The title is quoted from a discussion over in the Humor and Satire section where HailVictory is debating PreteenCommunist, on Communism: One of the reasons why I decided to make this into an opening post.... is because HailVictory is initiating his campaign to eventually become President of the United States! I enthusiastically agree with his theory that money........ is a truly great invention! I feel that I have got to get HailVictory in contact with those of you who can really assist him to tweak and improve his platform. http://www.politicalforum.com/humor-satire/464681-preteencommunist-ask-me-anything-24.html Thread: PreteenCommunist - ask me anything ^.^ http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/469487-light-abovealphas-nomination-dennistate.html In light of AboveAlpha's nomination by DennisTate... OK..... I'm impressed!!!!!!
Yea Money is Increadibly imporand and I thinkj that COmmunism is problwmatic because it eliminates the need for it and eliminates the foundation of it. Furthermore, communism can't work because it removes Social elites from the picure even though those are actuelly, regretabbly, necessary for a stable society and economy.
Ten USA States are discussing and encouraging an option on money that I feel is brilliant...... and highly ethical. http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/pf/local_currency/index.htm?iid=F_Jump Local currencies: 'In the U.S. we don't trust' By Blake Ellis @CNNMoney January 27, 2012: 11:13 AM ET What they are proposing so reminds me of the Worgl, Austria local money experiment that was replicated in over a thousand communities in America during the Great Depression. This experiment played a huge role in encouraging FDR and his advisors to initiate The New Deal. http://www.whatcomwatch.org/php/WW_open.php?id=717 City in Austria Printed Local Currency
The definition of social elites can evolve........ dramatically...... http://theschoolofthespirit.yuku.co...-Netanyahu-told-Sigmund-Ivarsson#.V7d40GXA6UU
Well yes. Wholeheartedly. And that's the point. 300 years ago, we didn't really want engineers or psychologists. We wanted explorers to map the New World, commodores to sail to India, and merchants to take Africa. And so, everyone wanted to be an explorer to get the cash from the monarchs. Nowadays, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and physicists get the cash from our government. Why did people hate the monarchs so much in France? Because nobility was a social elite crafted with no means to climb into that rung of the social ladder. And with it came life's benefits. I rest my case, people only hate a social elite when they have no chance at becoming one.
I could be wrong..... but I am encountering evidence from many sources that indicate that within a few decades..... it will be considered normal to live to be a century old and still be active physically. If very poor people in several parts of the world have astonishingly low incidence levels of cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and arthritis...... but instead can be active in the fields in their eighties and nineties...... then surely the time is coming when the reason for this will become common knowledge. My daughter in law's mom is from the province of Loja, Ecuador so we know quite a bit about the traditions about the Valley of Longevity, (Vilcabamba). I guess if certain theories become applied widely and if doctors and surgeons become less necessary for our survival...... then our best and brightest could concentrate on other endeavours........ some of them would feel like going into some form of art. http://www.thesanhedrin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1139&sid=44cbfdfdff2c4273d4b8926dc9646c0f
I just read a fascinating explanation for a shift that began in the early '70's that has escalated the problems that we are experiencing that relate to money. http://www.eoionline.org/blog/x-marks-the-spot-where-inequality-took-root-dig-here/#comment-32123 X Marks the Spot Where Inequality Took Root: Dig Here .... I commented on the article:
"Originally Posted by HailVictory "Ok, so I think what this boils down to is this. You are, correct me if I am wrong, against money and class distinction. So, I'll start with money and its importance. Money is perhaps one of the greatest inventions of human thought simply because it can convert labour and resources into a numerical value. It is a universal median of exchange, if you will. So, rather than make my goat worth five loaves of bread, or three sacks of grain, I just make it 20 gold coins. And no matter what anyone else has, it will still be worth 20 gold coins. Money itself actually has no value save the value we place on it. A euro is only a euro because we say it is a euro. Most money is electronic these days. There are more electronic purchases with electronic money than actual currency in circulation. And yet, as long as everyone trusts the fact that a euro is a euro, it has value. That's the beauty of money. In a state without money, you don't have this means of exchange. Ahhh, but you're a communist. So you would advocate for the fact that exchange never needs to happen if everyone gets everything, right. So money is, at heart, not really necessary in a communist state. This brings me to the social elite premise. Why do your friends not want to be janitors? or taxi cab drivers? What if these jobs paid you through the roof, and doctors and architects received a pittance. While yes, you may still dream of being an architect, or being a doctor, if the wages were reversed, being an architect would not let you survive. And yes, there are a few that are willing to sacrifice their quality of life for the job they love, but can you take that gamble? Can you assume that the few in society that want to be janitors will? This is the issue with doing a job for intrinsic value. The fact remains that being a janitor has very rare intrinsic value, and so the