NationStates Jolt Archive

It bothers me that I live in a society which idealises such a farcical system so. To begin with, what we call 'democracy'(i.e. bureaucratic cabaret, complimented with distastefully even levels of corruption and delusion) is not by a long shot what actually is 'democracy' (i.e. rule by the people). Not that we'd want that either (Imagine if economic policy was set by popular consensus).

Now the first thing every bastard is going to do is to paraphrase Winston Churchill's "Democracy is an awful way to run a country, but it's the best system we have". I call BS. Admittedly, there are plently of conceivably worse systems than representative democracy. However, that is not to say democracy is the best ("This shit tastes bad, but not as bad as other shit, so I'll keep eating and be grateful").

One fine alternative I can think of comes from the endless stack of hackneyed slanders toward 'the establishment' by nearly every worthless, psuedo-rebellious socialist 14 year old. Plutocracy. Now that I could live with. Think about it for just one second. If we just dropped the fucking pretense, and openly ran the world on cash, everyone would be a country mile better off in the BS department. From whom do the incontinentally rich make their money? The people. To whom do the wealthy owe their allegiance? The cash cow.

So how do we make the change? Basically we have to set up a system wherein the bloodsucking plutocrats actually have to compete for our funds, rather than simply taking them with tax after a token joust of ideals and policies and all of that shit. Give them competitors, and they will pick up their act so fast, you may even be fooled into thinking politics is an honest buck. Don't freak out, they will still be corrupt as a south east asian judge, however, now they will be corrupt for your interests too.

If you don't like the job the current administration is doing, then buy into somebody else's. To oversimplify to the point of losing all value in what I am saying, imagine being able to pick what party your taxes went to. The ruling party would just be the one providing the most services for the most people, based upon how many subscribes they had managed not to scare off. Suddenly you'll see politicians racing to do a better job than the other guy. It'll be a laugh!

So what say you? Unabashed plutocracy or that cosy blanket of delusion and naivety.

I live in an elective dictatorship. Maybe when I'm older I'll move to the bribocracy next door.

In a book I got last Christmas, a load of "dangerous ideas" by various thinkers, one was that democracy is untenable. Certainly we are as a society soft and led by whim, but is that really to do with democracy?

I actually live in a republic which is different than a democracy, so I don't really expect democracy here.

Unabashed plutocracy

If they cut the bullshit and just went with it, I might even approve.

Edit: As for my preferred method of voting, "none of the above."

Plutocracy. Now that I could live with.

If you don't like the job the current administration is doing, then buy into somebody else's. To oversimplify to the point of losing all value in what I am saying, imagine being able to pick what party your taxes went to. The ruling party would just be the one providing the most services for the most people, based upon how many subscribes they had managed not to scare off. Suddenly you'll see politicians racing to do a better job than the other guy. It'll be a laugh!

So what say you? Unabashed plutocracy or that cosy blanket of delusion and naivety.Interesting..
I like some elements.. but It raises a lot of questions.
Has any Country actually tried this?
How did it go?

I actually live in a republic which is different than a democracy, so I don't really expect democracy here.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Democracy is a good system. The only problem is polititians. Anyone who wants to run for office should definatly be prevented to do so at all costs. Anyone who wants that ammount of power is not to be trusted.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Democracy is a good system. The only problem is polititians. Anyone who wants to run for office should definatly be prevented to do so at all costs. Anyone who wants that ammount of power is not to be trusted. The workload of Ministers and MPs has been raised a great deal over the last few decades and we still have shite leaders. Shiter, possibly, who ignore million man marches in the capital city.

Spanish/Irish politics ftw! (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_Fascism)

Democracy is to reality as Communism is to Capitalism. It doesn't work! Nor does it properly exist. The only people who ever had Democracy right were the Greeks and they got bought out by the Romans; money runs the world.

If they cut the bullshit and just went with it, I might even approve.


At the very least it would be refreshing.

Interesting..
I like some elements.. but It raises a lot of questions.
Has any Country actually tried this?
How did it go?
Campaign contributions.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Democracy is a good system. The only problem is polititians. Anyone who wants to run for office should definatly be prevented to do so at all costs. Anyone who wants that ammount of power is not to be trusted.

I guess you are right, most people when they mention democracy have direct democracy in mind, which is totally different than where I live, which is a constitutional republic, but then most of the people here seem to not understand the republic part........much less the constitutional part. :(

I guess you are right, most people when they mention democracy have direct democracy in mind, which is totally different than where I live, which is a constitutional republic, but then most of the people here seem to not understand the republic part........much less the constitutional part. :(

That's because they've been deluded into believing that their precious republic is a democracy despite lacking the defining characteristics of a true democracy.

Democracy is to reality as Communism is to Capitalism. It doesn't work! Nor does it properly exist. The only people who ever had Democracy right were the Greeks and they got bought out by the Romans; money runs the world.
Right. So why the charade? Would it truly be that much harder for the plebeians to sleep knowing that the handsome face on the podium doesn't actually care about them to any extent beyond their tax?

Interesting..
I like some elements.. but It raises a lot of questions.
Has any Country actually tried this?
How did it go?I can see this could work for Foreign Aid, Schools and City services..

But how could it work for the Executive level? (white house)
unless you want US governed by Congress or SCOTUS.. and that -my friend- is the recipe for disaster..

I can see this could work for Foreign Aid, Schools and City services..

But how could it work for the Executive level? (white house)
unless you want US governed by Congress or SCOTUS.. and that -my friend- is the recipe for disaster..
In actuality you wouldn't do as I said (divert taxes to various parties). Instead you would eliminate the executive altogether, and privatise all government services into the market. But I didn't feel like getting technical, I felt like swearing about the government.

Yes, democracy may be better than monarchy (in the same way that broccoli is better than moldy bread) but anarchy pwns it.:sniper:

Yes, democracy may be better than monarchy (in the same way that broccoli is better than moldy bread) but anarchy pwns it.:sniper:
I love you too.

Basically we have to set up a system wherein the bloodsucking plutocrats actually have to compete for our funds, rather than simply taking them

"You two! Fight to the death with giant Q-tips over this giant bowl of jello! Whoever wins becomes the next president!"

The key problem is ignorance. (Well, that and selfishness, which is antithetical to the very concept of society.) Ideally, democracy would be limited, by granting the right to vote only to a small minority who have proved they have sufficient knowledge of political and economic theory, current affairs, national and international issues, history and a few other fields.

Setting up such a test would be difficult, though.

Oh, and yes, stop idealising democracy as if it were a wonderful thing.

I think it would be inconceivably hard for me to emigrate to Sweden, but I am fond of our system, whose biggest flaw I still see is the monarchy. Sure, it is completely powerless and inconsequential to anything, but we should just chuck it out and not replace it with anything, especially not something as deranged as a presidential republic.

I actually live in a republic which is different than a democracy, so I don't really expect democracy here.

That's the 2nd pussy, BS response the original poster forgot to mention. Who gives a shit what your government calls it self: does it actually serve any of your interests?

no thank you. i want a government that offers me some protection from the ravages of the rich, not one where the rich can do anything they want as long as they pay for the right to do so.

which isnt that far off of what everyone has now but i still want to have some protection from the most egregious violations.

I think it would be inconceivably hard for me to emigrate to Sweden, but I am fond of our system, whose biggest flaw I still see is the monarchy. Sure, it is completely powerless and inconsequential to anything, but we should just chuck it out and not replace it with anything, especially not something as deranged as a presidential republic.

doesnt sweden have a parliment? cant you dump the monarchy and keep the useful part of the government? kinda like france but without the guillotine.

doesnt sweden have a parliment?

Of course we do.

cant you dump the monarchy and keep the useful part of the government? kinda like france but without the guillotine.

