Photos of cyclists in Holland... or maybe Denmark? Lost the link...

Tom Sherman wrote:
Where did the current owners get their capital in the first place? It
did not fall down from the heavens on the word of God. Mainly the
holders of capital obtained it through inheritance from rapacious
ancestors.

The capital problem could be easily solved through a system of
appropriate taxes and loans.

What planet do you live on??

Virtually all startups are leveraged savings by people of very modest means.
In my first import business, I bought money orders in Sterling with my
paycheck and had a couple weeks to turn the merchandise before the rent
was due. Ask among small business owners in your neighborhood and you'll
find some very creative sources of capital were used. Interesting
stories are the norm, not family wealth. If anything, growing up rich
seems to produce more wastrels than strivers.

Taxes should be for revenue not for diddling in social policy, IMHO.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew Muzi wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Where did the current owners get their capital in the first place? It
did not fall down from the heavens on the word of God. Mainly the
holders of capital obtained it through inheritance from rapacious
ancestors.

The capital problem could be easily solved through a system of
appropriate taxes and loans.

What planet do you live on??

Virtually all startups are leveraged savings by people of very modest
means.

And most start-ups fail. In addition, start-ups are limited in what
markets they can compete in - in manufacturing they would be limited to
very small specialty markets.

The start-ups that become major companies almost always have an outside
infusion of capital from either an already wealthy economic elite or a
government.

In my first import business, I bought money orders in Sterling with my
paycheck and had a couple weeks to turn the merchandise before the rent
was due. Ask among small business owners in your neighborhood and you'll
find some very creative sources of capital were used.

In my neighborhood, practically all the small businesses have been
displaced by national or regional chains.

Interesting
stories are the norm, not family wealth. If anything, growing up rich
seems to produce more wastrels than strivers.

Starting with capital certainly works for some people. With the
appropriate connections, one can make out like a bandit, even when
lacking in business skills. The rich hire corporate lawyers and managers
for a reason.

Taxes should be for revenue not for diddling in social policy, IMHO.

Taxes should be used to fund a government for the betterment of society.
However, in practice, much tax revenue is used for welfare for those who
need it least.

"Johnny barely barely graduated from college with a C- average. Let's
set him up as a consultant to the government, so he can make an upper
middle class income."

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 16, 2:41*pm, A Muzi wrote:
ESOP programs are not new. It's a common arrangement.

I think Tom is proposing something very different from an employee
stock ownership plan... those are more like savings and bonus plans,
rather than companies that are owned and controlled by the employees.
I also assume that he proposes that in the interest of the public
good, these are the only sort of company structures allowed to exist.

On Feb 16, 2:45*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Where did the current owners get their capital in the first place? It
did not fall down from the heavens on the word of God. Mainly the
holders of capital obtained it through inheritance from rapacious ancestors.

Agreed... but it does little good to consider changes unless we
understand the present state of affairs... and use that as a starting
point.

The capital problem could be easily solved through a system of
appropriate taxes and loans.

Maybe... I'm just curious about the details.

Since the main goal of the elite is power and not wealth, they will not
give up power lightly. That is why the elites inhibit true democracy.

Of course it isn't easy, but they must be dealt with rather than
"eliminated". The power hungry will always be with us, and it is the
duty of the rest of us to fight for our rights... and make our society
a good one. The trick in other words is to keep the corrupting
influences (and parasites) in check. The problem it seems is that the
populous is sufficiently dumbed down and depressed and scared, that
even though they have a vague feeling that *something* is wrong, they
are incapable of deducing what that something is, and are much less
able to propose (or even understand) a viable solution. We have no
power unless we can agree on an intelligent course of action.

History has shown otherwise.

I haven't seen any revolts in first world pseudo democratic countries
though. And in a country where the media control is as pervasive as
this one, I don't see how an alternative would ever gain traction. A
mindless angry revolt would be the worst thing that could happen.

Ron Ruff wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:41 pm, A Muzi wrote:
ESOP programs are not new. It's a common arrangement.

I think Tom is proposing something very different from an employee
stock ownership plan... those are more like savings and bonus plans,
rather than companies that are owned and controlled by the employees.
I also assume that he proposes that in the interest of the public
good, these are the only sort of company structures allowed to exist.

Well, there is no inherent right for any type of business but the sole
proprietorship and partnership to exist. Furthermore, hiring employees
to do work is a privilege, and not a right. Any large business structure
should only be allowed on moral grounds if it benefits society as a
whole, and not dis-proportionally a small group of elites at the expense
of the rest.

Originally, corporations were only chartered for a specific purpose from
which they could not divert, and the privileges of corporations were
also limited, e.g., one corporation could not own another.

In the US, the situation has (d)evolved into corporations being
considered immortal beings with rights GREATER than those of
individuals. The function of corporations is melding with that of
government, i.e. fascism. Democracy is not compatible with corporate power.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Ron Ruff wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:45 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Where did the current owners get their capital in the first place? It
did not fall down from the heavens on the word of God. Mainly the
holders of capital obtained it through inheritance from rapacious ancestors.

Agreed... but it does little good to consider changes unless we
understand the present state of affairs... and use that as a starting
point.