amount of people who strive to be a janitor is very low. So you can gamble on the fact that, yes, maybe a few will go and be janitors. But what if there are not enough janitors. What will you do then? Ahh but you are against the division of labour, or having everyone do separate jobs. Ok, so this brings you back in time about 300 years, before the Renaissance. Where everyone's job was a trade job. In a system like this, communism has the potential to work. Because there are no scientists, few musicians, no need for merchants, you can have everyone do everything, and pull together in a small community. I think that if the numbers were small, and the time period were a little bit older, you could do it. Communism would flourish. But in a state as big as the EU for example, with jobs that require a lifetime of study, and the rest of the world living in capitalism, it is nigh impossible. Which brings me back to the necessity of an elite. The doctrine of fascism is at heart, that a social elite is necessary to society. And while the economy is not exactly capitalist, nor is it socialist (but I suppose you could call it that) it won't go as far as communism. You may not think money is the reason people want to be doctors, at a large scale and with emotion and feeling removed from the picture, money is indeed, one of the only reasons people become doctors. There is some level of control at the individual level, but you cannot be overly optimistic and assume that people will pull their weight. Because if someone drops the ball, what then? Are you going to Stalin them in line? Are you going to let it fall apart? Without a strong sense of nationalism instilled in the entire population, you can't bank on people pulling their weight for no reward. It's not that people won't, its just the off chance that they won't. You want a foolproof society, not one where you have to hope and pray that the fabric holds together. Which is why, while capitalism has its problems, it works better, because we can at least know that the fabric of society will hold together, even if it is stretched too tight right now. So, to, I suppose, finish the story, the problem with capitalism. It stratifies society more and more as time goes on. Again, maybe about 300 years ago, it was perfect. But as time went on, rich became richer, poor became poorer, an impossible social aristocracy arose, and we arrive at today. I rest my case that people are never at discontent with a social elite so long as they can somehow achieve that social elite. For example, if you are poor, but you know that, if you work hard, you can become rich, then you would work hard. That's what made America so great about 100 years ago. Nowadays, that social elite is becoming harder and harder to achieve, which is why people are losing their contentedness with society. Which is why you, at age 14, are looking to communism for salvation. The fascist society (Im talking Mussolini here, not Hitler, he was a different story) crafted a social elite that was easily achievable but hard enough to get to that people were still motivated. That's why people did not seek to go outside the law to achieve social elite status (crime went down), poverty plummeted, and the country of Italy economically boomed (until Mussolini screwed it up rebuilding the Roman Empire, sheesh). Hitler made the Aryan race his social elite and the Jews were removed from the fabric of society which is why his story is different even though it holds true. Furthermore, Germany is a clear example of the social elite issue. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both turned to communism because of the circumstances in Europe and specifically Germany at the time. Hitler turned on the Jews because they made up the social elite that was impossible to achieve at the time. Marx and Engels crafted communism to destroy elitism and poverty in one blow. Brilliantly true story. Anyways, that's my rebuttal. You do seem quite learned though for your age. I'm 16, and most of the people I know even two years older dont know a thing about politics and foreign politics at all. So cheers and a salute to that. ************************************************************************************************************************************ Quote Originally Posted by HailVictory Would you support my platform if I ran for president today? I would definitely support AboveAlpha over these crackpots. I've thought about running a lot, and if I get into West Point and after I get out of the military, I may go into politics and run, but alas, I am too young right now. My platform would be along the lines of this. Generally, I would try to promote bipartisanship. Contrary to popular belief, Fascism is just authoritative centrism really (look at the political compass and you'll see) My numbers are (0,6), so I would stress bipartisanship but more government intervention on things. As for specific issues, I'll list my opinions on them, I just want to see how people would react to them and if I would get the support of both the Left and the Right. Anyways, AboveAlpha2016! Foreign Policy and Immigration: So, it's true. We can't just let anyone in the country. We can't just leave our doors open to any random guy to come in. We do need to crack down on illegal immigration. Rather than *ahem* build a wall, I say we make legal immigration easier, and focus more on getting illegals in the country paths to citizenship. As for the Syrian refugee crisis, we do the same thing. Screen them intensively for any terrorist connections (anyone who got as far as America has been screened heavily already so) and then see if we can't get them American citizenship. I would, however, fund programs that teach English for free, make English the national language, and focus efforts on integration into American society. You can speak your native language in your home on private property, or property you own that specifically states another