Wealth Redistribution - Not a conspiracy, entirely...

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I appreciate the compliment!

Plus, you quoted the pinnacle of leadership, so how can I argue?

I see you point and I agree - YOLO is certainly something people can do and others who do say “screw the ‘man’” and I’m out of here/gonna do my own thing/etc. I think we all salute those people in one way or another - probably because we all have days when that sounds amazing.

Where my comments and yours miss each other i believe is that my statement is void of emotion or humanity - intentionally. I operate under the assumption that those who are helping shape our future as a globe - and given the interconnectedness of it I feel we have to think globally - are in some ways emotional but quite pragmatic and academic about the issues in terms of defining them, speaking to them and then deciding on the collective course of action.

Productive humans then, to them, are likely net cash flow/resource neutral/positive for the government. It’s literally that simple. Anyone else is unproductive for them. There’s room for some unproductive humans, but until money isn’t a thing or scarcity is overcome we will still need people to do something to get something. And those who can’t or won’t do eventually reach a level we can’t sustain, as the wealth gap grows and the income disparity does as well - and it’s been compounded long enough that basic economics explains why you can’t close it without the material possibility of doing more harm than good.

Wealth redistribution, UBI and many other things are just pieces of a much larger puzzle aimed at a much longer, concerted plan. Most everything leads somewhere. It’s an end game that probably won’t play out for hundreds of years but i imagine the goal is something akin to a “star trek” economy where you don’t really own anything, we’ve overcome many 20th venture problems, etc. But, since I’m going to make the assumption we won’t have Warp Drive at that point... we probably won’t be an interstellar species. So what’s our mission as a global society if we can’t leave, don’t have war, are taking care of our planet and have moved beyond many of our tribal ways?

That’s the question i can’t answer. It’s a later problem for sure but you begin a journey like this with the end in mind.

The irony is absent us getting off world or having a material threat to our planet (unification), the only way I can see that type of system ending under any circumstances is war - major, major war - if humans a few hundred years from now are anything like many humans around the world today. It would go the way of the Romans. The very thing intended to unify us all was the thing that destroyed unity.

So, thinking about today, i think “wealth redistribution” or UBI is one of the first big baby steps in the direction of a much more unified future.

Ironically, a future that would be pretty conducive to the YOLO philosophy - we’re just not quite there yet.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser
I see where you are going with this, forced New World Order.

You do know why there is so much resistance to it don't you? We know that you have no idea what you are wanting and how to get there. It just looks good to you. Oh, you have plans but are unwilling to consider other ideas.

"Government is great. Government over the individual. Government is god." Am I close?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

They don’t need to exterminate existing humans. They need to have fewer humans being born going forward, under this scenario.

So you thank that giving medical help to third world nations is very bad then? That is what caused the population increase. They were given a higher childhood survival rate without all the other parts of the modern world that would allow them to understand that they did not need as many children.

No... giving help to third world countries as it pertains to existing humans has nothing to do with this. We can, should and will continue to do that. And no, that doesn’t contradict the perspective i offered previously. It’s about more humans in the future - not the ones here today. It’s also not saying there will be zero new humans, who will also need help.

That’s a fair and interesting point about how we approach those populations historically in terms of other “help” or investment/guidance/tech/etc. I hadn’t considered that angle and that’s a good one. My immediate reaction is that our collective failures there vary by the population you want to reference but I’m willing to bet that comes down to structural issues in theatre.

If we look at Africa, it’s exceptionally war torn and dangerous. Governments are moderately effective at best in some areas. Corruption is severe - very severe. It’s simply not an environment that is conducive to modernization as it stands. That’s sad for them and not good for the world. However, it’s also a bit of the reality of the situation.

So, humanitarian aid is one of the only ways we can really “help” and the situation you reference plays out.

But i don’t know that’s entirely the develop world’s “fault” and there certainly have been efforts made to help modernize many of their economies - but that tends to fail due to all the reasons listed above.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

I really appreciate the way you think. I want to continue this discussion further, but after four shots of tequila my typing is much slower than my brain. I'd be doing you a disservice.

Until tomorrow.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
I see where you are going with this, forced New World Order.

You do know why there is so much resistance to it don't you? We know that you have no idea what you are wanting and how to get there. It just looks good to you. Oh, you have plans but are unwilling to consider other ideas.

"Government is great. Government over the individual. Government is god." Am I close?

I’m going to ask this, sincerely, did you read my post where i explained what I’m trying to accomplish?

I’m not advocating for this future. I’m also not dismissing it outright. I’m working to understand it. If you can’t see how both sides think, how can you understand what’s actually going on? Where compromise and/or overlap exist?

