- God', is sheer stupidity. Life needs something positive. In fact it needs something so positive that it can absorb its negative also, so powerfully positive that the negative need not remain out of it or against it; it can be absorbed.

    [...]

    Just think: How can you grow with 'no's surrounding you? Growth needs the staircase of 'yes.' 'No' is dead; it is equivalent to death. Death is the ultimate 'no.' Life is the ultimate 'yes'. Life needs the base of some 'yes-philosophy'.

    Communism has nothing to offer.

    It is very strange, but worth understanding, that all kinds of perverse ideas are by-products of Judaism

    For example, Christianity, which is a negative philosophy. The cross is a symbol of its negativity. You can make it of gold, but a cross is a cross. Just by making it of gold you cannot make it a 'yes'; it remains a 'no'.

    Christianity has said 'no' to everything in life that is joyful, that you can rejoice in. It is anti-life. It is rooted in death, and its whole world starts after your death. Your life is worthless unless it is sacrificed for the life that is going to come after death.

    [...]

    You see the perversion? Is real life after death or before death? And if life continues after death, then why should you be against life now? -- because the same life will continue, perhaps on a wider scale, a bigger scale, a higher scale, but the same life will be there. And if you are against this life, how can you be for that life? It is going to be a continuity - an enlargement.

    Christianity is the first perversion that came out of Judaism. The second perversion that came out of Judaism is Freudian psychoanalysis.

    Freud was a Jew just as Jesus was a Jew, but there is a difference between the two. Jesus was trying to prove himself the messiah of the Jews. He was a little gullible and innocent, perhaps unaware of the fact that messiahs are only in the future or in the past, but never in the present. You can accept them when they are dead, you can accept them when they are not born, but you cannot accept them when they are your contemporaries. For your contemporaries you have nothing but contempt; perhaps that is the root of the word 'contemporary'.

    And Jesus was just trying to be accepted as a messiah while alive. Freud was more sophisticated, more intellectual, more cultured. His approach was not that of proving himself a Jewish messiah -- he knew what had happened to Jesus -- he tried just the opposite. It is a logical understanding: Jesus failed by trying something, now try just the opposite.

    Judaism is very much against sex. All the religions are against sex, so it is nothing unique to Judaism. But other religions are against sex just in their theories; practically, they understand the nature of man and the weakness of man.

    [...]

    Freud had the same tendency as Jesus had -- to be a prophet -- which is extremely Jewish.

    It is some kind of racial disease. This fellow Moses is responsible. He created the whole game of prophets and messiahs, and created the idea in poor people's minds -- which are feeble anyway; they get some idea and they start thinking that it is so. Freud was very much a messiah, but he knew that if he declared that he was a messiah -- he was a coward also. He was not as fanatically courageous as Jesus. So what he did, rather than proposing himself for crucifixion, he tried to create something absolutely new and become the originator of a new religion.

    Psychoanalysis, to Freud, was a religion, and he was the founder-prophet, the father figure. Through psychoanalysis what he did was just go against the whole Jewish antagonism to sex. That was his way of saying to the Jews, "I have nothing to do with you -- no need to prepare a cross for me. I am doing something absolutely different, in fact just the opposite to what you have been doing for four thousand years."

    But in his unconscious Freud carried the idea of being the prophet. And he was very much afraid, his whole life, that somebody was going to become a Judas. Only prophets are afraid of Judases, otherwise there is no need....

    [...]

    Freud did exactly the opposite to what Jesus was doing for exactly the same purpose for which Jesus was doing it. He created psychoanalysis. It was not possible for anybody else in the whole world to create psychoanalysis. Whenever it was to be created it was going to be created by a Jew. These things are not accidental.

    There was so much of an "anti" attitude about sex, and Christianity carried it to its logical end because they wanted to prove that they are far superior to the Jews. Jews themselves rejected their ultimate flowering, the messiah, and Christians accepted the messiah as the founder of a new religion. Naturally, there was great competition. Christianity went even more against sex and life than Judaism.

    Sigmund Freud took revenge on both, because Christianity is nothing but a Jewish branch. It has all the stupidities of Judaism in it and has added a few more of its own. Freud declared that all the problems of man can be solved by psychoanalysis. Now, this is one of the tendencies of prophets. They always have the panacea -- one single remedy for all kinds of sicknesses. This is not a scientific attitude.

    Each sickness needs individual attention, it needs its own remedy. There is not a single cause that is creating all the troubles of the world, there are millions of causes. Yes, there are a few causes which are very central, and if they can be destroyed those millions of others may disappear, but there is not a single cause. All the religions have been doing that, saying that there is a single cause.

    Christianity says that the cause is the original sin: it is just that man has to undo what Adam and Eve did and everything will be absolutely as it should be. Jainism thinks that violence is the only cause. If everybody becomes non-violent there will be no problem.

    In the same way all the other religions propose a remedy: a prophet, a holy book, a God. Sigmund Freud's religion is psychoanalysis.

    Freud's psychoanalysis is against Judaism and Christianity. Christianity should not be thought separate from Judaism. It was created by a Jew, it is a Jewish firm; and in fact the Jews should claim that the Vatican belongs to them and throw out this pope and all these bishops. Jesus was of their blood, and all these people -- Catholics and Protestants and so many kinds of Christians, all offshoots of a single illiterate Jewish mind -- are exploiting their invention.

    [...]

    Freud found that all problems have arisen out of the repression of sex. So anything you brought to Freud, he would reduce it to some sexual problem. Sexual problems were the origin of every sickness -- mental, physical, social, economic -- it made no difference. One sometimes wonders: when a person starts thinking of himself as a prophet, does he lose all reason, rationality and intelligence?

