Job creation

[grandpa]

I agree, our philosophy is probably at odds.
I'd bet the owner of the inground pool in my
example would be too.

That was a ridiculous argument, kids!
On top of that, we don't have a free market system.
Look at H-1Bs, for example.

I hate VDARE in general, but Norm Matloff correctly noted that
if on "does not believe the H-1Bs are paid less on
average than comparable Americans, he should read the studies performed at UCLA and
Cornell University which show the wage exploitation—with both studies
being authored by prominent immigrant advocates. And one doesn’t even
need studies, as the exploitation is clear from basic economic
principles: Due to the de facto indentured servitude of most H-1Bs,
they cannot get higher pay by changing employers or by threatening to
do so. Thus by definition, on average they cannot get as high a salary
as they would if they were able to move freely about in the labor
market."
:  An Indian reader asks, "Aren't Immigrants Just Taking The Jobs Americans Are Too Stupid To Do?"; Norm Matloff Replies | VDARE.com

Grandpa h.

[Georgia]

" It's a scam. It only works provided legal monopolism, and a police presence. And it overwhelmingly "works" for the rich -- for bankers and landgrabbers. If it's only "legitimate" because returns are received for them, they are operating a racket.

renting isn't honorable, in my view. It's a pathetic situation, just like being under the thumb of the banks.

99% of Americans either own or rent their homes and the majority of the 1% assume temporary housing. I'd bet even the most hard core communist countries such as North Korea and the industrial China has people living on the street, both by choice and not by choice.

Well I'm not going to disparage people who rent, I am sure it is the best they can do at this point in their life.
BTW people don't own property in the United States... at least I should say here in Georgia and I assume it's the same country wide.

I own two properties. My main residence has a mortgage so it is owned by a bank(s). My other property is paid free and clear. But I could never truly own either of therm. They would be confiscated and sold at auction by the State should I not pay the yearly tax.

"Who would get the very best mansions?" Are you just messing with me? Is that supposed to be a serious question?

Yes, absolutely serious. Every type of governmental system consists of the privileged and the poor because the human element of competition can't be eliminated except by force.

In a world where work has no personal value, what is the incentive to be productive, other than maintaining a mere existence?

Also, when you talk about "cost," you are missing the point once again. The point isn't to look at a house and say "this may be an expensive item," but to create and/or maintain housing outside of strict monetarism.

People who have investment in a property tend to maintain it better than those with no investment because there is more at stake should it fall into disrepair. That was the basis of my maintenance cost question.

If you, grandpa took emaculate care of your free house but the person living in the house next door is lazy and it falls into a blight from nothing except carelessness, is it up to you to repair it for him?

Suppose you mustered a number of the community members to perform the necessary repairs but the same condition exists next door 3 years later. Do you repeat the same process over again?

Suppose your community grows generally lazy and a large number if not the majority of properties become blighted. Will you be able to move out of your free house into another free house? If so, what will prevent your lazy careless neighbor from growing tired of their neglected property and simply move to a new one in a good state of repair? They'd leave an unsightly structure for others to deal with and eventually their new home would become blighted as well, replicating the problem.

As for who lives where and who builds what, that depends on their level of interest and self-management skills. The people should decide, freely and intelligently, without being economic slaves.

If I understand you correctly, a person who shows interest in a skill such as carpentry would be responsible for doing things like building houses and the person predisposed with managing skills manages the carpenters and others on a hypothetical construction site.

Would the worker live in a home of luxury and the manager live in a modest structure, given all things equal? If the manager lives in luxury while the carpenter lives in a modest structure, isn't the manager assuming a class of lifestyle higher than the carpenter?

In this viable hypothetical the carpenter posesses great skill and typically accomplishes a lot within a day.
He's only human and becomes frustrated because there isn't any personal benefit for producing a superior product and his production dramatically falls off. Now he is doing less on the job than the new "green" interns.

What would you do with him? If he receives threat of demotion by the manager, isn't he really a slave of the upper class management?

This same attitude can be witnessed regarding the poor in general; If you're not exploitable, you should have no rights, and should die.

Insane people with their nutcase opinions exist in every culture under any government. Their twisted view doesn't necessarily reflect the general consensus. I can name a few socialist and communist governments where it was official policy.