I’m also trying to understand motivations, thought processes, narratives - all of the things that add up to something.

Because, if you more clearly understand where you’re going and why, you can work with, against it, shape it and navigate it more effectively.

And, if you’re firmly against this potential agenda, it’s going to do you a heck of a lot more good to actually understand what your opposition is up to, why and how they’re going about it - that would make your counter to that agenda way more tactical and impactful than the shot gun approach that gets displayed frequently, in my view.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The way I understand it is that one side wants what it wants and must force the other side to comply no mater what. I am totally against the forcing and tactics in use today to persuade the masses that this is what they want.

I do agree with some of the ideas of this but first the people, almost all of them, must want it and want to precipitate in it together as individuals. Trying to force this is the biggest mistake.


About Africia, all their government problems have been created by the first world giving them what they needed instead of teaching them how to do for themselves. Take clothing for example, the west has been giving them clothing as charity for many years. This has prevented them from developing a textile farming and industrial production economy which has caused great harm to their development.

Give a man a fish and it will feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he can feed his village.

Charity is good when necessary but if continued for too long, it stifles development in both the individual and the nation.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

How does it work in other countries?

The countries with the best outcomes across the board, from health and personal happiness to managing COVID, have much lower rates of inequality than the US.

originally posted by: one4all
Time to pull the plug.

No more passing wealth forward.....once you croak you can leave your kids one lifetime worth of assets......that it thats all...no cap on your earnings if you want to be a societal hero and donate copious volumes of assets its up to you go earn them....but no more Dynastic families and we now must disempower the currently embedded ones.

Life is not that long that any man nor woman should be able to make decisions during their time that impact others for CENTURIES....no one has a right to that type of power to influence he future once they are dead.

I am 100% against inheritance tax. It's already been taxed.
Money is today's "food for your children.
Very small minded or situation-based view. Only someone with no kids, no inheritance, or no path or vision of their own success would suggest such a move.

Chrony capitalism , insider trading, the lawyer-lead reverse welfare people are the issue.
Big biz has infiltrated gov and gov has also started big biz.
Just look at Amazon.
Consolidation of wealth is the problem.
Until you address the riggers, we will get nowhere.
Anti competition laws are not enforced.

Any bs doubletax will be avoided by several means for the wealthy and it will creep into the middle class.
The gov regulating people more is not the answer.
It is incredibly dangerous to give an inch here.

Killing insider trading, enforcing anittrust laws and ending income tax would explode the people's wealth.
But, that's the catch22...it's not what's wanted by controllers.

The only other way out I see is a complete replacement of money aka making it OUR money and power to take back a rigged system and decide how WE want a system to operate.

That ability is pretty much gone and replaced with political theater while authoritarianism can be implemented.

The inheritance issue, again is nuts.
You would get your head split for doing this back in the caveman days.

"Ugh, uggh, grunt your family shouldn't have those 2 deer you killed, I only got a bunny!"
"Grunt, grunt, what'd you say?"
(Skull smashed, bunny taken)

Get to the meat of capitalism's problems. Market and currency rigging using and partnering with the corrupt politicians playing sim earth with everyone.

....or chase political theater while it continues

originally posted by: pheonix358
5% tax on Wall Street.

Done!

US Debt would be paid back in just a few years.

No need to tax citizens so citizens available funds increases.

Job done.

P

Except how many people have their retirements tied up in Wall Street investment accounts? They live on fixed incomes through those investment retirement accounts, and now you're taxing that money. How do you answer for that?

Remember, it's not just filthy rich folks who live off investment, but lots of regular folks who have their retirement income tied up there. I know we put all of ours in after tax because the idea is to not be taxed on it after we retire. Now you want to slap a tax on us then too.

Wealth distribution in the sense of fiat or gold backed currency or what ever isn't an issue, it can be manipulated sure, but real wealth is in global resource and labor management. As long as you have company's like Nike using near slave wages in some poor country (which is kept poor for a reason) and then skimming ridiculous amounts of surplus labor off the top from some chosen consumer base, like the US, or England, redistribution of wealth is only a pipe dream. Global 'free markets' aren't free, and that's where it all stems from.

I noticed OP you're trying to re-hash together a form national socialism without coming out and saying it.

originally posted by: strongfp

I noticed OP you're trying to re-hash together a form national socialism without coming out and saying it.

In some ways, yes, I do think that’s the way the left is pulling our societies domestically and globally.

Also, I’m not trying to do anything but understand where the folks on the left - and the incoming administration - are trying to take us.

Why is it so hard for people to separate what is from what they want? Seriously.