That was just what I wrote - just write the monarchy out of the constitution and don't replace it with anything. We don't need a president - all of the political duties handled by a head of state in other, less perfect systems are already divided between the speaker of parliament, the commander in chief and the government. Why we would muck things up by instituting a superfluous presidential office to replace a superfluous monarch is beyond me.

That's the 2nd pussy, BS response the original poster forgot to mention. Who gives a shit what your government calls it self: does it actually serve any of your interests?

your anger aside. what form of government would serve our interests better?

i dont see the monetary plutocracy thing giving me any edge over the rich and powerful.

<OP...>

You make an interesting point, and one which I've often pondered. The government, it seems, is simply another corporation. If we are truly free, why don't we have the freedom to choose another company's "product"? The main potential downside I see is making the country even more schizophrenic (in the incorrect, colloquial "multiple personality" sense) than it already is, especially in the short term. Government provided services would suffer as the current bloated mass fractutred into several smaller masses, each struggling to maintain their position and gain dominance. Places where rich people live would feel the impact least, and impoverished areas would potentially descend into anarchy and open rebellion. Perhaps in the long term it would prove beneficial, as the government which gave the people the most for their money would ostensibly attract more "customers," but soon after we'd be right back to square one as they gained Microsoft-esque dominance over the marketplace and began drafting policies to ensure they retained their position.

The best possible way to make any system work, of course, is to drastically reduce or eliminate human greed and selfishness. Unfortunately, this seems to be perhaps the most unrealistic solution, no matter how many people insist that they aren't part of this problem. Thousands of years of religion and culture have failed to make any real impact. Capitalism only works because it levels with the greed and attempts to manage it.

Democracy is no better and no worse than any other system of government, including anarchy, unless of course one of your subjective goals is to have that style of government.

The reason each system has its failings is due to nature of humanity. Which is an inescapeable part of every system of government. The only difference is in probability of outcomes. In an absolute monarchy a choice need only be taken by one person for it to be put into action (this isn't quite true - the monarch still needs to wield the loyalty of his subject, either through fear or love). In a baronial/feudal system then a majority of barons must acquiesce to the monarch's demands for an action to be taken. A republic is similar to a feudal system, but the representatives must convince the electorate periodically that their being in power is in the electorates interests. In a direct democracy only a majority of the electorate need be convinced that a particular choice is in their interests.

Hence, the probability that change happens is higher in a monarchal system, however such change is not necessary bad or good. Whether change is good or bad is dependent on the nature of rulers. Are they greedy and selfish, or kind and altruistic. A favouring of democracy indicates that human nature is skewed towards greed and selfishness.

umm... I can't figure out how to conclude properly. You do it for me.

You, GreaterPacificNations, have made my day by bashing democracy, to which I totally agree. I would say that there is something better than democracy that has been tried (and thus contradicts Churchill.) That's monarchy. Why? Because even though it's not as good as anarchy, the king at least is looking out for his long-term gain, whereas the representatives in the democracy are trying to get as much as they can in the short-run, i.e. before they get voted out. Therefore, a king would be more interested in maintaining and improving the nation for his own sake, as opposed to the democrat who's trying to get as much as possible for his political allies in as short a time as possible.

(Not to mention that I prefer a king's honesty, i.e. "I rule because this is my patrimony," over a democrat's deceitfulness, "I rule because I'm really just ruling in your stead!"

Of course we do.



That was just what I wrote - just write the monarchy out of the constitution and don't replace it with anything. We don't need a president - all of the political duties handled by a head of state in other, less perfect systems are already divided between the speaker of parliament, the commander in chief and the government. Why we would muck things up by instituting a superfluous presidential office to replace a superfluous monarch is beyond me.

oh. i guess i was too much in agreement with you to see your point. why WOULD anyone add on a president at this point? the job is too much like a temporary elected monarch.

Democracy is to reality as Communism is to Capitalism. It doesn't work! Nor does it properly exist. The only people who ever had Democracy right were the Greeks and they got bought out by the Romans; money runs the world.

Is this Athenian "democracy" that you refer to? As in, a voting polity of about 10,000 Athenian men; no female suffrage; and three-quarters of a million slaves and serfs without voting rights?

Tangential story: A petition circulator several years ago wanted to make a point to an idealistic new-comer to the direct-democracy process of initiatives and referendums by making a spectacle, calling for voter signatures on a petition to "end female suffrage". The rookie circulator, who had trumpeted the empowerment of the people through the petition process, looked on in horror, as the typically mindless public signed away on the petitions with drawling comments like, "Ah don'think womun should'ave ta suffer!" Both men and women signed. Nevermind that the petition they were actually signing was for something completely unrelated; they didn't bother to read it, even if they had been able. That's your voting public.

The reason each system has its failings is due to nature of humanity. Which is an inescapeable part of every system of government.

Wrong.

If people were a little more aware of foreign cultures, we wouldn't hear this erroneous argument quite so often.

Take pre-colonial Melanesian societies, for example. No centralised government; no hereditary or permanent leadership. "Big Men" acquire influence (and some form of authority) by increasing their reputation... which they do by skilfully managing traditional Melanesian economic practices, obtaining wealth (such as pigs), then redistributing it generously. Generosity gives you status, which gives you influence... which lasts only as long as you continue to be generous.

That's just one example. But it shows that our social, political and economic practices are entirely conditioned by artificial norms. There is no "nature of humanity" to it.

You, GreaterPacificNations, have made my day by bashing democracy, to which I totally agree. I would say that there is something better than democracy that has been tried (and thus contradicts Churchill.) That's monarchy. Why? Because even though it's not as good as anarchy, the king at least is looking out for his long-term gain, whereas the representatives in the democracy are trying to get as much as they can in the short-run, i.e. before they get voted out. Therefore, a king would be more interested in maintaining and improving the nation for his own sake, as opposed to the democrat who's trying to get as much as possible for his political allies in as short a time as possible.

(Not to mention that I prefer a king's honesty, i.e. "I rule because this is my patrimony," over a democrat's deceitfulness, "I rule because I'm really just ruling in your stead!"


all you have to do is take a look at the monarchs of europe since the renaissance to see great examples of how monarchy can go very badly.

your anger aside. what form of government would serve our interests better?

i dont see the monetary plutocracy thing giving me any edge over the rich and powerful.

this is the central question.. I haven't yet traveled to Bhutan; (and I hope the capitalistic contagion of western democracy and tourism may spare them into the future); but I am intrigued by this Buddhist monarchy because, in their society, they value Gross National Happiness above our more traditional notion of GNP. I like Buddhists. That's one reason why I am one. I like Taoists, too. That's one reason why I'm one of those, too. There's no religious/philosophical perspective closer to the workings of nature than Tao. Translating to economic applications, this espouses a Free Market. It is imperative to distinguish between a free market and a capitalist market: a capitalist market involves systems of priveleges and prohibitions; priveleges erode market-driven competitiveness, while prohibitions necessarily create a black market; both of these consequences are thoroughly prone to graft, abuse, and exploitation, as can be seen flagrantly throughout the world. This will characterize the nature of the government more than the name of the political system: if legislative favor may be purchased by special interest groups, it will be. And then freedom begins the slippery-slope descent into tyranny, which is, as i said, flagrant 'round the world.

i rather like democracy

There is no "nature of humanity" to it.

