Alas, I'm not sure that program's any less likely to be realized than the one you've proposed. — Cabbage Farmer

I agree. Neither of us will get our wish list until universal government becomes a reality. That applies to the whole world but u see no reason why individual countries could not target their own oligarch and super rich.

Sure, some of thoase people might threaten to move their assets elsewhere, but then a government could just help those bastards get out of their countries so as to allow a more worthy oligarch to take over the markets left.

We can play hard ball with those sons of bitches that do not want to p[lay fair and share.

Regards
DL

I agree. Neither of us will get our wish list until universal government becomes a reality. That applies to the whole world but u see no reason why individual countries could not target their own oligarch and super rich. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Of course it's an ideal that can and should be pursued at the national level. At every level, but I suppose at the national level first and foremost, since the nation-state is still the primary political unit.

as was said in the essay. This system would not completely get rid of the use of money and probably this bartering system would still be a small fraction of the economy but it would be a much larger part than it is now.

this bartering system would be for those who consider themselves to be on the fringes of society which is why i believe this bartering app/website would help them be more self sufficient. Many businesses already use bartering to help keep costs lower.

Once again this is not a complete solution to the world's problems but just like any solution it buys the people of that society time before the distant or not so distant failure of society comes. Most if not all societies fail eventually.

the nation-state is still the primary political unit. — Cabbage Farmer

True, but ours can be manipulated by the U.N., for instance, if the majority of other countries and their coalitions are powerful enough.

There is also the U.N. court that has teeth. Little one. yes, but they can still bite.

Regards
DL

James Statter — James Statter

I hear and agree with all your points but think the cons outweigh the pros.

If we lived in a world where our wealth was in our labor alone, it might work, but we live in a world where our labor and it's value is mostly augmented by machines and we now mostly live in cities instead of a rural world where barter is more workable.

Regards
DL

i appreciate your grace. We'll see. have a good week.

Even a fraction of the top one percent will enough. The amount is so insignificant that they can easily recover what was taken in a year or two, and may earn even more because what's used to end poverty translates to more sales of goods and services.

The catch is that given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity there aren't enough material resources and energy worldwide to provide increasing goods and services.

The catch is that given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity there aren't enough material resources and energy worldwide to provide increasing goods and services. — ralfy

??

I have not read anything that proves this to be a fact. What peer reviewed report have you found to bolster your view?

I do agree with your assessment of the minute adjustment to our socio economic demography that would be required to do the right thing.

Regards
DL

"Is Global Collapse Imminent?"

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?
123

I doubt it.

BUT if we wanted to end poverty...we could easily do it. We could end poverty all across the planet.

Every person could have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.

I have no idea of why we are not doing it...but it is to our shame that we allow it to exist.

"Is Global Collapse Imminent?" — ralfy

I do not think so.
I think things will get a lot worse and that that will trigger the globalization in us as we will recognize that without a global political and religious system, we will suffer a hell of a lot more.
If spaceship earth is to not go into a deep depression, it will have to elect a captain to run it.

Most of this hardship and change could be averted if our oligarch owners would cooperate more and compete less. That might take globalization.

Regards
DL

I have no idea of why we are not doing it...but it is to our shame that we allow it to exist. — Frank Apisa

I agree with all you put.

We are not doing it because we have too many voices/leaders competing for crumbs while ignoring that the main meal is rotting from lack of consumption by the masses.

Our leaders have forgotten that they are to lead by duty and for honor. They are not honorable people as can be seen in Trump and pope Francis. I name those as undeserving leaders of many.

Regards
DL

At one point in our history, America made a commitment to transport men to the moon...and to return them safely to Earth. To our credit...we did it.

We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.

NOW!!!

The larger problem is the government is just going to redistribute to money to whoever is connected to the government. The problem with wealth redistributement schemes is that in order to redistribute wealth, someone has to be in control of the process. What's to stop them from taking all the money for themselves (and using it to bribe everyone else?).

Actually, I'm in support of universal basic income (and higher taxes on the top 5% to pay for it). But I'm against any blatant wealth redistribution schemes and I do NOT like Warren's idea of a wealth tax.

You mean you think so. That's what I gathered from the rest of your post.

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not necessarily. We might wind up simply with government employees buying islands, buying homes made of diamonds, etc.

We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions. — Frank Apisa

We as a world, yes. The U.S. doing so would be irrelevant to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, Yanks misname what you propose socialism. Americans are not as bright as most when it comes to labels.

Regards
DL

What's to stop them from taking all the money for themselves (and using it to bribe everyone else?). — YuZhonglu

Eh, a transparent system connected to the tax system. Statistics would show any corruption.

Regards
DL

(and higher taxes on the top 5% to pay for it). — YuZhonglu

But I'm against any blatant wealth redistribution — YuZhonglu

Your last contradicts your first.

Regards
DL

You mean you think so. That's what I gathered from the rest of your post. — ralfy

No. Nature changes. It never collapses. That does not mean that mankind can live in whatever the environment changes to, although I think we will.
Insects are currently suffering a massive extinction event, as well as other species. Life and the earth will always be here but most of us might not be as much of our food is reliant on insects.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot but it is a toss up as to whether we will let it fester and rot and kill us by slow poison or fix it.

Regards
DL

We might wind up simply with government employees buying islands, buying homes made of diamonds, etc. — Terrapin Station

And you think the rich who let us use their table scraps will allow that do you?

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop
174

We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions. — Frank Apisa


We as a world, yes. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"We as a world" is what I am talking about.

The U.S. doing so would be irrelevant to the rest of the world. — Gnostic

No it wouldn't. If we achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. If China or Russia achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.

I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.

Your letting your negative feelings about the US fracture your logic.

Unfortunately, Yanks misname what you propose socialism. Americans are not as bright as most when it comes to labels.

Whatever.

I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. — Frank Apisa

It already exists in the Northern European countries.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop
177

I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. — Frank Apisa


It already exists in the Northern European countries.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually...it does not...but they are getting very, very close.

And it is significantly impacting on the rest of the world. We have people here in the US attempting to make the Northern European model be a model for us.

Right now...it is not working, because our country has moved so far to the right, the distance is too far.

But the time will come...and when a large country finally makes the move to what those smaller countries have...all countries will be forced in that direction.

But the time will come...and when a large country finally makes the move to what those smaller countries have...all countries will be forced in that direction. — Frank Apisa

Doubtful.
Politics is done for local consumption and all politicians want their brand on legislation and that is why they do not copy better systems in other countries.

Even Obama, whom I respect, wanted Obama care.
Not an --- Obama's copy of the best system on earth care.

Regards
DL

I was not referring to nature.

I was not referring to nature. — ralfy

Don't leave me hanging with a bare denial.

I obviously got it wrong but if correcting is not in you.

Regards
DL