    For example, if a man who is mad after money goes to Sigmund Freud, Freud will say that this man is obsessed with money. What is the remedy, and what, do you think, can be the cause? Repression of sex! On the surface you cannot see the connection: he is after money and you are talking about sex? He never cared about sex -- but that only proves that what Sigmund Freud is saying is right. Because his sexual energy has been repressed, now it is coming up in the ambition for money: money can purchase sex, as much as you want.

    The rich people will go to the synagogue, to the church, to the temple, will listen to all kinds of sermons against sex; and these are the very people who are creating prostitution around the world.

    [...]

    Sigmund Freud also bases his philosophy on a negative attitude: just drop your sexual repression and all problems are solved. I don't see it, because there are tribes in the world who have no sexual repression and have the most complex problems: poverty, sickness, no scientific development, no intellectual growth no evolution of consciousness. You will be surprised that the societies that have not repressed sex in some way have remained backward.

    The societies that have suppressed sex have evolved; they are the most civilized and cultured societies. Strange? If Freud is accepted then the whole culture, the whole civilization will revert to being aboriginals. But they have all the problems -- more than you have. They have very fundamental problems: no food, no clothes, and no intelligence either to produce food and clothes and mechanisms or anything.

    What Freud is propounding is not transcendence of sex.

    He is throwing you back into the undeveloped, barbaric condition where sex will be freely available. But without bread what are you going to do with sex? Without clothes, without medicines, without any kind of human culture, what are you going to do with sex? Yes, you can go on reproducing children, but you won't have enough to feed them: you don't have enough to feed yourself.

    If Freud is accepted totally, the whole civilization will die. His attitude is just against the Jewish idea of repressing sex and against Christianity, but it is not going to help humanity. He is a reactionary. He has not thought about the whole implication of it. Why have people who have not repressed sex not progressed? That should have been one of the most significant questions to be asked.

    The people who have repressed sex half the way have only progressed half the way. It is very strange, the proportion is exactly the same: the more sex is repressed, the more society develops. It becomes more intelligent, more inventive and more scientific.

    Do you think any aboriginal tribe can produce a Sigmund Freud, that Red Indians can produce a Sigmund Freud? It is impossible even to conceive. Sigmund Freud can be only produced in a Christian-Jewish context, in that reference, because there he has hit upon a master key, that is, your repression of sex. But it is not giving you any positive foundation. It may remove repression but it is not giving you any idea of transcendence. But he proved one thing, that he was a prophet, that his idea was very original.

    Freud created a great movement around the world. This is the second destructive by-product of Judaism.

    First is Jesus, second is Freud, and third is Karl Marx.

    Why is Karl Marx against capitalism?
    It is not that he is against capitalism; he is a poor Jew and is full of jealousy against those who are rich. That is a Jewish trend, very characteristic.

    In India I was surprised -- because I was looking for a parallel. Jainas are the Jews in India as far as riches are concerned. You cannot find a single Jaina beggar. The Jainas are super-rich, or upper middle class; at the worst, middle class. Once in a while you will find a poor Jaina -- not a beggar, but poor. These poor Jainas were the first to be attracted to communism. I was surprised to find this fact.

    One of my faraway relatives is a very famous communist leader, Comrade Bhagchand. I asked him, "Have you considered the fact that it is not that you want to destroy capitalism, it is simply that you are a poor Jaina and you have so much jealousy in you against the rich Jainas?" But man is so clever in making philosophies of things.

    Three generations in Marx's family had been poor. He himself remained unemployed and poor his whole life. It is very strange: he was dependent on a rich friend, but writing against capitalism. The rich friend, Friedrich Engels, was a capitalist who owned factories. He had been feeding Karl Marx and his family his whole life, and Marx never worked for a single day; he earned not a single cent.

    Engels must have been a man of great compassion. He could see the man had genius and needed support.

    Although he was writing against capitalism, Marx was a great logician: he convinced Engels also that capitalism is the whole cause of all the problems in the world: "If we can destroy capitalism and distribute the wealth equally to people, all problems will disappear."

    Karl Marx is basically a jealous Jew rationalizing his jealousy into beautiful jargon. The remedy that he proposes is fallacious. Firstly, if you distribute the wealth of those who are rich to the poor, what will be the result? The poor will not become rich, the rich will only become poor: you will be distributing poverty. Yes, people will not feel jealous any more because they will all be equally poor. I am against poverty, hence I am against communism.

    I want people to be equally rich, not equally poor.

    But for that a totally different approach is needed. It is not a question of distribution of wealth -- because there is not much wealth to distribute. How many people are there who are rich? -- two percent in India.

    Now, the wealth of two percent distributed to ninety-eight percent poor people is just like a spoonful of sugar thrown into the ocean to make it sweet. You are simply losing one spoonful of sugar unnecessarily. At least it could have given one man one cup of tea -- even that is gone. Not that others are gaining anything, but they will all enjoy the idea: "Now nobody is drinking tea, we are all equal." Otherwise this man was drinking tea and everybody was jealous.

    The people who have created wealth have a certain talent for creating it. You should use their talent; you should make it an art to be taught to everybody. They are not to be punished because they have created wealth.

    In an aboriginal society, a primitive society, of which a few fragments are still alive here and there on the earth, nobody is poor and nobody is rich; of course there is no jealousy. Everybody owns nothing, everybody equally owns nothing; but nobody is producing wealth.

    In fact, the people who are producing wealth are creating an urge in others also to create wealth. Don't destroy these people -- use these people as symbols. They have a certain art of creating wealth -- make that art available to everybody, educate everybody. You teach economics in the universities; it would be far better if you taught the art of becoming rich -- because by teaching economics you don't help them to know the art of becoming rich. They win gold medals in the universities and then they disappear.

