Again , Allan , I don't see how 100 euros grow so astronomically at a simple rate of interest of 4% ?
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay I have been doing a lot of thinking ... well I am sure there are > enough good ideas that can radically change the world.. Oddly I really do > not think it will take massive amounts,, but it will take some funds and I > have a lot of faith in our group to be able to develop workable ideas.. > Now to put my money with my mouth is even though I do not have massive > amounts of money I can easily contribute 100 Euro to commit to a fund to > change the world.. I do not know if others are willing to develop a world > improvement fund. as I know this discussion will go one for years after we > are gone I could for see it still in existence 500 onward.. > there needs to be unchangeable able rules like > The principle can not be spent.. > No more than 20 % of the income can be spent on fund administration. > 20 % of the income generated must be added to the principle every year, (or > more often) > How the 60 % well .. some types of projects just do not make nor are meant > to make money just for the improvement of society some where.. > Now there is even a small amount of money available. > We need to discuss how to set it up maybe I have it all confused,, anyways > I will send the money to where it is decided to set up the funds,, There is > one hundred Euro available sitting in a tin behind me.. If others do > contribute it should be in amounts of their own currency and to an amount > that will not cause harm to them or thier families... as once the money is > gone it is gone and can not be expect to have it returned. > If we set it up and develop it correctly in five hundred years that 100 > Euros will have a value if it grows at a simple 4% of: > 32,860,158,157.oo Euro > 32 billion is an amount that can have some on going effects to improve > society.. It is called putting your money where your mouth is.. The > question is who wants to run it.. I am not able to Vam? Molly? Neil? Chris? > Rigsy? hmmm > Allan > > > > Because > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ah, Rigs... that isn't as tragic... as the fact that Cheats are Elites >> and Elites are Thieves ! >> >> On Oct 24, 2:23 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Machines/technology are replacing human labor. Children might do >> > better being educated via computer and leave socialization to play >> > groups and sports. The military can effect as much damage via remote >> > control. But- will women return to being stay-at-home moms/homemakers >> > thus freeing up what jobs remain for the men? I doubt it - it has >> > become an ego/security matter for Western women. There will always be >> > cheats and thieves, Archytas, who cause as much monetary losses as the >> > "elites"- it's all relative, depending on the number of zeros. >> > >> > On Oct 24, 1:37 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people >> > > were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few >> > > hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so >> > > concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was >> > > accused of being crude in its use of brute fact. >> > >> > > The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not found a >> > > way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the >> > > sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of >> > > representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed >> > > or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. >> > >> > > One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let >> > > Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this >> > > never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech situation' >> > > as an ideal type (following Weber). >> > >> > > The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material >> > > conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding of >> > > this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards these >> > > is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it was >> > > possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because there >> > > were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is >> > > not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions are. >> > >> > > Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work >> > > ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr >> > > working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst >> > > increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I >> > > have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen >> > > vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers. >> > >> > > The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of >> > > these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and >> > > whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the paradox >> > > is we need the technology to start working to this end with most >> > > people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which >> > > dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts. >> > >> > > Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of >> > > us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a >> > > key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is >> > > environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most >> > > economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC >> > > (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have >> > > similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the >> > > Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today). >> > >> > > The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link >> > > between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands, >> > > not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful >> > > democracy. > > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > >
