Anti,
Have been reading about the protests. I can understand that the people believe the gov't has mis-manged things. What do the people think should be done? It seems as if the choices are bankruptcy or bailout. In either case there will be austerity measures. What's your take?

Regards,
wlake

Hi there.

There is a third option. Make those that created the situation pay for the crisis, not the workers and poor.

The crisis here is a mixture of several causes.
*Corrupt politicians,
*greedy bosses and bankers
*a general crisis of the capitalist system.

In my opinion a class/anticapitalist solution is needed.
*Tax the rich
*Don't pay the debt
*Money for education, health not for the military
*Cut bosses profits not workers/pensioners pay.
*Nationalisation of banks under workers’ control
*Legalise immigrants
*Fight for a society based on human need not greed

Anti,
I understand your points about the cause of the crisis. But since Greece lives in a global economy and will need foreign investment, it would seem that many of the measures you propose would make the country even worse off than it is now. For example not paying the debt will mean Greece will not be able to borrow in the capital markets and could easily end up not being able to pay the pensions or fund the other worthwhile projects you mention. It would seem that Greece is between a rock and a hard place and unfortuntely living standards will have to decline one way or another. It is very sad to see all this turmoil on television.

Regards,
wlake

For example not paying the debt will mean Greece will not be able to borrow in the capital markets and could easily end up not being able to pay the pensions or fund the other worthwhile projects you mention.

That is the only example I can see in what Anti said. The rest seem to be very economically valid points and are implemented in some way or the other in many countries around the world.

The crisis here is a mixture of several causes.
*Corrupt politicians,
*greedy bosses and bankers
*a general crisis of the capitalist system

Isn't it an inefficiency in the political system? There is no way the lower and middle classes (who form a majority of the population in any country) will accept such a government.

Here politics is usually a big mess and huge amounts of taxpayer money are siphoned away into the pockets of politicians. Still there isn't anyone who has succeeded in standing up against the system and getting it done the right way. It seems that there is no way to vote a caring government into power. Most voters don't know about what ideology means for us. Although I support a certain party strongly over another, it is purely because of their ideology of communal issues. I know for a fact that they aren't any less corrupt than the other parties. We see western countries as having more established and efficient political systems. I know at least some of us, after looking at what happens in the UK with the episodes of taxpayer money going waste, in Florida (2000), Sarah Palin, etc don't think so.

I am hesitant to jump to a conclusion about what is the better way to fix this issue that the world has faced, faces and will face. Doing away with capitalism, to me, isn't necessarily the best, because there doesn't seem to be any alternative - one was tried in the 20th century but didn't seem sustainable in most implementations and there isn't any other system that works without constant intervention by a centralized planning agency. No
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy"
linktext was:"planned economy"
====================================
has proved to be more efficient than the capitalist system as yet.

Just what I've understood and feel until now. I plan to study more about this soon. __{{emoticon}}__

Doing away with capitalism, to me, isn't necessarily the best, because there doesn't seem to be any alternative

I am by no means a expert on what system would work best but I can dream.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy"
linktext was:"http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-so ... ed-economy"
====================================


So depending on your outlook in life. Alternatives are present. Just nobody with the cajones in power to implement them due to human greed.

And under the above principle of economics in the above link. And Government. Blowing off inflated debt.

Brought on by greed on the lenders and recipients parts, the recipients being the one in charge of distributing loaned funds for the betterment of their constituents (instead of lining their own pockets, which seems to be more of the case than not. No matter which govt. or country.)

Is a viable option in my outlook.

Punishing the Public Worker. For a fancy term like austerity measures. Which to me is just another drummed up sound bite for"you are about to be screwed by the man". Is just wrong. My International Monetary Fund are the Harley Davidsons in my Shop. My Ranch House in the country. My Skill Set that capitalism pays me for. I would rather use my skill set and be recompensed in just Services and Goods. Not Money (which changes hands a million times before it gets to me).

And Just wait. When social services like food stamps and public housing gets canned in the states. You will see riots and burning in every major city. And calling it something sterile like austerity measures won't make a bit a difference to those folks either. Including the social workers who make their money doing the ad-min work for social programs who will be out of a job also. I think it ironic that the Greek cop shooting teargas will be out of a job (layed off) after the austerity measures are implemented. Aint that a joke!


