@AuroraGlacialis: Cooperativism is an idea that comes from Socialism but the reason it has been a success it is because it has been set with a capitalist end goal of that group of people making some money. Cooperatives for collectives never worked as well at all. And no Actual democracy is nothing but mob rule I rather be ruled by the law than by a mob and it's whim of the moment.


Other than that and given that we seem to agree on education and voluntary action as opposed to imposing a vision to solve the overpopulation problem in the world particularly in Africa, I'd say hat we are almost on the level here.:cool:

Yes, that is the reason it is a success in an environment that is goverened by a money based economy. It would not work any other way in that context. The main goal of the people in a cooperative however is not to make as much money as they can and buy a yacht, but to make enough money to live a good life. The goal is not to buy more and more stocks until someone owns the company and can dictate what will happen. And that is the socialist concept behind it - it does not matter so much if money is still involved (I personally believe it is not a general necissity in the long run, but that is futuristic talk), but the underlying principles are social and that is what counts.

Well - democracy has its problems yes. But saying that it is bad because 51 percent can dictate 49% and then impose a system that lets 10% or 1% dictate the remaining population is not much better, is it? Obviously law, constututional rights and all that are the foundation of all "good" systems of government, but I think the more people have to agree on a decision the more just the system is. Of course if every decision would require a 2/3 or 3/4 or even a 90% vote, we'd never get anywhere...
A big problem with democracy obviouls is, that each democratic decision would have to be taken by a well educated person. Ideally, all people in a state would be well educated and interested in the decision enough to inform themselves about it. Sadly many people could not care less, are not well educated and mostly are influenced by propagandist media. That way, a democracy cannot really work well.

Phew - thanks. At least not another heavy debate like I am having in AF now. ;)

@AuroraGlacialis: Actually I know people that work at Cooperatives that have pleasure boats etc, not everyone in the cooperative does but they do because they spend and invest more wisely than others did. So what? Honestly what is wrong with people enjoying the fruits of their freaking labor? If they earned it so be it!

If I made a ton of money every year and had the chance to buy a yacht, I'd buy a yacht. Am I evil?

Depends on how you acquired it, and what you did with your new-found wealth in total.

He obviously meant a rightfully acquired fortune. Say he made a new invention and that invention becomes so popular he becomes rich as a result and he buys a Yacht does that make him evil? Hell no and let me guess in your collectivist mind you think that if he does not give nearly all of his rightfully acquired fortune to those that have not made as much or not at all which is where it goes for the most part to lazy bums then that makes him evil, which a load of crap.

Well - I think the key note is probably how you define "rightfully aquired". That can stretch very far. I personally oppose people who happen to have money (maybe by inheritance or even by their own work) to make more money just because of this. Basically without further work. They are lazy bums earning money. If you make money by trading goods that have been produced at incredibly low wages in some developing country - is that still rightful? I would rather think not so much. What about having an invention and selling it to a company that does not use it? not good. But others may see it differently, so the definition of rightful is wide.
I personally favour any model in which work is rewarded, but in a moderate way. In a way that somehow relates to the work done. I see no reason why a banker or a manager should earn enough to buy a yacht while a pilot or nurse barely makes enough to pay the bills. Both do work and both do work hard. Also I think people should be social, that means if someone cannot work or does work that is not in context of a job, they should be supported anyways. No person is here without a reason. Even the guy who sits at home all day long and sifts through the internet to write a blog, edit Wikipedia articles, sets up a forum for some community etc. Or the woman who helps their elderly neighbors voluntarily or sets up some community event. We are approaching a time in which not all work that people do can be in the context of a contract. This kind of work is only possible if people get support (money) anyways. One example is, that it used to be the case that one person in a family earned enough to provide for all, who in turn could do such things. Many people contributing to Wikipedia are without work or students. So I think the focus should not always be to reward only people who do work in context of a job with a contract, but to support everyone with the basic needs and add to that a reward for work - and that reward should reflect the amount of work, not some fantasy status of certain jobs.

I'd buy the yacht too. In fact, I'm pretty well off compared to the average and do spend my gains, so I have bought the yacht (at a much lower level.) That is to say I spend money on things I could do without.

I also recognize the economic system is not an equitable or fair system at all. Consider Bill Gates. I love the guy, he's the perfect example. He was for a while the richest man in the world. I don't remember who's the richest anymore, but Bill is still insanely rich.

What if he was born 5 years later? You see, what was happening in the early 80's really wasn't about any individual person but about the technology. Once we obtain so much technology the moment presents itself and we jump forward. It doesn't matter who owns the technology or who is selling the technology. That is to say whoever owns and sells that technology is probably going to greatly profit, but it's not that they were exceptionally smart or deserving of it. They just happened to have the right stuff at the right time.