Given the fact that everyone does not have a cookie cutter disposition, there would be very large groups opposed to your ideal world with no incentives and absolute conformity. What would you do about them if they refused to go along with your rules?

That being said, there is only so much space any one person should be able to claim as their own. That's implied by logic.

What is the limit which should be imposed on an individual? Suppose there is available space accessible to someone which would exceed your lawful limitation.

If the individual uses the extra space, would you consider them greedy? Should the hammer of law come down on him if he desires to continue using the extra space even if its use is not required by anything else?

If not the hammer of law then why should his neigbor live within a smaller alloted cube? If he is coerced by threat of force to abandon the extra space, isn't the unused space inefficient and wasteful?

Ironically, this isn't far at all from Christ's message in the Gospels.

No, you've twisted this around back asward. Charity is meaningless unless the aid is given from the heart, It is not a charitable donation when it is extracted under the threat of force.

And nowhere did I suggest every house must look exactly like the others, have all the same features. etc.

It is logical that the most efficient way to guarantee any strict living space limitations would be to impose specific floor plans.

there's nothing particularly strange about this idea, other than how it doesn't require the wealthy or the state to run everything -- which many people find "strange," due top their being duped.
But it's the closest thing to heaven we could see.

Does your ideal world have any form of central government, even in a limited capacity? I assume it doesn't exist in anarchy. The United States began with a limited central government with very limited power compared to the states and local communities. It was formed to have most power to the individual, then community, then state then Federal. The limitations are plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution.

The core issue is that the limitations have been gradually disregarded, especially the last 80 or so years which led up to the problems you describe. This disregard is what led to the establishment of the ruling class we have today.

There is no absolute guarantee your ideal world wouldn't also fall into the same exact decline for the same reasons, except the populace would be necessarily devoid of individualism or incentive and suffer any sense of self reliance.

I should be kept in check.

In your ideal world your business does well because you all personally worked very hard and earned the satisfaction of a job well done, and you see the overall success and are proud of your accomplishment.
Is it right to retain what you all worked so very hard for?

Would it be greedy not to give your labor to an adjacent business which has proved itself to be less enthusiastic, and barely contributing to anything. In fact, you consider them to be lazy.

I can imagine your thrill when you've been checked to verify those you consider lazy have gotten a portion of your hard labor. Especially when you know that you've complied with the requirements and it was the lazy buisness people who alerted the community and you have to prove yourself.

If soldiers are recruited for a task, they should tend to have equal say in things. And yes, the public should have a great deal of input and knowledge of an army's operations. In other words, an army -- if it is to exist -- should be for and by the public, and not a servant of any special interests above and beyond them.

Soldiers simply must carry out orders within moral limitations. For example Britan's would likely be speaking German if the soldiers assaulting Normandy had an opt-out option.

The rest of your comments I agree on, except that limited armed forces are necessary for any national security.

There are two instances I can cite as being an example of working collectivism.
One is a colony of ants because they are mindless drones lacking any self determination, or dreams. They are full of instinctive ambition for the colony but otherwise dead to self.
The other working model is the family, but that differs greatly than society in the whole. The family is bonded together by love for individual person(s). Society possesses no such quality. In calamity and chaos, the family sticks together. In the case of calamity and chaos in the community, it's every man... or ever family for themself.

What I'm saying in all of this is that there are a lot of great ideas and variations of them to establish the perfect society. Almost all of them are dreamy "what if''s" with only vague details but the plans fall apart given specific scenarios when presented with predictable instinctive human behavior. No form of government can change man's heart.

All governments are evil. But some are less evil than others given that equasion.

[Charlatan]

Well you two can fight over structure, I will try to create new employment oppurtunities!

If we were to encourage entrepreneurship, maybe we should offer total tax exclusion from the private sector? How about they just let the taxes go as they will, and create more money for themselves, no based on taxation revenue, but rather how much they need? If that were the case then there would be much more employment oppurtunites, with money circulating in the private and public sectors rather than going back into the coffers of the state. Just an idea.

The easiest way to secure capital for the entrepreneur is to sell yourself now for capital. How can you sell yourself? You are energy. You are work force, human resources, and so forth, that if unemployed for too long it becomes painfully obvious that you are no good to the system.

The way out of this is to sell yourself. You can sell yourself to the rich by working to make them richer, so there is a possible use for even the unemployed. But how do you make it nearly essential for the investors to invest in the new businesses? Well, you give them tax breaks. You could say that for the first six months they will pay no taxes on income fom the business. This means that if it is doing well, keep it going, if not, scrap it and start over for the six months of lenience. This is the way to get them to come a knocking.

Then they could also say that the state needs to pay the people for using their enterprise. This would mean that the government pays the people for their time. This would negate taxation, but instead of doing that, let's make it better by supplying jobs first? The state could hire the entire country at once if hard pressed to tax them, so they would be paying the poor all the taxes they collect. This would mean they will still renumerate at fourty one percent, so it won't be a total loss.

As a human right this should be installed in the third world. The state pays the unemplyed until they are themselves employed, then the people pay the state taxes. This will lead to the country rushing to get everyone jobs. But how do we enforce this?

I suggest the third world goes on strike until they get this. None of this easy deals anymore - the state pays a pittance on salaries - I cannot see why they don;t pay them double already. It wastes money on things like armies - what the fricking heck do we need armies for? This isn't the dark ages! If no weapons were manufactures then there would be no wars, only police should own weapons. The money they save from the army could be used on the job creation, all the unemployment they pay could be used on job creation, actually pumping the economy. Why pay someone to be unemployed? That is what they are doing already.

[grandpa]

Well I'm not going to disparage people who rent, I
am sure it is the best they can do at
this point in their life.
BTW people don't own property in the United States...
at least I should say here in Georgia and I
assume it's the same country wide.
by choice.

I wouldn't say that to always be the case, because many who rent actually would prefer to own their own place, but probably can't afford it. It's certainly not always because renting is better for ones well-being. I try to look at things from all
aspects.

I own two properties.*
My main residence has a mortgage so it is owned
by a bank(s).
My other property is paid free and clear.
But I could never truly own either of therm.
They would be confiscated and sold at auction by the
State should I not pay the yearly tax.

Exactly, which is why you're never really buyers. The banks and the state never let go of what you supposedly buy. And these pertinent items are just abstractions to them -- basically just numbers on a balance sheet. The same could be said of you yourself. And if people object to this enough, the authorities come to arrest them. I'm not expressing ideology here, either. Those are the straight up facts.

Yes, absolutely serious.
Every type of governmental system consists of the privileged and
the poor because the human element of competition can't be
eliminated except by force.

If that is to work, how? Force does not eliminate "the privileged and the poor." It only helps to create such a class divide. If you can't trust a man further than you can throw him, force isn't like to keep him in check any better than a well-worked out agreement. On top of that, we can't reasonably consider the state as expressions of one force, because it is a convoluted mess of competing forces. In other words, it's not as neat and clean as the term "national unity" would have us believe.

In a world where work has no personal value, what
is the incentive to be productive, other than maintaining a
mere existence?

Where did I say that, if I had my way, "work would have no personal value"? In fact, that's exactly one of my problems with the status quo; Quite often people end up at jobs that have no personal value to them, other than maintaining a mere existence. Also, America has, in recent years, pushed for the ability to keep scattering land mines throughout residential districts, by rejecting bans on use of landmines. That's sort of a twisted contribution of our politico-economic system (though I can't say such is generally acknowledged).

People who have investment in a property tend to maintain
it better than those with no investment because there is
more at stake should it fall into disrepair.
That was the basis of my maintenance cost question.

My point has not deflated. In general, I see nothing wrong with people maintaining their homes. But obviously, if a man doesn't carry his own burden, any desired repairs will fall upon those willing to step forward. If no one does, the repairs will not be made. I assume most people will always want amenities. What's conducive to health
today may be so tomorrow.

If you, grandpa took emaculate care of your free house
but the person living in the house next door is
lazy and it falls into a blight from nothing except
carelessness, is it up to you to repair it for
him?

It's not always true that what you don't see will kill you. Your whole argument hinges upon the assumption that I have to address every conceivable scenario for society. That's sort of against the point, really. But no, in my opinion you should not be forced to repair somebody else's home. It should be solely their responsibility, unless, say, deadly fumes come out of the house (or something like that). In such a case, somebody should take it apart and see what's wrong.

Suppose you mustered a number of the community members to
perform the necessary repairs but the same condition exists next
door 3 years later.
Do you repeat the same process over again?

If deemed necessary and/or desirable, sure.