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlnOv-tVpYw"
linktext was:"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlnOv-tVpYw"
====================================


But what do I know. I am just a Harley riding AntiX user. __{{emoticon}}__

In the vague terms that the article speaks in, it sounds like something I would like. However, I don't quite understand how they propose to implement such a system.

All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Here's my question: You've got the resources sitting in front of you and there are a billion people waiting to get them. Some are greedy (adulterated by capitalism if you'd like to go that extreme) and some will recognize that they're happy with what they've got and won't keep grabbing. Now what will you do with the greedy people? How will decide that the greedy guy who wants the world to produce more booze for him to drink is wrong and the thoughtful guy who wants to invest in RnD to develop the most efficient solar panels, electric grid and water and drainage system is right?

The theory seems to be written on the premise that (a) everyone is extremely enthusiastic about a Resource-Based Economy(RBE) and will contribute everything they can to the RBE, (b) no decisions will ever need to be made in an RBE that have a opportunity costs associated with them (i.e. that there is always an obvious choice that that will be unanimously chosen), (c) no non-economy-related policy will ever have to be made (Arab-Israeli conflict, Indo-Pakistan conflict, African civil wars, discrimination against Muslims in the world, terrorist activities, religious clashes, etc) (d) a one-size fits all approach may be taken to solve all the world's problems.

(a) everyone is extremely enthusiastic about a Resource-Based Economy(RBE) and will contribute everything they can to the RBE
If this was the case, communism would have been a massive success. How do you fend off anyone who wishes to trick the system? How do you prevent someone from being greedy? These decisions need to be made, and you can never decide who is right, except from a moral point of view, which not many people will buy. If someone believes that we are powerful human-beings have the right to drink all we want because natural selection allows it, so we should all be drinking until we die at the age of 15. How do you prove he's wrong? Who decides that life was not meant to do"be wasted like that"?

(b) no decisions will ever need to be made in an RBE that have a opportunity costs associated with them (i.e. that there is always an obvious choice that that will be unanimously chosen)
There is an opportunity cost to everything, and I hope you will not deny economists an acknowledgment. If we choose to spend all our effort trying to make sure that the whole world is fed to the teeth, you won't be able to get enough water to"fill everyone up" as well. We haven't gotten to the millions of other things humans do and will keep doing. The RBE doesn't explain how the decisions of allocation will be made. Yes, there are a lot of resources on the planet - I am not skipping that very valid point that they have made. Clearly there aren't enough to make everyone content (if there were, then we wouldn't have any issue at all, wouldn't we?). So how exactly do you decide how you are going to allocate. If you recall the famous PPF graph from Economics class, you can't simply walk through it. Denying that such a curve exists would be wrong.

(c) no non-economy-related policy will ever have to be made (Arab-Israeli conflict, Indo-Pakistan conflict, African civil wars, discrimination against Muslims in the world, terrorist activities, religious clashes, etc)
The world isn't just about the economy. We've got tonnes of other things to worry about as well. Why isn't the finance minister of each country the prime minister or the president? You need a government, you need countries that can handle their own internal affairs. A Greek will not understand the communal clashes in India. An Indian will not understand the civil war in Africa. An African will not understand the recent terrorist activities in Russia. A Russian ... You cannot have one body ruling the world. On the other hand, 7 billion people cannot collectively make policies for the world. Find me a successfully running large democracy that doesn't depend on representation in any means and I'll accept I'm wrong. Yes, I've lived in a small community too, where there is collective decision making. I know that you cannot take that and implement it for thousands of people.

(d) a one-size fits all approach may be taken to solve all the world's problems
You should read about the Indian tribal people, some of who have taken to arms as"Maoists". Even a country like India which claims to have united people of hundreds of languages and thousands of cultures, hasn't been able to understand the problems faced by tribal people. How many American presidents do you think have actually understood what is happening in Palestine? Of them, how many do you think understands what it means to literally kick people out of their home justifying their act by claiming that you are returning to someone else their homeland? Why do they think that the Palestinians don't deserve to have a home also? (The answer is because the Jewish votes are more important than the Muslim votes in the USA -- I know, I'm still trying to make a point here). The tiny details that make the big picture what it is cannot simply be solved by telling everyone that we've got a lot to split between ourselves and we'd better be happy. There are governments that are supposed to do this. Each country has its own inefficiencies when it comes to having others represent us. Some countries are more corrupt (third world countries - extreme example, Zimbabwe), some allow lobbying (USA), some don't include a large chunk of their voters (Sri Lanka), some aren't even recognized by the people with guns, bombs and power (Palestine) and some aren't even democracies (China). I see it being far easier to having the citizens of each country work towards weeding their own problems out.

