Obama's 'Recovery' - 100 million Americans Out Of Work

[GreenGuy]

Obama 'Jobs Recovery’ More Than 100 Million Not Working (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021814-690331-americans-who-work-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-for-those-who-dont.htm)

Personally I am not thrilled to be liberated from work. I want to work, but in over two years have been not even been able to find a job sweeping floors. One of my best friends is a staunch liberal, and I've tried to educate her on the damage this president is doing. She thinks he's better than the GOP, and I can't totally disagree. I say, both parties are beyond redemption.

[ghostrider]

in truth both parties are the same party wearing different masks ... they all need to go ...social contracts should be honored by all , the law apllied equal to all , if you get put in jail for robbing a quickstop , you should be in jail for robbing the stock market , the bank , pension funds , etc ... especially politicians , they all should be in jail for robbing social security ...

[mpod001]

As Fabian Calvo says...get out of the job paradigm and work for yourself! Food production, GMO free and organic, aswell as permaculture are going to be HUGE...

There will be more millionaires made in this collapse than you can imagine, but it will be the farmers driving the ferraris and the bankers sweeping floors...

[Lcam88]

A contemplation of mine that somewhat touches on the premise of your comments...

Going to work and earning money so you can consume the output of businesses and industry, especially as described in MicroEconomics, demonstrates a type of symbiosis. You can introduce banks and government into the model if you want, but that symbiosis continues to be a part. Mind you never, in any economics class that I have taken, has the relationship between the household and industry been described or classified as a symbiosis.

As you know, a symbiosis is two non-related parts working/living together in a natural equilibrium that perhaps benefits the whole.

Outsourcing of american jobs to lower cost alternatives overseas can easily be seen as a rupture of that symbiosis. If banks and government are present in the model, they are largely unaffected because they are actually quite optional, no symbiotic relationship with industry. Industry mainly just obeys as do the banks.

From that perspective, the huge unemployment issue is not really of Obama's making, it's a systemic problem where government didn't perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium. Why, perhaps because on a global scale, you must not leave any competitive advantage unexploited else you will be disadvantaged by anyone who exploits. And it's for this reason that America is at the frontier of all privacy infringing activities now technically possible.

Since industry has largely been outsourced, our households have tried to be assimilated in other types of productive activities in the service sector. In an economy that is 90% based on services, when services can no longer be paid for, you will see a cascade type reaction to cut "unnecessary" service capabilities. Obama can only do so much to maintain a demand for services.

I classify this segment of household that has been amputated from the system, "Economic Exiles". They have been exiled from a mainstream that previously housed them, not for any specific crime or violation, but rather, merely because they are not important enough to be considered in the bigger plans. They are rather like political refugees who are neither productive or accepted socially; being dependent os social security or some other social program often outcasts these people into a classification George Orwell coined "The Prole". A great topic is what is to become of this outcast segment?

In so many occasions, leadership is failing; they no longer care for the well-being of their citizenry. Ukrania, Syria being two examples. In history, this type of scenario has also occurred before during the great depression. The similarly I seek to explore is how farms would have crops rotting in the fields because the farmers didn't have money, liquidity, to pay for workers to harvest, and yet, at the same time, people where starving!

The logical conclusion, simplistically, people need to pool their productivity and create their own symbiosis. Why spend your earnings to buy a product of a company who has participated in exiling their labor base? Buying a product is like voting for a leader,the earnings a company needs to stay in business comes in large from the sales they make. If a large percentage of a market stops buying a products from a company, that company sinks.

Conversely, even if a company produces products that is more expensive, presumably because they use a more expensive domestic workforce, they will succeed as long as their produce is consumed, presumably through consumption from within the pool of people who has benefited by working for such a company.

That "Buy american" campaign was a failed attempt in such a feat mainly because people didn't really understand the reason to buy an inferior, more expensive item. Personally, I believe the Japanese culture is these values ingrained. That is why Ford didn't see success in Japan even with an equivalent product that was less expensive.

So you want a job, do you? Are you willing to take on more than just a job? Are you willing to buy something more expensive? Most people just want it easy, and that, my friends, is not Obama's fault, it's part of his problem.

[Ahnung-quay]

Well said Lcam88, it's the caring about each other, not the almighty buck, that needs to be restored; top-down and bottom-up.

[risveglio]

I don't think outsourcing or buy american is the problem. Maybe the problem is depending on cheating sociopaths to "perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium."

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." (http://bastiat.org/en/government.html)

[jackovesk]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/AmazinSpidermanObama.jpg


Obamacan, Obamacan,
Does whatever a Criminal can
Spins a web, any size,
Swats Americans just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Obamacan.

Is he strong?
Listen bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Take a look at the Fed
Hey, there
There goes the Obamacan.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time.

Obamacan, Obamacan
Friendly neighborhood Obamacan
Steals Wealth and fame
He's ingnored
Action is his reward.

To him, life is a great big spend up
Whenever there's a hang up
You'll find the Obamacan.


http://www.politifake.org/image/political/small/1207/youve-got-business-obama-golf-politics-1342370374.jpeg

[pugwash84]

Here in the UK it is getting impossible to find a job too!

[risveglio]

Here in the UK it is getting impossible to find a job too!

Is the UK also depending on cheating sociopaths to perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium? Hmm ....

[T Smith]

Hello Lcam88,

This is a thought-provoking perspective. You are analyzing parts of a greater whole, up close, but perhaps without fully appreciating a broader scope and the nature of the “symbiotic” relationship between those parts. Yes, consuming output of businesses and industry demonstrates a type of symbiosis between the consumer and purveyor; in our system of governance this symbiosis is parasitic; the cornerstone is fiat debt, issued by a controlling cabal, so the symbiosis itself is a form of slavery. The parasite/host are symbiotic parts only insofar as the parasite requires energy from the host. It is true, however, that in some advanced cases the host requires the parasite to survive as well. If you misdiagnose the parasite in an attempt to eradicate it (as in not seeing it for what it truly is), you may well remove a vital organ.




If banks and government are present in the model, they are largely unaffected because they are actually quite optional, no symbiotic relationship with industry. Industry mainly just obeys as do the banks.



This is not actually correct. The banks and industry don’t obey, they dictate. By fiat. This can’t be stressed enough. Yes, they create the products we consumers demand, but this is an artificial demand in the sense that banks and industry control the government (not the other way around) and therefore can manipulate and restrict our demands. Example? We serfs demand free energy devices. But industry will never satisfy this demand, in our current system, because doing so would essentially remove the parasite. This alone demonstrates that the parasite is the dominant party of the symbiotic relationship you describe and in control of the supply/demand relationship.




…it's a systemic problem where government didn't perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium. Why, perhaps because on a global scale, you must not leave any competitive advantage unexploited else you will be disadvantaged by anyone who exploits.



Again, the role of government isn’t to perceive the importance of keeping the system healthy. The role is to maintain the parasitic relationship and to feed itself, irrespective of the needs of the host. Most parasites kill their host, in the end, against their interests. It’s just the nature of the parasitic “symbiosis”. This is exactly what is going on as the global cabal exploits the slave labor elsewhere where it has even firmer control of its various governments and cultures.




In an economy that is 90% based on services, when services can no longer be paid for, you will see a cascade type reaction to cut "unnecessary" service capabilities. Obama can only do so much to maintain a demand for services….in so many occasions, leadership is failing; they no longer care for the well-being of their citizenry.



Again, it may not be what we want to hear, but Obama’ s job (or any government leader) is not to maintain the demand for services or care for the well-being of their citizenry. This may be the pretext; on the surface he may go through the motions to make it appear that is his job description (and as a manager of public perception, to some degree that is his job), but his real job is to manage the needs of the parasite without the host wising up to the problem.




The logical conclusion, simplistically, people need to pool their productivity and create their own symbiosis. Why spend your earnings to buy a product of a company who has participated in exiling their labor base?



Yes. You are exactly on target here. The only way to do this, however, is to create conditions of a free market where we can freely pool our productivity and create our own symbiosis without restrictions from the cabal and the government (i.e. the parasite). Your suggestion is impossible in our current command economy, controlled by the centralized parasite. Please understand I am not advocating anarchy, per se. But we do need to remove the parasite first. If we were truly self-governing, we could impose responsible restrictions in the interest of the whole, without impeding our freedoms, and this is acceptable; but we are not self-governing. We are governed by the parasite, per the needs of the parasite.

Just a little food for thought as you contemplate your perspective.

[Etherios]

Here in the UK it is getting impossible to find a job too!

Is the UK also depending on cheating sociopaths to perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium? Hmm ....

we always forget ... UK is the testing ground and US is the action ground. Almost all that happens in the US has happened more or less in the UK. UK is alot more brainwashed and alot more depended in the government than US. Ill give an example. Couples dont get married and usually the male has his family house as his residence so that the female / mother gets benefits. The worst is they think its normal and clever to do this o.O.

I am pretty sure it isnt a necessity ... its just extra money.

Last there are no bill of rights here ...

[Lcam88]

Hi T Smith:

I would like to first thank you, T Smith for your contribution.

Largely, I agree with your observations; as an idealist, my objective was to put our society into an economic model so that we can better understand how the model has failed and why there is poverty.


Hello Lcam88,

This is a thought-provoking perspective. You are analyzing parts of a greater whole, up close, but perhaps without fully appreciating a broader scope and the nature of the “symbiotic” relationship between those parts. Yes, consuming output of businesses and industry demonstrates a type of symbiosis between the consumer and purveyor; in our system of governance this symbiosis is parasitic; the cornerstone is fiat debt, issued by a controlling cabal, so the symbiosis itself is a form of slavery. The parasite/host are symbiotic parts only insofar as the parasite requires energy from the host. It is true, however, that in some advanced cases the host requires the parasite to survive as well. If you misdiagnose the parasite in an attempt to eradicate it (as in not seeing it for what it truly is), you may well remove a vital organ.

That is an interesting observation. Both bank and government can perhaps be seen as a parasite in the sybiosis between industry and the household. Ideally they do serve a function, albiet I will say, if industry and household have it within themselves to perform tasks that are designated as banking and governing, then obviously those areas are unneeded and purely parasitic.