I think you've misinterpreted your own example. In it, people competed for wealth, some won, some lost. Those who won redistributed some of their wealth, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they knew it would increase their influence and power, generating more wealth. The reason this is true is because the losers, to whom the wealth was redistributed, believed they would continue to get hand-outs by hanging around and giving their loyalty to the ones who had already given them hand-outs. It is completely about human nature. Sloth and greed in a vicious cycle.

this is the central question.. I haven't yet traveled to Bhutan; (and I hope the capitalistic contagion of western democracy and tourism may spare them into the future); but I am intrigued by this Buddhist monarchy because, in their society, they value Gross National Happiness above our more traditional notion of GNP. I like Buddhists. That's one reason why I am one. I like Taoists, too. That's one reason why I'm one of those, too. There's no religious/philosophical perspective closer to the workings of nature than Tao. Translating to economic applications, this espouses a Free Market. It is imperative to distinguish between a free market and a capitalist market: a capitalist market involves systems of priveleges and prohibitions; priveleges erode market-driven competitiveness, while prohibitions necessarily create a black market; both of these consequences are thoroughly prone to graft, abuse, and exploitation, as can be seen flagrantly throughout the world. This will characterize the nature of the government more than the name of the political system: if legislative favor may be purchased by special interest groups, it will be. And then freedom begins the slippery-slope descent into tyranny, which is, as i said, flagrant 'round the world.


good points but, as you say, the hard part is figuring out how to make it all work.

bhutan seems to be a pretty cool place (i havent been there either) but i suppose that you have to fit in there in order to be happy in their system. it didnt seem to me to be amenable to "free spirits" but for those who liked the bhutanese way of life as is, it works well.

Right. So why the charade? Would it truly be that much harder for the plebeians to sleep knowing that the handsome face on the podium doesn't actually care about them to any extent beyond their tax?

Plebs are happy being ignorant. They sleep better that way.

Is this Athenian "democracy" that you refer to? As in, a voting polity of about 10,000 Athenian men; no female suffrage; and three-quarters of a million slaves and serfs without voting rights?
While they didn't have voter rights, I'll agree with you that it isn't the same as the 'democracy' we have come to accept as the conceptual truth.

Wile I am not speaking of the Athenian democracy, I refer to the direct openness of it. Despite that it was on a small scale and limited, it was still the first true form of democracy. Yes, it doesn't work with large nations, but if we were able to directly contribute to the democratic process by actually being present and proposing our own ideas...

However, perhaps we could consider it the ancestral process to parliamentary proceedings. Yes, we elected the MPs, but they vote as they want, and we can't do anything about it until the next election. We really have no direct input.

i rather like democracy

Have you ever experienced it? Such as, voting directly for the head-of-state of your country?

Or is it good enough to cast your vote between the choices of "Greedy vs. Stupid"? In most cases higher the very most local, the only options you have are between near-identical versions of the same capitalist, graft-ridden, anti-populist agenda.

all you have to do is take a look at the monarchs of europe since the renaissance to see great examples of how monarchy can go very badly.

All you have to do is look at the democracies since World War I to see great examples of how democracies can go even worse.

Edit: I still prefer a system of government where the state is honest enough to tell me it wishes to screw me over than one that pretends to be my friend.

....

I agree with your point that democracy functions more representatively on the smallest of scales; and that is, generally, what we want: representative government, regardless of who it is or what it's called. Thus my point about Bhutan~~such a small country; it may still be served by its government.

How can India be a successful democracy with a billion-plus people. At least half will always be oppressed. Another example: GWB in 2000; 285 million people are subject to his regime while only 50 million voted for him. Six of seven people are unrepresented by the sitting president. Nevermind he undisputedly lost the popular vote and was chosen by the electoral college.

All you have to do is look at the democracies since World War I to see great examples of how democracies can go even worse.


what situations are you thinking of when you say that?

Yes, we elected the MPs, but they vote as they want, and we can't do anything about it until the next election. We really have no direct input.

Yeah, nail on head. This is the real problem with Republics. Coming up with a good solution is tough.

what situations are you thinking of when you say that?

Great Depression, for one. It sure beats anything Louis XVI did. (Oh, and while we're at it, the bloodthirsty demagogues who ruled in the name of liberty, fraternity and egalitarianism after Louis XVI sure were worse than him too.)

Yes, democracy may be better than monarchy (in the same way that broccoli is better than moldy bread) but anarchy pwns it.:sniper:
what's with the gun smiley. I never knew that someone with a higher postcount then me would use it.

Or is it good enough to cast your vote between the choices of "Greedy vs. Stupid"?

I'm not at all sure that those are mutually exclusive. Look at the last 30 or so years of US elections, especially the most recent.

Great Depression, for one. It sure beats anything Louis XVI did. (Oh, and while we're at it, the bloodthirsty demagogues who ruled in the name of liberty, fraternity and egalitarianism after Louis XVI sure were worse than him too.)

While you may be correct about those who came directly after Louis XVI, I think your position on the Great Depression is erroneous. For starters, it didn't have much to do with the executive leadership at the time. Also, it was more of a world-wide phenomenon than the poverty in France under Louis XVI.

I agree with your point that democracy functions more representatively on the smallest of scales; and that is, generally, what we want: representative government, regardless of who it is or what it's called. Thus my point about Bhutan~~such a small country; it may still be served by its government.

How can India be a successful democracy with a billion-plus people. At least half will always be oppressed. Another example: GWB in 2000; 285 million people are subject to his regime while only 50 million voted for him. Six of seven people are unrepresented by the sitting president. Nevermind he undisputedly lost the popular vote and was chosen by the electoral college.

That's another thing, when you've got democracy, any idiot can run and hold office because that is the spirit of democracy. You make a good point with your second paragraph, in that not only can anyone run, but you've implied that voter apathy results in a less than desirable leader holding office.

You you point out that only a handful voted for him, you've illustrated another problem with democracy. Voting age.

While people here have previously mentioned that with the Athenian Democracy, there was no suffrage and only a few men could vote, there is still a form of discrimination happening. Voting age is rather arbitrary. Just because you're 18 (or whatever voting age is) doesn't mean you're necessarily fit to vote.

There are plenty of well-informed teenagers, as NSG has proven, who won't be able to vote and will be forced to have a leader who doesn't represent their values. The same teenagers are likely better informed than the average adult voter who is voting the same way because they are under-informed about their options and fear a political 'bogey man'.

Yeah, nail on head. This is the real problem with Republics. Coming up with a good solution is tough.

If we had a wider voter base, such as including teenage voters, we might get somewhere...

And before anyone says teenage voting is a bad idea, perhaps there could be a national standard class for all high school students to take that introduces them to the voting process; a class based on politics. One where they learn about their nation's 'democratic process' and about policies, or something similar.

perhaps there could be a national standard class for all high school students to take that introduces them to the voting process; a class based on politics. One where they learn about their nation's 'democratic process' and about policies, or something similar.

OK, I'm really not laughing. OK, I'm trying not to laugh. OK, sorry, it's not you. I'm failing miserably.

We have one of these already. It's called "Civics" and it is mandatory to pass this class before you are allowed to pass high school, along with a class on Economics. Every American in the last few decades has been required to pass these. It obviously helps about as much as the Driver's Ed class that we have to take.

While you may be correct about those who came directly after Louis XVI, I think your position on the Great Depression is erroneous. For starters, it didn't have much to do with the executive leadership at the time. Also, it was more of a world-wide phenomenon than the poverty in France under Louis XVI.

Are you kidding me? The whole cause of the Great Depression was irresponsible monetary policy that made the country paper-rich and brought us into insane levels of debt (kind of like now with our second mortgages.) And the Depression was the cause of world-wide economic damage, not the other way around (see Smoot-Hawley tarriff.)

Great Depression, for one. It sure beats anything Louis XVI did. (Oh, and while we're at it, the bloodthirsty demagogues who ruled in the name of liberty, fraternity and egalitarianism after Louis XVI sure were worse than him too.)

depressions hit all countries equally and were not unique to post ww1.

did anyone elect the bloodthirsty demagogues of the french revolution? that certainly was a terrible time. as was the russian revolution and the chinese civil war that led to the rise of chinese communism.

as was for that matter japanese imperialsim under hirohito.

depressions hit all countries equally and were not unique to post ww1.

did anyone elect the bloodthirsty demagogues of the french revolution? that certainly was a terrible time. as was the russian revolution and the chinese civil war that led to the rise of chinese communism.

as was for that matter japanese imperialsim under hirohito.

