Letter From One Percent

[AnimeGirl2501]

Is this to do with the theories behind 'the longer someone can stay unemployed until they find a job which best suits their skills, the better'?

Well it would sort of make sense, I mean if you are unemployed and you go for a job and your not good at it,your gonna get fired, so if you stay unemployed and look fr a job that your reasonably skilled at then, I think so, I mean, can you imagine if there were no unemployed people, what would the point of shops opening in the day be, if there was hardly anyone to go into them as those people were working. I don't know, I mean can you imagine the negatives of having no single person unemployed.

TV statins would have no audiences lol and loads of other things companies rely on the unemployed to do lol

 

[InvisibleJim]

TV statins would have no audiences lol and loads of other things companies rely on the unemployed to do lol

To a point it is self moderating.

Remember however, that government 'unemployed' figures are a fudge which do not include those who chose not to work.

 

[muir]

On a more serious note, I believe muir and me have this discussion at least once a month.

Same place next month Jim?

We can be like the band playing as the titanic goes down!

Left and right in perpetual waltz whilst the bankers imminantise the eschaton

This is good for us and is useful reference for others if they ever wish to observe one us trying to square the circle and the others attempting to circle the square. It's interesting because the means of discussion is as opposing as the viewpoint regarding the way forward.

I didn't know you were into sacred geometry!

What can I say, at the age of 20 most people are socialists/statists, by 30 most people are capitalists/individualists.

Yes its true the capitalists exterminate all the socialists on their 30th birthday! Ok that's not entirely true, but they do try to kill many peoples hope!

Socialism doesn't mean statism. That would be specifically 'state socialism'. Arguably if you go right round the political spectrum in the other direction you get to a similar point....centralised power (leading to exploitation and corruption)

'Libertarian socialism', (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) on the other hand, is all about personal freedoms! The corporate media will tell you that 'socialism' is all about control though because they want your mind plugged into the capitalist perception matrix!

They will even say that russia was 'communist' when in fact it was a market economy run by a central government and therefore was 'state capitalist'.

I agree with anarcho-capitalists in as far as wanting to do away with the government and state apparatus, but i don't agree with their idea of bringing back the law of the jungle....i think that would have a very nasty end for everyone....there are far nicer ways of solving unemployement!

I think we should have no government, but instead delegates elected by communities to carry forward their mandate. They could be instantly revoked if they did not do so. They in turn could elect delegates from among their number to represent at a higher level eg regional level and so on.

That way power comes directly from the people and is accountable to them

Under government we have groups elected every 5 years who, regardless of what political party they claim to be a part of, are basically members of the 'business party' that transcends political parties.

These people are not very accountable and are easily corruptable. The political process becomes a carefully stage managed charade paid for by business interests. I think the next US presidential campaign is expected to cost a billion dollars for both democrat and republican parties!

Aren't there schools or hospitals that could use that money?

 

[InvisibleJim]

I didn't know you were into sacred geometry!

What can you say. I'm a very special man.

 

[hiagen]

What it leads to is corruption and exploitation. 'Progress' seems to mean people working longer hours to later ages, whilst burdened with greater debt. It also seems to mean the acceleration in the destruction of the environment. Competition has lead to the drive for 'progress' so maybe what we need is better diplomatic relations around the world so that everyone can take their foot off the gas a little bit and we can start running an honest audit of the worlds resources and try to establish how we can manage them without a massive conflict.



That depends on how you define 'control'. I think people have very legitimate concerns about changes to legislation that might impact their civil liberties and also about what future changes there might be. In fact as participants in a democracy they have every right to be concerned and to express their concern



Who do you mean here?



There have been variations on the theme. A common theme is the struggle and tension between the 1-5% and the rest. What many of us are saying is that now with the advent of the internet (a global means of communicating) and with a wealth of lessons learned from history we (humanity) are now better placed than ever before to evolve into a society that is fairer and less oppressive.

There is a strong argument to be made that the tension between these two groups and the actions of the few taken to maintain that status quo have been hugely damaging to the human experience and to the environment and that there are certain pressing matters for example: economic crisis, dwindling resources and nuclear proliferation that mean that not only are we better placed then ever to evolve we have never been under so much pressure to evolve.

