'This is about saving capitalism': the Dutch historian who savaged Davos elite

[Deux Corbeaux]

Davos 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/01/rutger-bregman-world-economic-forum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism

Rutger Bregman had not really intended to stick it to the global elite. He never meant to have a pop at the idea that inequality could be solved by philanthropy or inviting Bono to Davos. But when the Dutch historian decided to go off-piste at the World Economic Forum and tell the assembled billionaires they should stop avoiding paying tax, he became an overnight social media sensation.

“It’s been a crazy week and just for stating the obvious,” said Bregman, when asked about a panel discussion at the WEF last month in which he said the issue was “taxes, taxes, taxes, and all the rest is bull**** in my opinion”.

Bregman had not been to Davos before. He was invited on the basis of the book Utopia for Realists, which argued for a basic income and a shorter working week, ideas that have been taken up by some of the Silicon Valley billionaires who show up for the annual event in the Swiss Alps.

But he grew more irritated as the week wore on. Bregman gave a speech to a dinner of technology chief executives and then spoke at one of Davos’s private sessions, off limits to journalists. There he was surprised and maddened by the pushback when he mentioned tax. “One American looked at me as if I was from another planet,” he said.

As a result, Bregman decided to change his plan for a panel on inequality organised by Time magazine on the final morning of Davos. “I went to my hotel room and memorised what I wanted to say by heart,” he said.

“I more or less ignored the question asked by the moderator and gave my speech instead. It was mainly to ease my own conscience: someone has to say what needs to be said.”

What Bregman said, put simply, was the Davos emperors have no clothes. They talk a lot about how something must be done about inequality and the need to address social unrest, but cavil at the idea they might be a big part of the problem.

He told his audience that people in Davos talked about participation, justice, equality and transparency, but “nobody raises the issue of tax avoidance and the rich not paying their share. It is like going to a firefighters’ conference and not talking about water.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paaen3b44XY

[Deux Corbeaux]

For people interested, here’s the full video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU

[christian]

And when everbody pays taxes and the state's redistribution isn't to his liking, his next big hit is gonna be, "nobody here talks about fair and smart redistribution, come on, it's so obvious, just do it!"

Let me tell you something really obvious. Taxation is theft, statism is doomed to fail. Humans shouldn't govern one another, because they cannot handle this power, whether it's because of corruption or because of incompetence. Humans should respect each other's sovereignty, abolish taxes, abolish the state and only enter into contracts voluntarily, whether it's a contract with an individual or with a group. Nobody should have to be forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.

Complaining about tax avoidance is a cheap and easy way to get some popularity. Humans tend to forget the lessons of history and instead cling to a hope of a benevolent state with wise and pious leaders at the top. In reality, giving more power to the state is a time-tested way to fuel society's downfall.

Of course most super-rich are immoral and the system is skewed in their favor. But instead of arguing for them to join the servitude of the masses, and then hoping for the state to be just and fair with everybody, simply alleviate the masses from their servitude. No taxes.

[Franny]

Let me tell you something really obvious. Taxation is theft, statism is doomed to fail. Humans shouldn't govern one another, because they cannot handle this power, whether it's because of corruption or because of incompetence. Humans should respect each other's sovereignty, abolish taxes, abolish the state and only enter into contracts voluntarily, whether it's a contract with an individual or with a group. Nobody should have to be forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.


From another point of view: Free people don't chose who will rule them, they rule themselves.

[Bubu]

Let me tell you something really obvious. Taxation is theft, statism is doomed to fail. Humans shouldn't govern one another, because they cannot handle this power, whether it's because of corruption or because of incompetence. Humans should respect each other's sovereignty, abolish taxes, abolish the state and only enter into contracts voluntarily, whether it's a contract with an individual or with a group. Nobody should have to be forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.


From another point of view: Free people don't chose who will rule them, they rule themselves.

yep and its so obvious kudos to you 2 for telling the truth in its simplicity. No taxes no government

[Deux Corbeaux]

.
Of course most super-rich are immoral and the system is skewed in their favor......

How about the super-poor? Are they just poor because of a lack of character?
Is poverty perhaps, as Margaret Thatcher once said, a personality defect?
Or is poverty simply a lack of cash - caused by bad luck or bad health.


Humans should respect each other’s sovereignty, abolish taxes, abolish the state and only enter into contracts voluntarily, whether it’s a contract with an individual or with a group. Nobody should have to be forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.

I see you have aclear idea about how society should be and I respect that.