However because humans don't share a hive mind, governance is needed. The issue maybe is how to govern correctly or effectively for the whole. (not of a part)





If banks and government are present in the model, they are largely unaffected because they are actually quite optional, no symbiotic relationship with industry. Industry mainly just obeys as do the banks.



This is not actually correct. The banks and industry don’t obey, they dictate. By fiat. This can’t be stressed enough.

That is part of the problem. The same problem as declension of industries symbiosis with the household. A breakdown in the ideal behind the model.


Yes, they create the products we consumers demand, but this is an artificial demand in the sense that banks and industry control the government (not the other way around) and therefore can manipulate and restrict our demands. Example? We serfs demand free energy devices. But industry will never satisfy this demand, in our current system, because doing so would essentially remove the parasite. This alone demonstrates that the parasite is the dominant party of the symbiotic relationship you describe and in control of the supply/demand relationship.




…it's a systemic problem where government didn't perceive the importance of maintaining the symbiotic equilibrium. Why, perhaps because on a global scale, you must not leave any competitive advantage unexploited else you will be disadvantaged by anyone who exploits.



Again, the role of government isn’t to perceive the importance of keeping the system healthy. The role is to maintain the parasitic relationship and to feed itself, irrespective of the needs of the host. Most parasites kill their host, in the end, against their interests. It’s just the nature of the parasitic “symbiosis”. This is exactly what is going on as the global cabal exploits the slave labor elsewhere where it has even firmer control of its various governments and cultures.

As above. I don't think our views are different, perhaps my expression was passive and/or unclear.





In an economy that is 90% based on services, when services can no longer be paid for, you will see a cascade type reaction to cut "unnecessary" service capabilities. Obama can only do so much to maintain a demand for services….in so many occasions, leadership is failing; they no longer care for the well-being of their citizenry.



Again, it may not be what we want to hear, but Obama’ s job (or any government leader) is not to maintain the demand for services or care for the well-being of their citizenry. This may be the pretext; on the surface he may go through the motions to make it appear that is his job description (and as a manager of public perception, to some degree that is his job), but his real job is to manage the needs of the parasite without the host wising up to the problem.

<blink/>

I see. I suppose it's probably in order to clarify, Obama is a government figurehead. Obviously not JFK; he got re-elected. He is part of the government works and performing as required per your above observations.





The logical conclusion, simplistically, people need to pool their productivity and create their own symbiosis. Why spend your earnings to buy a product of a company who has participated in exiling their labor base?



Yes. You are exactly on target here. The only way to do this, however, is to create conditions of a free market where we can freely pool our productivity and create our own symbiosis without restrictions from the cabal and the government (i.e. the parasite). Your suggestion is impossible in our current command economy, controlled by the centralized parasite. Please understand I am not advocating anarchy, per se. But we do need to remove the parasite first. If we were truly self-governing, we could impose responsible restrictions in the interest of the whole, without impeding our freedoms, and this is acceptable; but we are not self-governing. We are governed by the parasite, per the needs of the parasite.

Just a little food for thought as you contemplate your perspective.

I don't think anarchy is actually a poor system, its main weakness is human nature, the genesis for corruption, tends to take advantage of an apparent lack of structure to step on others. Even in systems as perfect as communism (if you like utopian ideas) and today's capitalism, I see human nature to be a fundamental part of the problem.

I go so far as to say, much of what happens today is absolutely anarchy if not for labels people put on things like government. These artificial boundaries are not called artificial by coincidence, they are man made. What is the difference if you are allies with the US government and carry a title of nobility like Citizen, or if you are allies with the IBM corporation and carry a title like Saleman? You can very well by allied with a drug cartel in São Paulo's shanty town and have a title like Avião.

FYI, people involved with drug cartels here get an offer for "corporate" health care in some cases. Their family receives a promise of maintaining a certain level of social upkeep (like welfare) in case dad gets imprisoned. The option of taking up a career in drugs is just as much a life option as going to school and becoming a "productive" member of society.

It is utopian hogwash to suggest anything that presumes the absence of conflict is the best option; all real growth emerges from situations where people must fight for their beliefs.

All that said, There is a way. (And this is actually what is important)

What if a group of people joined together and provide leadership for the the people like the OP and others who feel they have become Economic Exiles (EE). And provide direction along the lines of what you and I understand to be what should have been?

Call it a religion and form it as a church with the belief that EE people are accepted to work towards the church objectives. It is considered self evident that there are three basic unalienable human rights: 1) Life, 2) liberty, 3) pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental of this church.

I choose terms like religion and church because there is already much law that distinctly provides for freedom of religion. USC 501.C.3 provides the church and all its aggregates with tax exemption. Government was formed with the principal that it is to be completely separate of church. As long as 100% of EE productivity and trade can be labeled as church related, you are parasite free.

The main problems I see: 1) secure natural resources including an initial critical mass of land, energy, human and tool resources for baseline production requirements, 2) resist temptations of corruption, 3) systemic requirements, such as establishment of order, initiation, education, monetary policy...

There is nothing wrong with using money, especially because it shortens the learning curve for iniciants, and obviously because it's very very easy to consume more than is produced...

The economic idea is to members to consume internally produced goods and serices, anywhere you see need for something, an opportunity exists to fulfill this need for everyone. Since money circulates within the group, more and more is produced, more and more money can be circulated (monetary policy to keep the value of money stable is required).

If there is consumption from outside the group, ie a non-member buys goods or services from the group, it can be labeled as an export of group productivity. The import/export surplus goes into "international" type transactions where the church strategically buying more raw materials like land etc.

The growth idea is that EE members have the option to pursue education to fulfill spiritual and productive needs within the group. Each member competes within the group, in more than one way. Part of the order required is to reward objectives reached by issuing titles and opportunities.

Is there anyone here that would be willing to contribute to the growth of this idea? I have quite a bit of the details in mind but perhaps some of it is... well unrealistic.

[seeker/reader]

Obama 'Jobs Recovery’ More Than 100 Million Not Working (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021814-690331-americans-who-work-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-for-those-who-dont.htm)

Personally I am not thrilled to be liberated from work. I want to work, but in over two years have been not even been able to find a job sweeping floors. One of my best friends is a staunch liberal, and I've tried to educate her on the damage this president is doing. She thinks he's better than the GOP, and I can't totally disagree. I say, both parties are beyond redemption.


I am not saying the country is in great shape right now but If John McCain, Mr. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran would have been elected instead I am sure him and his friends like Joe Lieberman would have us in World War III right now. The same would have happened if Romney would have been elected with him beholden to all his war mongering-hawkish supporters like Sheldon Adelson and Bibi Netenyahu. WWIII. They would be pushing for their "prophecy" to be fulfilled via the Isreal route.

[ceetee9]

While I'm certainly no Obama fan, I question the statement--or at least the intent of the statement--"Obama 'Jobs Recovery' More Than 100 Million Not Working." Since there are only about 155 million people in the American workforce that would lead one to believe that 2 out of 3 workers (i.e., 66% of the workforce) are out of work, which is obviously not true. If it were true we'd be in a depression so deep it would make the 1930s depression (with 25% of the workforce out of work by 1932) look like a minor downturn in the economy.

Am I missing something here?

[T Smith]

While I'm certainly no Obama fan, I question the statement--or at least the intent of the statement--"Obama 'Jobs Recovery' More Than 100 Million Not Working." Since there are only about 155 million people in the American workforce that would lead one to believe that 2 out of 3 workers (i.e., 66% of the workforce) are out of work, which is obviously not true. If it were true we'd be in a depression so deep it would make the 1930s depression (with 25% of the workforce out of work by 1932) look like a minor downturn in the economy.

Am I missing something here?

I believe what you are missing may be the definition of "out of work"... I assume this number includes all among the work force without full-time employment. Many of that 100 million work may work part time, even up to 30 hrs a week. Believe it or not, that number is probably true.

Also, the major difference between the Great Depression and our current economic downturn is simply soup kitchens have been replaced by food stamps. The real economic numbers (not those tweaked by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics) look very similar to the 1930s. And were it not for government welfare and unemployment benefits, which mask the effects of our current depression, the current milieu looks very similar to the Great Depression. This issue is, what is going to happen when the dollar collapses and welfare and unemployment benefits--no matter how much we provide--no longer purchase the necessities to survive? Food, shelter, clothing, and health care?

[T Smith]

Hello Lcam88,

In my view this is a very important discussion. I don’t want to digress too far from the focus of the thread, but I do think our discussion is pertinent to the OP’s topic. I also think you are correct. We agree on the crux of our observations, but perhaps from slightly differing philosophical perspectives.



Much of what happens today is absolutely anarchy if not for labels people put on things like government. These artificial boundaries are not called artificial by coincidence, they are man made.


When big corporations and cartels (e.g. military/pharma/security industrial complex, etc.) assumes the role of organized crime and runs ramshod over society, without consequence, I understand how the ensuing lawlessness may appear like a system of absolute anarchy. Your observations are logical. But the truth is, it is just the opposite. There is a natural order of things. The only way lawlessness can endure, over time, and continue its rape and pillage of society is when the cartels and cabals (or even kings or individual tyrants) maintain the luxury of big government, in all its monopoly and force, as its personal posse. Government protects (and actually is organically entwined with) every last one of the crime syndicates above. As a massive and tyrannical force, sanctioned by law, the government is the major component of any cabal. It propagates the cartel and it protects (and expands) its territories and monopolies. It destroys opposition; it squashes justice and condones “lawlessness” while it imposes draconian laws and punishments on its subjects.

In sum, the government of today is above the law. But this is not anarchy; this is organized crime, as in, crime organized by government. If you remove the government and its monopoly of force there would be no way for the cabal to defend against society’s retribution against this criminal activity. No way. And yes, I understand the temptation to try to “fix” the government by making it the people’s posse, but it just doesn’t work that way. Government is an anti-fragile system. The more you tinker with it to try to fix it, the stronger it becomes and the more oppressive it becomes.



I don't think anarchy is actually a poor system, its main weakness is human nature, the genesis for corruption, tends to take advantage of an apparent lack of structure to step on others.