Depressions do not just randomly happen. Previously, they were caused by upheavals like wars. Now more often they are caused by out of control spending spurred by inflationary monetary policy.

And the demagogues of the French Revolution were not monarchs. They depended upon a fictitious "will of the people" like the democrats instead of patrimony like monarchs. Thus we end up with a Stockholm syndrome that allow democratic governments to push their boundaries far beyond what a monarch could be able to do. An election is irrelevant to whether or not a country is a democracy, as this is only a formal justification of the democratic state rather than the true essence (the essence being "will of the people" vs. patrimony.) Not that elections really make a country any more liberal- see Hamas in Palestine, the fundies in Iraq, Ahmadinejad, and Indonesia.

And Hirohito was a figurehead. Tojo was the one who was really in charge.

Democracy is to reality as Communism is to Capitalism. It doesn't work! Nor does it properly exist. The only people who ever had Democracy right were the Greeks and they got bought out by the Romans; money runs the world.

Sorry, but this is wrong. The greecian "democracy" (most people mean Athens) was a timocracy - the rich had far more power than the poor. It was called democracy, and it was far more democratic than the rest of the ancient world, but compared with today, it was no democracy.

And democracy works far better than most systems. If you want no revolutions all 10 years, you need to represent the people. If you want to stay a modern state, you must be open to new ideas.

States with only one "wise" leader get problems if this leader gets older and older, and isn't wise any more. If you define the aims of your state in advance, you'll get problems in the future, if these aims aren't good anymore.

It bothers me that I live in a society which idealises such a farcical system so. To begin with, what we call 'democracy'(i.e. bureaucratic cabaret, complimented with distastefully even levels of corruption and delusion) is not by a long shot what actually is 'democracy' (i.e. rule by the people). Not that we'd want that either (Imagine if economic policy was set by popular consensus).

Now the first thing every bastard is going to do is to paraphrase Winston Churchill's "Democracy is an awful way to run a country, but it's the best system we have". I call BS. Admittedly, there are plently of conceivably worse systems than representative democracy. However, that is not to say democracy is the best ("This shit tastes bad, but not as bad as other shit, so I'll keep eating and be grateful").

One fine alternative I can think of comes from the endless stack of hackneyed slanders toward 'the establishment' by nearly every worthless, psuedo-rebellious socialist 14 year old. Plutocracy. Now that I could live with. Think about it for just one second. If we just dropped the fucking pretense, and openly ran the world on cash, everyone would be a country mile better off in the BS department. From whom do the incontinentally rich make their money? The people. To whom do the wealthy owe their allegiance? The cash cow.

So how do we make the change? Basically we have to set up a system wherein the bloodsucking plutocrats actually have to compete for our funds, rather than simply taking them with tax after a token joust of ideals and policies and all of that shit. Give them competitors, and they will pick up their act so fast, you may even be fooled into thinking politics is an honest buck. Don't freak out, they will still be corrupt as a south east asian judge, however, now they will be corrupt for your interests too.

If you don't like the job the current administration is doing, then buy into somebody else's. To oversimplify to the point of losing all value in what I am saying, imagine being able to pick what party your taxes went to. The ruling party would just be the one providing the most services for the most people, based upon how many subscribes they had managed not to scare off. Suddenly you'll see politicians racing to do a better job than the other guy. It'll be a laugh!

So what say you? Unabashed plutocracy or that cosy blanket of delusion and naivety.

So, cash is right? So what do you say when your lawyer fucks you and send you to prison cause somebody else paid him more? What if it's the judge?
What if I deside that I like your daughter, and get her kidnapped so I can enjoy her? What if by kidnapping I mean stealing a child?
Also, if things cost money, somebody would undoubtfully steal it from you as you steal it from others?
Actually, cash is right is more or less might is right, as to amass power in form of cash, you would have to use force, thievery or both. When you had amassed the cash, you could then defend your own thievery. Consequently, what you really is asking for, is a right wing anarchy, where everything, including your licking of my boots is for sale for the right price, and those who have the most firepower and best apply brute force rule the rest.
Enjoy it. I will fight it

The whole cause of the Great Depression was irresponsible monetary policy that made the country paper-rich and brought us into insane levels of debt (kind of like now with our second mortgages.)

While that was arguably the greatest contributing factor, it was not the only or even necessarily the primary cause of the Great Depression, and the irresponsible monetary policy was not limited to the executive branch of the government, as your example of current financial irresponsibility aptly demonstrates.

And the Depression was the cause of world-wide economic damage, not the other way around (see Smoot-Hawley tarriff.)

Again, this is arguable. Smoot-Hawley was certainly a contributing factor, as was Britain's decision to again back their currency with gold, but at pre-WWI parities. It is clear that the US market crash in 1929 is accurately accepted as the originating event of the depression, but with everything that was going on in the world at that time, it may be that it was only a case of wrong place, wrong time, and that if it had not happened, something else somewhere else would have been the event fingered as the starting point.

Sorry, but this is wrong. In Greece, there was a plutocracy - the rich had far more power than the poor. It was called democracy, and it was far more democratic than the rest of the ancient world, but compared with today, it was no democracy.

And democracy works far better than most systems. If you want no revolutions all 10 years, you need to represent the people. If you want to stay a modern state, you must be open to new ideas.

States with only one "wise" leader get problems if this leader gets older and older, and isn't wise any more. If you define the aims of your state in advance, you'll get problems in the future, if these aims aren't good anymore.

In Greece, until it was united, you had different factions; the Athenians, who were more democratic, the Spartans who were militaristic and others. They may have been the same people in the end but there were different systems in place and they changed over time.

How do you know that democracy works better than most systems? What's your proof that it does work at all? Have we even seen TRUE democracy practice?

Political evolution prevents the people from revolting, not democracy.

If a state has a 'wise' leader, they can still be viable if that leader picks a possible successor early on and has them working in the background until it's time, that way the people accept the new leader and that leader knows what to do.

Of course, no one is perfect and not everyone is easily pleased.

While that was arguably the greatest contributing factor, it was not the only or even necessarily the primary cause of the Great Depression, and the irresponsible monetary policy was not limited to the executive branch of the government, as your example of current financial irresponsibility aptly demonstrates.

But you don't seem to connect the fact that the acts of the democratic government (pushing down interest rates via inflation of the money supply) caused the consumer and producer fiscal irresponsibility (second mortgages and the like.) Recessions don't happen because people just got really high one day and decided to go into debt and randomly put their money in stocks. It's spurred on by government action.

Again, this is arguable. Smoot-Hawley was certainly a contributing factor, as was Britain's decision to again back their currency with gold, but at pre-WWI parities. It is clear that the US market crash in 1929 is accurately accepted as the originating event of the depression, but with everything that was going on in the world at that time, it may be that it was only a case of wrong place, wrong time, and that if it had not happened, something else somewhere else would have been the event fingered as the starting point.

But the root of virtually all of the problems was monetary inflation, whether it be the high debt or stock market buble. There may have been other factors, like the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but these too were other acts of the democratic governments.

The problem with an unabashed plutocracy... is that it's an unabashed plutocracy.

Rule by the wallet; those of you without money can die now. Health care? For those who can afford it. Food? ditto. If you have the bad luck to have a chronic illness? No health insurance company will sell you insurance, and no one wants to hire someone who isn't able to work all the time. Good-bye.

Education? For those with rich parents who can afford it. We're pretty close to that already here in the USA actually. If your parents aren't rich enough to afford education, you won't get one, and you'll be in the underclass with no safety net whatsoever.

In Greece, until it was united, you had different factions; the Athenians, who were more democratic, the Spartans who were militaristic and others. They may have been the same people in the end but there were different systems in place and they changed over time.

How do you know that democracy works better than most systems? What's your proof that it does work at all? Have we even seen TRUE democracy practice?

Political evolution prevents the people from revolting, not democracy.