However, there are more ways to a prosperous society. Perhaps not your choice of society, but surely one without poverty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k

[DeDukshyn]

Did you see his Fox news interview (that apparently never aired on Fox - and if you see it you understand why). It was pretty great actually.

6_nFI2Zb7qE


... just an aside ... carry on ...

[Bubu]

“nobody raises the issue of tax avoidance and the rich not paying their share. It is like going to a firefighters’ conference and not talking about water.”

Can we invite Mr Rutger Bergman on avalon forum?

[Bubu]

"Poverty is not a lack of character, poverty is a lack of cash"
Finally a realistic idea, super simple. I cant even remember when I did have the idea that poverty is a lack of character. BUT the big question is how do we make our government implement this?

ok will tell my friends about it, do you think this super simple idea will work.

[onawah]

My ideas about poverty changed after I read the Michael Teachings.
It's a huge subject, and I had more than one AHA! moment when studying them.
But the one about poverty was significant.
The premise is that poverty is not confined to the disadvantaged, the unskilled, the indifferent, the undeserving.
But Old Souls who have seen through all the illusions that our culture creates about the value of success, status, prestige, etc. often live in poverty simply because they don't care about mainstream values, and prefer to live a simple, quiet life, undistracted by disingenuous worldly values.
Which can make it all the more erroneous to judge anyone by their "standard of living".

[Hazelfern]

My ideas about poverty changed after I read the Michael Teachings.
It's a huge subject, and I had more than one AHA! moment when studying them.
But the one about poverty was significant.
The premise is that poverty is not confined to the disadvantaged, the unskilled, the indifferent, the undeserving.
But Old Souls who have seen through all the illusions that our culture creates about the value of success, status, prestige, etc. often live in poverty simply because they don't care about mainstream values, and prefer to live a simple, quiet life, undistracted by disingenuous worldly values.
Which can make it all the more erroneous to judge anyone by their "standard of living".

One slowly nods, stop over for tea.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Did you see his Fox news interview (that apparently never aired on Fox - and if you see it you understand why). It was pretty great actually.

6_nFI2Zb7qE


... just an aside ... carry on ...

Of course I saw that one. :) It got viral on the Internet the moment it was posted.
Bregman was interviewed about it on Dutch TV yesterday.
Thanks for posting it for me. I perhaps would not have dared to do so.

Even starting this thread felt tricky, since I know that many US members are allergic to anything to do with government. And I can understand their sense of FREEDOM, knowing where they’re coming from.

However, being FREE from having a stressful life, struggling to survive day by day, will give not only the poor a sense of FREEDOM, but the ones that are more fortunate, an opportunity to work less hard (if they want) , to have time to fulfill their “Hart’s desire” - a hobby, a study, being home for the kids more, or to travel, whatever will make them happy..... (= FREEDOM)

Those will be the advantages of a universal Basic Income (https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k).

But.... oh la la....... government will be needed, as well as taxing the super rich.

Scary, scary ;)

[Deux Corbeaux]

My ideas about poverty changed after I read the Michael Teachings.
It's a huge subject, and I had more than one AHA! moment when studying them.
But the one about poverty was significant.
The premise is that poverty is not confined to the disadvantaged, the unskilled, the indifferent, the undeserving.
But Old Souls who have seen through all the illusions that our culture creates about the value of success, status, prestige, etc. often live in poverty simply because they don't care about mainstream values, and prefer to live a simple, quiet life, undistracted by disingenuous worldly values.
Which can make it all the more erroneous to judge anyone by their "standard of living".

One slowly nods, stop over for tea.

Tea without cakes then ;)

The luxury of self-chosen “poverty”

[christian]

How about the super-poor? Are they just poor because of a lack of character?

Humanity is enslaved because there are abusive elements in society and because abused humans didn't yet figure out a way to free themselves. It takes two for this tango.


[T]here are more ways to a prosperous society. Perhaps not your choice of society, but surely one without poverty.

There are so many ways. I'm happy to let all of them exist, I only ask for one thing: don't force me to be a wheel in the machinery in whatever system you prefer, no matter how good you think it is and no matter how many people are on your side. Allow me to be a sovereign being, let me live in peace while I let you in peace. If I like what you do, I might participate, or I might go about my own ways and do things differently. Let me have my own choice about this, I let you have yours.