language is permitted, but English is the most used language in the country and we need to make that the backbone. War and Peace: We gotta bring our men back. Out of the Middle East, out of Europe, out of Japan. Focus more on our country. I would want to somehow unify with Canada. Because, contrary to popular belief, we get most of our oil from them. It would solve a lot of issues if Canada and the US were one country. Not militarily of course. Diplomatically unify. I would, however, turn my attention to building up infrastructure and setting up American sanctioned governments with strong police forces in the Middle East. This will solve the issue of terrorism. Look at Japan, we did the same thing with them, and look at them today. But we need to bring our troops back. I would invest more in our military, but I'll get to that later. Free Trade: America first is a good idea. I am going to ban outsourcing. And stop imports. If we unify with Canada we'll have enough oil to go around. And we can focus on switching over to an autarky, where America is a self-sustaining country not dependant on foreign imports. We have the space and climate and resources for it, so let's get it done. American based companies can have exports and spread to other countries, but employees have to comply with US law and US worker regulation. Essentially, a McDonald's in Saudi Arabia is a piece of American soil bound by American law, and violation of American law by that specific McDonald's will result in a forced closure of that McDonald's. Energy and Oil: As I said before, work on getting Canadian oil for free (make Canadian oil American oil). Also invest more in renewable energy so we aren't bound to non-renewable sources. Essentially, invest in both, make one cheap, and the other possible, Gun Control: No more privately owned guns on private property. Period. Confine guns to ranges and hunting grounds where you'll actually use them for sport. I really disapprove of hunting when we have enough food to actually eat, and the life of the animal is shed unnecessarily, but I am not going to outright ban it. Maybe make it less popular. But yes, you can have guns, just on shooting ranges and hunting grounds where they will be stored until you come back to use them. This will prevent mass shootings but also not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. You have limits to the 1st Amendment for good reason, so its only fitting that you have limits to the 2nd Amendment as well, when lives are at stake. Ideally, I would want to ban guns outright, but that won't solve anything as of now so guns are to be confined to places where you actually use them. Crime and Police: Make the police force a branch of the military, subject them to military treatment, and bind them by military laws. Expand government surveillance and fund a secret police force to counter terrorism and police the actual police force. Combine various government agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and local police forces into one organization with different departments rather than separate organizations with different jobs. Any allegations made by government surveillance or the secret police force are to be taken to court, as if the police is suing the suspect, so the police must prove the suspect guilty with evidence under the eyes of a judge. Force policemen to wear cameras so we know what they are doing. I think this will solve some of the issues raised by BLM and fallen police members. Drugs: Strictly regulate alcohol and ban tobacco. Ban all other drugs unless they are medicinal or just coffee. The stronger police force can crack this down. Doing drugs won't be an offense warranting jail time, just an offense that goes on your record, and a confiscation of the drug you used, along with a house search to find out if you have any more. Just having it on your record is bad enough, you don't need to serve jail time for it. Civil Rights: So I'm just going off of OnTheIssues.org, so I'm assuming this means gay rights and LGBT stuff. I don't approve of homosexuality and transgender surgery at all. I think we should ban the surgery. But we can't get rid of gays or transgenders as it is right now. So what's the harm in letting them use the bathroom or marry. If they are openly gay or just have to use the bathroom, let them do it for Christ's sake. As for BLM and minority groups, ban groups that promote the advancement of one race, so the American Nazi Party and the NAACP. I think that these groups are just making it illegal to be racist, but that doesn't solve racism in general. Fund a new Department of Race Relations that evaluates cases of discrimination if brought up." "Economy and Taxes: Ok so this is huge. Contrary to popular belief, our debt really isn't much of an issue. Ok ok ok, I know we are in the hole a couple trillion dollars, but it hasn't stopped us from spending more money, and we really dont have any consequences for doing so. However, we do need to crack down on unnecessary spending and keep government expenses to a minimum. Stopping imports will help. We should have public works funded on a volunteer basis by rich people, similar to the way the military works. So if no one does fund it, we go through a system of people who have income over an extremely high level and ask each for a donation of 1000 dollars or something relatively small like that so we have enough in the end to fund the programs. This is just for jobs like roads and maintenance, not for government employee wages and such. As for taxes, the same threshold that pays for public works will also be taxed slightly higher (and I am talking extremely rich people where it doesn't matter if we tax them more, it wont effect them, not moderately rich people). Anyone below that income threshold pays a flat tax until we get to lower-middle class and lower class who pay a tax relative to their annual income. We add indirect taxes to more items except