The capital problem could be easily solved through a system of
appropriate taxes and loans.

Maybe... I'm just curious about the details.

Since the main goal of the elite is power and not wealth, they will not
give up power lightly. That is why the elites inhibit true democracy.

Of course it isn't easy, but they must be dealt with rather than
"eliminated". The power hungry will always be with us, and it is the
duty of the rest of us to fight for our rights... and make our society
a good one. The trick in other words is to keep the corrupting
influences (and parasites) in check. The problem it seems is that the
populous is sufficiently dumbed down and depressed and scared, that
even though they have a vague feeling that *something* is wrong, they
are incapable of deducing what that something is, and are much less
able to propose (or even understand) a viable solution. We have no
power unless we can agree on an intelligent course of action.

History has shown otherwise.

I haven't seen any revolts in first world pseudo democratic countries
though. And in a country where the media control is as pervasive as
this one, I don't see how an alternative would ever gain traction. A
mindless angry revolt would be the worst thing that could happen.

If unemployment and underemployment become great enough, and the
government does nothing while the rich live it up in their gated
communities, the situation will explode. Imagine the Watts riots on a
national scale. Disastrous, yes, but the ruling elite seems too arrogant
and self-righteous to do anything about it.

Did the Bourbon's and Romanov's handle their situations of mass poverty
and desperation well?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 16, 4:37*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
If unemployment and underemployment become great enough, and the
government does nothing while the rich live it up in their gated
communities, the situation will explode.

Nothing that a good PR and disinformation campaign couldn't handle.
Recent history is great evidence of that. And if the people get out of
line anyway, then just kill a few and lock up the rest of the
"terrorists". Things would need to get very bad before a large
percentage would risk their lives for a "cause". Like I said, the PTB
would not be stupid enough to let this happen here unless it is part
of the "plan".

Speaking of PR, I've been listening to NPR lately (that bastion of
liberalism) and I'm amazed at how often the term "fighting AlQuada"
comes up in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. No, we are fighting the
Taliban in Afghanistan... the power structure we deposed... and if
there are any AlQuada in Iraq, they surely arrived after we did. Do
reporters and even talk show hosts ever think... or is this
diametrically opposed to their job description?

Ron Ruff wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:37 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
If unemployment and underemployment become great enough, and the
government does nothing while the rich live it up in their gated
communities, the situation will explode.

Nothing that a good PR and disinformation campaign couldn't handle.
Recent history is great evidence of that. And if the people get out of
line anyway, then just kill a few and lock up the rest of the
"terrorists". Things would need to get very bad before a large
percentage would risk their lives for a "cause". Like I said, the PTB
would not be stupid enough to let this happen here unless it is part
of the "plan".

Being homeless and living under conditions that they though would only
happen to people in "third world" countries would be enough.

Of course, a "designer" virus with only the "right" people having access
to the vaccine would "solve" the problem of too many people for resources.

Speaking of PR, I've been listening to NPR lately (that bastion of
liberalism) and I'm amazed at how often the term "fighting AlQuada"
comes up in reference to Iraq and Afghanistan. No, we are fighting the
Taliban in Afghanistan... the power structure we deposed... and if
there are any AlQuada in Iraq, they surely arrived after we did. Do
reporters and even talk show hosts ever think... or is this
diametrically opposed to their job description?

One starts to wonder if Al Qaeda is even a real organization, or just a
creation of intelligence agencies to scare the public into line. Too
many things do not pass the "smell test". Word out of Iraq is that some
of the "incidents" that provoked Sunni/Shia violence have suspicious,
non-Iraqi origins. Divide and conquer.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Per Ron Ruff:
Certainly... but the point I was truing to make is that the *only* way
that a society can collectively improve their living standards is via
improved efficiency and productivity... ie we do more with less
effort. I never see or hear this simple fact stated anywhere.

Mea Culpa. I missed the point - but now it's sunk in.

Somewhere I read that in the middle ages people worked
double-digit hours per day just to feed themselves and, at the
time of that reading, the average person in the USA worked about
20 minutes to feed themselves each day.
--
PeteCresswell

On Feb 16, 6:54*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Being homeless and living under conditions that they though would only
happen to people in "third world" countries would be enough.

I lived in the back of a pickup for 13 years and rather enjoyed it.
Hung out with the real homeless people on occasion and... I don't
think they lived badly. So long as they had food and either drugs or
booze they were happy. I lived mostly in the wilderness and could
afford to buy food (and even gas) so I was not quite in the same boat.
In all those years I was never really bothered by anyone but the
police.

The people who will become homeless are the people currently working
for minimum wage... who can't get a job. Unless this becomes a very
large group no one will care... and the disposessed might find that
their life actually improves so long as they can get food and drugs/
booze. People making minimum wage are not really looking forward to
the "American Dream" anyway. Not really the makings of a revolt... and
something easy to mollify by the PTB.

One starts to wonder if Al Qaeda is even a real organization, or just a
creation of intelligence agencies to scare the public into line.

It's obviously BS anyway...

Oh... and regarding the designer virus, I doubt that would be
practical... and it really isn't necessary.