[wnlight]

I paid taxes all my life. At the age of 75, I am collecting a modest social security income that is paid for by other people's taxes. That is because my taxes have already been squandered in wars started by the USA government. (Wars that I was against.) So now what? Should I turn down my SS income because (via the government) I am taking it from others against their will? As do many my age, I feel that I have earned it.

Years ago when driving down a mountain road in Colorado, my car's steering wheel actually came off in my hands. It was quite a feeling! Yet I have realized that it is the same for 'our' USA government. The wheel came off years ago and we are still careening down the mountainside. The ballot box is broken.

[onawah]

I would hardly call living in poverty a luxury, but living with a clear conscience can be worth the sacrifice, and can perhaps afford one an opportunity to focus on more important things than material wealth.



Tea without cakes then ;)

The luxury of self-chosen “poverty”

[Deux Corbeaux]

I paid taxes all my life. At the age of 75, I am collecting a modest social security income that is paid for by other people's taxes. That is because my taxes have already been squandered in wars started by the USA government. (Wars that I was against.) So now what? Should I turn down my SS income because (via the government) I am taking it from others against their will? As do many my age, I feel that I have earned it.

In Europe this principle of paying taxes for an other generation or fellow citizens that are (temporary) unable to work is called SOLIDARITY.
As one has paid taxes(social security contribution) in a productive period in life to support others, it’s completely right to benefit from it later.
One doesn’t have to thank anybody for it, which means FREEDOM.

In a society without taxes or government one has to choose between charity (from friends or family), or else starvation, thus losing one’s independency or else one’s dignity, which means LESS FREEDOM

I think the concept of FREEDOM is relative.

-

“But freedom is not absolute. It is a relative and subjective concept. Freedom cannot be measured, the degree to which a person is or is not free can only be determined through comparison and that comparison is completely subjective”.

https://www.bankableinsight.com/freedom-is-not-absolute-the-subjective-and-relative-nature-of-human-liberty.html

-

[Praxis]

And when everbody pays taxes and the state's redistribution isn't to his liking, his next big hit is gonna be, "nobody here talks about fair and smart redistribution, come on, it's so obvious, just do it!"

Let me tell you something really obvious. Taxation is theft, statism is doomed to fail. Humans shouldn't govern one another, because they cannot handle this power, whether it's because of corruption or because of incompetence. Humans should respect each other's sovereignty, abolish taxes, abolish the state and only enter into contracts voluntarily, whether it's a contract with an individual or with a group. Nobody should have to be forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.

Complaining about tax avoidance is a cheap and easy way to get some popularity. Humans tend to forget the lessons of history and instead cling to a hope of a benevolent state with wise and pious leaders at the top. In reality, giving more power to the state is a time-tested way to fuel society's downfall.

Of course most super-rich are immoral and the system is skewed in their favor. But instead of arguing for them to join the servitude of the masses, and then hoping for the state to be just and fair with everybody, simply alleviate the masses from their servitude. No taxes.

Taxes are not theft, they are ownership. If you have the ability to levy a tax on something, it implicitly means that you have ownership of that thing.

While I appreciate your sentiments on statism and can definitely see where you come from as an anarchist at heart, anarchism is for adults and we have a planet of children.

What the modern anarchist fails to consider is when someone has a different world view entirely.

The mongol Empire was nomadic based one. They had disdain for all settled people and saw them as no more than animals to used as such.
Had it not been for Chinese advisers to Temujin telling him he could herd people and cultivate them as a resource, they probably would have retained much of their nomadic ways destroying and returning to pasture most if not all cities they found.

No anarchist commune would have withstood the Khanate and the Great Khans. Hell even organized civilizations could not stop the Khans expansion.


What states are is simply an evolution of the technology of organization. One day maybe humans will be evolved enough to carry a constitution internally(anarchism) and be a state of one( anarchy means no rulers not no rules), but until that happens we needs states to be able to deal with planetary level problems.

[bogdan9310]

Why would anyone want to save capitalism? It's awful.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Why would anyone want to save capitalism? It's awful.

Hi bogdan. The name of the thread came from the article, of which the link is posted in the OP.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/01/rutger-bregman-world-economic-forum-davos-speech-tax-billionaires-capitalism

Here’s the quote to see the context in which that “saving capitalism” was mentioned.


As a historian, Bregman noted the most successful period for capitalism occurred in the years after the second world war, when the top rate of tax in the US was above 90%.

“This is about saving capitalism,” he said. “Most innovation has come about through government spending. During the golden age period [after the second world war], there were way higher taxes on wealth, property, inheritance and top incomes. That’s what we need today if we are going to tame this beast called capitalism.”