If a state has a 'wise' leader, they can still be viable if that leader picks a possible successor early on and has them working in the background until it's time, that way the people accept the new leader and that leader knows what to do.

Of course, no one is perfect and not everyone is easily pleased.

See my edit, I mixed some things up in the first time.

What is TRUE democracy? If you mean a system which is governed by all the
people, with free speech and free press, where everyone has the same rights - well, then I know many true democracies. If you mean something like all voters decide on everything in direct polls - that is stil happening in some cantons in switzerland. (But for larger countries, this is not an alternative.)

Of course there are politicians in a democracy, who have a ruler-like function. But they can't do anything they want. If they make something very unpopular, the media will slaughter them, their own party will not follow them anymore, and they will be removed very soon.

I belive that every system still needs some "rulers", and this is no contraction to democracy. Otherwise, you'll end up in chaos.

Depressions do not just randomly happen. Previously, they were caused by upheavals like wars. Now more often they are caused by out of control spending spurred by inflationary monetary policy.

And the demagogues of the French Revolution were not monarchs. They depended upon a fictitious "will of the people" like the democrats instead of patrimony like monarchs. Thus we end up with a Stockholm syndrome that allow democratic governments to push their boundaries far beyond what a monarch could be able to do. An election is irrelevant to whether or not a country is a democracy, as this is only a formal justification of the democratic state rather than the true essence (the essence being "will of the people" vs. patrimony.) Not that elections really make a country any more liberal- see Hamas in Palestine, the fundies in Iraq, Ahmadinejad, and Indonesia.

And Hirohito was a figurehead. Tojo was the one who was really in charge.
monetary policy can be as bad under monarchs as under republics.

the french revolution can be seen as a downside of monarchy. its not like a freely elected representative government suddenly went crazy and started killing everyone. it was a revolution. bad things happened. very bad things

no one elected tojo. he was appointed by hirohito for whatever reason. the monarchy of japan is responsible for the devastation of japanese imperialism in asia and the pacific.

we werent discussing the evils of government in general, there are plenty to go around, but the reason why monarcy would be better than representative democracy.

the uneven nature of monachy--which is after all heritary dictatorship justified by religion--makes it both the best and worst form of government depending on the quality of the person who inherited the throne. without the moderating force of a freely elected parliment you are completely at the mercy of genetics.

Not that elections really make a country any more liberal- see Hamas in Palestine, the fundies in Iraq, Ahmadinejad, and Indonesia.

Prove that Hamas wasn't elected by the people.
As far as I know, but I'm not palestinian, Hamas was in fact elected and is not some coupmakers that claimed the power. That the US and EU don't want to have any cooperation with them says as much about them as about the Hamas, as they were at least possible to negotiate with. Actually, a lot of this years problems between the palestinians and the israeli jews could be avoided if the international community didn't withdraw it's financial support of the palestinians* and in stead negotiating with Hamas, wich was at the time after their election willing to admit on some terms the excistenece of the jewish state of Israel and that thereby could be worked out a permanent peace-treaty with.

* = I would say its fair to support the palestinian goverment since USA heavily supports the Israelian goverment, a goverment that don't want to include the palestinian population as an equal part of it's countrys subjects and only represent sionist interets in Israel (sionist as opposed to jewish. the jews being an ethnic group that currently livs in most of the world and have, as any other ethnic group, with many just as opposed to the war between israelian jews and the palestinians, and the sionism being a political ideology wanting a jewish holy land wiht only jews and tourists, and the belief of an organiztion operating in Israel from before WW II and having nothing but etnicity in common with the jews that suffered holocaust)

monetary policy can be as bad under monarchs as under republics.

No. Monarchs can screw up monetary policy, of course (Tulip Crisis for example), but generally they've decreased their debts during peacetime and tried to retain some monetary sanity. Whereas democratic governments, such as the US, have had their debt grow explosively during peacetime, when there's really no good reason for it.

the french revolution can be seen as a downside of monarchy. its not like a freely elected representative government suddenly went crazy and started killing everyone. it was a revolution. bad things happened. very bad things

But it still stands that the leaders of the government were ruling not on their right of patrimony- the characteristic of monarchies- but on the "will of the people"- a characteristic of democracies. Anyway, free elections are incidental to liberty, as is evidenced by Hamas in Palestine, Ahmadinejad, the Shar'ia supporting Shiites in Iraq, and the bloody government of Indonesia.

no one elected tojo. he was appointed by hirohito for whatever reason. the monarchy of japan is responsible for the devastation of japanese imperialism in asia and the pacific.

Those who dealt with the occupation of Japan sure didn't think that the Imperial family was responsible for the suffering that the Japanese empire caused. Do you think you know better than them?

we werent discussing the evils of government in general, there are plenty to go around, but the reason why monarcy would be better than representative democracy.

But if you say that I can't get my entire point across. I don't really support monarchy, I just see it as the lesser of two evils. That's integral to my philosophy.

the uneven nature of monachy--which is after all heritary dictatorship justified by religion--makes it both the best and worst form of government depending on the quality of the person who inherited the throne. without the moderating force of a freely elected parliment you are completely at the mercy of genetics.

No. It's not that simple. Great kings did indeed help the country, but the more idiotic/insane folks were often overruled by their advisors or relatives- see the debaucherous Selim II of the Ottoman Empire. Someitmes they were even killed outright. And there is a biiiiiig difference between Wilhelm II, who was no man of the people but merely the owner of the Prussian state, and Adolf Hitler, who was quite connected to manipulation of the people, made no claims about owning Germany, and who claimed to rule by the will of the volk.

But you don't seem to connect the fact that the acts of the democratic government (pushing down interest rates via inflation of the money supply) caused the consumer and producer fiscal irresponsibility (second mortgages and the like.) Recessions don't happen because people just got really high one day and decided to go into debt and randomly put their money in stocks. It's spurred on by government action.

Sorry. That sounds like an excuse to me. "It's not my fault I'm in so much debt I have to declare bankruptcy! The government pushed interest rates so low I HAD to borrow!" Actually, I really wish I could use that one with my creditors. Too bad it's still my fault I borrowed the money in the first place. You might as well try to blame the industrialists for creating the companies who sold the stocks and providing examples of the high-life everyone wanted to live.

But the root of virtually all of the problems was monetary inflation, whether it be the high debt or stock market buble. There may have been other factors, like the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but these too were other acts of the democratic governments.

It wasn't just monetary inflation. While that was the vehicle from almost every aspect, as you point out, it came in different forms: debt, over-valued stocks, tariffs, etc. At every level of decision-making, from the government at the "top" to financial institutions and other creditors to the citizens at the "bottom," pure and simple personal greed is the connecting factor. Everyone was trying to get one-up on everyone else by begging, borrowing and stealing. Too bad we still haven't learned anything from this very clear example of how not working together brings us all down together.

Prove that Hamas wasn't elected by the people.
As far as I know, but I'm not palestinian, Hamas was in fact elected and is not some coupmakers that claimed the power. That the US and EU don't want to have any cooperation with them says as much about them as about the Hamas, as they were at least possible to negotiate with. Actually, a lot of this years problems between the palestinians and the israeli jews could be avoided if the international community didn't withdraw it's financial support of the palestinians* and in stead negotiating with Hamas, wich was at the time after their election willing to admit on some terms the excistenece of the jewish state of Israel and that thereby could be worked out a permanent peace-treaty with.

* = I would say its fair to support the palestinian goverment since USA heavily supports the Israelian goverment, a goverment that don't want to include the palestinian population as an equal part of it's countrys subjects and only represent sionist interets in Israel (sionist as opposed to jewish. the jews being an ethnic group that currently livs in most of the world and have, as any other ethnic group, with many just as opposed to the war between israelian jews and the palestinians, and the sionism being a political ideology wanting a jewish holy land wiht only jews and tourists, and the belief of an organiztion operating in Israel from before WW II and having nothing but etnicity in common with the jews that suffered holocaust)

As far as I've heard, in all the google news I've read, in all the CNN I've watched, they have yet to get Hamas to recognize Israel. At all. And that's really all that's left for them to do.