    When I was a professor I asked one of my vice-chancellors, "Have you ever thought about what happens to your gold medallists? They should shine in the society everywhere. What is the purpose of your gold medal? A man who stood first in the whole university disappears and is never heard about again. What happens to him? That shows simply the poverty of your gold medal and the poverty of all your education. Even if he topped your whole educational system, what has he gained?"

    I have asked professors of economics, "You have been teaching economics for twenty or thirty years -- how rich have you become?"

    They said, "But what has that to do with teaching economics?"

    I said, "Economics should be the science of becoming rich. You are just a poor professor, and if in thirty years of teaching you have not been able to find some secret of creating riches, what about your students? Have any of them become rich?" No, economics is not concerned about that; it is concerned about absolutely theoretical questions which have nothing to do with practical life.

    Marx's idea is the distribution of wealth. Why? The reason he proposes is psychologically wrong, absolutely wrong.

    Marx's reason is that every man is equal. That is psychologically absurd.

    What to say about all men, the whole humanity -- not even two individuals are equal. Each individual is so unique, he cannot be equal to any other individual. By saying that all human beings are equal Karl Marx is destroying the uniqueness of the individual.

    That's why I am against him and his whole philosophy -- because I stand for the uniqueness of the individual.

    I am not saying that somebody is superior to you and somebody is inferior to you. Remember it! I am simply saying that you are not comparable to anybody:
    You are you and the other is the other.

    You don't compare a rose with a lotus, you simply say that they are two different things. Two different individuals, although they are both human beings, are unique individuals -- incomparable.

    Marx gives this idiotic idea -- and it has been purchased by everybody all over the world: communists, anti-communists, everybody has purchased it; even the capitalists have purchased the idea that all men are equal. Why has nobody criticized it and fought it? -- for the simple reason that it looks very humanitarian. My God! Has something to be true or untrue -- does its validity have to be judged by logic or by humanitarianism? Then any lie which appears to be humanistic has to be accepted. And upon that lie -- that all men are equal -- the whole structure of communism has been raised.

    Now, you know, it is such a simple thing to understand -- that every individual has different degrees of intelligence and different dimensions of creativity. Everybody cannot be a poet, everybody cannot be a scientist, everybody cannot be a painter; and it is good that everybody cannot be, otherwise life would lose all joy. The joy is in the uniqueness of the individual -- that he is so unique, unrepeatable, irreplaceable, that once he is gone his place is going to remain empty forever. Nobody can fulfill his place; the way he was fulfilling it, only he could do it.

    Marx takes away, in a very cunning way, the whole dignity of the individual. And I call it really cunning because he gives the idea of equality of all human beings. In such a beautiful idea of equality you will not be able to detect what he has taken away from you. He has made you just a cog in the wheel, replaceable. He has put you on the assembly line in a factory that produces cars: just the same car goes on being assembled on an automatic assembly line.

    Ford produces one car every minute. Every minute, for twenty-four hours, a similar car goes on coming out of the assembly line. But man is not an assembled mechanism; you cannot take him apart and assemble him again. It would have been very helpful in a way if we could take a man apart -- clean his insides and everything, replace a few bulbs here and there, a few fuses which have gone out, a few nuts and bolts which have got loose or too tight -- and then assemble him again with a new battery.

    It would have been really good; but it would also be the greatest calamity that can happen. Then man disappears; then he is only a robot running on a battery. It is simple: if he breaks his hand there is no trouble, spare parts are always available. He just goes to any workshop, and his hand is changed; he gets a brand-new hand -- no problem. Only once in a while he may have a problem when he is telling some woman, "I love you," and then he goes "Grrrr, grrr, grrrr... my battery is running out... just call the mechanic...." Only once in a while will he go "Grrrr, grrrr" -- he won't be able to speak, the battery is running out.

    Or you may be supplied with a small meter which goes on showing you on your wrist what is going down, what is going up, what is needed now: if you need a little more petrol, or water, or the oil has to be changed. It will be simpler -- but you will not be human, you will be robots.

    Marx, by making you equal, is proposing a philosophy which ultimately is bound to make you robots -- that is the Marxist philosophy's logical conclusion.

    Only robots can be equal. Man's dignity is in his uniqueness.

    But let me repeat -- because there is every possibility that I will be misunderstood -- l am not saying that somebody is superior to you and somebody is inferior to you. I am simply saying that the very idea of comparison is invalid; you are just yourself. I cannot call you unequal, I cannot call you equal. Do you follow me? I cannot call you unequal.

    That is the criticism communists have been throwing upon me -- that I am telling people that people are unequal. That is absolutely unjust to me. I am not saying people are unequal, I am saying they are not equal; that implies they are not unequal either. The very idea of comparison is invalid. Man is unique. Man is not just a member of the society, a part of the society. He is an individual, an independent whole in himself and it is not right....

    Just think of it in this way and you will see it completely clearly: if somebody says that everybody has to be writing poetry, then even if some people are writing better poetry than you, their poetry has to be distributed on an equal basis with yours. Everybody has to be equally a poet, equally a musician.

    You can see the absurdity, that if Yehudi Menuhin has to be made equal to you, you won't gain anything, and that poor fellow will lose everything. You cannot be Yehudi Menuhin. He has a certain genius that is born with him, that is in his very chemistry, in his very physiology, in his very being. You don't have that chemistry, that physiology, that being. His parents were different, his parents' parents were different.

    You cannot have his quality distributed, that is impossible. And that will destroy all the beautiful flowers in human life. But you don't think that way. You think Yehudi Menuhin is just himself; there is no question of somebody else taking his qualities, dividing and distributing them. But you don't understand that in exactly the same way there are people who have a certain talent to be rich.