Suppose your community grows generally lazy and a large number
if not the majority of properties become blighted.
Will you be able to move out of your free
house into another free house?
If so, what will prevent your lazy careless neighbor from
growing tired of their neglected property and simply move to
a new one in a good state of repair?
They'd leave an unsightly structure for others to deal with
and eventually their new home would become blighted as well,
replicating the problem.

Ironically, as you were writing this, there are already plenty of unsightly houses dotting the human landscape. So this is hardly a problem unique to my philosophy.

Many people move for one reason or another. Maybe they're tired of dorm life, and elect instead to live somewhere around the campus, as opposed to on it. Some change landlords because they don't remake repairs (even if it's not necessarily cheaper to do so).

More simply: I can solve this problem? Probably not. Some people won't repair things. I myself have limited mechanical knowledge, so I'm not really going to villify anyone on this issue.

If I understand you correctly, a person who shows interest
in a skill such as carpentry would be responsible for
doing things like building houses and the person predisposed with
managing skills manages the carpenters and others on a hypothetical
construction site.

That's one possible arrangement, sure -- provided the manager has no special "powers" over anyone (if he's just a learned person, assisting people in their work).

Hypothetical scenarios can go all over the place with goofiness, so admiring a good one is like admiring murderers who stop at one. So I'm not too keen on answering every imaginable question. But anyway, I imagine a number of people could be consulted if needed; for carpentry, for insulation and some painting. Of course, if I lack basic carpentry skills (which, honestly, I sort of do), it probably wouldn't hurt to learn some. Or someone can build a house entirely (or almost entirely) by his or her self.

Would the worker live in a home of luxury and
the manager live in a modest structure, given all things
equal?
If the manager lives in luxury while the carpenter lives
in a modest structure, isn't the manager assuming a class
of lifestyle higher than the carpenter?

It depends on whether one plans it this way freely, or if the condition is somehow forced upon the worker. Some people do prefer modest structures. But you're committing a classic logical fallacy repeatedly in this thread -- imposing negative hypothetical scenarios upon an alternative view, simply because you want one there. In the process you're neglecting any potential positives, so as to reassure a pre-existing bias. And again, you're suggesting that I must blueprint all of human society, which is hardly a fair thing to do.

In this viable hypothetical the carpenter posesses great skill and
typically accomplishes a lot within a day.
He's only human and becomes frustrated because there isn't any
personal benefit for producing a superior product and his production
dramatically falls off.
Now he is doing less on the job than the
new "green" interns.

But to limit choice is not honest. Obviously if the hypothetical man decides not to work, then that's what he decides. What more can I say? If he once was happy with his work but isn't any longer, he should consider something else to do.

What would you do with him?
If he receives threat of demotion by the manager, isn't
he really a slave of the upper class management?

That's the thing about hypotheticals; If you present one, you are essentially presenting your bias. It relaly depends on what "demotion" means; if it means that someone is not competent enough for the task at hand, then he or she is not necessarily a "slave." If, however, those supervising a task have special rights that serve to forcibly exploit the worker, and they monopolize all aspects of the job, then it's a problem that should be addressed.

[

[grandpa]

Insane people with their nutcase opinions exist in every culture
under any government.
Their twisted view doesn't necessarily reflect the general consensus.
I can name a few socialist and communist governments where
it was official policy.

True, and it's debatable to what extent people do well under any government. However, it doesn't change how any government is a class sytem, and therefore has fundamental problems. Every "communist" regime has crumbled for the same reasons America is floundering right now. The only difference is the degree of oppression.

On the positive side, American society does allow for policy changes over time.
Here is one such example:
http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/20...nder-athletes/

Given the fact that everyone does not have a cookie
cutter disposition, there would be very large groups opposed to
your ideal world with no incentives and absolute conformity.
What would you do about them if they refused to
go along with your rules?

Those are some pretty biased assumptions there. Why would you assume I am against "incentives" and for "absolute conformity"? So far in this thread, and many others, I've tried to emphasize practical incentives over coercion and force, and have clearly stood against absolutist conformity (just as I would speak against absolute nonconformity). Also, nowhere did I say life would always be "ideal." I don't believe that's possible, and I doubt it's even desirable. Some minimal amount of pressure is necessary to inspire people to do anything. The question is, how much pressure
is applied, and under what circumstances? Should I force people to do what I want by threats, or should I convince them by calm, reasoned statements? If I have a spat with someone and they cannot be reasoned with, sometimes the best thing is to not deal with that person anymore. That's life.