[Dennis Leahy]

Christian, it would be one thing if there was economic equality and distribution of land as a starting point - then the theoretical idea of no taxation might work. But, when just a handful of people own nearly everything, including the land and resources necessary for the vast vast majority to even survive, then declaring "no taxes!" would be wonderful for the handful of people that own the world, and a giant, miserable die-off of most of humanity, and a living hell for those who manage to survive. Right now, the reality is like the end of the game of 'Monopoly', where one guy has all the hotels on all of his properties and owns the utilities... and has a stack of 'get out of jail free' cards. Everyone else will lose, there is no question. It's a pretty bad time to defend the trillionaires' and multi-billionaires' freedom to hoard.

The hardest working people I have ever met in my life are all "working poor", and have no chance of ever becoming even economically stable (all are a single tragedy away from devastation.) The spike in homelessness has been shown to be most frequently from medical bills destroying them financially.

[amor]

When looking at this problem, one must not forget to thoroughly scrutinize the world bankers, who by manipulating their control of the stock market computerized system of quickly manipulating stock to their advantage, quick sell-offs and cheaper buy backs, thereby owning the controlling interest of vast numbers of corporations, being managed under a new world order agenda which is also genocidal, where war is big business for the bankers and puppet rulers of nations they control, where THINK TANKS plot their every move, where their system of lending $1 and then creating $10 out of thin air ad infinitum thereby creating inflation faster than people can earn, where too much vacuous empty cash is available to purchase products which do not yet exist, we then have INFLATION. TOO MANY LOANS and not enough earnings to repay them happen. When all the income is consumed by Land Taxes, Income Taxes, and other taxes, utilities, food, etc., those things which would keep the economy going stay UNPURCHASED BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT TO DO SO. Eventually there is a depression which even government deficits cannot hide. The very rich ride all this out. The unorganized, ignorant poor suffer and die (which is the plan). IS THIS YOUR CAPITALISM 0R DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND??? Then get rid of fractional banking and world bankers. Get rid of government regulations which forbid people to build small homes and have somewhere of their own to put them. No one needs a building monstrosity to raise a family and then rattle around in it when they are old and alone. GET REAL!

[Bubu]

When looking at this problem, one must not forget to thoroughly scrutinize the world bankers, who by manipulating their control of the stock market computerized system of quickly manipulating stock to their advantage, quick sell-offs and cheaper buy backs, thereby owning the controlling interest of vast numbers of corporations, being managed under a new world order agenda which is also genocidal, where war is big business for the bankers and puppet rulers of nations they control, where THINK TANKS plot their every move, where their system of lending $1 and then creating $10 out of thin air ad infinitum thereby creating inflation faster than people can earn, where too much vacuous empty cash is available to purchase products which do not yet exist, we then have INFLATION. TOO MANY LOANS and not enough earnings to repay them happen. When all the income is consumed by Land Taxes, Income Taxes, and other taxes, utilities, food, etc., those things which would keep the economy going stay UNPURCHASED BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT TO DO SO. Eventually there is a depression which even government deficits cannot hide. The very rich ride all this out. The unorganized, ignorant poor suffer and die (which is the plan). IS THIS YOUR CAPITALISM 0R DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND??? Then get rid of fractional banking and world bankers. Get rid of government regulations which forbid people to build small homes and have somewhere of their own to put them. No one needs a building monstrosity to raise a family and then rattle around in it when they are old and alone. GET REAL!

I may add. Give the land and all the natural resources back to the people and train them how to make a living out of it. We actually have the first in the Philippines its called land reform. But not the second so its a fiasco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_the_Philippines

http://www.dar.gov.ph/ra-6657-what-is-carp-comprehensive-agrarian-reform-program

[snoman]

distribution of wealth, shuffling it around, is what we would all decide to do to make lives less horrendous if we had that power...
so...
we'd be taxing , given the power to do so..
no?

is it taxation that is undesirable or is it the people who misuse it , those who govern , that need to have that power ripped from their hands?

[christian]

Taxes are not theft, they are ownership. If you have the ability to levy a tax on something, it implicitly means that you have ownership of that thing.

So the state takes from me whatever it wants, because it basically already owns what I have?


[A]narchism is for adults and we have a planet of children.

How could these children then successfully wield the level of power that is present in a state?

Exactly because humanity is immature, statism is dangerous. Anarchy means decentralization of power. It means accountability.

Statism means centralization of power and secrecy.