    Everybody is not Henry Ford, cannot be; and there is no need. One Henry Ford has created enough traffic No need for more! If there are many Henry Fords then do you know what will be the result? The result will be that walking will be faster than driving. It is already becoming so. In cities like New York, Bombay, Tokyo and Calcutta, a distance you can cover by walking within ten minutes to fifteen minutes will take you one-and-a-half hours in a car.

    [...]

    The mind that Karl Marx had was certainly very talented.

    He created a worldwide movement -- certainly he outdid Jesus. This is just Jewish competition. It is nobody's business really, just Jews competing. Freud created a worldwide movement for psychoanalysis, but Marx is on the top. Almost half the world is communist now -- but not rich, very poor.

    You can see it in Germany [lecture was given November - December 1985] . Just beyond the wall is the communist world. Of the same Berlin which was destroyed in the Second World War, half has remained free and democratic, and half has been taken over by the communists. The half that has remained independent, free and capitalist, is rich: skyscrapers, beautiful roads, everything. It is as if the Second World War has never happened. In the free West Berlin, the second world war has not left even a trace; in fact the war has done something really good because all the old, dilapidated, rotten things finished and everything is fresh and new. West Berlin is now the most modern, youngest and freshest city in the whole world.

    And on the other side it is dark and dismal, as if the Second World War just ended yesterday; people are living in dilapidated barracks. It is a beautiful contrast to see what communism can do and what capitalism can do. Not a single skyscraper has arisen on the communist part, not a single new building, not a single new road, no new factory -- no creativity. Yes, they have distributed the wealth -- they have made the rich poor. And now the poor are not in a position to create wealth again.

    The whole of Russia is poor, the whole of China is poor. Yes, one thing is missing; there are no rich people.

    Communism is based on a fallacious idea: the equality of man. Man is not equal. The second idea is significant; but my interpretation of it is right, not what Marx said. The second idea says, "Equal opportunity for all." That's how it should be -- equal opportunity for all, but remembering that everybody is unique, so everybody is going to use the equal opportunity to be very different from each other. The ultimate result is going to be individuals so different from each other that you cannot conceive.

    According to Marx equal opportunity means they will be all equal: equally wealthy, equally intelligent, equally healthy.

    That is sheer nonsense, because your parents were not my parents; you have different genes and different programs in your body. Now, there is no way to change the genes, the program -- and small things make a difference.

    So equal opportunity is a good idea and we should try it as far as humanly practical. But you should not be fanatic about it, because if you want perfect equality of opportunity then you are an idiot; that is not possible.

    Just let me give you simple examples: if you are the eldest son in the family, then the youngest son in the family cannot have the same opportunity as the eldest, there is no way. Because you were the first to come, of course you received your mother and your father's love more because you were a novelty; then other children started coming and it was not anything new. The second boy was born, but he is going to be second. The eldest son in all the cultures is going to inherit the father's money. Why? It is not accidental: he got more love than anybody else, and he was the first to come.

    Then the last son will also have a different status because he will be the smallest, favored by all, protected by all, all the brothers, the whole family. But the middle ones, they are nowhere: neither on this pole nor on that pole. They will not get the same attention as the first and the last. The last will become the favorite child of the family because now no more are coming; the last guest has come.

    How can you give all equal opportunities? Either you will have to arrange births simultaneously so that a mother gives birth to twelve children simultaneously -- equal opportunity.

    But from the very beginning there is no equal opportunity. When a woman gets pregnant, neither she nor her husband are aware that there has been a car race; nobody is aware. When the sperms travel towards the egg it is just as in any race: they all stand in one line waiting for the third whistle, and then they run.

    The mother's cell, the egg in the mother's womb, is waiting and the cells from the father's body, as they explode into the mother's body, start a great race -- millions of sperms trying to reach the egg first. Whosoever reaches is the winner; all others will die. It is a question of life and death. It is no ordinary race in which you are only defeated and next time.... There is no next time -- only a single opportunity for millions of alive cells. Only one makes it, because this is how it works. The mother's egg has a natural capacity so that once one male sperm has entered it, it closes. The others go on knocking around but within two hours they will all be dead.

    There are losses all the way. And the way is not so small as you think, because for those small cells it is close to two miles, proportionately. If they were of your proportions then the passage would be two miles. And a great job they do, a marathon race! Of course, the strongest reaches.

    Sometimes it happens that two reach at the same time -- that's why twins are born -- or three reach. Even nine children have been known to be born, because nine may have reached simultaneously; then they all enter the door because they are all entering at the same time. After they enter the doors close. But it rarely happens that nine reach. One guy is clever enough that somehow he manages to reach first.

    They all start almost at the same time, but from there, from the very impregnation, opportunities are different. Nobody knows those who have died, what kind of people they were. Somebody may have been an Albert Einstein, somebody a Ravi Shankar, somebody a Michelangelo. Nobody knows about those poor people who simply died in the first race and were not given any other chance.

    And then small things in the life of the child.... You cannot make them equal. For example, when Napoleon Bonaparte was six months old, his nurse, who was taking care of him, had just left him for a moment and a wild cat jumped onto Napoleon, put both his paws on his chest, and looked into his eyes. Immediately the nurse came back and chased the cat away, but Napoleon, for his whole life, remained afraid of cats. He was not afraid of lions, he could have wrestled barehanded with a lion -- there was no problem about it -- but before a cat he simply became a nervous wreck.

    Napoleon was defeated only once -- his whole life was a life of victory. Just once he was defeated -- by a British general who knew about his weakness. The general had gone with seventy cats ahead of him. Seeing seventy cats, Napoleon lost all nerve, he forgot all about what to do and what not to do. It was not a victory by the general, it was a victory by the cats.