If the individual uses the extra space, would you consider
them greedy?
Should the hammer of law come down on him if
he desires to continue using the extra space even if
its use is not required by anything else?

I can always look at people and start calling them "greedy
fucks" or "lazy fucks," but if they're not seriously harming me, I really have no reason to stop their behavior.

If not the hammer of law then why should his
neigbor live within a smaller alloted cube?
If he is coerced by threat of force to abandon
the extra space, isn't the unused space inefficient and wasteful?

I do not explicitly prohibit it in my terms, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Again, the only objection I would have is if his expansion considerably threatens my survival -- or, of course, anyone else's. That typically would not be the case, so I don't see much of a problem. If it somehow is a problem, I assume I need not deal with it alone. Others could probably be contacted to mediate the problem.

As for the other point, I don't consider all unused space to be inefficient and wasteful.

No, you've twisted this around back asward.
Charity is meaningless unless the aid is given from the
heart, It is not a charitable donation when it is
extracted under the threat of force.

I didn't say anything should be "extracted under the threat of force." In fact, in the statement you're responding to, I noted that the law tends to protect the rich over the poor, which is one reason they can have mansions while others are in poverty. Christ noted this rather explicitly in the Gospels, as a simple matter of fact.

Being an anarcho-communist, force would preferably never come into these matters. I can't say "I'm not a communist of any sort," because I am. But I am not a "state communist."

That being said, force is not merely a "Soviet Union" thing.
An example of other state's charitable giving:
"The allies called off air strikes three weeks ago after
Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic began withdrawing some of his troops and special police
used to smash an insurrection by the separatist ethnic Albanian Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA).
But Yugoslavia still maintains a force of 25,000 well-armed troops and police
in the province, where over 1,000 have been killed this year. NATO says
security is again deteriorating due to incidents provoked by both sides in
recent days."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.n...a49b6751?hl=en

It is logical that the most efficient way to guarantee
any strict living space limitations would be to impose specific
floor plans.

Before I'm even asked to do this sort of thing, one should consider the folly of "guarantees."

Does your ideal world have any form of central government,
even in a limited capacity?
I assume it doesn't exist in anarchy.
The United States began with a limited central government with
very limited power compared to the states and local communities.
It was formed to have most power to the individual,
then community, then state then Federal.
The limitations are plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution.

No, I am not in favor of any hierarchical government, even if it's said to be limited.
Not even possible, as plainly evidenced by the history of the United States. Power seeks to expand itself, so it should be intentionally reduced to the severest limits -- rendered virtually into an empty shell.

As none other than The Unabomber said:
"Freedom means having power; not the power to control other
people but the power to control the circumstances
of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a
large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important
not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness...."
http://www.davesag.com/unabomber/9na...f_freedom.html

(Hey, a good quote is a good quote.)

You say the US started out modestly, yet it ends up in scenarios like this:
"...This struggle for control is only heightened by the potential
collapse of the Taliban, and this is reflected in deep disagreements between the United
States, Pakistan, Iran and Russia over the eventual composition of a
successor regime.
The United States initially sought to draw on the combat potential of the
Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban, while building a post-Taliban
government around exiled King Mohammad Zahir Shah. The idea was that Zahir
Shah, a Durrani Pushtun, could bring together the Pushtuns of the south and
the primarily Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek Northern Alliance...."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...e&pageId=11216

The core issue is that the limitations have been gradually
disregarded, especially the last 80 or so years which led
up to the problems you describe.
This disregard is what led to the establishment of the
ruling class we have today.

What you describe isn't really true. Given that the Constitution grants special protections for property -- which originally included human slaves --, much of what we see today would be in order with the Constitution, and has been deemed as such by the Supreme Court (itself a constitutional construct).

I used to think more like you, but I can no longer believe what I'd been led to believe by all the hoopla. Truths are a little worse than the myths.

There is no absolute guarantee your ideal world wouldn't also
fall into the same exact decline for the same reasons,
except the populace would be necessarily devoid of individualism or
incentive and suffer any sense of self reliance.

True, things could end up similar. But you can't say this is in line with everything else I mentioned. It would be a failure to live up to the standards, not a failure of the standards themselves. There's an important difference.