produce, meat, and water. Education: K-12 gets a national standard curriculum and every public school receives the same annual allowance from the national government, not the local one. This way, every school can pay for the necessary resources and no public school has a better quality than any other school. This will stop city gentrification and promote more equality and make Alexander Hamilton's aristocracy of talent a truth. Every college will operate the same way the United States Military Academy operates, requiring 3 years of military service after graduation to pay for your free college tuition and room and board. Rather than go to actual combat, most of these soldiers will do the work of construction workers and such, so we dont waste money paying people to build infrastructure. We can send the soldiers to the Middle East to build them up and spread Americanism. Soldiers who stay after their required 2 years receive more benefits and a salary. West Point, the Air Force Academy, and the Naval Academy still train officers and operate the same way they do now, slightly above grade to the other colleges. Expand ivy league schools and such to act as graduate schools that require 3 more years of service and are only for PhD's and MD's. All other schools train to Master's level. Make K-12 education provide a Bachelor's, so high school is basically college, and you get to major and such. Also convert the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts into a party youth group that does the same jobs that graduates do, only for younger kids. They do volunteer work and cut down on government expenses. Healthcare: Military Academy grads and people who stay after their required service get full free healthcare. Ban private healthcare. Make healthcare a sort of insurance investment, like social security. Based on your annual income, same as taxes, you pay a portion of your monthly pay to your healthcare fund. People who are too poor can take a loan when they need it, and pay it back without interest over the course of their life, however long it takes. However, the required payments become flat for the richer people and are proportional for poorer people. In addition, richer people can choose to pay for poorer people's medical costs as a sort of charity. Essentially, if you choose to, you can donate a little bit extra in the month to help pay off poorer people's loans. Abortion is legal and free, and a part of every hospital and doctor's office. Circumcision is illegal unless for religious reasons in which case you have to pay extra for it. Obviously, female circumcision works the same way, so if you have a religious obligation, you pay more for it, but only if you verify it's for religion. So that's pretty much it, unless I can think of anything more. Gambling will have a set high, so you can't gamble any higher money after a certain point proportional to your income (yours this time, not your family income. Basically, you cant use your spouses income to pay for your gambling). Alcohol will be regulated. Work on dissolving state and local governments and instead operate on a national embassy in your state and county basis. If you have questions or I think of any other policy, that's what I am here for! So, would you, if I ran today, support this platform? Let's hear it."
Too many things wrong here. I would never support a Dictatorship. You advocate eliminating civil rights, ignoring the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the foundation of our civil Rights and Liberty and Freedom. Gun control is a great litmus test of Freedom and Liberty. When Political hopefuls start by advocating Gun Control, it is a sure sign of future oppression. The Bill of Rights serves a purpose, the amendments define Freedom and Liberty. Once you start ignoring them, we lose our hard earned bought and paid for Liberty, Won with the blood of valiant soldiers on the Battlefields throughout History.
I agree that there are serious problems in HailVictory's platform as he writes it up here........ I would love it if he were to take a look at Steven D. Kelly's list...... and see which parts he might be able to agree with: http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/421384-steve-d-kelly-has-interesting-platform.html Steve D. Kelly has an interesting platform. He sure got my attention with part 1 of his plan! Steve D. Kelly:......."Yes, I am running for president. I am going to talk about it on air in one hour on Freedom of Joyce show, www.freedomslips.com Studio A (11am pst) Steven's Platform But.... HailVictory is PERFECT..... for a semi-reality science fiction film series...... set supposedly in 2034 - 2036, 2037....... when he becomes President of the USA........ but he alters the situation in 2017 - 2020....... through a film project set supposedly in 1939........????? http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...nce-unified-theory-modern-world-problems.html
HailVictory...... I just listened to an interview that I believe you will find helpful as you chart your course to the White House. https://www.facebook.com/RealProgressive/videos/1729521777377245/?__mref=message Live with good friend and fellow MMT aficionado, Chris Brown Chris Brown:
Interesting....Money in itself is simply a means at converting work into something you can collect and use to trade for things you need or want; conversion of work into livelihood. We really need to work on keeping less of the interest in the foreign sector (depending on how you're defining the term) and keeping it in the private sector and the government. With people tied to the wellbeing of the government, like this man Chris Brown, people will 1) care more about how well the country spends its money and 2) benefit from a more prosperous nation, providing an incentive to do work ulterior to basic capitalism. This is something communism was missing; the incentive is lost because you're working for some kind of unseen "greater good".