    How can you manage to give equal opportunities to all? Now, if such a small incident can prove so fatal.... Napoleon was a brave warrior before anybody, but nothing before a cat. The English general does not count at all, but he became victorious just by using a little psychology, just knowing about Napoleon s weakness -- that when he saw a cat he could not think, he simply became frozen. And when Napoleon was in that nervous state, of course his whole army was at a loss; they had lost the man who was their life, their light and their guide.

    Now, how can you manage equal opportunity for all children of the world? That's absolutely impossible. So don't try to take the communist idea to its logical end -- then it becomes absurd.

    Yes, with my interpretation -- and my interpretation is that everybody should be given opportunities to be educated, opportunities to get food, opportunities to get clothes, opportunities to do anything that a person wants to do. There should be no discrimination about it: opportunity should be given to everybody according to his talent and everybody according to his potentiality.

    But that is not happening in communism. In the name of equal opportunities everybody is forced to remain at the lowest denominator, because only there can you keep them equal. If you want them to be equal on a higher level, then you need more riches, more wealth -- and that is missing.

    In the sixty years since the Russian Revolution, the Russians have not been able to produce any wealth to make Russia rich. Equal opportunity is available, but what do you do with equal opportunity? You need people who can use these opportunities; and they don't need similar opportunities, they need different opportunities, equally different opportunities.

    I am against communism because it is only a negative philosophy. I am all for commune-ism.

    That should be the right word: commune-ism.
    A commune is respectful of every individual's uniqueness, respectful of every individual's talent, and tries to help his talent grow, help him grow towards his potential.
    I want communes all over the world, so that slowly nations can disappear, and there are only communes: living, small units of humanity, totally, joyously helping everybody to be himself.

    Marx proposes the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the poor. That is stupid. They are poor, and if they are in power they will make everybody poor. What else can they do?

    I propose the dictatorship of the enlightened ones. Nobody has proposed it up to now. And sometimes out of my crazy mind.... This idea I have carried my whole life -- dictatorship of the enlightened ones, because if it is of enlightened ones it cannot be dictatorship. It is a contradiction in terms. The enlightened person cannot be a dictator like Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler.

    Yes, the enlightened person can dictate to you, but out of his love, not out of his power -- he has no power -- out of his insight, because he has eyes to see and to feel the potential of people.

    His dictates can only be thought of as suggestions, advice, guidelines.

    Only in the dictatorship of the enlightened ones is there a possibility of a real, authentic democracy and also the real flowering of commune-ism:

    Equality by distributing riches, not poverty; destroying poverty from the very roots, and raising everybody upwards to be rich.

    My commune-ism is a higher state of capitalism.
    Marx's communism is against capitalism:
    My commune-ism is capable of absorbing capitalism into it, using it as a tool, as a stepping-stone.

    OSHO : From Personality to Individuality, Chapter 2
    Last edited by turiya; 24th April 2018 at 10:25.

  8. Link to Post #25
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    4,884
    Thanks
    7,333
    Thanked 22,779 times in 4,212 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    If we ever get the cabal of parasitic crooks off our back, every aspect of how society works will be up for revue.

    Nothing much can change before that happens. A whole hell of a lot of things can gradually happen after that happens.

    Let's not sit "comfortably" reasoning the pros and cons of being oppressed, pretending it's something else. We don't even know yet how people will behave and how their motivations will tick, in a world where we are out from under the dark magicians.

    Just because something doesn't work right now, doesn't mean it won't work later when we are 'free'. And, importantly, visa versa.
    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (24th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (23rd April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018)

  10. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    75
    Posts
    3,079
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,343 times in 2,953 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Iceberg...You hit the nail on the head about today's society....no QUALITY!

    Let's hope that "Q" can help people to learn about Critical Thinking; something not taught when I was in school!

    "First is Jesus; then is Freud; then is Karl Marx." That one had me laughing out loud!!

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (24th April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018)

  12. Link to Post #27
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,565
    Thanks
    15,223
    Thanked 20,878 times in 3,327 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    This system cannot end without disaster. It is only after that disaster that a new way can be implemented. This is because this system is so askew that our sense of normal is way out of whack. It is only after we see clearly what the causes were that lead to the economic disaster that proper choices could be made. As things stand right now we have a money system so easily manipulated by the banking elite that the value of our goods far exceeds its actual worth and wages paid that are half what they should be for most wage earners. Combine that with the continual rape of our collective assets, including government income and raw resources, and you have today's prices and today's economic disparity.

    In a debt-based economy a universal stipend is merely a loan that must be paid with interest by someone else (by all those working). It cannot work because its premise runs counter to the premise of this society, where everyone is on their own and it's dog eat dog out there. It is the premise of society that must change before any reform can be implemented with any hope of success.

    The premise today, the driving force of operations in our world is the so-called right to rule clause coupled with the right to ownership of the land - or better put the deeding of land by the rightful owners who own it in perpetuity - the kings, queens and princes of the world - and the knights of business.

    The premise of this society is to dominate in any arena but most especially in terms of the human condition. To dominate is to rule, which supports the right to rule clause. Anything anyone possesses is impermanent and merely artifice for the rulers own everything and can claim any possession as their rightful booty - or destroy it with little contest.

    If we are to have a system that is fair and honest and transparent the premise must fit the desired outcome - which means the rulers must be deposed, and no one can rise in their place.

    So many of our cherished ideas would have to go, I am not sure the members of this society are yet ready to go there.