Which one is more dangerous in a world full of immature and irresponsible people?

Remember, the most psychopathic elements in society are the ones most attracted to get into positions of power.

[christian]

Christian, it would be one thing if there was economic equality and distribution of land as a starting point - then the theoretical idea of no taxation might work. But, when just a handful of people own nearly everything, including the land and resources necessary for the vast vast majority to even survive, then declaring "no taxes!" would be wonderful for the handful of people that own the world, and a giant, miserable die-off of most of humanity, and a living hell for those who manage to survive.

You're 100% on-point. I call this the dilemma of property. Declaring sovereign property is an advancement in civilization, it makes everybody equal partners. But current distribution of wealth can't be a starting point for that, because it's very much based on criminal actions. Therefore, if you really want to decentralize authority and abolish taxes, you have to at the same time have court proceedings, carried out in a democratic way, by the people, to redistribute from the criminals to the ones who have been abused. This is about one of the biggest challenges I could think of for humanity, but it's a necessary step to establish a peaceful and just society. I don't know if it can be done, but it must be done if we wanna evolve.

[Bubu]

distribution of wealth, shuffling it around, is what we would all decide to do to make lives less horrendous if we had that power...
so...
we'd be taxing , given the power to do so..
no?

is it taxation that is undesirable or is it the people who misuse it , those who govern , that need to have that power ripped from their hands?



Thanks for the reminder we are again barking at the wrong tree.

The problem behind the problems is; there is this small portion of earth humans who have mutated into something akin to cancer cells in the human body. This mutated humans are now destroying the harmony of the earth body. The other problem is: that the rest is allowing them to. At least at the moment.

Truth is if we can only get that power from their hands we will be back to our ourselves soon.

[TomKat]

Those will be the advantages of a universal Basic Income (https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k).
But.... oh la la....... government will be needed, as well as taxing the super rich.


We do need to tax the super rich. And yes, government will be needed -- to squander all the increased revenue so that said universal basic income is a pittance of what was promised.

[Bubu]

Those will be the advantages of a universal Basic Income (https://youtu.be/ydKcaIE6O1k).
But.... oh la la....... government will be needed, as well as taxing the super rich.


We do need to tax the super rich. And yes, government will be needed -- to squander all the increased revenue so that said universal basic income is a pittance of what was promised.

government is an scary word, perhaps leadership will do and taxation should also be replace with voluntary contribution.

[chris_walker]

I am opposed to taxation. It is a form of theft and it impoverishes more people than we realise. It also is a motivating factor for really rich people to expatriate their assets to the detriment of the country. As for redistributing wealth equally, that is just plain communism and we've seen glorious examples of communism throughout history - Mao, Stalin, Lenin etc. Their kill count is higher than Hitler's if you consider that a big part of Hitler's kill count was due to war rather than mass murdering his own citizens, most of whom seemed to adore him.

[Praxis]

Taxes are not theft, they are ownership. If you have the ability to levy a tax on something, it implicitly means that you have ownership of that thing.

So the state takes from me whatever it wants, because it basically already owns what I have?


[A]narchism is for adults and we have a planet of children.

How could these children then successfully wield the level of power that is present in a state?

Exactly because humanity is immature, statism is dangerous. Anarchy means decentralization of power. It means accountability.

Statism means centralization of power and secrecy.

Which one is more dangerous in a world full of immature and irresponsible people?

Remember, the most psychopathic elements in society are the ones most attracted to get into positions of power.

I dont think you understood what I was saying.



The state doesnt take from you, it owns you. It owns your person, it owns your labor, it owns you entirely. You can not take something from yourself.
It is taking nothing from you but rather it owns you through and through.


The government then rents you to corporations, or more precisely it rents your time to the corporation. In return, the prostitute(i.e. me and you and all other owned beings by states) gets paid for their time, called Salary or wages, but the pimp, government, takes their cut, taxes.

If you can not freely sell your labor to someone without the government getting involved then you dont actually own your labor.

[christian]

Taxes are not theft, they are ownership. If you have the ability to levy a tax on something, it implicitly means that you have ownership of that thing.

So the state takes from me whatever it wants, because it basically already owns what I have?

I dont think you understood what I was saying.

The state doesnt take from you, it owns you.

That's exactly how I understood you. I just asked because I thought your take on taxation was at odds with you prefering the state over self-ownership, a private law society (https://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society), so I wondered if I understood you correctly.