Sorry. That sounds like an excuse to me. "It's not my fault I'm in so much debt I have to declare bankruptcy! The government pushed interest rates so low I HAD to borrow!" Actually, I really wish I could use that one with my creditors. Too bad it's still my fault I borrowed the money in the first place. You might as well try to blame the industrialists for creating the companies who sold the stocks and providing examples of the high-life everyone wanted to live.

But if the interest rates hadn't been pushed so low, you wouldn't have had the incentive to borrow so much money in the first place. But since they did, you did just that. And when it comes time to see that it was all just paper wealth, you still have that debt but no way to pay it.

It wasn't just monetary inflation. While that was the vehicle from almost every aspect, as you point out, it came in different forms: debt, over-valued stocks, tariffs, etc. At every level of decision-making, from the government at the "top" to financial institutions and other creditors to the citizens at the "bottom," pure and simple personal greed is the connecting factor. Everyone was trying to get one-up on everyone else by begging, borrowing and stealing. Too bad we still haven't learned anything from this very clear example of how not working together brings us all down together.

Is wanting to improve one's material wellness, at no cost to another, really greed? It's what's propelled man from living in caves and dying at the ripe age of 13 to the comforts that we have now. I'd hardly call it a bad thing. But when you have people think that they're richer, they'll act like they're richer. The problem is that they're not REALLY richer, it's just paper wealth made by the government fooling everyone instead of just a few people miscalculating, and it means everyone ends up being punished.

(Edit: Though I do think monetary inflation is, indeed, greedy, because it dilutes the wealth held by poor and middle-class people in order to favor big companies, banks, and the government by getting them the money they want.)

As far as I've heard, in all the google news I've read, in all the CNN I've watched, they have yet to get Hamas to recognize Israel. At all. And that's really all that's left for them to do.

Hamas won't recognize Israel officially, but they were ready to do it if the palestinians could get their own state, and this was what there was, and is to negotiate, as this is the root of the conflict, as 2 different groups, namely arabs and jews view the land as theirs, the first of religious reasons and a UN resolution, the second because they lived there for generations, were oppressed there by some of the lands that parttok in the resolution prosses and because the UN resolution didn't even take in account their excistence.

As long as Israel don't acknowledge the right of the palestinians to their own state, why should a palestinian organization, especially suc a heavily militarized one (call it guerilla-warfare or terrorism, but they view it as they are fighting occupants of their land), acknowledge any rights of Israel?

But if the interest rates hadn't been pushed so low, you wouldn't have had the incentive to borrow so much money in the first place. But since they did, you did just that. And when it comes time to see that it was all just paper wealth, you still have that debt but no way to pay it.

It's not the interest rate that's the incentive to get into debt. Will to become a debtor is fuelled by 2 things:

1. Need. I HAVE to live someplace. I HAVE to have a way to get to work. Hell, I have to eat, but fortunately I don't need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy my daily bread for myself and my family. If the things I need to live cost more money than I have, then regardless of the interest rate, even if it's insanely high, I have no choice but to borrow, even euphemistically. A lower interest rate will affect this, as if it's cheap enough to borrow then I'll be less discriminatory about what I "need," but that's still just me not paying attention to what will probably bite me in the ass later, and isn't really anyone else's fault but my own.

2. Greed. I'm talking about the perception that what I borrow for the sake of investing now will bring me enough return later to pay off the debt and still make a profit (the profit here doesn't necessarily have to be monetary). Most professionals who make a living doing this are very careful, and they still suffer sizeable losses every now and then. For the average Joe who is much less educated about such things, I suppose the idea that borrowing at an incredibly low interest rate and investing in stocks that are rising in value daily looks like a no-brainer. But again, just like the pros, if an investor's predictions of the marketplace don't pan out, it is the investor's fault, not the government's for making it very cheap to borrow the money. Nor is it the government's fault that I didn't allow for the possibility of my investment failing and borrowed much, much more than I should have been able to pay back when my investment did fail.

Is wanting to improve one's material wellness, at no cost to another, really greed?

No cost? So where did the extra wealth come from? And remember, it wasn't just a few investors miscalculating. It was a significant enough portion of the population that anyone who might have tried not to participate got drawn in by the gravitational pull of the mass. Though those who didn't participate often wound up saving more money and wound up in a better position because of it, so their foresight was rewarded.

Democracy is severly flawed and overrated.

Democracy is severly flawed and overrated.

And your alternative solution is....?

Democracy is the least evil, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of it.

Wrong.

If people were a little more aware of foreign cultures, we wouldn't hear this erroneous argument quite so often.

Take pre-colonial Melanesian societies, for example. No centralised government; no hereditary or permanent leadership. "Big Men" acquire influence (and some form of authority) by increasing their reputation... which they do by skilfully managing traditional Melanesian economic practices, obtaining wealth (such as pigs), then redistributing it generously. Generosity gives you status, which gives you influence... which lasts only as long as you continue to be generous.

That's just one example. But it shows that our social, political and economic practices are entirely conditioned by artificial norms. There is no "nature of humanity" to it.I'm glad you read the entirety of my post. Especially the bit where I briefly suggest that human nature is not set in stone and distributions of the various qualities of human nature can be skewed depending on subjective factors. Thank you.

It's not the interest rate that's the incentive to get into debt. Will to become a debtor is fuelled by 2 things:

1. Need. I HAVE to live someplace. I HAVE to have a way to get to work. Hell, I have to eat, but fortunately I don't need a wheelbarrow full of money to buy my daily bread for myself and my family. If the things I need to live cost more money than I have, then regardless of the interest rate, even if it's insanely high, I have no choice but to borrow, even euphemistically. A lower interest rate will affect this, as if it's cheap enough to borrow then I'll be less discriminatory about what I "need," but that's still just me not paying attention to what will probably bite me in the ass later, and isn't really anyone else's fault but my own.

But the problem with what you say is that the interest rate very much affects what level of debt you take on. You refer to the need (or rather, want) for shelter. But you are more likely to take out a loan at 1% interest for a two-story house instead of renting a one-room apartment than you are at 30% interest rate. Both the apartment and house satisfy your want for shelter, but in light of the interest rate you do not treat them equally.

The problem with artificially altered interest rates, however, is that an artificially low interest rate discourages savings and encourages spending. This is because the draining of purchasing power parity makes it so that your future money is worth less over time, and that if you spend now you get more than if you spend later. In the aggregate, this means that there is not enough real resources to satisfy the suddenly heightened desire for present consumption. But we individually cannot know this- all we know is that it costs less of our future goods to consume in the presence (the basis of interest rates.) But we are in fact unknowingly contributing to a rise in debt, where with an undisturbed interest rate other people would save to allow for our spending.

2. Greed. I'm talking about the perception that what I borrow for the sake of investing now will bring me enough return later to pay off the debt and still make a profit (the profit here doesn't necessarily have to be monetary). Most professionals who make a living doing this are very careful, and they still suffer sizeable losses every now and then. For the average Joe who is much less educated about such things, I suppose the idea that borrowing at an incredibly low interest rate and investing in stocks that are rising in value daily looks like a no-brainer. But again, just like the pros, if an investor's predictions of the marketplace don't pan out, it is the investor's fault, not the government's for making it very cheap to borrow the money. Nor is it the government's fault that I didn't allow for the possibility of my investment failing and borrowed much, much more than I should have been able to pay back when my investment did fail.

But why is it that crappy investors and good investors alike all get fabulously wealthy at the peak of the cycle, and crappy investors and good investors alike get wiped out at the trough of the cycle. It would seem that the good data-collectors/entrepeneurs would consistently do well, and Joe Blow would get removed from the stock market because of his ineptitude. But the entrepeneur and Joe Blow both get wiped out, so this must mean that they are both getting the wrong information to act upon in the first place. That is exactly related to the deception of artificially altered interest rates, where people either save or spend too much without someone else compensating for it.