    The only place where we can have the society our hearts desire is from a place of abundance - a place we have yet to visit.
    Forget about it

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (24th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (24th April 2018), KiwiElf (23rd April 2018)

  14. Link to Post #28
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th September 2014
    Location
    Appalachia
    Posts
    2,551
    Thanks
    9,947
    Thanked 13,078 times in 2,355 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by KiwiElf (here)
    LOL I'll change it to an open question - I don't have the answers either . But I'm not suggesting no-one works, or AI or robots-for-everything being allowed to take over & eventually wiping us out
    Maybe you don’t want this, but transhumanists like Jeff Bezos do. Bill Gates has already admitted he wants to use vaccines to depopulate the Earth. Same agenda. Humans are too unruly, useless eaters and all the rest, so this faction of globalists would rather wipe out something like 90% of the world’s population and use advanced technology, drones and robots to control those who are left.

    Many people would willingly give themselves up to become cattle in a pen, fattened up for free and with everything else taken care of them by big nanny state government. It is frustrating but I can’t say that I’m surprised that people would go along with whatever is most comfortable and easy for them. In a way it reminds me of trying to convince morbidly obese people to change their diet when it’s just so easy to keep eating Twinkies and junk food. Taking personal responsibility is often... too much responsibility lol. The song “Comfortably Numb” comes to mind. It’s a real uphill struggle to get people to appreciate the consequences of these things, or even to care.

    Quote The way I see it, what we have now and in the past isn't working too well for the majority.
    Are you talking about the medieval period, or modern history? What about the massive improvements in living standards since 1800? Those have immensely benefitted the majority, especially in western countries. Even “poor” people in the US today have smart phones and access to free food and shelter. Society hasn’t always been wealthy enough to provide these services. We’ve been doing something right, but unfortunately those things seem to come under constant attack, are the target of propaganda, or else are downplayed and even ignored as if such progress just happens naturally regardless of what we do (it doesn’t).

    Quote "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives ... We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity..."
    The idea that people, even the most famous and influential entrepreneurs in western countries have only been seeking profit at all costs, is not historically accurate. Things are about as bad today as they have ever been. But the developments that led to our advanced standard of living today were largely pioneered by individuals who actually had humanity’s best interests at heart. Automobiles, telephones, the Internet, etc etc have all made money but they’ve also provided tremendous benefit to humanity which was completely unnecessary. We could still be in a feudal system after all.

    A relatively few rotten apples have spoiled the reputation of business owners and entrepreneurs as a whole, though today the corruption has finally become so bad that it’s probably the rule now rather than the exception. But my point is that it hasn’t always been this way, and nearly all of our modern comforts are the fruit of savvy businessmen and entrepreneurs (certainly not bureaucrats in nanny state governments, which only stifle innovation), so you can’t blame the system itself for the corruption that has infiltrated it. I blame the eradication of public morality in large part. Society used to value morals and principles, not even that long ago.

    If you’re looking for middle ground, what is your idea of the two extremes you are seeking to avoid?

    Quote Apologies Omni, this discussion has probably gone way off topic from what you envisioned [/COLOR]
    I think you’ve got the wrong thread in mind. We’re still completely on topic here, since the OP is about economic/government welfare systems.

  15. Link to Post #29
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th September 2014
    Location
    Appalachia
    Posts
    2,551
    Thanks
    9,947
    Thanked 13,078 times in 2,355 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    The only place where we can have the society our hearts desire is from a place of abundance - a place we have yet to visit.
    I find statements like this remarkable. I would wonder what people living in 3rd world countries would think of the lack of abundance here in the West, where we throw away 150,000 tons of food everyday in the US alone. I say I would wonder, except the massive amounts of migrants pouring into the West give me a pretty good idea of what they think of it. No desire to understand why we have this abundance, but plenty of desire to exploit it for their own benefit, meanwhile the people living here deny that it even exists.

    When you say that things are so out of whack that we don’t know what is normal anymore, what time and place would you point to in history as a standard for what is normal, just to give us an idea of how bad things are right now for you?

  16. Link to Post #30
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    I'm not just referring to "the poor" in the US; more than half the planet's population "doesn't have a pot to pee in" ... .

    As for the two extremes to avoid, I've already said it: uber rich vs uber poor.
    Last edited by KiwiElf; 24th April 2018 at 01:18.

  17. Link to Post #31
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th September 2014
    Location
    Appalachia
    Posts
    2,551
    Thanks
    9,947
    Thanked 13,078 times in 2,355 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by KiwiElf (here)
    I'm not just referring to "the poor" in the US; more than half the planet's population "doesn't have a pot to pee in" ... .
    My ancestors were poor too, though they literally had pots to pee in. They called them "slop jars" and that's where they peed and pooped when it was too cold to run to the outhouse, until indoor plumbing was installed. Everything they got after that, they all worked hard for, and they never complained about it.

    Many of these "uber poor" places have been that way for a thousand years, if not the entire historical period. We have road maps for getting out of these situations but for one reason or another they aren't implemented.


    Quote Posted by turiya (here)
    Christianity is the first perversion that came out of Judaism. The second perversion that came out of Judaism is Freudian psychoanalysis.
    Interesting post. There's a lot of it I don't agree with, and I won't even bring up the accusations of Osho being a sex cult leader, but nonetheless I thank you for it.

    Osho's portrayal of Christianity is a bit off. His understanding of Christian theology is missing the point, but anyway, Jesus is derived from a pagan deity, and Christianity isn't as Jewish as he seems to think.

    Jesus = Hésus (Celtic/Gaulish) = Zeus (Greek) = Dyaus-Pater (Indo-European) = Jupiter (Roman)

    The trinity only exists in Christianity, not Judaism or Islam, which consider the trinity a polytheistic doctrine. Why? Because it does in fact originate from polytheism, specifically from the Celtic triune. The Celtic supreme God was triune in nature, and Hésus was the human embodiment of the Sun God: God incarnate in human flesh. Sound familiar?

    Crown of thorns? Also pagan Celtic/Gaulish.