[Innocent Warrior]

I would hardly call living in poverty a luxury, but living with a clear conscience can be worth the sacrifice, and can perhaps afford one an opportunity to focus on more important things than material wealth.



Tea without cakes then ;)

The luxury of self-chosen “poverty”

Also, not everyone considers the material as wealth. My BF’s Oma says knowledge is wealth because it’s the only thing that survives war.

[Deux Corbeaux]

I would hardly call living in poverty a luxury, but living with a clear conscience can be worth the sacrifice, and can perhaps afford one an opportunity to focus on more important things than material wealth.



Tea without cakes then ;)

The luxury of self-chosen “poverty”

Also, not everyone considers the material as wealth. My BF’s Oma says knowledge is wealth because it’s the only thing that survives war.

I agree with Oma.
Unfortunately when one is starving, one can’t eat knowledge.
One has to be at least an advanced yogi to survive I’m afraid. ;)

[Innocent Warrior]

I would hardly call living in poverty a luxury, but living with a clear conscience can be worth the sacrifice, and can perhaps afford one an opportunity to focus on more important things than material wealth.



Tea without cakes then ;)

The luxury of self-chosen “poverty”

Also, not everyone considers the material as wealth. My BF’s Oma says knowledge is wealth because it’s the only thing that survives war.

I agree with Oma.
Unfortunately when one is starving, one can’t eat knowledge.
One has to be at least an advanced yogi to survive I’m afraid. ;)

True! I was thinking of why some are more vulnerable to poverty. Off topic now that I look at it again, apologies, Deux.

[Hazelfern]

How about the super-poor? Are they just poor because of a lack of character?

Humanity is enslaved because there are abusive elements in society and because abused humans didn't yet figure out a way to free themselves. It takes two for this tango.


[T]here are more ways to a prosperous society. Perhaps not your choice of society, but surely one without poverty.

There are so many ways. I'm happy to let all of them exist, I only ask for one thing: don't force me to be a wheel in the machinery in whatever system you prefer, no matter how good you think it is and no matter how many people are on your side. Allow me to be a sovereign being, let me live in peace while I let you in peace. If I like what you do, I might participate, or I might go about my own ways and do things differently. Let me have my own choice about this, I let you have yours.

Sure enough Chris. As long as capitalism is out of the equation.

[christian]

There are so many ways. I'm happy to let all of them exist, I only ask for one thing: don't force me to be a wheel in the machinery in whatever system you prefer, no matter how good you think it is and no matter how many people are on your side. Allow me to be a sovereign being, let me live in peace while I let you in peace. If I like what you do, I might participate, or I might go about my own ways and do things differently. Let me have my own choice about this, I let you have yours.

Sure enough Chris. As long as capitalism is out of the equation.

What exactly is "capitalism"? If you're referring to what's going on right now (which I would rather call cronyism, oligarchy, pathocracy or corporatocracy) then I would agree. In a scientific sense though, capitalism is defined by a) right to private property and b) free and voluntary exchange. In that sense, I would disagree.

Calling what we have right now "capitalism" is just very crude, it muddles the waters and impedes a clear and complex analysis of what's going on, which then also makes the formulation of an alternative more difficult.

The system loves it when the debate stays on that level, because then it can easily push the formula: capitalism must go.

People then think the systen is talking about the conditions that we have right now, the crude popular understanding of capitalism. But instead, the system is referring to the scientific sense of capitalism, economic freedom, which will then go out of the window while people cheer, thinking for a second they will be liberated.

[Hazelfern]

I guess I misunderstood your intent. Your idea please. In a nutshell if i dare ask. I am all in with basic income. It is fundamentally human. Provide the basic 'needs' until humanity comes up with a fine solution that we all agree.

[christian]

I guess I misunderstood your intent. Your idea please. In a nutshell if i dare ask. I am all in with basic income. It is fundamentally human. Provide the basic 'needs' until humanity comes up with a fine solution that we all agree.

In a nutshell, self-ownership and voluntary cooperation. It's a private law society (https://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society).

The basic need for a human being is liberty, to be self-determined. Since a UBI is nothing but a permanent, coercive redistribution of wealth, it destroys the very liberty it pretends to guarantee.

Unfair distribution of wealth must be addressed. We do have to redistribute, but not with a broad brush from rich/productive to poor/unproductive, rather from criminal to decent.