No cost? So where did the extra wealth come from? And remember, it wasn't just a few investors miscalculating. It was a significant enough portion of the population that anyone who might have tried not to participate got drawn in by the gravitational pull of the mass. Though those who didn't participate often wound up saving more money and wound up in a better position because of it, so their foresight was rewarded.

Now I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to extra wealth created by actual production (like I was), or are you talking about the paper wealth of artificially altered interest rates? Because if you are referring to the latter, then yes, there are some greedy people behind this monetary inflation.

But the problem with what you say is that the interest rate very much affects what level of debt you take on. You refer to the need (or rather, want) for shelter. But you are more likely to take out a loan at 1% interest for a two-story house instead of renting a one-room apartment than you are at 30% interest rate. Both the apartment and house satisfy your want for shelter, but in light of the interest rate you do not treat them equally.

That's exactly what I was referring to about how discriminatory I'm being about what I "need." The interest rate doesn't necessarily have to affect my buying decisions, as if I'm a single guy living on my own I don't really need much more than the one-room apartment. If I take out a loan for a house because of a low interest rate, I'm being greedy, either because I don't really need the extra space and I just want to spread out, or else because I am expecting to make a pile of cash off the rising value of the property. Either way, if the property value falls and I can't make my payments, it's still my fault for taking the loan. No one twisted my arm. This is a little different if we imagine a family living in the one-room apartment because high interest rates are forcing them to make do. When the rate falls, they will certainly wish to get a loan for a home, but it's still not the government's fault that they do so. I mean, they COULD continue making do, but I wouldn't.

The problem with artificially altered interest rates, however, is that an artificially low interest rate discourages savings and encourages spending. This is because the draining of purchasing power parity makes it so that your future money is worth less over time, and that if you spend now you get more than if you spend later. In the aggregate, this means that there is not enough real resources to satisfy the suddenly heightened desire for present consumption. But we individually cannot know this- all we know is that it costs less of our future goods to consume in the presence (the basis of interest rates.) But we are in fact unknowingly contributing to a rise in debt, where with an undisturbed interest rate other people would save to allow for our spending.

This is absolutely true, but I doubt you'll be able to convince me that the bulk of consumers are thinking, "Wow! I need to spend my money now that the interest rate is so low because it's going to be worth less 6 months from now!" The reality is more like, "Wow! I can afford to borrow more right now since the interest rates are low! Time to buy a boat!" This last attitude is, obviously, the sort of destructive thinking that leads us into economic depression and bankruptcy.

But why is it that crappy investors and good investors alike all get fabulously wealthy at the peak of the cycle,

Because it's the peak of the cycle.

and crappy investors and good investors alike get wiped out at the trough of the cycle.

Because it's the trough. But what separates good investors from bad ones is their ability to predict the troughs and not get wiped out by them. Everyone makes mistakes, but good investors will make fewer than bad ones, hence they will consistently have more money.

It would seem that the good data-collectors/entrepeneurs would consistently do well, and Joe Blow would get removed from the stock market because of his ineptitude.

They do. Sure, every so often Joe Blow gets lucky and "wins the lotto" so to speak. But this is not bread-and-butter. The good data-collectors/entrepreneurs make their living doing this stuff. Both good investors and Joe Blow go to work every day and get paychecks, but the investors take more risk and reap greater monetary rewards. They also suffer more for their mistakes than Joe Blow does.

That is exactly related to the deception of artificially altered interest rates, where people either save or spend too much without someone else compensating for it.

Why does it have to have anything to do with the interest rates? What if they simply expected something to happen in the market that seemed obvious, but everyone was really, really wrong? For example, some housing markets in the US have not gained any appreciable value in the last 2 years. Who knew? They have been consistently skyrocketing every year for the last 30 years, but now many people who bought homes 2 years ago still don't have any equity and are paying interest-only on a loan with a principal amount higher than what they could sell the house for today. All the low interest rates do is make the money accessible. It is the consumer's choice to spend it or not.

Now I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Actually, I was responding to the final paragraph of your previous response. Sorta. There is no free lunch and all that. And trying to tie the Great Depression back into it, the people who saved their money still got sucked in, but were actually the "good investors" and so were able to weather the depression better than others who weren't so good.

I'm still likin' democracy. But I'm not religious about it. It needs reform.

That being said, the plutocracy idea is at least interesting. I'm going to geek out for a second here, but in my Dungeons and Dragons campaign, one nation ran similarly. The nation was run by the guilds, and the electoral power of the guilds was based on the purchasing power of its guildmembers. Everyone paid a flat 10% tax to the national treasury, and then the guilds would bicker over how to spend it. However, being the richest guy didn't necessarily grant you the biggest say. It paid to make sure your guildmembers were doing well as well.

So, the ideology was that only those capable of proving their ability to enhance the states coffers would have a significant say in how to spend it. Not really a system I would want to live in, but interesting (to me at least) nonetheless.

And your alternative solution is....?

Theocracy. Seriously.

Theocracy. Seriously.

Khilafah actually.

Tsk, tsk, have we a disgruntled Republican ...with socialist leanings?

Tsk, tsk, have we a disgruntled Republican ...with socialist leanings?

What?

That's exactly what I was referring to about how discriminatory I'm being about what I "need." The interest rate doesn't necessarily have to affect my buying decisions, as if I'm a single guy living on my own I don't really need much more than the one-room apartment. If I take out a loan for a house because of a low interest rate, I'm being greedy, either because I don't really need the extra space and I just want to spread out, or else because I am expecting to make a pile of cash off the rising value of the property. Either way, if the property value falls and I can't make my payments, it's still my fault for taking the loan. No one twisted my arm. This is a little different if we imagine a family living in the one-room apartment because high interest rates are forcing them to make do. When the rate falls, they will certainly wish to get a loan for a home, but it's still not the government's fault that they do so. I mean, they COULD continue making do, but I wouldn't.

Value is subjective- there's no objective way to determine whether a two-story house is "better" than a one-room apartment. But one may want to live in a big house, or one may want to live in the city and thus choose an apartment. I would say that investing in a property because you think it really will be worth more, but only is so because of deception, is not an entirely imputable act, since there is a level of ignorance involved. (Like if I'm a foreigner in the USA and don't realize that I should wear a seatbelt under the law.)

This is absolutely true, but I doubt you'll be able to convince me that the bulk of consumers are thinking, "Wow! I need to spend my money now that the interest rate is so low because it's going to be worth less 6 months from now!" The reality is more like, "Wow! I can afford to borrow more right now since the interest rates are low! Time to buy a boat!" This last attitude is, obviously, the sort of destructive thinking that leads us into economic depression and bankruptcy.

I don't think that they loudly declare the economic reasoning behind their actions, but their actions still reflect economic truths. They won't keep rapidly depreciating money- for example, workers being paid weekly as opposed to monthly in the Weimar Republic, since their wages over a month would be a lot more worthless than before. It's not the fault of the consumer that the interest rates have been distorted and are not truly reflective of what's going on- they cannot hope to know that it's a trap instead of a simple arrangement.

Because it's the peak of the cycle.

Because it's the trough. But what separates good investors from bad ones is their ability to predict the troughs and not get wiped out by them. Everyone makes mistakes, but good investors will make fewer than bad ones, hence they will consistently have more money.

But WHY does it happen cyclically? Why do trained, experienced investors end up screwing up like an idiot at certain points, and Joe Blow manages to make money like the pros? There must be some sort of outside force that causes it to happen in this fashion.

They do. Sure, every so often Joe Blow gets lucky and "wins the lotto" so to speak. But this is not bread-and-butter. The good data-collectors/entrepreneurs make their living doing this stuff. Both good investors and Joe Blow go to work every day and get paychecks, but the investors take more risk and reap greater monetary rewards. They also suffer more for their mistakes than Joe Blow does.