    Sacrificing a human being to appease the Gods? Obviously pagan, though the Jews also shared in these customs as evidenced by the Bible.

    In short, the Catholic Church took pagan pantheons and worship common from Ireland to India and transformed them into something that allowed them to better govern a wide swathe of land known as the Holy Roman Empire and "Christendom" beyond that.

    Everybody knows that Christmas, Easter, and Halloween are just pagan holidays, the first two with glosses of Christianity over them, the third without even that much. The same is true of much of what makes up Christianity in general. It's a lot more European than people realize, and also has a lot more in common with Roman and Greek philosophy than people realize, in the New Testament obviously.

  18. Link to Post #32
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Thank you turiya - that was the word I was looking for; commune-ism

    All I'm saying is, we can do better.

    I firmly believe, that within the next decade, this planet - & humanity as a whole - will have completely transformed itself for the better, in every way.

    It's already begun...
    Last edited by KiwiElf; 24th April 2018 at 08:58.

  19. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Member ceetee9's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th January 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Age
    68
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    9,831
    Thanked 3,268 times in 710 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    I too don't have any solutions for this conundrum (i.e., what's the best society to see that everyone's needs are met), but it is a subject that I have often thought about and have vacillated over.

    Several years ago I was intrigued with Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu contributionist society. I felt like it had merit and could work, but I had several questions for which I didn't see a solution that would be fair, equitable and impervious to perversion/corruption.

    To me an open source society makes a great deal of sense and could greatly improve the quality, efficiency, and longevity of most products and services when we enable many minds to work in concert to solve problems than when we restrict the knowledge and brainpower to a small few in the name of profit and competition—and, ultimately, greed.

    While I like the idea of everyone being able to do what they love and/or do best—and can see how that could improve the quality and efficiency of the resulting product or service and certainly the happiness of the contributors—but what if the majority of people want to be athletes, musicians, artists and few want to do the jobs of necessity, that society depends upon, like farming, home and infrastructure construction and maintenance, garbage collection and disposal, etc.? And who decides what home and how much land each person or family gets to have and where? How do we deal with those who take more than they need? How do we deal with loafers (i.e., those who are capable of contributing to society, but choose not to)? And, arguably, the biggest problem I see with a contributionist society (or any society for that matter) is what does the government look like? Some group or organization would have to be the monitors and arbiters of the resources and providers of security. And with all governments or organizations, how do you keep them from living at a higher standard than the masses, growing out of control and becoming corrupt?

    Perhaps the reason I vacillate on this issue is because all I've know is the Capitalist society and, as A Voice from the Mountains has pointed out, it has worked very well for us. Yes, it's grown out of control and become extremely corrupt and the greed of the elite appear to be determined to have all of the wealth, power and control and the resources and they don't appear to care about people or the planet, but does that mean it's unfixable? I don't know.

    One thing I have learned though is that humans are a very strange critter. On the one hand, you have the (thankfully few) psychopaths who care only about money, power and control and will stop at nothing to have it (including destroying everything) and on the other hand you have the masses who only seem to care about themselves and living in their own little world. And then there's this third group who sees the other two groups and can't understand either. They too just want to live their life in peace and harmony, but they realize that can't happen as long as the psychopaths control everything and the masses refuse to join with them to resolve the problems.

    I used to believe that, given a contributionist society, the majority of people would do the right thing and would contribute (work) and that if society needed more people doing the jobs that few wanted to do that plenty would step up to the plate. I no longer believe this. I am grudgingly coming to the conclusion that people are intrinsically lazy and will only do things that they feel like doing and/or that are beneficial to their self interest and preservation. I mean, look at how few will research the kinds of things discussed on Avalon. The majority of my family and friends would rather roll their eyes and pass it off as “conspiracy theories” that only nutters will waste their time researching. They're more interested in the truly important things like playing games or watching sports, movies or braindead TV shows. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that entertainment is a bad thing, or that we shouldn't be entertained, or that it isn't useful to help us to escape the insanity of this world for a while. But I just can't help but marvel at the level of importance that most people put on being entertained over being educated and informed—particularly if the knowledge gained could improve, or even save, their lives if acted upon.

    I just saw on TV that the Cowboys expect 100,000 people per day to show up and watch their draft picks in Arlington, TX. Is there really any wonder why the world is as screwed up as it is when things like that far and away exceeds the desire to know if, for example, there really is a Deep State that has taken over our government and wants to create a One World Government and exterminate 95% of the population. Maybe it's just me and I'm just a “conspiracy theory” nut, but attempting to find out if that statement is true or not seems vastly more important than who the Cowboys are going to draft for their 2018 season—and I'm a Cowboys fan.
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ceetee9 For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (24th April 2018), Ernie Nemeth (24th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th April 2018), KiwiElf (24th April 2018)

  21. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Member Ba-ba-Ra's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th June 2010
    Location
    N. California foothills
    Age
    80
    Posts
    1,530
    Thanks
    15,937
    Thanked 10,647 times in 1,362 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    I just became aware of this thread, so I've only read the first post and the posts on this page due to time constraints.

    Don't know if any of you are familiar with Mondragon in N.Spain. Operational since the mid-50's it has grown into the world's largest worker's coop. Perfect? -probably not, but the closest concept I've seen. When workers have skin in the game, their attitude is usually quite different, especially when the CEO's salaries are capped at 8% of the lowest paid workers salary. How different attitudes are when one feels as if they are being treated fairly and their ideas are considered.

    I believe it was originally a farm coop;however, Mondragon now also has it's own schools, banks and manufacturing. Housing as well. https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nt-cooperative

    Blessed are the cracked, for they are the ones who let in the light!