Now is not the time to let a few greedy people violently hoard the wealth. Now is the time for the 99% to work together to prevent mutual destruction and to take the next step in the evolution of human society. That requires wrestling power off the 1-5% in order to achieve truer democracy

Although competition "can" lead to progress, fully centralised economies today could perform just as well IMO, it seems since "private coperations" were introduced, competion has become manipulative, and Malcom-X-like("by any means necessary", actually imagine a more desperate, hopeful version of the same saying). It put excess pressure on the managers who trusted their company to attend with a positive attitude, It never educated them(why are people playing dumb *shrugs*), who often consider resignation, with grey hairs, to search for an alternative, less closed career.

I respect expression, but when peoples concerns aren't valid, and they have no solid evidence to put forward, just subjective intrepretaion...no.. guesses, and they think your behaviour's an attempt to teach them their own (when your just trying to put them at ease.....they clearly look so Damn tense, and intimidated), then they're just paranoid.

That CEO, Paraline Timid.

Erm, That sound "great"....and hopeless.

 

[muir]

Although competition "can" lead to progress, fully centralised economies today could perform just as well IMO, it seems since "private coperations" were introduced, competion has become manipulative, and Malcom-X-like("by any means necessary", actually imagine a more desperate, hopeful version of the same saying). It put excess pressure on the managers who trusted their company to attend with a positive attitude, It never educated them(why are people playing dumb *shrugs*), who often consider resignation, with grey hairs, to search for an alternative, less closed career.

I respect expression, but when peoples concerns aren't valid, and they have no solid evidence to put forward, just subjective intrepretaion...no.. guesses, and they think your behaviour's an attempt to teach them their own (when your just trying to put them at ease.....they clearly look so Damn tense, and intimidated), then they're just paranoid.

That CEO, Paraline Timid.

Erm, That sound "great"....and hopeless.

I'm not sure i totally follow what you're saying here. Are you saying that you would like to see power even more centralised because it would increase efficiency?

The ultimate expression of that would be power residing in one person. That's ok as long as that person is a benevolent dictator but what happens when a less compassionate person comes to power? So even if you had the most enlightened leader (s) to begin with the system (of centralised power) would be so open to missuse that it could prove catastrophic.

There has been a struggle against things over the centuries such as the divine right of kings. Magna Carta was created to lesson the power of the king and guard against tyrannical abuses of power.

Competiton around the world is driving a global arms race, a race for resources and a geo-political chessgame where the pieces are actual countries.....it is not going to end well

All these people movements such as: the indignados, the occupy wall street, the G20 and so on are basically a reaction against increasing corporate dominance. The more power the corporations grab the less of a part people can play in the democratic process.

It boils down to whether you think the people on the street should have a say in their own affairs or whether corporations should run our lives, resources and world for us.........i know that's a simplification, but that's it in a nut shell.

The corporations/banks are basically forcing austerity measures on the people of the world whilst buying up the assets of the world....people have a right to be angry and the best way for people to safeguard their interests is for them to have a say in the decision making process and therefore guard against tyrannical abuses of power

 

[Stu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Transfer_Day

 

[Matt3737]

muir, I'm deeply intrigued into your ideas about competition, cooperation, power, and control. I get a sense of definition, but can not make it out substantially.

Consider the social dynamics of team sports, in which internal competition (between team members) increases social solidarity and produces a more efficient, cooperative whole in which to compete against other teams operating with their own internal conflicts which have the potential to break up and dissolve a team or make them successful.

 

[muir]

muir, I'm deeply intrigued into your ideas about competition, cooperation, power, and control. I get a sense of definition, but can not make it out substantially.

Consider the social dynamics of team sports, in which internal competition (between team members) increases social solidarity and produces a more efficient, cooperative whole in which to compete against other teams operating with their own internal conflicts which have the potential to break up and dissolve a team or make them successful.

Ok lets look at team sports

The public like to get behind a team for whatever reason: maybe it is their local team, maybe it was their parents team, maybe they just like the teams strip.......

