Human life is now too derivative, so to speak.We have forgotten what it means to be human.
Did they need stock markets?
F%&*k no!
People are now in societies and countries,
so we need a system to organise
and it should reflect basic human activity as the priority.
grow an apple, baby-sit a kid, fix a bike.
The bankers have just about ruined the basic way of life.
Of course, we've all trundled onto the consumerist bandwagon.
Time to get off that, Billy Saul!
the capitalists. Let's sort this out:
level 1
They knew how to sew, knit, fix, work, plan and enjoy life.
They were producer traders, including family farms.
Recycling and green small businesses.
That's the basic economic status.
If you're an employee, you offer your work and produce stuff. You trade that for pay.
This level should not be taxed or regulated too much.
They are allowed to trade freely with neighbours, thus avoiding taxes all together. This is a habit that modern societies have all but forgotten, but they're gonna come back to it when they realise that they can save tax money.
They could build houses for each other.*
and farmers, who only use up to 10 (or pick a number) of employees.
They don't have much invested.
They just want to add to their income by selling what they produce.
They don't have much in the way of loans because
they don't want to become Donald of the Trumps.
They are also a vital part of the economy.
If they sell, they have to be inspected for quality,
but there should also be a government/private Wiki
for knowledge about how to be green and minimise waste.
How to share equipment and help each other.
F^%&*k the market models.
These types of businesses should not be taxed very high, but higher than level 1.
Public employees, except upper management.
Large store and factory owners, especially when they take out huge loans.
Bank employees, multinational corporation employees.
These folks are in the money economy.
Small real estate investors, especially if they take out loans.
They use loans and huge paychecks to
buy up everything in sight, pushing up prices.
Their work is largely made up of promoting consumption.
These folks should be taxed much more highly than levels 1 & 2 combined.
They live and die by money.
The idea is to cool these social-climbers down.
'Development' is a misnomer. Their gain is everybody else's loss.
stock brokers
bankers
money traders
the independently wealthy
upper management
boards of directors
internationally trading/traded limited companies.
non-domiciled people.
Speculators of real estate.
folks with off-shore bank accounts.
and other large tax dodgers.
have I missed anybody?
These guys survive by killing off other businesses
and taking away, rather than giving work to the lower classes,
and are into the derivative nature of
the money economy. They tell us we need growth
in exports solely because we have to pay off their loans
and government loans.
The same reason may be behind the invasion of Iraq.
They know government ministers and get inside info.
They solely benefit from mass, globalised consumption.
When rich countries give aid to the poor, these bastards and their
companies benefit, due to the strings attached.
When they IMF raids an economy, these guys buy up essential services and
suck them dry, jacking up the prices,
like when Bolivians were banned from gathering rain water,
so that level-4s could get rich selling them water.
they should be strictly-controlled, highly-taxed,
and placed under national quarantine,
so that they cannot screw poor people of the 3rd world.
they should also have a heavy consumption tax. That way, they can't
stash their money away. Put it back to work.
Otherwise, these folks only provide for themselves and are in fact a drain on society.
I'll just start with global pollution & banking crises, and rest my case.
* from Alternet , an economist who won a Nobel for NOT screwing poor people
Her idea is for people to cooperate in commons.
Yes mag- Beth Orton
The Woman Who Just Might Save the Planet and Our Pocketbooks
What if our economy was not built on competition? Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom talks about her work on cooperation in economics.
March 14, 2010 |
For one thing, she is the first woman to receive the prize. Her Ph.D. is in political science, not economics (though she minored in economics, collaborates with many economists, and considers herself a political economist). But what makes this award particularly special is that her work is about cooperation, while standard economics focuses on competition.
Fran Korten, YES! Magazine’s publisher, spent 20 years with the Ford Foundation making grants to support community management of water and forests in Southeast Asia and the United States. She and Ostrom drew on one another’s work as this field of knowledge developed. Fran interviewed her friend and colleague Lin Ostrom shortly after Ostrom received the Nobel Prize.
Fran Korten: When you first learned that you had won the Nobel Prize in Economics, were you surprised?
Elinor Ostrom: Yes. It was quite surprising. I was both happy and relieved.
Fran: Why relieved?
Elinor: Well, relieved in that I was doing a bunch of research through the years that many people thought was very radical and people didn’t like. As a person who does interdisciplinary work, I didn’t fit anywhere. I was relieved that, after all these years of struggle, someone really thought it did add up. That’s very nice.
And it’s very nice for the team that I’ve been a part of here at the Workshop. We have had a different style of organizing. It is an interdisciplinary center—we have graduate students, visiting scholars, and faculty working together. I never would have won the Nobel but for being a part of that enterprise.
Fran: It’s interesting that your research is about people learning to cooperate. And your Workshop at the university is also organized on principles of cooperation.
Elinor: I have a new book coming out in May entitled Working Together, written with Amy Poteete and Marco Janssen. It is on collective actions in the commons. What we’re talking about is how people work together. We’ve used an immense array of different methods to look at this question—case studies, including my own dissertation and Amy’s work, modeling, experiments, large-scale statistical work. We show how people use multiple methods to work together.
Fran: Many people associate “the commons” with Garrett Hardin’s famous essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” He says that if, for example, you have a pasture that everyone in a village has access to, then each person will put as many cows on that land as he can to maximize his own benefit, and pretty soon the pasture will be overgrazed and become worthless. What’s the difference between your perspective and Hardin’s?
for more, check Alternet