However, I have never advocated anyone being "devoid of indivdualism, incentive and self-reliance." You've just wrongly attributed this to my views. Again, I have spoken very strongly against such a state of affairs. I feel the status quo threatens individuality, incentive and self-reliance, not one's ability to be free of it. Really, that's all I'm advocating: The ability to be free from virtually any imposition of class and authority.

You're replacing my actual views with irrelevant stereotypes, then criticizing me for it.

In your ideal world your business does well because you
all personally worked very hard and earned the satisfaction of
a job well done, and you see the overall success
and are proud of your accomplishment.
Is it right to retain what you all worked so
very hard for?

I then ask, yet again, where did I say such a thing? In this case, where did I speak against one's ability to retain what they've worked hard for? As far as anarchism goes, a retained sense of accomplishment would be the key to its success. In my view, freedom from "permanent authority" is freedom from constant humiliation.

Anyway, I've obviously written enough for today.

Grandpa h.

[Georgia]

Thank you for the replies.

Really, I'm am just asking questions to the both of your governmental theories. I've read the Communist Manifesto several years ago, and I am not sure about the governments (or the lack of) which you two are advocating.

I am not a combatant here. This is the first series of posts I've made in probably 6 months because I grew tired of all the fighting here. I, like most enjoy a respectable conversation even if we disagree on things.

I think we all can probably agree that the U.S. and probably all governments have become far too intrusive into everyone's lives along with the central structured financial systems. The question is what is a viable answer to the predicament we are in. The status quo is not acceptable.

I consider myself a Republic Constitutionalist (Please don't confuse that with the Republican party). I believe some form of government is necessary. I am sure you two are knowledgeable in the U.S. constitution and the specific austere governmental limitations within it, which has become inconsequential.

What I was pointing out is that every form of government (or lack of) proposes its own types of problems, hense the endless scenarios and questions. I mentioned that all forms of government is evil but some are more evil than others.
I believe that most governments are formed from public bane and plight in an attempt to improve lives. The real question is what form this authority initially assumes, and to safeguard that it remains within those specific limitations. I also believe the more centralized government becomes, the more easily it slips into tyranny.

It's why I believe the Republic coupled with a hard and fast Constitution is less evil than other forms of authority. Individual first followed by community followed by State, then Federal. I wish this was the practiced structure in the United States. It is what I'm fighting for.

Eradicating global poverty and eliminating classes of wealth is a noble conviction but it's not obtainable because the human heart is fundamentally greedy. That truth applies more to some than others but is absolute and must be taken into account when considering any form of government because it will turn utopia into sheer Hell.

To be charitable is probably the noblest thing a person can be. It's good for the soul and contradicts our natural instincts. It's one of Christ's gospel messages.
But not to steal from another in the name of charity which is is the basis of authority in some form of governments.

[Thanatos]

Eradicating global poverty and eliminating classes of wealth is a noble conviction but it's not obtainable because the human heart is fundamentally greedy.

Greed can be chained. Most people don't like "average" people these days, but I still do because average people have some heart and if you poll them they tend to say that napalming children for cheap rubber is bad even when greed says yes.

I believe we can train these average people, maybe give them a bath and make sure they can all spell, and then we'll have our army.

[grandpa]

Greed can be chained.
Most people don't like "average" people these days, but I
still do because average people have some heart and if
you poll them they tend to say that napalming children
for cheap rubber is bad even when greed says yes.

Indeed. I'd rather be a person than a client. Obviously, we haven't all attained the Buddha way. One problem is, people who reject much of the status quo often become militant and cranky, because they often feel powerless against it. And, most of the time, no one will give them credit for anything they say or do that's right. And I'm not necessarily talking about myself here. Still, I don't think the stairs are endless.

Grandpa h.

[Georgia]

Greed can be chained.
Most people don't like "average" people these days, but I still do because average people have some heart and if you poll them they tend to say that napalming children for cheap rubber is bad even when greed says yes.

A person can learn to control their own vices but they are powerless to change another man's heart. A person's undesireable behavior can be controlled by others using methods such as chains and violence. This applies to both political behavior and social behavior. What's more to consider is that the noun "greed" is arbitrary from one person to another. The assumption of greed is also largely based on emotions. Negative motions will always be exploited by others as a mean to attain their goals.