They watch their team play thousands of games over their lifetime, they invest thousands of hours of their lives, a lot of energy both emotional and physical but at the end of it what has actually changed in the world?

In effect they have spent a lot of time watching some people move an object around. Sometimes their team wins, sometimes it loses and they invest so much concern over events that have no actual effect on the world and therefore no actual importance except what people decide to attribute to it in their own minds.

So the public are distracted by watching this process of flashing colours, thrills and spills, loud noises and emotional highs and lows. A lot of resources, time and energy are bound up in the whole process whether it is by the individuals watching the games or by the upkeep of the league itself eg maintaining grounds, transport, catering etc

All those investments could be put to far greater use in a world of limited resource.....but that's an aside that's not my main point.

Whilst the public is distracted by this merry-go-round ride there are people who don't care which team wins or loses. They don't care who wins or loses because they are going to make money regardless of the outcome of games. These are the people who own the league.

If youre smart you don't watch the players running around the field, because they are a meaningless little show put on for the masses, you watch the people running the league, because that is what really determines the flows of money and the movements of people; the rest is just drama

Thats on a macrocosmic scale.

In terms of the dynamics you mean between players and between teams which you seem to be suggesting boosts performance, i think that first of all most sportsmen/women are ground into the ground physically by their early thirties and must leave their sport with a catalogue of physical complaints that will trouble them for the rest of their lives....bare that in mind as I look at an analogy.

Lets say that players compete with each other within teams and then they join together to compete against other teams. There will be rivalries, back stabbing, intrigue, jostling, cheating, sabotage, bribes and all the other nefarious means often employed in situations of competition to gain advantage. So that might not be bringing out the best in people for a start.

These things will occur when teams compete as well with perhaps added violence stemming from the pressure to succeed for example injuries from over exhertion and injuries from fouls committed.

Now lets imagine those teams were countries and that they were armed to the teeth with a variety of lethal weapons and some nuclear ICBM's for good measure. What was an engaging physical contest is now a battle for survival. As it is life or death there will be no quarter given and there will be no rules; sure international treaties might set out rules for example banning torture, but like the rules of sports games these will be broken in the drive to succeed.

If the contest continues long enough what is the end result? Will all the countries destroy each other, or like sports teams playing an endless game, will they destroy their playing field, therefore rendering the game impossible, or will one team gain a mastery over the others and aquire all the rewards leaving the other teams feeling dejected and broken?

Meanwhile there are people in the shadows who have funded all the teams. They don't care who wins because they will always benefit anyway.

Marx once said that religion had a soothing effect on the people. Perhaps that idea could be revised for the modern age. Perhaps now it is sport that distracts the people from what the shadowy figures are doing with all the money and perhaps sport soaks up all the energy of the people that really should be spent tackling the shadowy figures instead of following a series of ultimately meaningless events which will yield different outcomes all the time, none of which will make a real difference to peoples lives in a material sense

So if countries act like sports teams....and they usually do, then its going to be very messy. They will all strive to succeed no matter what harm it causes to other teams and to the environment. The point i'm trying to make is that competiton often brings out the worst in people and is usually destructive. It burns up a lot of energy and resources that could be invested for the common good, if cooperation was embraced instead of competition.

With competition the winners will be few and the losers will be many.

.....that's before we even start looking at match fixing!

 

[Matt3737]

How about cooperation then? Your response would seem to suggest that cooperation is merely another form of control and that there can be no rationally defined form.

Marx once said that religion had a soothing effect on the people. Perhaps that idea could be revised for the modern age. Perhaps now it is sport that distracts the people from what the shadowy figures are doing with all the money and perhaps sport soaks up all the energy of the people that really should be spent tackling the shadowy figures instead of following a series of ultimately meaningless events which will yield different outcomes all the time, none of which will make a real difference to peoples lives in a material sense

Marx also defined society in terms of class struggles, but then intimated ideas of a utopian society that would be free of such a struggle which clearly contradicts his original definition of society. How then can society 'cooperate' without any feelings of internal conflict?

 

[hiagen]

I'm not sure i totally follow what you're saying here. Are you saying that you would like to see power even more centralised because it would increase efficiency?

The ultimate expression of that would be power residing in one person. That's ok as long as that person is a benevolent dictator but what happens when a less compassionate person comes to power? So even if you had the most enlightened leader (s) to begin with the system (of centralised power) would be so open to missuse that it could prove catastrophic.

There has been a struggle against things over the centuries such as the divine right of kings. Magna Carta was created to lesson the power of the king and guard against tyrannical abuses of power.

Competiton around the world is driving a global arms race, a race for resources and a geo-political chessgame where the pieces are actual countries.....it is not going to end well

All these people movements such as: the indignados, the occupy wall street, the G20 and so on are basically a reaction against increasing corporate dominance. The more power the corporations grab the less of a part people can play in the democratic process.

It boils down to whether you think the people on the street should have a say in their own affairs or whether corporations should run our lives, resources and world for us.........i know that's a simplification, but that's it in a nut shell.

The corporations/banks are basically forcing austerity measures on the people of the world whilst buying up the assets of the world....people have a right to be angry and the best way for people to safeguard their interests is for them to have a say in the decision making process and therefore guard against tyrannical abuses of power

No. What I’m saying is, centralization of power’s dominant in many areas of life, we seem to be heading towards more and more centralization of power, both on a macro and micro level. The few control the many, we’re told that it increases efficiency in decision making as the few in partnership have less people to report to before arriving to major decision, thus, decision are made faster, the more diversity in decision making, the less control the central few would have. The introduction of the EURO currency’s an example of centralization on a macro scale; simply, most hierarchies have a pyramid structure.

The person in question would be subject to the system, if it qualifies him to be part of the few in power, then righteousness and good will are almost irrelevant, other attributes such work rate, ruthlessness, competiveness, success in management, or basically any quality that betters productivity.

I do agree with you, it certainly is a flawed system IMO, at this point, alternative are restricted by the system itself, meaning, it would take a change of the “entire” system to accomplish anything close to your suggestion, also, the masses would have to accept, or demand the change, for now, people seem secure with the structure, as they envision themselves climbing the hierarchy to be part of the few, and the satisfaction and status that come with such positions.

 

[muir]

No. What I

 

[muir]

How about cooperation then? Your response would seem to suggest that cooperation is merely another form of control and that there can be no rationally defined form.?

I believe in cooperation but not in cooperating to compete with other groups. Instead of having lots of teams competing, expand the team outwards so that everyone is a member of the team!

Marx also defined society in terms of class struggles, but then intimated ideas of a utopian society that would be free of such a struggle which clearly contradicts his original definition of society. How then can society 'cooperate' without any feelings of internal conflict?

You can limit human fallibility by denying the opportunity to err. For example if you have regulations in place it is harder for bankers to manipulate the economy.

A system such as capitalism allows people to gain influence through wealth. The very attributes required to gain vast wealth, might not be the best attributes for running a society however.

A system that measures success by the ability to accumulate wealth and therefore influence is not necesarily one that is playing to the better side of human nature.

And by 'better' side i mean the one that is concerned with the welfare of the collective

One way of preventing humans erring in a classic example of human fallibility such as greed, would be for everyone to be a part of the decision making process. If everyone has a say and equal voting power then the greedy excesses of an individual or of a few could be watered down by the many who could recognise that the actions of the greedy few would be harmful to them if left unchecked.

For example the occupy london stock exchange protest that is currently going on is in a part of the city called 'The City of London' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_Of_London) or 'the square mile'.

The city of london is the financial centre of the world. It is a state within a state, like the vatican is in Italy, which is the religious centre of the world.

The District of Columbia in Washington is also a state within a state and is the administrative centre of the world. It houses the government of the US and its intelligence agencies and '176 foreign embassies as well as the headquarters of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization of American States (OAS), the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The headquarters of many other institutions such as trade unions, non-profit organizations, lobbying groups, and professional associations are also located in the city.' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C).

The city of london has its own police force, is a tax haven for the super rich and is not subject to the same sort of scrutiny that the rest of the UK is.There are 8,000 residents of the city but there are 40,000 voters because every business in the city gets to appoint a voter. Until 2002 the business votes for the city numbered 16,000 but Tony Blair doubled this to 32,000.

So what you have there is a small number of corporations/banks operating above the law, getting an easier ride than everyday people, given much more clout in the democratic process and able to lobby the politicians. In fact the corporation of london has its own permanant lobbyist in the houses of parliament ensuring that no laws are being passed that will affect the city. The square mile is rife with money laundering, insider trading and god knows what other forms of crime.

A former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee wrote

 

[Matt3737]

I believe in cooperation but not in cooperating to compete with other groups. Instead of having lots of teams competing, expand the team outwards so that everyone is a member of the team!

This still doesn't address sources of internal conflict. It sounds hopelessly naive.

You use harsh words like power, control, manipulation, greed, exploitation and coercion when describing our current socioeconomic system, but then use words like fallible, error, regulate, choice, welfare, cooperation, and decision to intimate towards reformist policies that you claim not to hold in order to further intimate towards some vague and insubstatiated utopia.

Do you not get your information from the contemporary media industry? That same corporate structure that has a vested interest in sensationalizing stories in order to increase circulation and profit?

Your concerns are completely valid and are shared by pretty much everyone in society, but I think you need to think about what you're trying to propose in response rather than jumping aboard the belligerence bandwagon that is currently fashionable.

 

[bickelz]

you wouldn't be in competition anymore.

As long as resources are scarce, there will always be competition. In. Every. Economic. Model.

 

[muir]

This still doesn't address sources of internal conflict. It sounds hopelessly naive..

Can you explain what you mean by internal conflict?

You use harsh words like power, control, manipulation, greed, exploitation and coercion when describing our current socioeconomic system, but then use words like fallible, error, regulate, choice, welfare, cooperation, and decision to intimate towards reformist policies that you claim not to hold in order to further intimate towards some vague and insubstatiated utopia

Harsh words for harsh times Matt

It isn't an unsubstantiated utopia and exists in various forms already

What concerns me is that with every crisis the power elite do something to appease the masses for example 'the new deal' but it doesn't stop the onward process of centralisation of wealth and power....the very process that is driving the wars abroad and the saver v's speculator war at home.

Do you not get your information from the contemporary media industry? That same corporate structure that has a vested interest in sensationalizing stories in order to increase circulation and profit?

No that is not my only source...in fact many of my views have been scultped by experience

Your concerns are completely valid and are shared by pretty much everyone in society, but I think you need to think about what you're trying to propose in response rather than jumping aboard the belligerence bandwagon that is currently fashionable.

If its 'currently fashionable' then i must be a trend setter as i've been saying this stuff for years. You can read my views dating back at least to October 2009 on this forum.

You're into team sports aren't you?

 

[muir]

As long as resources are scarce, there will always be competition. In. Every. Economic. Model.

If we don't manage them more wisely there's going to be a whole lot more competition. The few people at the top are profit orientated, they are not looking at long term sustainable management.

 

[bickelz]

If we don't manage them more wisely there's going to be a whole lot more competition. The few people at the top are profit orientated, they are not looking at long term sustainable management.

We do need to manage them wisely and since we can assume everybody in business is out to make money, I think we can make policy decisions around that that encourage using natural resources wisely.

There are avenues within the system we can use to make it better.

 

[muir]

We do need to manage them wisely and since we can assume everybody in business is out to make money, I think we can make policy decisions around that that encourage using natural resources wisely.

There are avenues within the system we can use to make it better.

Hey i'm with you all the way!

I'll support any reforms you suggest, but I also know that you will not deliver a decisive blow against the monied interests by doing that.

Instead you will be locked in an ongoing power struggle against them and once you've overcome the financial depression, within a generation, people will have forgotten all about the greedy bankers and they will be distracted by new corporate made trinkets and the bankers will start making yards again bit by bit until before you know it you are in another depression

I'd bet money on it (for what savings are worth these days due to the central banks keeping interest rates low and the savings torching inflation; within a wider deflationary spiral)

 

[Matt3737]

Well it is clear to me that you are either legitimately paranoid and are writing in order to work out your emotions or you're trolling. In either case, I hereby withdraw my objections and concede to your points.