I am perplexed by the Hobbesian view that human nature is wicked and therefore requires government and a strong authoritarian hand to keep us fallen creatures in line, lest we be left to our own devices and society be condemned to rape, pillage, murder, flames, and hell. Thomas Hobbes advanced this argument in Leviathan, and he has many modern-day followers. We hear it all the time. The argument goes like this: human beings are corrupt; therefore we need government to keep us in line. (While I don’t think this is exactly what you are saying, I do think you are suggesting that corruption tends to take over a system sans strong governance)…

Huh? Really? The question to my Hobbesian friends is (and this is a sincere question), if human nature is indeed wicked, and if human beings are indeed corrupt, why would you create an institution (government) to control and keep those corrupt creatures in line by empowering an even smaller and more focused group of those same wicked souls to control the institution that controls the controlled? Isn’t that an oxymoron? If you believe human beings are good, self-governance would suffice and they wouldn’t need an elaborate system of governance (perhaps excepting a natural order of law and a few guiding principals we all could agree on), but if human beings were indeed wicked and cannibalistic, they would be the last creatures I would entrust to govern the institutions that govern society.

The truth is, human nature is both divine and wicked. We are a species of duality; that is our nature in this realm of being. This is why government rarely works (or perhaps only works for a time) and why society under the thumb of government always degenerates. It is in the interest of one part of our duality to seize control over the other. So, yes, I think we are saying the same thing! Except burgeoning government cannot be the solution, per se, if you accept the premise of why we need governance in the first place.

In short, your observation is 100% correct, but government assists corruption rather than impeding it.



…because humans don't share a hive mind, governance is needed. The issue maybe is how to govern correctly or effectively for the whole. (not of a part)…


Again, slight philosophic difference. Utopian models often discuss the collective as an entity. This is because the collective is an entity. In a sense we do share (or are a part) of a hive mind. This shouldn’t be surprising; this is prevalent in nature. This collective mind is a form of insentient consciousness (our species will come to understand this soon enough). It represents a flow of information not unlike a bioelectrical current between the synapses of a brain. The building blocks of this rudimentary consciousness are individuals.

In the collective, individuals convey and receive information between themselves about their wants and needs (to survive and flourish) and act accordingly. We call this economy, but in the abstract it is but an exchange of information. The content of this information drives individual productivity, both to receive from the collective, per its needs and wants, and to deliver back to collective, per the collective’s (insentient) needs and wants. This is the flow of exchange. It is the cornerstone of all economic activity and it propels the collective.

Adam Smith called this dynamic “the invisible hand” guided by “self interest”, but I believe he perhaps gets a bad rap because people tend to associate Smith’s ideas with an unrealistic ethereal abstraction fueled by individual selfishness. That is only slightly more flattering than Hobbes description of what drives the species.

Here’s where most people get Smith wrong. The flow of information is not an ethereal concept and self-interest is not the same as selfishness; self-interest is only the conveyance of information, back to the collective, about what the individual needs and wants. Needing and wanting is not selfishness; needing and wanting is a function of symbiosis. It is the ultimate symbiotic relationship, that between the individual and the collective.

Let’s delve further. Individuals, the “brains” of the collective, have to facilitate this flow of information. The collective, as an insentient entity, cannot facilitate the flow of information; it can only respond to the action of individuals. So the crux of the natural order is this: individuals (not to be confused with individual proxies on behalf of the collective) must initiate the flow of information.

How is it done? The most rudimentary way is by barter: you have something I need; I have something you need, let’s swap. But this method serves about as well as a pigeon across the Atlantic in terms of facilitating the flow of information. Fortunately, we humans are clever animals and have developed much more efficient means of exchange, i.e. abstract currency systems, equivalent to an instantaneous e-mail to the corners of the world relative to our proverbial pigeon carrier.



my objective was to put our society into an economic model so that we can better understand how the model has failed and why there is poverty


Here’s the thing: when individuals are permitted to freely associate and exchange amongst themselves per their needs and wants (yes, even the wicked ones), and per the natural flow of information, there is no impeding the deliverance of needs and wants and we experience unparalleled prosperity, both for individuals and the collective. This relationship depends on a liberal allowance for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, this is a philosophical concept, but it is also an empirical observation, backed by historical example. It has nothing to do with service to self over service to others, nor does it advocate for the needs of the individual over the needs of the commonwealth. Nor does it discount the needs of the commonwealth. It simply recognizes that the individual, being a higher order of consciousness, is the agent responsible to initiate the flow of information. The collective is an insentient agent that responds to this initiation, in a symbiotic way, and is best served when the agent responsible for the flow of information is empowered with inalienable rights and freedoms. When any authority outside natural law undermines this process (often in the name of the whole) it undermines the whole. It’s that simple. (That doesn’t mean there are not principals and natural laws that govern the entire process, or that individuals cannot establish constitutional systems to check the various forces that invariably threaten the free flow of information).

Under the tenets of Individualism, the rudimentary consciousness (humanity en masse) grows, develops, evolves, and eventually ascends. Its rudimentary consciousness undergoes a sentient becoming and the individual building blocks also ascend and evolve, perhaps to an entirely new species… this is just the natural order of the development of consciousness over millions of years.

But back to earth. How does this dynamic relate to economics and our current model of systemic poverty?

Imagine for whatever reason an outside presence, a possession, a parasite, an alien consciousness (or however you want to imagine it--I could go on and on here; one need only read a small portion of Avalon’s prolific wealth of knowledge to gain insight on the nature of this entity) has somehow managed to disrupt the flow of information between the individual and the collective. This would characterize a type of possession if this entity had seized and taken hostage of the means of exchange (say in the name of nourishing the collective).

Hmmm. What do you suppose that would do to the symbiotic relationship between the individual and the collective? Even if this were justified for the most well-intended and benevolent of reasons—say to ensure the well being of humanity (or to stop depressions and manage inflation, hint hint)--it is still equivalent to removing blood from the body to give the body a transfusion. Such action does nothing but harm the collective (and most certainly the individuals of which it is part). It makes no sense.

Let’s put it practically. Imagine two individuals attempting to exchange a loaf of bread for a dozen candles. Now imagine an invisible middleman adjudicating the negotiation, taking a portion of the bread and a few of the candles as “a tax”. Some might argue the middleman is necessary so the baker and candle stick maker don’t kill each other in negotiation (remember, human beings are wicked). I don’t necessarily buy it, but for sake of argument I’ll grant it. This would be equivalent to limited government, say constitutional government enforcing contracts and rules to keep us wicked creatures in check.

Now: imagine further the invisible middleman has managed to seize completely the means of exchange from the individuals participating in the trade. This outside entity now dictates the terms of the trade per its own interests, and more insidious, silently, behind the curtain, where it can remain unseen. In its hidden lair it essentially takes the trade by hostage. And while it is in its interest for the trade to ensue (remember, it wants a cut), it nonetheless seriously impedes and disrupts the flow of information and therefore the deliverance of needs and wants to individuals. This always tends toward a complete breakdown of economy, over time, and to systemic poverty.

The middleman, however, is clever and does not necessarily want complete economic breakdown or systemic poverty. It wants to enslave productivity, in equilibrium, and only so far to allow the bondage to ensue without breaking the cycle of productivity. It knows disrupting the flow of information too much might threaten its own life blood. So it attempts to “engineer” the amperage of information (remember it has seized complete control of the means of exchange and has the power to do this), to give the system a jolt, when necessary, and keep it limping along, just enough so it can to receive its fix while it enslaves productivity. This vampirism is very easy to bill to the masses in pretext; it is required to keep us wicked individuals in check.

By now I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this. The middleman engineer determines a fixed quantity of means of exchange, decreed by fiat, (either too little or too much by tinkering accordingly). The middleman is absolutely necessary to the transaction and also determines whether or not the transaction is even possible. In short, the middleman impedes the flow of information and disrupts the natural order. It can starve the flow of information (impoverishing individuals), or it can flood the flow of information (force-feeding individuals). In this manner the middleman expands and contracts systemic wealth so to harvest at the end of each expansion cycle. This process is much the same as a farmer who harvests a crop at the end of the season. In fact, the entire process is not unlike pruning and watering an orchard to harvest fruit, or force-feeding a goose to fatten its liver. To be blunt, the harvest of fruit and the feast of foie gras is the middleman’s objective. The end cycle is always poverty (and we serfs bereft of the fruits of our labor and sometimes even our vital organs…).

In sum, controlling the means of exchange, either by inflating or deflating (it doesn’t matter) siphons wealth from the system, methodically, systematically, and parasitically, until every last person is indigent. Taking blood from the body in this way can no longer be viewed as some kind of transfusion back to the body (as it is billed and sold to the public), but rather a deliberate vampiric letting.

I know this is all rhetorical and metaphoric (and I know I’m not dealing on the micro level as you are in your post), but if we are trying to ascertain why our current economic model has failed and why there is systemic poverty (to address your points), it is necessary, in my view, to render this down to its most simple components and look at them in the broadest scope. The answer to why there is global poverty is not complicated. It is simple. A vampiric force has seized the means of exchange in the name of collectivism and is sucking the collective dry. It has tapped the symbiosis for its life-force. It’s a lose/lose, both to the individual and the collective. (Unless you’re the parasite).



I see. I suppose it's probably in order to clarify, Obama is a government figurehead. Obviously not JFK; he got re-elected. He is part of the government works and performing as required per your above observations.


I’m not entirely convinced Obama was “re-elected”, but that’s a side issue for another thread. Suffice to say any candidate who would advance the type of government you are advocating (one that can be fixed and functioning by and for the people) could never be elected in a system dominated by propaganda, mind-control, and black-box voting (tools created by the entity that has seized the means of exchange). Government figureheads are not “elected”, they are “selected” to manage public perception and serve their real master.



It is utopian hogwash to suggest anything that presumes the absence of conflict is the best option; all real growth emerges from situations where people must fight for their beliefs.


I agree. This is what creates a natural order. Why interfere?



All that said, There is a way. (And this is actually what is important)

What if a group of people joined together and provide leadership for the the people like the OP and others who feel they have become Economic Exiles (EE). And provide direction along the lines of what you and I understand to be what should have been?