For example:
Some sources plot the median global wage to be around $7,000/yr in 2007. Wikipedia reports the US medium income for that same year to be about $31,000. I am sure that a lot of people making $7K or less would consider the US worker who is earning 4.5x more to be extremely greedy. Not so to the US worker who considers himself average.

What a person considers "average" largely depends upon their social structure. A remote jungle tribe in Brasil would consider themselves average people. A community in Pakistan considers themselves average people. To say that most people don't like "average" people is an oxymoron because they would be disliking themselves. I will say that it would be one group or community disliking another for perceived aberration.

I do not mean to infer that man's heart is filled with animosity. (Which I assume your napalming children comment came from)
We are generally good caring people willing to help others when it's appropriate for us to do so. Charity is the practice of benevolent giving and caring for love of mankind. The act of personal charity can never be coerce by definition. You can be charitable with your own assets but to coerce others to follow suit is not the same.

[grandpa]

A person can learn to control their own vices but
they are powerless to change another man's heart.
A person's undesireable behavior can be controlled by others using
methods such as chains and violence.

To a limited extent, sure, but telling someone they have to pay a fine (for example) is also a means of enriching the punisher, and arguably just another form of theft. But the roles men and women play can be changed in other ways. If you take away the contingencies of reinforcement for anti-social behavior, you are limited the opportunities for it to flare up.

For example, industry is compelled these days to consider a wider variety of considerations. "...no matter how much the industry rails against organisations like PETA,
they have a role to play. Indian industry may be just beginning to get
familiar with PETA, but in the US, over the last few months, PETA's
campaigns have resulted in large chains such as McDonalds and Burger King
committing themselves to better animal care in life and death.
The latest to join the list is the grocery chain Safeway, which at $34
billion is a Fortune 50 giant that could have probably squished the $14
million NGO.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/13998143.cms

I'm not a huge fan of PETA or anything, but they are changing behavior.

Grandpa h.

[Charlatan]

I think what is really needed in the line of job creation is capital creation. How do we create capital? If the banks were to own the business and employ the people that applied for the loan, there would be no money spent really. The bank would own the assets and the company, and then they would be able to direct the business in any way they see fit.

I have covered nearly every possible avenue for the business to progress, namely, tools, produce and capital creation. But there must be at least one more! I see people with needs and they are being satisfied by one company instead of specialists, and only when you specialise does he market benefit. It is easy to sit inside your house and say you are looking out for yourself, but when it comes to the monopolies of the world, they have to go. Price fixing can be accomplished through a simple advert - they set the price lower or higher and everyone follows the big guns. This means that price fixing is impossible to avert!

The best thing the state can do for the country would be to say that for every person employed they will drop the taxes on the business by like a hundredth of a percent or something. This means they will expand and open up all over the place, employing more people, and then they will take home bigger profits too. This is all I can hope for, that the greed becomes too much to control and 'net out' becomes what it is all about. These people that own the businesses are people with needs and goals like everybody else, so why go for percentage profits instead of net out? There will be more money to be had. Expansion is the way to go.

If there was to be some sort of promotional on chain store openings then there would be many more jobs created, as everybody looks to make more money. A promotional reduced chain store opening is the way to go.

To get even more jobs created maybe they should all try to operate from home? If the state was to identify good ventures, and identify needs, they could try to rectify this problem of unemployment. If they were to just try to make the whole thing work by investing in their people - the state - and then they could see where that leaves them - high and dry... in a good way!

Maybe if the state was to open chain stores they could hire more people? They have all the money, the more circulates the more taxes they will get back, so why not?

[Charlatan]

To create more jobs there should be a commision set up by the state as to whether they will have more jobs with or without chain stores. If there is consistently a chain store on every corner, everyone will have a job. If there is one wal mart for a city, then nobody will have jobs.

Small store owners should sue! These giants are desroying the countries they find themselves in. If they were forced to open up more everywhere, they would employ everybody, but as it stands, they kill off the little guy.

Maybe the state could put a 'level cap' on th big boys? The more assets they own or whatever, the more tax they could pay? Then they could recieve fines for not expanding or whatever, until they fall apart, or hire more people.

When this natural occurance came about and they were in trouble, they were pegged up with trillions. Now that money is gone, and the same thing is nearly happening. Is everyone going to lose all they have before they go belly up? Then there will be nothing!