Trickle "UP" Economics or "Fountain" Economics

a reply to: mOjOm

Then let's just say that as it is now, our theories on Free Market Capitalism and how it best functions are incomplete at best and practically incorrect at worst.

Socialism, i.e. the "alternative" to the free market, is politics that hinders, cripples, or completely annihilates the free market. Is that what you mean by practically incorrect?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I mean that in theory they work fine and in practice they fall apart at a point because they are incomplete or incorrect in accounting for some variables or human flaws or something. I'm not suggesting any other theory is better though. Just that full free market capitalism has problems as well.

Although it's difficult to judge too because a completely free market isn't something that has existed in any official way other than probably very quickly in a brand new market.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think taking away income tax is the best way to keep money flowing up. Governments nees to stop borrowing money created from nothing and charging taxes to pay the interest. Instead, governments should create their own money from nothing and spend it on the bottom. That creates jobs to build infrastructure, doctors, teachers, police etc. Governments dont have to collect money from taxpayers to pay for those things if they create the money themselves. All thise employees working in services paid for bybthe government, want clothing, food, entertainment, so naturally businesses that want to attract the money spent on services, paid for by free money created by government, will pop up around the people.

If there is a tax, it should be on whatever is not spent. There would be no need to save (hoard) for retirement if social insurance was paid for by free money created by the government.

Watch money masters. Probably the most boring documentry but it tells the truth about the secret of money.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

so, just what do we do about all the money we owe the fed? I mean, ya, it sounds great, ditch the fed, print our own money, but somewhere along the line, I think there's a catch that we would have to pay the fed all the money we supposedly owe them, which we can't do, since there isn't that much money in existence. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, just that we would have to ditch the fed, ditch their dollar, default on that debt, and well create a different currency which won't have the respect of standing that our dollar has now or the perks that that standing provides.

it might be the best choice between all the horrible choices we have, but it's still such a horrible choice that only the bravest of brave would want to make, which is why we still have the fed around.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MALBOSIA

so, just what do we do about all the money we owe the fed? I mean, ya, it sounds great, ditch the fed, print our own money, but somewhere along the line, I think there's a catch that we would have to pay the fed all the money we supposedly owe them, which we can't do, since there isn't that much money in existence. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, just that we would have to ditch the fed, ditch their dollar, default on that debt, and well create a different currency which won't have the respect of standing that our dollar has now or the perks that that standing provides.

it might be the best choice between all the horrible choices we have, but it's still such a horrible choice that only the bravest of brave would want to make, which is why we still have the fed around.

I can't say how to transition. I am sure there are forces at work charged with insurring it never does. Plus I am in Canada. We CAN borrow from our central bank virtually interest free but chose not to. You can ditch your central banks currency but then you lose credit with global markets. Trade will be difficult similar to Russia when they scrubbed their debt but they still did it. It doesn't work if you rely on trade with nations that subscribe to the system we have now cause you won't get credit with them and they will value your currency at next to nothing.

I am part of the British Empire so my country won't rock the boat. Britain, who is controlled by the 'Corporation of the City of London' could not compete with the world in terms of resources so they work hard to keep this system that sees their currency as the most valuable with the least resources behind it. They need this and I am sure they will do whatever it takes to make sure it never changes.

So I guess we agree

a reply to: MALBOSIA

well, my country has fought wars to keep the integrity of our dollar in tact... and well, we'd probably sink if we didn't have those cheap chinese goods..

I think though, that our treasury is still in charge of minting the coins, and that doesn't incur debt to the fed. I might be wrong here, I wonder if the american just shunned the dollars, refused to use them, cashed them in for coins, to the point where those dollars just sat around and didn't flow in our economy, if that would weaken the hold....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MALBOSIA

well, my country has fought wars to keep the integrity of our dollar in tact... and well, we'd probably sink if we didn't have those cheap chinese goods..

I think though, that our treasury is still in charge of minting the coins, and that doesn't incur debt to the fed. I might be wrong here, I wonder if the american just shunned the dollars, refused to use them, cashed them in for coins, to the point where those dollars just sat around and didn't flow in our economy, if that would weaken the hold....

Didn't Kennedy print the Greenbacks from your treasury? And going way back you had colonial script. You did fine without China. I fact do you believe life in the US got better or worse after Clinton let China in the WTO? I still remember Clinton pitch: "China has billion new customers for American manufacturers"... LMAO. Not so much.

I think a nearly complete redesign on our approach to these things may be necessary. I think that there are quite a few areas where we are "off" from the start. Regardless of that, I think its important to not only think about it in terms of economic past, but what might be in the future. Surely, there are better ways that we simply haven't been clever enough to figure out.

We need to determine the best way to get the tools needed for success into the hands of anyone that would use them.

To start, meeting the basic needs of everyone with money doesn't actually address any of the problems at hand, and can encourage dependency.

But, I'm not convinced the problem resides in the concept of 'helping.' Instead, if we provided the tools and knowledge for self-sufficiency, it still meets those needs while also providing a stable platform. One where the individual or family doesn't have to be concerned about food, because they have been given the tools and knowledge to grow their own. Or electricity, or heat, because they have been given the resources to make their own mini-grid.

It would, obviously, remove some aspects of control. But I think the net benefit would outweigh it. Decentralization of things like the food supply would lead to more stability and less waste.

I think one of the difficulties is that its such an expansive topic, it is difficult to talk about all of the important facets in-depth.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

both lincoln and kennedy were assassinated, and they each were trying to place the money printing back into the hands of the US treasury.
we were in trouble before clinton, or reagan for that matter. it started with the auto industry and japan, or maybe it was the textile industry. but well, we might have did fine without these imports at one time, from what I've seen there is not much left to the industrial base here. I grew up in an area that had a giant apple orchard, it's now mostly gone, left uncared for for the most part. a fraction of what it was. our fine gov't in one of their trade deals, kind of bribed the companies that they sold their apples to to import frozen apple concentrate instead. I worked for a screen printing company here in virginia that once consisted to two big buildings and had many employees, and was more than just a printing company, now it's doesn't fully occupy the one building it has, rents out close to half it's space for storage, and maybe has 30 employees. Old factories are refurbished, remodeled and make into apartment complexes... and well, now we'd have to start from scratch to get those industries up and running again. we could do it, we could have the most modern industries in the world, but that would involve changing our priorities...and for those in charge, they would prefer to invest in maintaining our superiority by having more wars

a reply to: dawnstar

With globalization and the dream of the one world government, logistically it is much easier to lower the quality of life of 1 billion people to the level of the other 6 billion, than it is to raise the quality of life of 6 billion. I don't think that is a driving factor but I think it's true. As for Japan, I think what was given to them was short term thinking because the order of the day in that Era was military bases. The US had to get them everywhere they could no matter the cost. Petro dollar still has a lot to do with it too. Any country that wants to buy oil needs to trade with the US to earn USD to buy oil. They can't just trade their "worthless" currency for USD. that gives the US a lot of bargaining power in trade deals, or it did.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I mean that in theory they work fine and in practice they fall apart at a point because they are incomplete or incorrect in accounting for some variables or human flaws or something. I'm not suggesting any other theory is better though. Just that full free market capitalism has problems as well.

Although it's difficult to judge too because a completely free market isn't something that has existed in any official way other than probably very quickly in a brand new market.

In a free market there would never be economy wide recessions or depressions. There would be no bailouts of failing banks or businesses, but when those individual things did fail their capitol would be swallowed up immediately into different businesses and the job situation would stay very stable with low unemployment.

No system is perfect but the free market reacts to inefficiencies and mistakes faster and better than a regulated system. Because regulations assume to know everything and they don't.