Chris has also introduced me to an idea that I had never read explained in this way ever before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
I'd agree that money is a more efficient way of storing, transporting, saving, and deploying your labor (in the future). The economy of the US is tricky because we all tend to look at what our government spends (G) and what our government takes away, taxes (T) and think of them in a certain way. When one exceeds the other there is an imbalance. If G exceeds T, we call it a "deficit" and when T exceeds G, we call it a "surplus". But why? We're using the terms deficit and surplus relative to the government's position. Why would we look at it from the government's point-of-view? We're all in the private sector! The government spending is the private sectors surplus (income). Thus, when G exceeds T it's not a "deficit", it's a "surplus" and when T exceeds G it's a "deficit" from the private sectors point-of-view. Think about it, in order for the government to take more in T than it spends in G, the private sector must have less money. Now I have to put in a slight caveat for all the Canadians here because in Canada it is possible for T to exceed G and still have more money in your economy IF Exports (X) exceed Imports (M). For those in the US, we run deep trade deficits. However, again, there are two ways to view a trade deficit. We call it a "trade deficit" or a surplus of real goods and services. Think about it....In the US' case, we export dollars and import real goods and services. Change your thinking a little and you'll realize that exports are real COSTS and imports are real BENEFITS. Canada sits on lots of oil. Much of which is sent out of the nation of Canada to be sold. Canada is exporting things of REAL value and importing electronic credits. When you think about it like that, you might start questioning the idea of exports. In the US we Import $600 billion more than we export. Ok, I digress....Let's get back to the point I was making. The point is, you don't want to support a "balanced budget", you want to support a balanced economy! Take (G-T)+(M-X)= z if z is less than zero your economy is running a negitive balance and if the economy is to grow, the private sector must deplete its savings or increase its borrowing in order to make up for the negitive government balance. In the US last year it would look like this: (all number in trillions, numbers are all respective to the formula above) ($3.951-$3.335=$0.615)+($1.810-$1.209=$0.600) (red for negitive) So the US economy was positive $15 billion... That's not bad (2015 was negative $390billion) But let's look what happens when the US runs a government surplus.....| From 1998-2001 ($7.006-7.565=$0.559)+($4.297-$2.88=-$1.409) $0.559+$1.409=$1.968 So the US private sector shed $1.968 trillion dollars!!! $559 billion went to the Federal Government and $1.4 Trillion went outside the US economy. This isn't conspiracy talk. These are easy to find mathematical facts. Here is another fact. Ever single time (save one) the US government has run a period of sustained surplus, the US economy has fallen into depression. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1998-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 9%. Recession began 2001 Only the 1998-2001 period wasn't followed by depression, but it was followed by a short recession in 2002 and the fiscal crash of 2008. Now I'm not saying the surplus caused the crash of '08, but I think it made the crash much worse than it might have been. Private debt is the real problem, not public debt. Now that's not to say that public debt is never a problem, but the best way to determine that is to look at the industrial capacity utilization of your country, look at unemployment, if the companies in your country have spare capacity and there are people out of work, then increasing spending will incentivize companies to hire to meet demand. Said another way, if inflation happens when spending (driven by demand) creates more demand than there is supply, then inflation can be the result, but if spending does not cause a shortage in labor or raw materials such that companies can meet new higher levels of demand, then there will be no inflation, and even better, there will be reduced unemployment! Ok, so that's a lot to absorb and there are a lot of nuances I can't possibly cover without writing a book, So if you have questions, I invite everyone to ask questions!....Enjoy
I want to clarify this point: Remember that I am looking at things from the look at things from the private sectors point-of-view. X must exceed M by more than T exceeds G in order to get a positive balance. So if X=10 and M=7 and G=20 and T=22 than: Exports are in surplus and Government spending is in deficit because the government is taking more from the private sector than it is giving back in spending. So... X-M=3 G-T=-2 (again this is from the private sector's point-of-view. This is NOT how it's reported on the news. This is called a "surplus" in government). and finally adding it all up XM+GT=1 In this case, when X exceeds M by more than T exceeds G the economic balance is positive.
