Lol do I start with you Gabby? I would not want to push people. If they wanted to contribute it would be great. A larger starting point, but nothing beyond their means though.
I can not help but wonder how it will evolve, I am sure it will be interesting, Allan On Oct 25, 2011 9:03 AM, "gabbydott" <[email protected]> wrote: > I quite like your idea, Allan. You've got my vote to keep on trying to > persuade the others to see if they have some 100 Euros to spare. > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I know Neil it is but a pittance that is what so funny about it.. I >> think the problem lies in the short term,, Maybe that is what it should >> be called is the pittance fund.. >> Money is a problem because it is guided by people who's interests is self >> centered. creating the pittance fund,, then we have the time and >> possibility to get it to grow.. and provide the long term guidance to make >> it successful over 500 plus years where it would reach the size.. at witch >> time the pittance fund would be as powerful or more powerful than the other >> markets.. it takes for sight.. >> What I am saying by putting up my 100 Euro is that our combined wisdom >> and knowledge exceeds that of the normal public. it would be chance to put >> our theories into practice.. Even if we fail we have tried and can not be >> faulted for that.. but I do not think that will happen,, >> Allan >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:54 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you do any radical thinking at all you should at least guess money >>> may be as much of a problem as an asset Allan. The money in our >>> pockets, under your mattress and in current accounts is dwarfed by the >>> same currency in the derivatives and other shadow markets. What we >>> should focus on is how we can build through effort and organisation. >>> >>> On Oct 25, 12:39 am, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Find out ( Chris ? ) what it takes to register a formal NGO Trust >>> > ( with Tax benefits and Donations tax-exempt ) operating a news - >>> > magazine website ... >>> > >>> > WE THE PEOPLE : ALTERNATE NEWS, RECLAIMING EFFORTS & REDEFINED >>> > THOUGHTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD... >>> > >>> > We then can pool in people centered news, efforts at reclaiming our >>> > lives and freedoms, and path breaking thoughts from all over the world >>> > in diverse fields such as science, medicine, sociology, psychology, >>> > economics, management, public service, governance, entrepreneurship... >>> > along lines of " Global Voices "... overseen by a crack Editorial >>> > Team. >>> > >>> > We may then perhaps know what it would take... what more would have to >>> > be scrounged and how... >>> > >>> > On Oct 24, 10:35 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > it is because it is compounded ,, i figured it at >>> > > annual interest payment.. if you take your principle and >>> immediately add >>> > > the interest you have increased your principle by that amount.. a >>> hundred >>> > > euro becomes 104 Euro.. >>> > >>> > > to demonstrate the effect if you are paying off the mortgage on >>> your >>> > > house in say 15 years,, making a monthly payment,, if you split >>> the >>> > > payment in half paying the loan 1/2 on the 1st and the other 1/2 on >>> the >>> > > 15th.. remember you are paying exactly the same amount each month,, >>> > > instead of taking 15 years to pay the loan it will take you only 13 >>> 1/2 >>> > > years to pay it back.. >>> > >>> > > If your payment was say $1,000. (no Euro sign) you would be saving >>> your >>> > > self $18,000. in payments.. not a bad piece of pocket change you >>> ask me.. >>> > >>> > > Does that help you understand they power of money if used >>> intelligently and >>> > > effectively? >>> > > Allan >>> > >>> > > RP could you see a company that simply made house payments?? they >>> pay you >>> > > once a month and you pay the Bankster 2X a month?? >>> > >>> > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:19 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > 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. >>> > >>> > > -- >>> > > ( >>> > > ) >>> > > |_D Allan >>> > >>> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ( >> ) >> |_D Allan >> >> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. >> >> >> >