UBI is the hope of the downtrodden to at least have enough to go on living every month, that they can at least make a humble living and not lose everything to the criminals. I think there's no real dignity in this. It can't be the solution to hope for chickenfeed from a thoroughly corrupted system. Instead, massive democratic judicial proceedings to redistribute property and establish liberty, fairness and justice through immutable self-ownership and self-determination. That's the most sustainable form of basic security.

In such a society, technology is decentralized and benefits all of humanity, thus establishing a form of universal basic prosperity that grows with every generation.

[Hazelfern]

How is it unfair? To whom is it unfair? In our current age and time?

Oh wait a sec. Where do you hail from? Country? Does that color your thought process?

I ask because I do not know - just want to

[christian]

How is it unfair? To whom is it unfair? In our current age and time?

Oh wait a sec. Where do you hail from? Country? Does that color your thought process?

If the state baldly subsizides those who are not willing to work, it's unfair towards those who are willing to work. Because they're being treated unfaily, they will work less or stop working altogether, which means that there will be less and less to redistribute and the society will become poor. That's true in every age, time and country.

[Hazelfern]

How is it unfair? To whom is it unfair? In our current age and time?

Oh wait a sec. Where do you hail from? Country? Does that color your thought process?

If the state baldly subsizides those who are not willing to work, it's unfair towards those who are willing to work. Because they're being treated unfaily, they will work less or stop working altogether, which means that there will be less and less to redistribute and the society will become poor. That's true in every age, time and country.

I disagree. Respectfully. I see so many that are unable to work in any meaningful way. Try hard they do but its not enough. Work they do, but its not enough to keep a roof.

Bring your poor to me. I am just but yes I will take from those who have more than enough to care for my downtrodden.

[christian]

That's a valid observation. You help them by bringing criminals to justice and by establishing self-ownership and self-determination. You don't help them by giving them chickenfeed, that only keeps the downtrodden satisfied eneough to survive and not rebel. It only consolidates the overall power structures that are in place right now.

[Hazelfern]

Grace is our savior

[Hazelfern]

That's a valid observation. You help them by bringing criminals to justice and by establishing self-ownership and self-determination. You don't help them by giving them chickenfeed, that only keeps the downtrodden satisfied eneough to survive and not rebel. It only consolidates the overall power structures that are in place right now.

Then what should my words be to move and compel

[happyuk]

Another take on this, and not a criticism of those in poverty, more the causes of poverty. It is a fact that many supposedly higher-earning middle class income brackets are little more than one or two paychecks from homelessness, such is the degree of their spending, debt and lack of savings.

A fundamental issue is basic financial knowledge itself. Many adults cannot even deal with percentages and so will never be equipped to comprehend the destructive power of credit card debt for example.

For example, many think that borrowing money for a car is a reasonable thing to do.

Similarly, many think that buying a luxury car before their house is paid off is a reasonable thing to do.

Many think credit cards are a way to borrow money when life’s expenses outpace income.

With assumptions like these, the poor will always be among us.

No, for many of us, getting out of poverty will necessitate fewer visits to pubs, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, nightclubs, theme parks, and coffee shops. For many that has become a pleasant and comfortable habit.

Booze, cigarettes, recreational drugs, cable TV, lottery tickets, video game playing, subscriptions of all descriptions, procrastination, internet porn, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, comfort-eating and unnecessary shopping are other habits that are all widespread.

These factors stand between the average person and a poverty-free life.

[Zanshin]

Taxing production is, by definition, counter-productive.

Along the same lines as amor has posted-

The creation and issuance of a nation's currency by private interests (bankers and their masters)
coupled with usury (charging interest beyond the scope of the original issue),
the disastrous consequences of which are masked by fractional-reserve lending (splitting the original issue pie into
smaller pieces), will inevitably hyper-inflate any financial system.

Where there were once very strict rules governing the creation of corporations, usually including limited charter,
eg: upon completion, the corporation chartered with construction of the bridge is dissolved -

nationalising the money supply and limiting the corporatisation of every aspect of society will render taxation almost moot.

This is why Qaddafi was taken out - without a private central bank pillaging the production of the people and through
returning the national revenue to the people, Libya enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa.

Where scarcity is manufactured through restricting the money supply - a hidden taxation through inflation,

abundance can be achieved, in part, simply by national issuance of enough interest-free currency to facilitate the production of an unhindered populace.

The prosperity of the American colonies using colonial scrip before the European bankers arrived would be one such example.

The wealth of a nation is predicated on the raw resources of the land and the production of the people.

A prosperous people would surely have the ability and the duty to care for those among them incapable of caring for themselves.

