Yes this seems like a good idea. And the Federal Reserve should allow ordinary
persons, not only rich banks and bankers, to open FR Bank accounts. And when
the Fed wants to get money into the public for R&D or any other reason make
loans available at the low interest rates they charge banks for everybody given
their credit ratings. Keep the money markup out of the picture. And one
more thing--the income tax rates should be charged in increasing rates up to
100 % for income of any kind for corporations and other persons alike. The
tax rates should be based on multiples of the basic income provided to the
consumers and of course the corporations persons.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Lennart Thornros
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The problem with this idea is that it will do what this guy in the video said
- make many government job obsolete. The big organizations we are building in
the public and private sector wants the complicated, very inefficient system
with all openings for corruption to stay in place.
I was amazed over how quickly the positive results appeared. I am talking
about things like higher productivity and willingness to take risks.
There is enough resources to feed everybody.
There is enough resources to get water to everybody.
There is enough resources to get a roof over everybody's head.
Getting LENR on the market would make all essential resources available.
If we made sure those resources were available and distributed, most people
would look to fulfill more sophisticated goals (see Maslow).
That would quickly increase the number of people helping to achieve progress.
Logically it should be very simple to convince most people about the positive
a reform of this type can have.
I do not think that the democrats are any worse than the republicans or for
that matter Wall street. They like it and protect status quo together with
miscellaneous people who benefits from today's perfect for corruption system.
Continuing this way we will all be employed by big brother and look for
benefits generated by the system by the fact that regardless of good intentions
there will be plenty of loopholes. That society will take away most ambitions,
which are for a progressive society and replace them with narcissistic
ambitions.
All ambitions will have a hard time bear result if we continue thinking that
only size matters.
Small flexible organizations with a personal engagement paired with a self
administrating welfare system for all that is perhaps utopia but I am sure it
would make the experience of life much better for all. I guess somebody think
this is a socialistic solution. I think it is just the opposite. Liberty and
freedom will increase. To share the basic resources just eliminate a war
between them who has more of the basics than they can use and those who cannot
get hold of enough of the same resources because we have an ambition to reward
following the same model for basics as for more sophisticated resources.
The Farm and 1984 were written at a time when capitalistic societies looked
down at centrally governed countries and there poor ability to handle the
resources. Now those experiments with communism are obsolete. However, the
centralization of power is the trademark of our generation (my generation). We
probably thought the failure of socialism was the the idea of equality.
Therefore we defended the capitalistic view and decided that we could be just
as controlling as any socialistic country. Thus creating the same negative
situation as the socialistic countries - the centralized society.
I predict this will change within a couple of generations. It would be great
if it can happen from logical reasoning. LENR might just have a large portion
of the solution.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648
“Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment
to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but
logically that does not make sense.
From the conservative thinktank, The American Enterprise Institute comes a
proposal to replace the welfare state with basic income.
The only time basic income was ever even tested on a limited scale in the
US was under the much maligned administartion of GOP president Nixon.
No, the biggest impediment, by far, to anything that bypasses the corrupt
welfare state is the Democratic Party which treats civil service jobs in that
bureaucracy as political spoils delivered via "community organizers" that
deliver votes to the Democrats:
Speech by President Richard Nixon
Good evening my fellow Americans:
As you know, I returned last Sunday night from a trip around the world—a
trip that took me to eight countries in 9 days.
The purpose of this trip was to help lay the basis for a lasting peace,
once the war in Vietnam is ended. In the course of it, I also saw once again
the vigorous efforts so many new nations are making to leap the centuries into
the modern world.
Every time I return to the United States after such a trip, I realize how
fortunate we are to live in this rich land. We have the world's most advanced
industrial economy, the greatest wealth ever known to man, the fullest measure
of freedom ever enjoyed by any people, anywhere.
Yet we, too, have an urgent need to modernize our institutions—and our need
is no less than theirs.
We face an urban crisis, a social crisis-and at the same time, a crisis of
confidence in the capacity of government to do its job.
A third of a century of centralizing power and responsibility in Washington
has produced a bureaucratic monstrosity, cumbersome, unresponsive, ineffective.
A third of a century of social experiment has left us a legacy of
entrenched programs that have outlived their time or outgrown their purposes.
A third of a century of unprecedented growth and change has strained our
institutions, and raised serious questions about whether they are still
adequate to the times.
It is no accident, therefore, that we find increasing skepticism—and not
only among our young people, but among citizens everywhere—about the continuing
capacity of government to master the challenges we face.
Nowhere has the failure of government been more tragically apparent than in
its efforts to help the poor and especially in its system of public welfare.
TARGET: REFORMS
Since taking office, one of my first priorities has been to repair the
machinery of government, to put it in shape for the 1970's. I have made many
changes designed to improve the functioning of the executive branch. And I have
asked Congress for a number of important structural reforms; among others, a
wide-ranging postal reform, a comprehensive reform of the draft, a reform of
unemployment insurance, a reform of our hunger programs, a reform of the
present confusing hodge-podge of Federal grants-in-aid.
Last April 21, I sent Congress a message asking for a package of major tax
reforms, including both the closing of loopholes and the removal of more than 2
million low-income families from the tax rolls altogether. I am glad that
Congress is now acting on tax reform, and I hope the Congress will begin to act
on the other reforms that I have requested.
The purpose of all these reforms is to eliminate unfairness; to make
government more effective as well as more efficient; and to bring an end to its
chronic failure to deliver the service that it promises.
My purpose tonight, however, is not to review the past record, but to
present a new set of reforms—a new set of proposals—a new and drastically
different approach to the way in which government cares for those in need, and
to the way the responsibilities are shared between the State and the Federal
Government.
I have chosen to do so in a direct report to the people because these
proposals call for public decisions of the first importance; because they
represent a fundamental change in the Nation's approach to one of its most
pressing social problems; and because, quite deliberately, they also represent
the first major reversal of the trend toward ever more centralization of
government in Washington, D.C. After a third of a century of power flowing from
the people and the States to Washington it is time for a New Federalism in
which power, funds, and responsibility will flow from Washington to the States
and to the people.
During last year's election campaign, I often made a point that touched a
responsive chord wherever I traveled.
I said that this Nation became great not because of what government did for
people, but because of what people did for themselves.
This new approach aims at helping the American people do more for
themselves. It aims at getting everyone able to work off welfare rolls and onto
payrolls.
It aims at ending the unfairness in a system that has become unfair to the
welfare recipient, unfair to the working poor, and unfair to the taxpayer.
This new approach aims to make it possible for people—wherever in America
they live—to receive their fair share of opportunity. It aims to ensure that
people receiving aid, and who are able to work, contribute their fair share of
productivity.
This new approach is embodied in a package of four measures: First, a
complete replacement of the present welfare system; second, a comprehensive new
job training and placement program; third, a revamping of the Office of
Economic Opportunity; and fourth, a start on the sharing of Federal tax
revenues with the States.
Next week in three messages to the Congress and one statement—I will spell
out in detail what these measures contain. Tonight I want to explain what they
mean, what they are intended to achieve, and how they are related.