I’m not trying to “cobble together” anything except an unemotional analysis of where the left is hoping to take us. That’s it.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: strongfp

I noticed OP you're trying to re-hash together a form national socialism without coming out and saying it.

In some ways, yes, I do think that’s the way the left is pulling our societies domestically and globally.

Also, I’m not trying to do anything but understand where the folks on the left - and the incoming administration - are trying to take us.

Why is it so hard for people to separate what is from what they want? Seriously.

I’m not trying to “cobble together” anything except an unemotional analysis of where the left is hoping to take us. That’s it.

I don't think it is that complicated. At the end of the day, it is just envy and greed.

Some people have more than others. So instead of trying to figure out how to better their lives, some people rather just take the resources/money.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

At the federal level Biden and his incoming neo - lib bureaucrats are definitely not "the left". At state and local levels it's a mixed bag, but in some places like Seattle / Silicon valley it's heavily left leaning, but for much deeper reasons that no - one wants to really address.

As for currency, I believe Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars gives a great deal of insight into how things "go" at certain levels of our society.

The issue is that nearly all of it operates in a paradigm that I consider obsolete.

Much of what is going on is quite simply a historical pattern. The only real difference is the context (our tools/tech).

I think that many truly believe they are working towards what is best for humanity. However, the end results in the modern context are pretty much nightmare fuel.

Those modern tools are essentially just being used to more effectively perform the same authoritarian cycle as always, instead of considering how else it might be used.

Aiming towards end-result equity instead of equal opportunity leads to one thing: the absolute annihilation of exceptionalism. The downstream effects of this are an Idiocracy, unironically.

Of course, we can use all of this technology to directly provide the same foundation for every individual. However, this path would slowly eliminate most positions of power. Meaning, the positions that would need to work towards all that would likely be aware they are making themselves obsolete. The societal & cultural benefits are abstract when considered in long established paradigms.

Basically, they need to work out a paradigm that prepares us for the next stage(s) of our civilization without losing all that yummy power and authority. Given the nature of these stages, that requires absolute control of everything.. which is most effectively done through currency and centralized distribution/structures.

There are definitely some good arguments for this scenario, particularly if we do not consider what the modern context truly enables us to do as a species. Thats the core issue, imo. Those who are working towards all of this are just as trapped in obsolete paradigms as anyone else, yet also imbue the sense that they are above such folly.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

How does it work in other countries?

The countries with the best outcomes across the board, from health and personal happiness to managing COVID, have much lower rates of inequality than the US.

You’re right - they do.

But, as another poster mentioned earlier, if you disincentivize participation in something or reward for innovation, you get less of it. Thus, the US has materially incentivized innovation and those who innovate or work with innovation (and I don’t just mean tech) get ahead materially. Those who just work hard can get ahead materially. That’s less so where “people are more equal” - they also tend to be less innovative.

It’s like politics. In the current environment in the US, I can’t imagine why someone would go into politics. It’s gross, corrupt and would put you and your family through hell. It’s just not worth it for many - myself included.

So, since I view the risk as asymmetric to the downside of actually getting “involved”, I’ll let others handle the grossness that is politics and I’ll spend my time figuring out where we’re headed and how to be best positioned for me and my family.

That’s not “all I could do” to “help”, but it seems to be the most prudent course of action in our current environment.

But, if the problems become a greater risk to my family than involvement, then I will get involved.

Fortunately, we’re nowhere near there yet.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

At the federal level Biden and his incoming neo - lib bureaucrats are definitely not "the left". At state and local levels it's a mixed bag, but in some places like Seattle / Silicon valley it's heavily left leaning, but for much deeper reasons that no - one wants to really address.

Agree.

OR, for example, is largely a red state with blue clusters that make up the majority of the vote. WA is the same. CA actually is pretty red in many areas, too, but the liberal centers of the left coast tend to win out.

Biden will move much further left than Obama did, in my view. The problem of the left isn’t the ability to think critically or academically - their issue is execution because frankly many of their ideas sound good in theory but work less well in application. Biden will continue on the foundation of what Obama “accomplished” - this is also why he has retreaded the former administration as far as I see it. These folks know the playbook. They are aligned. Hillary was supposed to move it forward and they lost - not again.

I have said much about population because what is The Gates foundation, Soros and many billionaires consistent favorite subject for “philanthropy”? Medicine. What was Obama’s “crowning accomplishment”? Healthcare. And they need control of those systems for their plan to work - then the real social engineering begins.

I have another thread I wanted to start on that point actually - but that’s for another day.

Wealth is always redistributed, But from the bottom up.
Never from the Rich to everyone else.