In a society less hindered by the predations of a parasitic elite, perhaps there would far fewer left unable to cope,
less hopelessness and despair escaped, however briefly, by whatever masks the pain.

[Hazelfern]

Another take on this, and not a criticism of those in poverty, more the causes of poverty. It is a fact that many supposedly higher-earning middle class income brackets are little more than one or two paychecks from homelessness, such is the degree of their spending, debt and lack of savings.

A fundamental issue is basic financial knowledge itself. Many adults cannot even deal with percentages and so will never be equipped to comprehend the destructive power of credit card debt for example.

For example, many think that borrowing money for a car is a reasonable thing to do.

Similarly, many think that buying a luxury car before their house is paid off is a reasonable thing to do.

Many think credit cards are a way to borrow money when life’s expenses outpace income.

With assumptions like these, the poor will always be among us.

No, for many of us, getting out of poverty will necessitate fewer visits to pubs, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, nightclubs, theme parks, and coffee shops. For many that has become a pleasant and comfortable habit.

Booze, cigarettes, recreational drugs, cable TV, lottery tickets, video game playing, subscriptions of all descriptions, procrastination, internet porn, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, comfort-eating and unnecessary shopping are other habits that are all widespread.

These factors stand between the average person and a poverty-free life.

Grace has given me another chance to speak to your post.
Please allow me to put it another way, your statement strikes me as biased and untrue. Inflammatory as well. While it’s true that poor people spend more money on lottery then others, that is not what made them poor or keeps them in poverty. As for tobacco and booze, you’ll find the wealthy hanging right in there, perhaps more so.

[happyuk]

Another take on this, and not a criticism of those in poverty, more the causes of poverty. It is a fact that many supposedly higher-earning middle class income brackets are little more than one or two paychecks from homelessness, such is the degree of their spending, debt and lack of savings.

A fundamental issue is basic financial knowledge itself. Many adults cannot even deal with percentages and so will never be equipped to comprehend the destructive power of credit card debt for example.

For example, many think that borrowing money for a car is a reasonable thing to do.

Similarly, many think that buying a luxury car before their house is paid off is a reasonable thing to do.

Many think credit cards are a way to borrow money when life’s expenses outpace income.

With assumptions like these, the poor will always be among us.

No, for many of us, getting out of poverty will necessitate fewer visits to pubs, restaurants, bars, shopping malls, nightclubs, theme parks, and coffee shops. For many that has become a pleasant and comfortable habit.

Booze, cigarettes, recreational drugs, cable TV, lottery tickets, video game playing, subscriptions of all descriptions, procrastination, internet porn, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, comfort-eating and unnecessary shopping are other habits that are all widespread.

These factors stand between the average person and a poverty-free life.

Grace has given me another chance to speak to your post.
Please allow me to put it another way, your statement strikes me as biased and untrue. Inflammatory as well. While it’s true that poor people spend more money on lottery then others, that is not what made them poor or keeps them in poverty. As for tobacco and booze, you’ll find the wealthy hanging right in there, perhaps more so.

I'm absolutely fine with anyone that disagrees, no matter how strongly.

I do think the lottery in particular is a nasty, insidious way of trapping people in the poverty conscious mindset. It is a form of gambling like any other that promises vast, untold riches that will only happen for the tiniest tiniest fraction of humanity. Bad for those that don't understand basic statistics and probabilities.

I read a fascinating article about the state lottery system in the United States, it probably equally applies everywhere else. It described life in the small low-income towns and rural areas throughout the US. People struggle from paycheck to paycheck, frequently encounter medical bankruptcies, and yet almost everyone in town buys a s***load of lottery tickets every week. They typically say things like

"You gotta be in it to win it!"
"When my numbers finally come up in the powerball, I’m gonna get my life turned around!"

…and other such tragically misinformed balderdash.

Similar activity occurs in Las Vegas and on every cruise ship and casino on the planet.

People feed their hard-earned cash into the pockets of these casino owners (who probably understand psychology better than anyone else), impoverishing themselves and enriching the sneaky owners with mathematical certainty.

So let’s cut to the chase and just put all of this to an end to this nonsense right now:

You never, ever gamble if your goal is to get out of poverty.

Gambling and lotteries are actually a double-whammy of loss: from the outset you are up against very poor odds, and you are giving away psychological control of your wealth to something that is out of your control. You are making yourself a victim: "I will get rich if the system decides I will, otherwise I will remain poor". It’s a profoundly incorrect way to think.