But ALL of the Blows get a ton of cash in the peak- that's why the 2001 recession was so bad, because the streak of lucky Joe Blows turned into unlucky Joe Blows. Even the Bill Gates of the worlds lost a ton of money in the recession, and it can't possibly be because of a lack of skill. It has to be some sort of outside force that negates their skills.

Why does it have to have anything to do with the interest rates? What if they simply expected something to happen in the market that seemed obvious, but everyone was really, really wrong? For example, some housing markets in the US have not gained any appreciable value in the last 2 years. Who knew? They have been consistently skyrocketing every year for the last 30 years, but now many people who bought homes 2 years ago still don't have any equity and are paying interest-only on a loan with a principal amount higher than what they could sell the house for today. All the low interest rates do is make the money accessible. It is the consumer's choice to spend it or not.

The housing bubble was caused by distortions in the interest rates, such as Adjustable Rate Mortgages and second mortgages. The reason why they're declining all of a sudden is because it's a house of cards, and the easy credit is starting to let up, making it apparent that these were all, in fact, bad investments skewed by bad information. There may be specific economic events (earthquake, terrorist attack, etc.), but these are events, not the perennial cycles we've come to expect.

Actually, I was responding to the final paragraph of your previous response. Sorta. There is no free lunch and all that. And trying to tie the Great Depression back into it, the people who saved their money still got sucked in, but were actually the "good investors" and so were able to weather the depression better than others who weren't so good.

Well, I thought it was an attack on the productive parts of enterprise, such as making goods and services as opposed to printing out more money unnecessarily. And I would not deny that people outside of the spending crowd were affected. But it is ultimately a case of malinvestment and bad spending that is the cause behind the recessions.

Wow, we've gone way off topic. :D

no thank you. i want a government that offers me some protection from the ravages of the rich, not one where the rich can do anything they want as long as they pay for the right to do so. Right, so you pay for it, like you do now. Currently you are obliged to pay for this privelidge from the government. All I am proposing is that you a free to pay for this privelidge from whomsoever you please. Not only governments can offer protection you know.

which isnt that far off of what everyone has now but i still want to have some protection from the most egregious violations. As above, you can have as much protection as you are willing to pay for (and before you freak out, you will be able to pay for it. For the simple reason that a competitive freemarket can offer a better price than a forced monopoly- actually 'does', not 'can'. Furthermore, the service of justice will be marketed at the lower-income majority.. where the money is).

You, GreaterPacificNations, have made my day by bashing democracy, to which I totally agree. I would say that there is something better than democracy that has been tried (and thus contradicts Churchill.) That's monarchy.

:fluffle:

all you have to do is take a look at the monarchs of europe since the renaissance to see great examples of how monarchy can go very badly.
Absolute monarchy admittedly was the death of the system.

Anyway, I will go with GPN, and say my chequebook - or gold deposits in a 100% reserve system. :p

The problem with an unabashed plutocracy... is that it's an unabashed plutocracy.

Rule by the wallet; those of you without money can die now. Health care? For those who can afford it. Food? ditto. If you have the bad luck to have a chronic illness? No health insurance company will sell you insurance, and no one wants to hire someone who isn't able to work all the time. Good-bye.

Education? For those with rich parents who can afford it. We're pretty close to that already here in the USA actually. If your parents aren't rich enough to afford education, you won't get one, and you'll be in the underclass with no safety net whatsoever.
Ok, firstly, the vast majority of basic services will be targeted at the largest marketable majority (i.e. the general population of lower-income earners). So all but the most economically retarded will be able to afford everything they have now, and more.

Secondly, in the case of those who cannot muster enough capital through the use of their own bodies as tools of labour (i.e. retarded people, those born chronically ill- or those chronically ill prior to getting health cover, gamblers, alcoholics, handicapped, etc..) will be at the mercy of the generousity of society. Luckily, I would expect an industry to fully establish itself around charity (as we are already seeing the beginnings of today). The idea is called philanthrocapitalism, and the premise is that there is a twisted form of capitalism developing between charity organisations wherein those who provide the best results in building social capital are recieving more donations in response to their reputation as a charity which gets things done. We are seeing charities compete with each other for donations and subscribers. Charities are spending billions of dollars annually on advertising campaigns to convince people to give to their cause.

It will be up to this industry of charities to convince the people that the problems of the above unfortunates are worth solving. If they cannot, then.. the crowd has spoken. If people find themselves disenclined to donate to a charity for alcoholics, than should they have their money forcibly spent on them? If people do not give a shit about blind people, should they be forced to donate dogs to them? In terms of ethics, I say no. However, I believe most of the charitable services offered by the government welfare are indeed worthwhile, and that a company would not have a problem convincing consumers of this fact.

Also remember, in this system, you could concievably end up with enclaves or entire regions of anarcho-capitalist welfare regions. If such an idea was deemed worthwhile by the populace (i.e. If the people largely spent a lot of money on local welfare-based charities)

Also, I imagine most forms of short-term hardship could be eased by a dole-like income to be repaid at a later date with interest.

i rather like democracy
Keep saying it and it'll be true! :)

So, cash is right? So what do you say when your lawyer fucks you and send you to prison cause somebody else paid him more? What if it's the judge? It is expressly in the lawyers' and Judges' interest to service their clients with the upmost reliability and integrity. How would a justice agency sporting corrupt judges attract clients? Who the hell wants their freedoms defended by unreliable lawyers? If the consumers demand integrity in the justice industry, then they will get it.
What if I deside that I like your daughter, and get her kidnapped so I can enjoy her? What if by kidnapping I mean stealing a child? Well, hopefully the security firm in the employ of my justice agency would be successful in tracking you down and apprehending you for a most eggregious crime (as covered by my justice insurance). Whatever would happen in the current system would happen in my proposed one, however the actors do not all come from the one company (i.e. the government) in my system.
Also, if things cost money, somebody would undoubtfully steal it from you as you steal it from others? Which is why we must take the appropriate precautions, such as ensuring the security of our possession, and subscribing to a security firm via your justice insurance (as you subscribe to the police via your tax).
Actually, cash is right is more or less might is right, as to amass power in form of cash, you would have to use force, thievery or both. When you had amassed the cash, you could then defend your own thievery. If you violate the rights of others in the pursuit of wealth, you will probably find yourself under the heat of those individuals' justice cover (just like in the current system, except everyone has the same justice cover now). Consequently, what you really is asking for, is a right wing anarchy, where everything, including your licking of my boots is for sale for the right price, If I want to sell it. and those who have the most firepower and best apply brute force rule the rest. Not true. Clearly. It is very obviously in the interests of those with capital (everyone) to trade this capital for the capital of others (thus generating more mutual capital in the process). A corporation wants customers, not slaves.
Enjoy it. I will fight itYou seem to have made up your mind.

Wrong.

If people were a little more aware of foreign cultures, we wouldn't hear this erroneous argument quite so often.

Take pre-colonial Melanesian societies, for example. No centralised government; no hereditary or permanent leadership. "Big Men" acquire influence (and some form of authority) by increasing their reputation... which they do by skilfully managing traditional Melanesian economic practices, obtaining wealth (such as pigs), then redistributing it generously. Generosity gives you status, which gives you influence... which lasts only as long as you continue to be generous.

That's just one example. But it shows that our social, political and economic practices are entirely conditioned by artificial norms. There is no "nature of humanity" to it. Right, but look at Melanesians in the Asia-Pacific today. I agree to the logic in your point, and you made it well. However, I am drawing attention to the fact that although you are right that human nature is lot more flexible than we think, a culture based on generousity licks nuts.

Anyway, I will go with GPN, and say my chequebook - or gold deposits in a 100% reserve system. :p

Ah, if only the Bank of Amsterdam in its 17th to very early 19th century glory still existed...