After all this, I'd like to make sure you understand that I'm not denying that greed is the source of many of the problems we face today, I do not claim that capitalism is ideal, I only claim that there is no viable, practical and possible alternative that I have heard of to date.

how they propose to implement

This is just a perception of living life on different terms than"everybody has to pay". It requires a different mind set. I know. Jesus (and I aint a religious freak),Buddha, and other prophets tried to get people to adopt a different way at looking at life. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself. Which means greed is out the door. Among a lot of other things.

Now what will you do with the greedy people?

The same thing you do with any body else that irritates the heck out of you. Ignore them if you can. If they are pushy. Push Back. I think the have nots in the world pretty much out number the elite (IMO) and if History is any indication. Sooner or later Greedy empires don't last.

As far as one tribe not getting along with another. Tell me about it. I live among some of the heaviest Mexican gangs in the Southwest from the Mexican Mafia, Aztecas, Surenos,Fatherless Gang, You name it. Tribe and Gun City __{{emoticon}}__

But I do know that if people are comfortable. And I mean everyone. Then they want peace to keep that comfort zone. At least when the young soldier becomes a old soldier. All of a sudden. Violence aint no fun no more.

Usually a movement like I am suggesting starts out small. It don't happen over night. Look how long it took for Christianity, Buddism, Islam to take when Paganism was the norm for ages.

Capitalism has been around longer than that. Going back to Greek and Egypt and Chinese Times when coins were first pressed.

So what I suggest is not going to be easy. But in my mind it is the Smart Thing To Do.

Any kind of ism hasn't worked very well so far. So if folks
around the world knew."Change or die". I mean know it like you know the sun will come up in the morning type know. They would backtrack because
priorities would change from"I am greedy, I don't like him/her because they are different, I want it all". To."I am not going to be here tomorrow
unless I rethink on how I look at the world".

As far as the Greek protests go. I find it ironic that the founders of democracy are the first ones to point out some of it's flaws when it comes to leaders that are greedy.

I also find it a wonderment that a banker/stock broker, white collar criminal
can be slapped on the wrist while a person who robs a convenience store for bread/medication or whatever gets thrown in general population for years. I speak from know how on this being a former maintenance supervisor (had to cut my hair for that job) for a privatized govt. subsidized sub contracting prison that was a holding station for gangs and to use the Texas redneck term"wetbacks" whose only crime was desperation to feed their families. Another victim of greed and capitalism. You would be blind not to see it around you.

umang. I come from a colorful back ground of survivors. I won't go into detail. All I can say is my 70+ year old Mom has told me"Be careful, I have seen this all before"


But then again. I am just a uneducated outlaw biker (who has a clean rap sheet).

If it wasn't clear enough in my previous post, I'm really not against the idea in any way. I'd love to see an alternative system, that eliminates greed, put into practice. There is only one point, however, that I object to strongly:

Any kind of ism hasn't worked very well so far. So if folks
around the world knew."Change or die". I mean know it like you know the sun will come up in the morning type know. They would backtrack because
priorities would change from"I am greedy, I don't like him/her because they are different, I want it all". To."I am not going to be here tomorrow
unless I rethink on how I look at the world".

Look at how many people are suppressing evidence for global warming, cooking up evidence against it and denying the possibility altogether! Do you think that they really have no clue, or do you think that they're more interested in their money, not the world's future?

umang wrote:In the vague terms that the article speaks in, it sounds like something I would like. However, I don't quite understand how they propose to implement such a system.

All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Here's my question: You've got the resources sitting in front of you and there are a billion people waiting to get them. Some are greedy (adulterated by capitalism if you'd like to go that extreme) and some will recognize that they're happy with what they've got and won't keep grabbing. Now what will you do with the greedy people? How will decide that the greedy guy who wants the world to produce more booze for him to drink is wrong and the thoughtful guy who wants to invest in RnD to develop the most efficient solar panels, electric grid and water and drainage system is right?

The theory seems to be written on the premise that (a) everyone is extremely enthusiastic about a Resource-Based Economy(RBE) and will contribute everything they can to the RBE, (b) no decisions will ever need to be made in an RBE that have a opportunity costs associated with them (i.e. that there is always an obvious choice that that will be unanimously chosen), (c) no non-economy-related policy will ever have to be made (Arab-Israeli conflict, Indo-Pakistan conflict, African civil wars, discrimination against Muslims in the world, terrorist activities, religious clashes, etc) (d) a one-size fits all approach may be taken to solve all the world's problems.

(a) everyone is extremely enthusiastic about a Resource-Based Economy(RBE) and will contribute everything they can to the RBE
If this was the case, communism would have been a massive success. How do you fend off anyone who wishes to trick the system? How do you prevent someone from being greedy? These decisions need to be made, and you can never decide who is right, except from a moral point of view, which not many people will buy. If someone believes that we are powerful human-beings have the right to drink all we want because natural selection allows it, so we should all be drinking until we die at the age of 15. How do you prove he's wrong? Who decides that life was not meant to do"be wasted like that"?

(b) no decisions will ever need to be made in an RBE that have a opportunity costs associated with them (i.e. that there is always an obvious choice that that will be unanimously chosen)
There is an opportunity cost to everything, and I hope you will not deny economists an acknowledgment. If we choose to spend all our effort trying to make sure that the whole world is fed to the teeth, you won't be able to get enough water to"fill everyone up" as well. We haven't gotten to the millions of other things humans do and will keep doing. The RBE doesn't explain how the decisions of allocation will be made. Yes, there are a lot of resources on the planet - I am not skipping that very valid point that they have made. Clearly there aren't enough to make everyone content (if there were, then we wouldn't have any issue at all, wouldn't we?). So how exactly do you decide how you are going to allocate. If you recall the famous PPF graph from Economics class, you can't simply walk through it. Denying that such a curve exists would be wrong.

(c) no non-economy-related policy will ever have to be made (Arab-Israeli conflict, Indo-Pakistan conflict, African civil wars, discrimination against Muslims in the world, terrorist activities, religious clashes, etc)
The world isn't just about the economy. We've got tonnes of other things to worry about as well. Why isn't the finance minister of each country the prime minister or the president? You need a government, you need countries that can handle their own internal affairs. A Greek will not understand the communal clashes in India. An Indian will not understand the civil war in Africa. An African will not understand the recent terrorist activities in Russia. A Russian ... You cannot have one body ruling the world. On the other hand, 7 billion people cannot collectively make policies for the world. Find me a successfully running large democracy that doesn't depend on representation in any means and I'll accept I'm wrong. Yes, I've lived in a small community too, where there is collective decision making. I know that you cannot take that and implement it for thousands of people.

(d) a one-size fits all approach may be taken to solve all the world's problems
You should read about the Indian tribal people, some of who have taken to arms as"Maoists". Even a country like India which claims to have united people of hundreds of languages and thousands of cultures, hasn't been able to understand the problems faced by tribal people. How many American presidents do you think have actually understood what is happening in Palestine? Of them, how many do you think understands what it means to literally kick people out of their home justifying their act by claiming that you are returning to someone else their homeland? Why do they think that the Palestinians don't deserve to have a home also? (The answer is because the Jewish votes are more important than the Muslim votes in the USA -- I know, I'm still trying to make a point here). The tiny details that make the big picture what it is cannot simply be solved by telling everyone that we've got a lot to split between ourselves and we'd better be happy. There are governments that are supposed to do this. Each country has its own inefficiencies when it comes to having others represent us. Some countries are more corrupt (third world countries - extreme example, Zimbabwe), some allow lobbying (USA), some don't include a large chunk of their voters (Sri Lanka), some aren't even recognized by the people with guns, bombs and power (Palestine) and some aren't even democracies (China). I see it being far easier to having the citizens of each country work towards weeding their own problems out.

After all this, I'd like to make sure you understand that I'm not denying that greed is the source of many of the problems we face today, I do not claim that capitalism is ideal, I only claim that there is no viable, practical and possible alternative that I have heard of to date.

Thanks for sharing such useful information.. I know thread is bit old but still can you share latest updates about the project? There is huge energy crises all around the world so I am trying to get my own source of renewable energy generation.Looking forward for quick reply... Thanks:)