Call it a religion and form it as a church with the belief that EE people are accepted to work towards the church objectives. It is considered self evident that there are three basic unalienable human rights: 1) Life, 2) liberty, 3) pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental of this church.


Your proposals, in theory, could spontaneously develop when people freely associate and the flow of information is not impeded. Again, a philosophical perspective, but also an empirical observation backed by historical example.



I choose terms like religion and church because there is already much law that distinctly provides for freedom of religion. USC 501.C.3 provides the church and all its aggregates with tax exemption. Government was formed with the principal that it is to be completely separate of church. As long as 100% of EE productivity and trade can be labeled as church related, you are parasite free.


The very act of exempting churches from taxation beholds them to the government. If your organization took off and achieved success, it would soon entwine itself with the very government that exiled your members to begin with. In other words, the dynamic of the law (in a system where the means of exchange have been seized) does the exact opposite of separating church and state. There is a huge scandal here in the US surrounding 501.C.3. Religious institutions, which have significant leverage to distribute propaganda and mind control to the masses, are beholden to government (which has the power to withdraw these institutions 501.C.3 status arbitrarily). We see it all the time. 501.C.3 institutions are little more than lap dogs and proxies of the State. Also a side issue, but just another example of how government advances the “wicked” nature of humanity rather than serve to impede it.



The economic idea is to members to consume internally produced goods and services, anywhere you see need for something, an opportunity exists to fulfill this need for everyone. If there is consumption from outside the group, ie a non-member buys goods or services from the group, it can be labeled as an export of group productivity. The import/export surplus goes into "international" type transactions where the church strategically buying more raw materials like land etc.

The growth idea is that EE members have the option to pursue education to fulfill spiritual and productive needs within the group. Each member competes within the group, in more than one way. Part of the order required is to reward objectives reached by issuing titles and opportunities.

Is there anyone here that would be willing to contribute to the growth of this idea? I have quite a bit of the details in mind but perhaps some of it is... well unrealistic.


I like your ideas, but until we fix the macro, any tinkering on the micro will only ameliorate the plight of the Economic Exile temporarily, if at all. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. But if we don’t address the underlying issue we have little chance for any plan to work. Given the rate of consolidation, centralization, and globalization (a.k.a. the rise of the New World Order) there will soon be nothing produced “internally” at all, no services to perform except those designated to serve the collective, which will be fully controlled by the NWO instead of by us individuals. In other words, we will soon all be EEs, with no control of any resources. The NWO will have long since seized control of our rudimentary consciousness, as a species, and we will serve it, as slaves, with our life force and labor. Africa is the richest continent on the planet in resources and probably the poorest per capita. This has little to do with resources.

My apologies for a lengthy reply. Sometimes the solution to remove the elephant from the room is so simple, if only we can only see the elephant in the room in the first place. We can banter back and forth about how to best arrange the furniture in the room, but until we agree that there is one gigantic beast in the middle of the room, it doesn’t really matter where we put the table and chairs.

Warm Regards,
T Smith

[ceetee9]

While I'm certainly no Obama fan, I question the statement--or at least the intent of the statement--"Obama 'Jobs Recovery' More Than 100 Million Not Working." Since there are only about 155 million people in the American workforce that would lead one to believe that 2 out of 3 workers (i.e., 66% of the workforce) are out of work, which is obviously not true. If it were true we'd be in a depression so deep it would make the 1930s depression (with 25% of the workforce out of work by 1932) look like a minor downturn in the economy.

Am I missing something here?

I believe what you are missing may be the definition of "out of work"... I assume this number includes all among the work force without full-time employment. Many of that 100 million work may work part time, even up to 30 hrs a week. Believe it or not, that number is probably true.T Smith, you know what they say when you "assume." ;) The definition of "out of work" means to be unemployed, to have no job and nowhere, that I can find, does it include being partially employed. But be that as it may. I have no argument with the fact that there are millions of people in this country who are "under employed" and perhaps that was what the OP meant to infer, but I'm quite sure there are not 100 million Americans "out of work."

Regardless, judging from what you had to say in some of your other posts, I think we are on the same page for the most part. However, I am a little puzzled by your acquiescence to Lcam88's statement
It is utopian hogwash to suggest anything that presumes the absence of conflict is the best option; all real growth emerges from situations where people must fight for their beliefs.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Lcam's (and your) interpretation/usage of the words "conflict" and "fight." We have had thousands of years of history that have proved that "conflict" and "fighting" never solves anything--at least not in the long term. Exactly how many conflicts, how much fighting, and how many new governments will it take before we get the idea that, perhaps, those tactics are NOT the way to resolve our differences and/or ensure peace and prosperity?

You can say I'm naive, but have we ever truly tried to work out our differences in a purely rational and peaceful means exclusively? Might it not be time to try a different paradigm and find ways and reasons to live with one another in peace? Cannot growth occur without beating our opponents into the ground if they don't see things our way?

I'm not advocating that we don't express our ideas or that we just rollover and play dead if we strongly believe in something but can't get others to understand or agree. Far from it. But if an idea is so "right" and "good" for all, is not a slow and methodical educational process that clearly and truthfully demonstrates the "correctness" of the idea a much superior way to garner adaptation by the masses than to ostracize, condemn, lock up, or kill those who disagree? How many people must we eliminate before we have peace and prosperity for all? Unless, of course, peace and prosperity for all is not the ultimate goal.

On that note, what are your thoughts on Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu Contributionism idea?

[Etherios]

in the UK they are trying to push for 30 hours a week to be full time job ... cause its healthier they say .... but UK are getting paid by the hour ... so from 40 to 30 ... is 10 hours less per week ... (round numbers ... 10 pound an hour thats 100 pounds less or 400 pounds less a month). I am not 100% sure but 30 hours are considered part time in the UK law and there are many issues with taxes health penefits etc that are involved, but they havent said anythign about that.

So for our health (ofc) they want us to work less ... get paid less ... but what about expenses? taxes etc etc ...

I saw a youtube video with someone trying to explain that people dont work cause of the benefits in the USA and increasing the benefit time will just make them not work. He added that the numbers on unemployment decreased after the benefits ended early this year. I guess he didnt think that the people are just not registering as unemployed if they wont get anything ... so the numbers dropped cause the system doesnt acknowledge them as unemployed.

In Greece we have the same issue. If you havent worked at least 6 months the last 2 years you are not allowed benefits and if you dont go to reapply for unemployment you are removed from the files. THUS the numbers drop ... why go and register (few hours a week/month to do this) if it wont help you?

You will all see in the near future all around you ... part time and contract will be the majority if not all the jobs. Part time means more people off the unemployment and more / cheaper labor for the companies. Last with so many people looking for work ... part timers will have a hard time keeping a job ...

[Lcam88]

Regarding conflict:

Conflict comes in all sizes, some are healthy and some are not.

What I mean to say regarding utopian hogwash statement, is simply that you will face challenges in any and all of your objectives. To believe otherwise is simply unrealistic.

For example, a newly wedded couple faces many challenges as they embark on their new union, they need to work out how they squeeze the toothpaste tube, so to speak.

In relation to establishing a church with new ideals and breaking away from the "normal" avenue of trade and commerce, I just mean to say that people will try very hard to break the system. And this gets sticky because some forms that I can imagine this effort could take can be quite destructive and even unhealthy.

In relation to starting a new job, your face a new unknown set of internal efforts that can be an encumbrance to you performing your new job in the way you know it should be done. Sometimes you can change things, sometimes you can't but rather choose to continue to work with a conflict.

In all cases you grow or change by adapting to your new environment. All I mean to say is that everyone needs to be prepared for the possibly unknown conflict that can very well force a change in us. Being able to foresee these types of conflict can help you change preemptively in several ways and also enables us to forego some conflicts that can very well harm who we are and what we intend to do.

I will confess that I am not familiar with Tellinger's Ubuntu Contributionism idea. If you refer to the movement in South Africa (http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.php), it sounds interesting although I will need to look at it in more detail.

Gleening over the front page, I don't agree with the removal of money or the thesis that money is the cause of social problems enumerated therein. And for that reason the idea of free utility is also unrealistic. Perhaps a better way of solving these problems is changing how we view of money.




While I'm certainly no Obama fan, I question the statement--or at least the intent of the statement--"Obama 'Jobs Recovery' More Than 100 Million Not Working." Since there are only about 155 million people in the American workforce that would lead one to believe that 2 out of 3 workers (i.e., 66% of the workforce) are out of work, which is obviously not true. If it were true we'd be in a depression so deep it would make the 1930s depression (with 25% of the workforce out of work by 1932) look like a minor downturn in the economy.

Am I missing something here?

I believe what you are missing may be the definition of "out of work"... I assume this number includes all among the work force without full-time employment. Many of that 100 million work may work part time, even up to 30 hrs a week. Believe it or not, that number is probably true.T Smith, you know what they say when you "assume." ;) The definition of "out of work" means to be unemployed, to have no job and nowhere, that I can find, does it include being partially employed. But be that as it may. I have no argument with the fact that there are millions of people in this country who are "under employed" and perhaps that was what the OP meant to infer, but I'm quite sure there are not 100 million Americans "out of work."

Regardless, judging from what you had to say in some of your other posts, I think we are on the same page for the most part. However, I am a little puzzled by your acquiescence to Lcam88's statement
It is utopian hogwash to suggest anything that presumes the absence of conflict is the best option; all real growth emerges from situations where people must fight for their beliefs.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Lcam's (and your) interpretation/usage of the words "conflict" and "fight." We have had thousands of years of history that have proved that "conflict" and "fighting" never solves anything--at least not in the long term. Exactly how many conflicts, how much fighting, and how many new governments will it take before we get the idea that, perhaps, those tactics are NOT the way to resolve our differences and/or ensure peace and prosperity?

You can say I'm naive, but have we ever truly tried to work out our differences in a purely rational and peaceful means exclusively? Might it not be time to try a different paradigm and find ways and reasons to live with one another in peace? Cannot growth occur without beating our opponents into the ground if they don't see things our way?

I'm not advocating that we don't express our ideas or that we just rollover and play dead if we strongly believe in something but can't get others to understand or agree. Far from it. But if an idea is so "right" and "good" for all, is not a slow and methodical educational process that clearly and truthfully demonstrates the "correctness" of the idea a much superior way to garner adaptation by the masses than to ostracize, condemn, lock up, or kill those who disagree? How many people must we eliminate before we have peace and prosperity for all? Unless, of course, peace and prosperity for all is not the ultimate goal.

On that note, what are your thoughts on Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu Contributionism idea?

[TargeT]

What if a group of people joined together and provide leadership for the the people like the OP and others who feel they have become Economic Exiles (EE). And provide direction along the lines of what you and I understand to be what should have been?

Call it a religion and form it as a church with the belief that EE people are accepted to work towards the church objectives. It is considered self evident that there are three basic unalienable human rights: 1) Life, 2) liberty, 3) pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental of this church.

I choose terms like religion and church because there is already much law that distinctly provides for freedom of religion. USC 501.C.3 provides the church and all its aggregates with tax exemption. Government was formed with the principal that it is to be completely separate of church. As long as 100% of EE productivity and trade can be labeled as church related, you are parasite free.

The main problems I see: 1) secure natural resources including an initial critical mass of land, energy, human and tool resources for baseline production requirements, 2) resist temptations of corruption, 3) systemic requirements, such as establishment of order, initiation, education, monetary policy...

The Natural resource issue will be the primary stopping point, Almost all "land owners" (at least in the US) do not own the land, or the mineral rights to the land; they simply own the "improvements" on the land... unless they have allodial title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title), under the current government: natural resources belong to "someone else".



There is nothing wrong with using money, especially because it shortens the learning curve for iniciants, and obviously because it's very very easy to consume more than is produced...

The economic idea is to members to consume internally produced goods and serices, anywhere you see need for something, an opportunity exists to fulfill this need for everyone. Since money circulates within the group, more and more is produced, more and more money can be circulated (monetary policy to keep the value of money stable is required).

This is a very Keynesian based view of money; why can money NOT increase in value? why does it have to stay stable (or decrease?) money that increased in value would be inherently encourage saving and slow down investment (the bane of Keynesian capitalism)... now this may also inhibit technological progress, but the benefit is that the general quality of life will not decrease for the holders of said "money".

Look at bit-coin, it has no choice but to increase in value as there is a set amount of it that will never be exceeded, is this a bad thing?








If there is consumption from outside the group, ie a non-member buys goods or services from the group, it can be labeled as an export of group productivity. The import/export surplus goes into "international" type transactions where the church strategically buying more raw materials like land etc.

This is where Tariffs would come in, and involve the "parasite" again.



The growth idea is that EE members have the option to pursue education to fulfill spiritual and productive needs within the group. Each member competes within the group, in more than one way. Part of the order required is to reward objectives reached by issuing titles and opportunities.

Is there anyone here that would be willing to contribute to the growth of this idea? I have quite a bit of the details in mind but perhaps some of it is... well unrealistic.

the idea is solid as long as it isn't executed under the current legal system.

[ceetee9]

Regarding conflict:

Conflict comes in all sizes, some are healthy and some are not.

What I mean to say regarding utopian hogwash statement, is simply that you will face challenges in any and all of your objectives. To believe otherwise is simply unrealistic. Thank you for your clarification Lcam. I believe I now understand what you we're trying to say.

However, regarding your comment about money, I recommend you thoroughly investigate Tellinger's Contributionist paradigm before making such a snap judgment.

While money does provide a convenient way of exchanging goods and services, I believe that that is the carrot to get us to bite (and forever embrace) this method of exchange and means of enslavement.

It seems pretty self-evident that money is used to ensure that a very few have all they would ever need and want--including power and control--while the vast majority of people on the planet are forced to work harder, longer, and more just to survive. The greedy, selfish, self-absorbed and self-anointed elite are like a constrictor slowly squeezing the life out of its victims with each breath until it finally consumes its prey. We're like the proverbial frogs in the pot of water being slowly brought to a boil. Happy and content that all is ok (or at least tolerable) while we are slowly being cooked.

And how has money worked for 1+ billion people on this planet who go to bed hungry every night not knowing if they'll even wake up tomorrow. Is it because they are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves? Or, could it be because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a country that afforded them the opportunity to work for the rulers until the rulers had no more use for (the majority of) them?

But I digress. I think I've (we've) strayed far from the original OP subject. Sorry GreenGuy!

[T Smith]

While I'm certainly no Obama fan, I question the statement--or at least the intent of the statement--"Obama 'Jobs Recovery' More Than 100 Million Not Working." Since there are only about 155 million people in the American workforce that would lead one to believe that 2 out of 3 workers (i.e., 66% of the workforce) are out of work, which is obviously not true. If it were true we'd be in a depression so deep it would make the 1930s depression (with 25% of the workforce out of work by 1932) look like a minor downturn in the economy.

Am I missing something here?

I believe what you are missing may be the definition of "out of work"... I assume this number includes all among the work force without full-time employment. Many of that 100 million work may work part time, even up to 30 hrs a week. Believe it or not, that number is probably true.T Smith, you know what they say when you "assume." ;) The definition of "out of work" means to be unemployed, to have no job and nowhere, that I can find, does it include being partially employed. But be that as it may. I have no argument with the fact that there are millions of people in this country who are "under employed" and perhaps that was what the OP meant to infer, but I'm quite sure there are not 100 million Americans "out of work."

Regardless, judging from what you had to say in some of your other posts, I think we are on the same page for the most part. However, I am a little puzzled by your acquiescence to Lcam88's statement
It is utopian hogwash to suggest anything that presumes the absence of conflict is the best option; all real growth emerges from situations where people must fight for their beliefs.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Lcam's (and your) interpretation/usage of the words "conflict" and "fight." We have had thousands of years of history that have proved that "conflict" and "fighting" never solves anything--at least not in the long term. Exactly how many conflicts, how much fighting, and how many new governments will it take before we get the idea that, perhaps, those tactics are NOT the way to resolve our differences and/or ensure peace and prosperity?

You can say I'm naive, but have we ever truly tried to work out our differences in a purely rational and peaceful means exclusively? Might it not be time to try a different paradigm and find ways and reasons to live with one another in peace? Cannot growth occur without beating our opponents into the ground if they don't see things our way?

I'm not advocating that we don't express our ideas or that we just rollover and play dead if we strongly believe in something but can't get others to understand or agree. Far from it. But if an idea is so "right" and "good" for all, is not a slow and methodical educational process that clearly and truthfully demonstrates the "correctness" of the idea a much superior way to garner adaptation by the masses than to ostracize, condemn, lock up, or kill those who disagree? How many people must we eliminate before we have peace and prosperity for all? Unless, of course, peace and prosperity for all is not the ultimate goal.

On that note, what are your thoughts on Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu Contributionism idea?

Hi ceetee9,

Yup. Out of work is pretty unambiguous. However, if you are using the term “out of work” to mean “unemployment”, that’s a different story. That’s what I took it to mean so I gave the OP’s source the benefit of the doubt. Unemployment has so many meanings and is continually being redefined by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics to satisfy the agenda of our illustrious and ever-Orwellian overlords, it makes my head spin. There is the U.3 number (currently 6.6%) and the U.6 number (currently 12.7%), and then the real number using real data without any spin, and which includes the guy on the corner with a blanket and his hat out (23.2%).

Translation: the government continues to fudge the numbers to make our current mess look as rosy as possible. I have no doubt 100 million people are experiencing some economic plight related to employment in some way, either no employment, under employment, below-poverty-wage employment, etc., a lot of which conventional metrics discount. But I would agree with your statement that there are not 100 million people who are not working at all.

To get a fairly accurate picture of what’s really going I follow economist John Williams (shadowstats.com), who employs the exact metrics the BLS used to use, before they began their Orwellian tricks in earnest.

In the context of Lcam88’s use of the word “conflict,” I took it to mean a form of information individuals convey to each other to satisfy a want/need, specifically, resolution being that want or need. We all have conflict with others, with our employers, our neighbors, even with loved ones, but we all usually want (and sometime even need) to resolve these conflicts and usually do so without fighting, per se. To satisfy our self interests we engage in conflict resolution. But, yeah, I agree, the words “conflict” and “fighting” are very ambiguous and I wasn’t condoning the type of conflict resolution we are seeing in Ukraine right now, for example. I don’t advocate for fighting and I agree with your statements. And again, not to get back up on the soap box, but conflict resolution is best served, in my view, without a middleman or authority with a hidden agenda (often balkanizing and exacerbating the conflict to serve its own interests) and is much more likely to ensue in a peaceful and rational way without the interference of government or outside interests that employ conflict itself as chess players employ pawns. Given the tenor of my previous post, that was pretty much what I was driving at.

I’m somewhat familiar with Tellinger’s ideas but I have never really studied them in a critical way. I’ll read more this week and let you know what I think.

[Lcam88]

Hello again T Smith:

I do thank you thoughtful response. I'm sprinkling in my comments.


Hello Lcam88,

In my view this is a very important discussion. I don’t want to digress too far from the focus of the thread, but I do think our discussion is pertinent to the OP’s topic. I also think you are correct. We agree on the crux of our observations, but perhaps from slightly differing philosophical perspectives.



Much of what happens today is absolutely anarchy if not for labels people put on things like government. These artificial boundaries are not called artificial by coincidence, they are man made.


When big corporations and cartels (e.g. military/pharma/security industrial complex, etc.) assumes the role of organized crime and runs ramshod over society, without consequence, I understand how the ensuing lawlessness may appear like a system of absolute anarchy. Your observations are logical. But the truth is, it is just the opposite. There is a natural order of things. The only way lawlessness can endure, over time, and continue its rape and pillage of society is when the cartels and cabals (or even kings or individual tyrants) maintain the luxury of big government, in all its monopoly and force, as its personal posse. Government protects (and actually is organically entwined with) every last one of the crime syndicates above. As a massive and tyrannical force, sanctioned by law, the government is the major component of any cabal. It propagates the cartel and it protects (and expands) its territories and monopolies. It destroys opposition; it squashes justice and condones “lawlessness” while it imposes draconian laws and punishments on its subjects.

In sum, the government of today is above the law. But this is not anarchy; this is organized crime, as in, crime organized by government. If you remove the government and its monopoly of force there would be no way for the cabal to defend against society’s retribution against this criminal activity. No way. And yes, I understand the temptation to try to “fix” the government by making it the people’s posse, but it just doesn’t work that way. Government is an anti-fragile system. The more you tinker with it to try to fix it, the stronger it becomes and the more oppressive it becomes.

You presume that organized crime is lawless. They do certainly have their own social norms and those norms are absolutely enforced. Don't misunderstand lawlessness to be a free-for-all type chaos. And mathematically, if you look at pure chaos, there is always order.






I don't think anarchy is actually a poor system, its main weakness is human nature, the genesis for corruption, tends to take advantage of an apparent lack of structure to step on others.


I am perplexed by the Hobbesian view that human nature is wicked and therefore requires government and a strong authoritarian hand to keep us fallen creatures in line, lest we be left to our own devices and society be condemned to rape, pillage, murder, flames, and hell. Thomas Hobbes advanced this argument in Leviathan, and he has many modern-day followers. We hear it all the time. The argument goes like this: human beings are corrupt; therefore we need government to keep us in line. (While I don’t think this is exactly what you are saying, I do think you are suggesting that corruption tends to take over a system sans strong governance)…

Huh? Really? The question to my Hobbesian friends is (and this is a sincere question), if human nature is indeed wicked, and if human beings are indeed corrupt, why would you create an institution (government) to control and keep those corrupt creatures in line by empowering an even smaller and more focused group of those same wicked souls to control the institution that controls the controlled? Isn’t that an oxymoron? If you believe human beings are good, self-governance would suffice and they wouldn’t need an elaborate system of governance (perhaps excepting a natural order of law and a few guiding principals we all could agree on), but if human beings were indeed wicked and cannibalistic, they would be the last creatures I would entrust to govern the institutions that govern society.

I'm not sure I can call myself a Hobbesian; I don't believe humans are necessarily wicked although some are. I would characterize the human weakness simply as: Humans are easily tempted.

Our adaptability being a great strength as well as a weakness :) I don't use the word devine or wicked in my claims because those terms are too loaded with religious implications.

I have no evidence that individual who follow any of the faiths based on the old testament possess superior morality or better values. Morality and values are based in family more than religious.



It is in the interest of one part of our duality to seize control over the other. So, yes, I think we are saying the same thing! Except burgeoning government cannot be the solution, per se, if you accept the premise of why we need governance in the first place.

In short, your observation is 100% correct, but government assists corruption rather than impeding it.

I continue to contend that government, i.e. leadership, is needed. The notion that government seizes power is already a declension from the true purpose of government, a notion that one would utilize the institution for power is just as perverse; we seem to agree on this point.





…because humans don't share a hive mind, governance is needed. The issue maybe is how to govern correctly or effectively for the whole. (not of a part)…


Again, slight philosophic difference. Utopian models often discuss the collective as an entity. This is because the collective is an entity. In a sense we do share (or are a part) of a hive mind. This shouldn’t be surprising; this is prevalent in nature. This collective mind is a form of insentient consciousness (our species will come to understand this soon enough). It represents a flow of information not unlike a bioelectrical current between the synapses of a brain. The building blocks of this rudimentary consciousness are individuals.

In the collective, individuals convey and receive information between themselves about their wants and needs (to survive and flourish) and act accordingly. We call this economy, but in the abstract it is but an exchange of information. The content of this information drives individual productivity, both to receive from the collective, per its needs and wants, and to deliver back to collective, per the collective’s (insentient) needs and wants. This is the flow of exchange. It is the cornerstone of all economic activity and it propels the collective.

Adam Smith called this dynamic “the invisible hand” guided by “self interest”, but I believe he perhaps gets a bad rap because people tend to associate Smith’s ideas with an unrealistic ethereal abstraction fueled by individual selfishness. That is only slightly more flattering than Hobbes description of what drives the species.

Here’s where most people get Smith wrong. The flow of information is not an ethereal concept and self-interest is not the same as selfishness; self-interest is only the conveyance of information, back to the collective, about what the individual needs and wants. Needing and wanting is not selfishness; needing and wanting is a function of symbiosis. It is the ultimate symbiotic relationship, that between the individual and the collective.

Let’s delve further. Individuals, the “brains” of the collective, have to facilitate this flow of information. The collective, as an insentient entity, cannot facilitate the flow of information; it can only respond to the action of individuals. So the crux of the natural order is this: individuals (not to be confused with individual proxies on behalf of the collective) must initiate the flow of information.

How is it done? The most rudimentary way is by barter: you have something I need; I have something you need, let’s swap. But this method serves about as well as a pigeon across the Atlantic in terms of facilitating the flow of information. Fortunately, we humans are clever animals and have developed much more efficient means of exchange, i.e. abstract currency systems, equivalent to an instantaneous e-mail to the corners of the world relative to our proverbial pigeon carrier.

Bingo!

In information technology we use this feedback of results from the process as a refinement of the process so as to optimize the output. These are, of course, more sophisticated systems. In a way, money has this function in society; the wealth or prosperity of society is a measure of how well an economic or commercial system functions for that society. I economics, the term for this feedback is "Economic indicator".

The problem in present day government is that it would seem that the Economic manipulators can no longer work effectively to correct the process. As though the control is already maxed out. Another viewpoint is that those manipulators are no longer the dominant factor in steering the economy because someone or something has effectively neutralized the control these manipulators are supposed to have.

Once the system becomes corrupt, just like software being exploited, it no longer runs the way we expect and everything dependent on the system starts experiencing problems.






my objective was to put our society into an economic model so that we can better understand how the model has failed and why there is poverty


Here’s the thing: when individuals are permitted to freely associate and exchange amongst themselves per their needs and wants (yes, even the wicked ones), and per the natural flow of information, there is no impeding the deliverance of needs and wants and we experience unparalleled prosperity, both for individuals and the collective. This relationship depends on a liberal allowance for freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, this is a philosophical concept, but it is also an empirical observation, backed by historical example. It has nothing to do with service to self over service to others, nor does it advocate for the needs of the individual over the needs of the commonwealth. Nor does it discount the needs of the commonwealth. It simply recognizes that the individual, being a higher order of consciousness, is the agent responsible to initiate the flow of information. The collective is an insentient agent that responds to this initiation, in a symbiotic way, and is best served when the agent responsible for the flow of information is empowered with inalienable rights and freedoms. When any authority outside natural law undermines this process (often in the name of the whole) it undermines the whole. It’s that simple. (That doesn’t mean there are not principals and natural laws that govern the entire process, or that individuals cannot establish constitutional systems to check the various forces that invariably threaten the free flow of information).

Under the tenets of Individualism, the rudimentary consciousness (humanity en masse) grows, develops, evolves, and eventually ascends. Its rudimentary consciousness undergoes a sentient becoming and the individual building blocks also ascend and evolve, perhaps to an entirely new species… this is just the natural order of the development of consciousness over millions of years.

But back to earth. How does this dynamic relate to economics and our current model of systemic poverty?

Imagine for whatever reason an outside presence, a possession, a parasite, an alien consciousness (or however you want to imagine it--I could go on and on here; one need only read a small portion of Avalon’s prolific wealth of knowledge to gain insight on the nature of this entity) has somehow managed to disrupt the flow of information between the individual and the collective. This would characterize a type of possession if this entity had seized and taken hostage of the means of exchange (say in the name of nourishing the collective).

Hmmm. What do you suppose that would do to the symbiotic relationship between the individual and the collective? Even if this were justified for the most well-intended and benevolent of reasons—say to ensure the well being of humanity (or to stop depressions and manage inflation, hint hint)--it is still equivalent to removing blood from the body to give the body a transfusion. Such action does nothing but harm the collective (and most certainly the individuals of which it is part). It makes no sense.


I follow. But whether or not it makes sense is subjective mostly to whether or not we are privy to the big picture, another problem. The idea of government secrets is suboptimal...

I have two points to explore:

1. If information if power, then government is in a power grab ie from the people it serves.

2. If government must keep secrets then it actually is especially serving a special group whom which are privy to those details. This special interest... I can imagine such a structure as valid but suddenly the human weakness factor becomes something so much more predominant. The issue is if and how that can that be addressed?




Let’s put it practically. Imagine two individuals attempting to exchange a loaf of bread for a dozen candles. Now imagine an invisible middleman adjudicating the negotiation, taking a portion of the bread and a few of the candles as “a tax”. Some might argue the middleman is necessary so the baker and candle stick maker don’t kill each other in negotiation (remember, human beings are wicked). I don’t necessarily buy it, but for sake of argument I’ll grant it. This would be equivalent to limited government, say constitutional government enforcing contracts and rules to keep us wicked creatures in check.

Now: imagine further the invisible middleman has managed to seize completely the means of exchange from the individuals participating in the trade. This outside entity now dictates the terms of the trade per its own interests, and more insidious, silently, behind the curtain, where it can remain unseen. In its hidden lair it essentially takes the trade by hostage. And while it is in its interest for the trade to ensue (remember, it wants a cut), it nonetheless seriously impedes and disrupts the flow of information and therefore the deliverance of needs and wants to individuals. This always tends toward a complete breakdown of economy, over time, and to systemic poverty.

The middleman, however, is clever and does not necessarily want complete economic breakdown or systemic poverty. It wants to enslave productivity, in equilibrium, and only so far to allow the bondage to ensue without breaking the cycle of productivity. It knows disrupting the flow of information too much might threaten its own life blood. So it attempts to “engineer” the amperage of information (remember it has seized complete control of the means of exchange and has the power to do this), to give the system a jolt, when necessary, and keep it limping along, just enough so it can to receive its fix while it enslaves productivity. This vampirism is very easy to bill to the masses in pretext; it is required to keep us wicked individuals in check.

By now I’m sure you understand where I’m going with this. The middleman engineer determines a fixed quantity of means of exchange, decreed by fiat, (either too little or too much by tinkering accordingly). The middleman is absolutely necessary to the transaction and also determines whether or not the transaction is even possible. In short, the middleman impedes the flow of information and disrupts the natural order. It can starve the flow of information (impoverishing individuals), or it can flood the flow of information (force-feeding individuals). In this manner the middleman expands and contracts systemic wealth so to harvest at the end of each expansion cycle. This process is much the same as a farmer who harvests a crop at the end of the season. In fact, the entire process is not unlike pruning and watering an orchard to harvest fruit, or force-feeding a goose to fatten its liver. To be blunt, the harvest of fruit and the feast of foie gras is the middleman’s objective. The end cycle is always poverty (and we serfs bereft of the fruits of our labor and sometimes even our vital organs…).

In sum, controlling the means of exchange, either by inflating or deflating (it doesn’t matter) siphons wealth from the system, methodically, systematically, and parasitically, until every last person is indigent. Taking blood from the body in this way can no longer be viewed as some kind of transfusion back to the body (as it is billed and sold to the public), but rather a deliberate vampiric letting.

I know this is all rhetorical and metaphoric (and I know I’m not dealing on the micro level as you are in your post), but if we are trying to ascertain why our current economic model has failed and why there is systemic poverty (to address your points), it is necessary, in my view, to render this down to its most simple components and look at them in the broadest scope. The answer to why there is global poverty is not complicated. It is simple. A vampiric force has seized the means of exchange in the name of collectivism and is sucking the collective dry. It has tapped the symbiosis for its life-force. It’s a lose/lose, both to the individual and the collective. (Unless you’re the parasite).


I follow your metaphors. I agree with what you are saying and even go so far as to say that I see the same things happening as you describe.

Solution? Cut out the middlemen and put in middlemen of our own, why? Because as long as the new middlemen have self-interest as you described above, where self is the collective, then you create an easier path for the unknowing Exiles to shift from one system to another. These new middlemen, as you describe, is part of the new system enforcing the system in a way that the old system ought to have enforced it, but didn't.






I see. I suppose it's probably in order to clarify, Obama is a government figurehead. Obviously not JFK; he got re-elected. He is part of the government works and performing as required per your above observations.


I’m not entirely convinced Obama was “re-elected”, but that’s a side issue for another thread. Suffice to say any candidate who would advance the type of government you are advocating (one that can be fixed and functioning by and for the people) could never be elected in a system dominated by propaganda, mind-control, and black-box voting (tools created by the entity that has seized the means of exchange). Government figureheads are not “elected”, they are “selected” to manage public perception and serve their real master.


Yes indeed. He was reelected because nobody could mount a substantial claim to the contrary.

An interesting observation, if you have substantial portion of the population adhering to this type of parallel system, they can very well elect a representative into state or even national government. Someone who can actually represent the voters.

Many other people could vote simply because they see it as a valid form of protesting against the current government.

How could elected officials represent their constituents in the church?

Push for resources designated for educational purposes to be made available. Sanction the church as a "social order" type program that helps by reducing welfare and governments requirement for law enforcement; push for for autonomy resolving problems therein by legitimizing a "church" based court system. It only needs to pass the vote to become law, at the state level, being a state issue...

<snip/>






All that said, There is a way. (And this is actually what is important)

What if a group of people joined together and provide leadership for the the people like the OP and others who feel they have become Economic Exiles (EE). And provide direction along the lines of what you and I understand to be what should have been?

Call it a religion and form it as a church with the belief that EE people are accepted to work towards the church objectives. It is considered self evident that there are three basic unalienable human rights: 1) Life, 2) liberty, 3) pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental of this church.


Your proposals, in theory, could spontaneously develop when people freely associate and the flow of information is not impeded. Again, a philosophical perspective, but also an empirical observation backed by historical example.


I believe it requires a critical mass. If you start something too small, and attempts have been made, you won't have the technological basis from which to prosper, will be forced to reinvent the wheel and basically, everyone condemns themselves to a new type of slavery in the name of a poorly baked idea and/or execution of the idea.






I choose terms like religion and church because there is already much law that distinctly provides for freedom of religion. USC 501.C.3 provides the church and all its aggregates with tax exemption. Government was formed with the principal that it is to be completely separate of church. As long as 100% of EE productivity and trade can be labeled as church related, you are parasite free.


The very act of exempting churches from taxation beholds them to the government. If your organization took off and achieved success, it would soon entwine itself with the very government that exiled your members to begin with. In other words, the dynamic of the law (in a system where the means of exchange have been seized) does the exact opposite of separating church and state. There is a huge scandal here in the US surrounding 501.C.3. Religious institutions, which have significant leverage to distribute propaganda and mind control to the masses, are beholden to government (which has the power to withdraw these institutions 501.C.3 status arbitrarily). We see it all the time. 501.C.3 institutions are little more than lap dogs and proxies of the State. Also a side issue, but just another example of how government advances the “wicked” nature of humanity rather than serve to impede it.



Interesting.

You are stating that it's not a feasible place to start? Maybe something like a USC 508.C.1.a organization is better start?

I contend that it will be what is made of it. What you are saying is that the organizations have permitted themselves to become corrupt or where conceived in corruption. It happens in ordinary corporations just as easily; I admit that overcoming corruption is an important obstacle to overcome.

And even if you start from a "god" based organization that has no legal relation at all to the state, you are sill subject to the force they can wield in your direction but you also have to overcome the legalities of ownership of property held by the organization, I don't see why the organization would not utilize, in some form, a bank account, after all it would be easier to accept donations that way. Right?







The economic idea is to members to consume internally produced goods and services, anywhere you see need for something, an opportunity exists to fulfill this need for everyone. If there is consumption from outside the group, ie a non-member buys goods or services from the group, it can be labeled as an export of group productivity. The import/export surplus goes into "international" type transactions where the church strategically buying more raw materials like land etc.

The growth idea is that EE members have the option to pursue education to fulfill spiritual and productive needs within the group. Each member competes within the group, in more than one way. Part of the order required is to reward objectives reached by issuing titles and opportunities.

Is there anyone here that would be willing to contribute to the growth of this idea? I have quite a bit of the details in mind but perhaps some of it is... well unrealistic.


I like your ideas, but until we fix the macro, any tinkering on the micro will only ameliorate the plight of the Economic Exile temporarily, if at all. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. But if we don’t address the underlying issue we have little chance for any plan to work. Given the rate of consolidation, centralization, and globalization (a.k.a. the rise of the New World Order) there will soon be nothing produced “internally” at all, no services to perform except those designated to serve the collective, which will be fully controlled by the NWO instead of by us individuals. In other words, we will soon all be EEs, with no control of any resources. The NWO will have long since seized control of our rudimentary consciousness, as a species, and we will serve it, as slaves, with our life force and labor. Africa is the richest continent on the planet in resources and probably the poorest per capita. This has little to do with resources.


Agreed, mostly. Sometimes fixing the macro is too costly; the only viable thing to do is to recreate or replace it. I am talking about a type of breakaway civilization that doesn't have borders. It operates because everyone within recognizes who they are and what the organization is and "chooses" or "has chosen" to work within the system.

In our society today, the only thing we can do is choose between the brands which are mostly one of the same in terms of ideals within the industry, or between democrat and republican which also, are likely to be members of the same private clubs and commissions.

Africa being poor has to do with other factors; they lack a british perspective of organization and capitalizing technology to enhance their productivity IMO. I am not an expert.

Amongst european based colonies, the british colonies all have faired better than the French or Portuguese colonies. Here where I live, corruption is rampant, almost an integral part of tradition and culture in politics. If not for this aspect as well as a skewed way of thinking, Brazil would be a first world country. Want an example of a skewed way of thinking?

There is a debate about whether to lower the age which an adolescent can be prosecuted as an adult for very serious crimes. The implication is that the system would rather give up on providing a proper education and in these out-layer cases imprison the offender to "solve" the "problem" and serve justice. The offenses in question are serious, murder, drug trafficking and such.

I take it to be a huge injustice that government would contemplate such a change without giving consideration to serving proper education to youth. Almost as though it's more important serve the vindictive sentiment by essentially throwing the person away in a prison system, that also doesn't work, so that 20 years later, as a middle aged prison educated individual... What do they have, a person who has been discarded by society. Why don't they think about government programs to reach out to the youth so options can be presented before they turn to crime?

Most spanish speaking nations around here are inferior to Brazil in terms of standard of living and industrial development. Argentina being kind of on par with Brazil perhaps because of a strong German (Nazi) influence.

Amost all ex-British colonies, USA, Canada (Quebec is french i know), Australia, India, South Africa, Hong Kong have prospered way more than their non-British equivalents. In Africa, the country of Mozambique, a ex-portuguese colony, was so awful to visit, according to my Father, that he caught the first plane the day after he arrived and aborted all of his plans. He did not see the basic requisites present so that his ideas could take hold; people were solving day to day problems and could not appreciate a longer term investment/solution for the type of plans he had in mind.

So beneath the idea of social order and utilization of resources, there is a question of cultural values. Mind you, I do not consider money, as in the medium of exchange, to be a resource, rather the technology and acquisitions that money can buy is the actual goal, perhaps with the utilization of money. Once you acquire the initial critical mass, with the presence of natural resources and education, you can largely make your own and consume from that.

The main issue from a technological and cultural standpoint is to acquire the critical mass to start. You need people, knowledge, technology and natural resources from which you can start producing to serve the needs of the group. Food, shelter, energy, education, technology…

I don't have all the answers however, the critical mass must also really give special attention to overcome the human weakness. In the USA, the design of government is largely based on Free Mason type ideals, three pronged, representative democracy. The idea is still good, it was subverted along the course of history and I don't know enough to say more than that but certainly we can examine more details it in our contemplations.




My apologies for a lengthy reply. Sometimes the solution to remove the elephant from the room is so simple, if only we can only see the elephant in the room in the first place. We can banter back and forth about how to best arrange the furniture in the room, but until we agree that there is one gigantic beast in the middle of the room, it doesn’t really matter where we put the table and chairs.

Warm Regards,
T Smith

Leo

[Lcam88]

What if a group of people joined together and provide leadership for the the people like the OP and others who feel they have become Economic Exiles (EE). And provide direction along the lines of what you and I understand to be what should have been?

Call it a religion and form it as a church with the belief that EE people are accepted to work towards the church objectives. It is considered self evident that there are three basic unalienable human rights: 1) Life, 2) liberty, 3) pursuit of happiness. Therein lies the fundamental of this church.

I choose terms like religion and church because there is already much law that distinctly provides for freedom of religion. USC 501.C.3 provides the church and all its aggregates with tax exemption. Government was formed with the principal that it is to be completely separate of church. As long as 100% of EE productivity and trade can be labeled as church related, you are parasite free.

The main problems I see: 1) secure natural resources including an initial critical mass of land, energy, human and tool resources for baseline production requirements, 2) resist temptations of corruption, 3) systemic requirements, such as establishment of order, initiation, education, monetary policy...

The Natural resource issue will be the primary stopping point, Almost all "land owners" (at least in the US) do not own the land, or the mineral rights to the land; they simply own the "improvements" on the land... unless they have allodial title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title), under the current government: natural resources belong to "someone else".

Yes! There is a slight problem, acquiring allodial titles instead of the "normal" title which I can't remember the name of now. The titles in circulation today basically only convey ownership of an interest of rather than actual ownership.

Interestingly, allodial titles where issued during land grants issued by the US government in the 1800's. It may just be that looking up the old land grant title number for your property and perfecting a claiming to it is sufficient. The problem is we all depend on fire, police and other services tendered by municipal and maybe state governments and technically, upon noticing such a claim those municipals would be exempted from providing your region with services. Furthermore, it could be that in an "accident" whether provoked or not, your accepting of say, the fire department, constitutes a type of confession that you are unprepared to take full responsibility of your land.

Ways around this, privately contract fire services for your land as though it were separate from state and municipal jurisdiction. The acceptance by these service providers will then constitute further legal evidence that your allodial title is recognizes by some state or municipal authority. Security services is best in-house IMO.




There is nothing wrong with using money, especially because it shortens the learning curve for iniciants, and obviously because it's very very easy to consume more than is produced...

The economic idea is to members to consume internally produced goods and serices, anywhere you see need for something, an opportunity exists to fulfill this need for everyone. Since money circulates within the group, more and more is produced, more and more money can be circulated (monetary policy to keep the value of money stable is required).

This is a very Keynesian based view of money; why can money NOT increase in value? why does it have to stay stable (or decrease?) money that increased in value would be inherently encourage saving and slow down investment (the bane of Keynesian capitalism)... now this may also inhibit technological progress, but the benefit is that the general quality of life will not decrease for the holders of said "money".

Look at bit-coin, it has no choice but to increase in value as there is a set amount of it that will never be exceeded, is this a bad thing?

Let's suppose you have 100 units of production worth 1 dollar each produced monthly and you have 100 dollars in circulation. After the first month, you start producing the second batch... In a perfect system you would not need to introduce more money, ei increase liquidity in circulation, because nobody believes they should hoard or save money.

However each dollar saved is a dollar that is no longer in circulation. If people start saving, there is no longer enough money in circulation to purchase 100 units of productivity and therefore the price must come down. (so that the money in circulation is sufficient to purchase the productivity). Mind you we are not considering demand here, we presume that there is demand for 100% of the productivity.

Furthermore, we accept that saving is good; we consume less than we produce so that a surplus can be created. In the above example, we increase the value of our money causing the price of production in that monetary denomination to decrease.

Now, consider that we add more production that can product another 20 units per month. For stability to exist, it makes sense that liquidity in circulation also increases so avoid price decreases; to avoid devaluation of productivity. If no additional liquidity is introduced, and the price is not reduced, there will be a surplus of productive units that are unneeded.

If you consider productive units to be people, ie 1 man hour, it makes perfect sense try and maintain a fixed price/cost. Furthermore, as people become more productive through the refinement of their knowledge or additional education, it makes sense to increase their value, not reduce it. That can be done one of two ways: 1) pay more for these special productive units, 2) allocate a higher production coefficient to these individuals. But either way, the case I am trying to make is that you absolutely must increase the amount of liquidity to accommodate this growth.

Any increase in the amount of liquidity, ie money printing, causes the value of money to decrease because the ratio of total value of all the productivity say TVP, divided by the Total in circulation TC (TVP/TC) reduces as the denominator (TC) increases. Sorry, I'm not schooled in echonomics sufficiently to provide their acronyms. But maybe the ratio I refer to is GDP/Liquidity in circulation.

Liquidity in circulation is controlled nowadays by federal reserve in their banking policies by the as reserve rate and obviously interest rates.

I am of the opinion that this is where fiat currency we have today actually is correctly positioned. The administration thereof, however, is something I would say is incorrect.

If you base your currency on gold, or some other commodity that is scarce, then you run into a problem where more and more gold is needed to maintain stability. Dr Pete Peterson (google: project camalot Pete Peterson for more info) has an idea that money should be backed by commodities in consumption. Ie you back currency by the output of the production units themselves. That is a very interesting concept. Ultimately, while I don't disagree, the implementation thereof is unclear to me.

EDIT: this is simplistic merely to illustrate the issue. Sorry for being pedantic in my attempt to explain that the value of money is one aspect to consider. To answer your question, you must consider the equilibrium between productivity and value of your monetary units in respect to the level of prosperity you are targeting for a specific culture. You must have enough currency in circulation that it's not scarce, and yet not so much that people stop regarding it as valuable.




If there is consumption from outside the group, ie a non-member buys goods or services from the group, it can be labeled as an export of group productivity. The import/export surplus goes into "international" type transactions where the church strategically buying more raw materials like land etc.

This is where Tariffs would come in, and involve the "parasite" again.

Unless the tariffs are spent on investment that benefit the collective. The term "parasite" would imply otherwise.






The growth idea is that EE members have the option to pursue education to fulfill spiritual and productive needs within the group. Each member competes within the group, in more than one way. Part of the order required is to reward objectives reached by issuing titles and opportunities.

Is there anyone here that would be willing to contribute to the growth of this idea? I have quite a bit of the details in mind but perhaps some of it is... well unrealistic.

the idea is solid as long as it isn't executed under the current legal system.

Again, I don't believe the problem is the system itself. It's specifically the people who implement the system; a specific part of the system.

I'll try to exemplify what I mean.

If you go to Japan, you won't find trash on the street. Yes, there may be a law that forbids littering. But that maybe doesn't matter because people don't litter. So, what's the point of having a law if culturally, nobody breaks the law? Formality?

Here in Brazil there is a law that states that sidewalks must conform to specifications X,Y and Z. How idealistic and perfect, are the sidewalks great? No! Most of the sidewalks I walk on are irregular because trees have grown and broken the concrete, or because someone put an electric pole right in the middle, or because simply a restaurant want to set out additional tables and chairs for their customers.

So it's not that the legal system is or is not good, it's the way it is enforced and or the culture of people who are a part of the system.

[Lcam88]

Regarding conflict:

Conflict comes in all sizes, some are healthy and some are not.

What I mean to say regarding utopian hogwash statement, is simply that you will face challenges in any and all of your objectives. To believe otherwise is simply unrealistic. Thank you for your clarification Lcam. I believe I now understand what you we're trying to say.

However, regarding your comment about money, I recommend you thoroughly investigate Tellinger's Contributionist paradigm before making such a snap judgment.

Thanks for your suggestion. I will look further into it.

The thing is, I view money as a tool, a means to and end. These days its government and bank that determine what that end is in terms of economic policy and such.

Using the analogy of a knife. In the hands of a surgeon, it can be used to cure. (ok idealistic idea of medicine and not some of the stuff that is practiced today) In the hands of a thief, its used to invoke fear. In the hands of a murderer to kill.

Money, as in a monetary system, can be applied for end results that depend on the intentions of the policy makers. I will finish my though at the end.




While money does provide a convenient way of exchanging goods and services, I believe that that is the carrot to get us to bite (and forever embrace) this method of exchange and means of enslavement.

It seems pretty self-evident that money is used to ensure that a very few have all they would ever need and want--including power and control--while the vast majority of people on the planet are forced to work harder, longer, and more just to survive. The greedy, selfish, self-absorbed and self-anointed elite are like a constrictor slowly squeezing the life out of its victims with each breath until it finally consumes its prey. We're like the proverbial frogs in the pot of water being slowly brought to a boil. Happy and content that all is ok (or at least tolerable) while we are slowly being cooked.

And how has money worked for 1+ billion people on this planet who go to bed hungry every night not knowing if they'll even wake up tomorrow. Is it because they are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves? Or, could it be because they weren't lucky enough to be born in a country that afforded them the opportunity to work for the rulers until the rulers had no more use for (the majority of) them?

But I digress. I think I've (we've) strayed far from the original OP subject. Sorry GreenGuy!

I don't believe people are too lazy or stupid. Maybe luck has a bit do do with it, being lucky to have sound financial backing is certainly no coincidence though. It's an issue of control and intention.

The policy just can't be applied unilaterally it seems simply because the current policy presents a carrot that some people just don't want. I largely agree with that analogy as you have stated it. The dilemma people face being, accept the carrot or suffer, the policy makers don't care.

And that brings us back to the initiative you suggested and that which I'm sharing here, we don't need them. We need to organize ourselves, we need a critical mass, and we need our own carrot that we all can accept as part of "our system".

That is the basis for my contention that money is not actually the problem. Perhaps I can just say it more obviously, the problem is the monetary system and the lack of actual leadership thereabouts. I mean, how can you rationalize an annual bonus that most of us don't earn in a lifetime?

[Lcam88]

I submit this here because perhaps it pertains to the issue of prosperity of a people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDC5dIYkRUA

Before you judge the video by the splash, Joseph P Ferrell is an individual who has studied history with a focus on Nazi Germany, hence the insignia. I believe this video to be of value because many of the ideas he shares in the video has a historic perspective of banking and economy.

Contemplations of history is always valuable in the formation of plans IMO.

[AngelArmy]

Maybe we should ask for the jobs that robots have to be counted and included in the total