Dean Forster wrote:
> Okay, so it would seem that I misunderstood what you
> had said before. I was under the impression that you
> were supporting another system over capitalism,
not exactly. i have no objection to capitalism as an economic
system, i do object to it as a political ideology. (i.e. the
assumption that government and other non-business institutions should
_not_ attempt to influence business decisions.)
> and
> since you failed to name it I assumed socialism. My
> mistake(s).
sort of/not exactly. i support socialism as a political ideology
(i.e. making decisions intended to benefit to society and input from
all sectors of society), and capitalism as an economic system. (the
sorts of 'socialism' practised by the Soviet Union, et al, was really
a 'state _monopoly_ capitalism', with little regard for society -
unless one counts 'attempting to control' as 'regard'. Marx was just
a convenient window-dressing for greed. Lenin, Stalin, etc., could
have abused the writings of many people in their quest for power, but
Marx was popular at the time.)
> I'm glad to hear that you are analyzing the issue
> thoroughly, thinking out loud about the problems with
> the free market as run in America.
as far as i'm concerned that is the only way to do it - anywhere.
{snip}
> I do think that we've tweaked our system to the point
> that it's running pretty darn well, all things
> considered.
compared to the past - yes. however there is still a lot of room for
improvement. (the tricky thing now is figuring out in which
directions those improvements _actually_ are....)
> I am aware that a lot of these tweaks
> include *gasp!* solutions that could fall into the
> category of 'socialistic'.
yup!
> Socialism has it's merits
> and has found a place in our society, just as
> socialists have found that individualism (and their
> ideas on commerce) has a place in theirs.
the balance between the society and the individual. neither can
exist for long without the other - but the needs, or perceived needs,
of each are not always exactly the same thing....
> I'm just
> opposed to the roots of government being in socialism.
not a worry for me as long as both the 'pro-socialist' and
'anti-socialists' like the idea of 'free and fair elections' in which
the issues are seriously and respectfully discussed. (i don't think
that either the Democratic party (the pro-business party to the
'left' of the Republicans) or the Republican party (the pro-business
party to the right of the Democrats) are as interested in 'free and
fair elections' as i think a country the size of the U.S. needs.
political opinion in the U.S. is much too diverse to be well-served
by only two political parties. we need a lot more viewpoints
represented in elective office than just 'Democratic' and
'Republican'.)
> I like what you have to say about capital gains taxes,
> i'd love to hear more about other solutions.
proportional representation would be good - the current 'winner take
all' system makes it so that lots of people rightfully feel that
'their Representative' doesn't represent them. and with proportional
representation i think that many politicians would be more willing to
take political risks because running for re-election would mean 'can
i get enough votes to get re-elected' instead of 'can someone get
more votes than me'. (which would also, i think, help with a lot of
the negative campaigning.... which would help reduce the nastiness
that occurs between the differing ideologies. the more that we can
Listen to each other the better off we are.)
another idea is a 'Required Savings' account... a percentage of any
taxable income (1%? 5%?) would have to go into a savings account with
a non-governmental financial institution. the financial institution
commits to paying a certain amount of interest, with tax advantages
for the institution if they pay more interest than they promised.
after (10? 20? 30?) years the owner of the money would be able to
withdraw the money and the interest that has been earned - tax-free,
or with the tax only on the amount originally deposited. (in the long
run this might be able to replace Social Security, but i would wait
until after the 'Required Savings' concept has 'proved itself' before
considering that!) i would also allow people to deposit additional
amounts in their 'RS' accounts, also tax-free.
'borrowing for education' - set up a fund from which people can
borrow for education (no definition of what is 'approved education')
and they pay it back as a payroll tax of (1%? 5%?) with an interest
rate '1% under the rate of inflation'. they can, of course, pay it
back sooner if they have the cash. (studying 'subjects in the
national interest' might get you something taken off your 'National
Education Debt', but that would be a separate decision, unconnected
to the opportunity to get more of what you think of as 'better
education'.)
a National Health which covers all treatments which were approved of
(20?) years ago and which are still approved of today. medical
insurance would be for the areas in which it isn't clear what the
best course of action is - and the insurance companies would have the
advantage of serving people who have routinely received examinations,
immunizations, etc. (the medical records - shorn of identifiers -
would be available for data-mining.)
residential property would be taxed on it's purchase price - not on
it's 'current value'.
a lot of the objections to 'globalization' is based on the
impression that companies close factories 'here' and open factories
elsewhere leaving the workers, and the community where the closed
factory is, destitute. the justification often given is
'responsibility to the stockholders'.... many companies sell stock to
their workers at a reduced price, enabling the interests of the
workers and 'the stockholders' to be somewhat more in line with each
other than before. i would like to encourage this trend, looking for
mechanisms that enable the communities where a company is located and
the people who work for it to continue to benefit from the company
even if they company 'moves for legitimate reasons'.
etc.
> we're on exactly the same page as far as a well
> educated and informed individual being a large part of
> an effective society. I'd go as far as to say it's
> crucial.
Indeed! and polite respectful discussions among those educated and
informed individuals (including those who are under the misimpression
that they are educated and informed, and those who are merely adament
about their views) is essential. no one of us knows it all, and often
the best ideas arise not from the creativity of the thoughtful but
from trying to understand the views of those who are wrong on an
issue. (as an example: i dislike Senator Jesse Helms political
positions with a fervent passion. but if i was a U.S. Senator i would
be very interested in trying to write bills that both he and i could
support. not because i have any hope of 'converting him', but because
things that both of us could support would have a good chance of
actually being a good idea.)
cheers,
christopher
--
Christopher Gwyn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