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ba-ba-Ra For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (26th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th April 2018), Franny (25th April 2018), KiwiElf (24th April 2018), TargeT (25th April 2018)

  23. Link to Post #35
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,565
    Thanks
    15,223
    Thanked 20,878 times in 3,327 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    This isn't about me.

    And it isn't regional. It is global. All those migrants you mention are the group, the majority of the world's population, by the way, that I refer to and their doppelgangers here in the west - the bottom full 30% who do not enjoy the largesse of our elites and well-to-do middle class.

    That food you say we waste each year, is that a joke? The very fact that food is thrown out when others are starving pretty much hammers in the last nail in the coffin of my above statements.
    Forget about it

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (25th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th April 2018), KiwiElf (24th April 2018)

  25. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member Rahkyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th June 2011
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Age
    52
    Posts
    2,588
    Thanks
    15,285
    Thanked 20,588 times in 2,453 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by KiwiElf (here)
    The way I see it, what we have now and in the past isn't working too well for the majority. There's got to be a better way(s). Comes back to that ST quote, I think:

    "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives ... We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity..."
    It is going to take our deaths. It is going to take destruction and devastation and climate shift and war and hatred and loss. Deep, abiding, painful, generational loss. The kind of loss that is going to make both world wars look like children's games. The kind of loss that traumatizes generations and leaves epigenetic markers in those who survive it.

    I wish this were not the case.

    But people are too programmed into this hierarchical way of being. Of the idea of rich and poor. Of working and playing. They can see no way beyond the polarity, no way of finding a middle way, no way of being something more than we currently are.

    This system and way of being must play itself out. There are too many too invested in it for it to go quietly into the night. They will fight and war and the night will light up with their rage as those who seek another path grow stronger and louder and more insistent upon them giving up their privileges and imposing their perversions upon the entire world.

    People forget that the Star Trek Federation came about after devastating warfare and destruction on planet earth. People saw the old ways could not work any longer and had to make a new way.

    Good times on planet earth.
    Last edited by Rahkyt; 24th April 2018 at 21:37.

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Rahkyt For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (26th April 2018), Ba-ba-Ra (25th April 2018), Ernie Nemeth (24th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th April 2018), Franny (25th April 2018), KiwiElf (24th April 2018), Wind (24th April 2018)

  27. Link to Post #37
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    I believe we are in the beginning of that "war" right now, Rahkyt . Certainly we, as the human race must grow & evolve. That will no doubt come at a price.

  28. Link to Post #38
    New Zealand Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    1st September 2011
    Posts
    5,984
    Thanks
    34,888
    Thanked 38,520 times in 5,691 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)

    Quote Apologies Omni, this discussion has probably gone way off topic from what you envisioned [/COLOR]
    I think you’ve got the wrong thread in mind. We’re still completely on topic here, since the OP is about economic/government welfare systems.
    No,.. right thread (yours), comment was in relation to both of Omni's earlier posts

    Last edited by KiwiElf; 24th April 2018 at 23:54.

  29. Link to Post #39
    Virgin Islands Avalon Member TargeT's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th June 2011
    Location
    St. Croix
    Age
    40
    Posts
    7,515
    Thanks
    21,385
    Thanked 39,716 times in 7,043 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Quote Posted by Rahkyt (here)
    People forget that the Star Trek Federation came about after devastating warfare and destruction on planet earth. People saw the old ways could not work any longer and had to make a new way.
    Good times on planet earth.
    Hard to think of a single time a major system changed WITH OUT a devastating (on many facets) precursor (9/11, Pearl Harbor being two easy examples of how "forced" precursors are just as good as organic ones, perhaps better because they are more predictable.)


    I don't see our economy changing with out one also... but a lot of us have seen the writing on the wall & it appears we are being set up for a global collapse; which maybe the devastation to the current system that is required for change... however this also seems to be an injected phenomenon so how much do we trust the perpetrators?

    I don't trust much at all....

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    That food you say we waste each year, is that a joke? The very fact that food is thrown out when others are starving pretty much hammers in the last nail in the coffin of my above statements.
    Are they starving though, or is that just a meme?

    I mean, you'd think we would see Malnutrition at least in the top 10 causes of death in Africa, right?

    But we don't, because the "scarcity" paradigm that we are currently in is FALSE.

    What that means for universal income, I dunno... but I don't think it can ever exist alongside capitalism.
    Last edited by TargeT; 25th April 2018 at 19:41.
    Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.
    Where are you?

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TargeT For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (2nd May 2018), Alekahn2 (26th April 2018), Ernie Nemeth (25th April 2018), Foxie Loxie (25th April 2018), KiwiElf (26th April 2018), Rahkyt (25th April 2018)

  31. Link to Post #40
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    61
    Posts
    3,565
    Thanks
    15,223
    Thanked 20,878 times in 3,327 posts

    Default Re: Finland abandons "free money" experiment

    Target, there's starving and then there's starving. I've gone hungry on a few occasions and it felt like starving but I really wasn't because if I was truly in danger I could have swallowed my pride and gone to the food bank.

    Africans are starving. That is why they call it a famine. Millions die. Children are hardest hit because they need those calories and nutrition to grow. They can't catch up later. If they don't get the proper intake they are forever stunted. They say at least 1 in 5 children in America go to school hungry - that's also bad. In New York many renters and mostly university students often have to make a choice - pay the rent or buy food. The food banks see a crisis almost every year in Canada too. Right now I think it is Vancouver experiencing a food shortage in their food banks.

    So ya I would say that food is a very big problem in the world. Maybe not as bad as the water problem but still very bad.

    And scarcity is implemented everywhere the west goes - it's part of the control structure.
    Forget about it

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (26th April 2018), Franny (26th April 2018), KiwiElf (26th April 2018), Wind (26th April 2018)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts