FourWinds
|
Re: This throws a spanner in the works
Jun 26, 2002, 13:16
|
>> The land is owned by the state in Russia & not
>> the people.
So you didn't bother to read the article then?
The Russian gov't lower house have just passed a law to allow the selling off of agricultural land. That was the whole point of my comments - they related entirely to the article I provided the URL to.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 13:28
|
The problem with keeping money and doing away with the profit (a good theoretic idea but impracticle) is that who is paid what?
At the moment a persons wages in so many circumstances are very unjustly balanced against the profit made on the product or service of which they are involved in the manufacture or provision of.
I suppose a flat rate for all would be the common answer, but I'm not really sure how this would work.
Also, how do you quantify profit? You can not sell everything for cost. If you were to inforce that then where does R&D money come from. So a company has to be able to 'make some money' to create the next generation of product.
I think a much better idea would be a first step of 'Profit Capping'. ***Everything*** over a certain amount goes towards the welfare state and national (global) infrastructure. Kinda like SERIOUSLY HEAVY CORPORATE TAXES.
|
cancer boy
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:28
|
I agree that everything being 100% state owned and not for profit would stifle innovation, as illustrated by China's rapid economic and technological expansion after free-market reform crept in there.
Also it would be a beaureacratic nightmare, which (human nature still presumably being what it is today) would result in a small number of corrupt people lining their pockets from it. Even in communist countries there was always someone riding round in a Zil limousine while the workers toiled in the factories. I'm not having a go at anyone as I think your ideals are laudable but believe any proposed framework like that is even more open to abuse than a free-market system.
Furthermore, to arrive at it, would we have a Pol Pot/Cultural Revolution period where we get to go round setting fire to people's BMWs and toasting their koi carp to help 'reeducate' them?
What interests me more is what sort of price would we at the upper end of the standard of human living (i.e. the western world) have to pay to enable everyone in the world to have:
1) Food
2) Water
3) Shelter
4) Medical Treatment
5) Education
That's where I draw the line. I don't reckon anyone has a right to a VCR. I don't care if someone else has more than me, if they've got the essentials for life I'm not bothered if they've got less than me.
Finally, how much of world poverty is the direct result of 'capitalism' and how much from failed 'communist' governments or pointless struggles between 'capitalism' and 'communism' in the third world and central america?
I'll get me coat
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:33
|
1) Food
2) Water
3) Shelter
4) Medical Treatment
5) Education
Can we add
6) Power
??
|
cancer boy
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:35
|
|
Wot, political-type power or electrical-type power?
|
stray
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:41
|
|
poverty has increased since the fall of Russian 'Communism'. Exploitation has been given more freedom than it had before I reckon.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:45
|
|
Or maybe it's just more open to scrutiny now because those doing the exploitation are not the government and secret services :-)
|
FourWinds
|
Electrickery
Jun 26, 2002, 14:45
|
|
The latter.
|
cancer boy
|
Re: Moneyless world
Jun 26, 2002, 14:56
|
I think you've both got good points (and I'm not just hedging my bets, honest!). The places in the former USSR where the problem is most keenly felt are Kazahkstan (sp?) and so on. Because all the Russians have gone home now their populations have fallen to the extent that when my friend bought a flat there recently, most of the other units in the building were empty with no prospect of being occupied in the near future. Good if you've got a loud stereo but obviously this isn't good for the country's economic health.
When I was referring to failed communist governments etc. I didn't mean what people think of as the old communist bloc, more countries in central and south America, Asia and Africa i.e. all the pawns in the struggle between the superpowers.
|
MonkeyBoy
|
Re: This throws a spanner in the works
Jun 26, 2002, 17:34
|
'To allow the selling off of land' - The transaction hasn't taken place then. The gangsters will end up owning, but they don't own it yet. Nor do the people own it.
If someone decides to sell something, they still own it until someone else purchases.
Just as if I decided to say sell my house and even put it on the market, that wouldn't mean I no longer owned it unless I found a buyer and the deal went through.
Keh!
|