So what if Bill Gates was born 5 years later? Someone else would have created Microsoft. The monopoly-like entity would still have existed, but under the power of someone else, someone else who would have been the rich guy. Bill Gates no doubt would still be successful, but the difference between a good 6 figure salary and richest man in the world is great.

And that's the system. Hard work and applying your skills are important to succeed. You can however work very hard and apply your skills and be a genius who never amounts to anything because your particular skills were wrong for the era. Or you didn't meet the guy who wants to buy them, never able to make that connection. Or the job you should have had went to the rich golf club friend's son. There's so much out of your hands that what you actually can control is minuscule. The truth is, it's not a matter of not working hard enough or not trying hard enough when we're talking about "How to become one of the richest men in the world." It's about the luck. Be born to the right family, that's a huge benefit. Start wealthy, that helps. And be lucky.

But do I view the individuals who win the "unofficial" lotto as weak for embracing the advantages life has given them? No, not at all. I would do the same. I recognize the system isn't fair. I'd like a fair system. But given the system we have, I'll take advantage of it when I can just like anyone else.

@vvx: Yes - I agree. The current economy is basically a big Las Vegas. There is much more luck and sleaze involved than actually work or creativity in gaining money and power. The perfidious thing about the system is, that if you do not follow it, you will get into really bad situations and have no power. So obviously no one would deny taking advantage if one can as long as it does not conflict with personal morale (like I did prefer taking a job in ecology rather than economy and lost money by that). So the system would have to change. Either from bottom up by forming cooperatives that are internally fair but externally can compete in the current system or by a collapse and rebuilt, which bears the risk of not having control of what comes after. Th first option is slow - very slow. The second is something even high ranking economists consider possible (Citigroup memo!), so I guess they already have a plan how to save their wealth over such a crisis and deny a more fair system to emerge, but from that Memo I think, they are quite afraid that the chances are, change could happen then.

Well I guess the solution is to make it less about luck and sleaze ( does that mean less strip bars? :P ) and more about creativity and talent etc.

Yes - more about creativity, actual hands-on work and such. And by that, automatically huge differences in wages would not work out as it is incomprehensible that someone actually could work 100 times more (or be 100 times more creative) than someone else who does the same kind of job. As in cooperatives, I think it is ok for the regular worker who does his 8 or 9 hours welding to earn about as much as the engineer who makes the construction drawings for 8 or 9 hours (provided education is free as it used to be in Germany for example). Ok, the person with longer education should get a little more because they have less time to earn money in their life, but if they get twice as much as someone else that is enough, must not be 10 times as much or so. Basically people should do a job they are comfortable with instead of doing a job because it gives more money but makes them unhappy.

@ AuroraGlacialis: Whoa hold your horses! How can anyone even think that a welder and an engineer are on the same level? Not even close is not even the same amount of responsibility either. While a Welder maybe responsible for the individual pieces of the structure he or she may have weld together. An engineer is responsible for the whole darn structure. Who do you think takes the fall if the whole thing falls apart? I'll give you a hint is not the welder.

The theoretical concept of the structure only, both do equal ammounts of work. Ummm... staff on the ground get fired before middle management. So, yeah. The welder cops it.

No Spock if the building collapses after/or while being built they will not go after the freaking welder but after the engineer that designed it in the first place. So the engineer has a higher degree of responsibility and has to work that much harder to make sure everything is safe, the welder only has to make sure his/her little piece is done according to specifications.

Okay, so I obviously came into this discussion really late. But I have to disagree. Though I may be young in comparison to some people, I have seen the "welder" take the blame for the "building collapsing". At the same time, however, I have also seen the "engineer" take the blame.

I have witnessed many times the "welder" taking the blame. Why? Because, the "engineer" says the "building" was "engineered' to perfection, but the welder didn't do the job properly, so it wasn't the "engineers" fault. Who do you think they are going to believe, the lowly welder, or the engineer? Who is more dispensable? The welder is. So who will be blamed? The welder will be blamed. Why? Because it is the easy thing to do, blame the "welder" rather than be a leader and take the blame.

For example, look at George Bush and the Katrina disaster. He took full responsibility for the lack of response, he took responsibility as a leader. But it wasn't his fault. He legally couldn't take any action until the governor and mayor declared a state of emergency. They neglected to do so for several days. However, President Bush took the blame even though it wasn't his fault. This shows his character, despite the fact he is hated by many people.

What is my point? My point is that most people do not have this character. Even if it is their fault, they will still blame the "welder". It is the easy thing to do.

It doesn't matter how well engineered the structure is, if the welder doesn't do his/her job correctly, the structure will fail. Yes, the engineer must have more knowledge, but without the welder, the structure would never be more than an unrealized idea.

As Spock says, "staff on the ground get fired before middle management." If you don't think this is true, then you need to spend more time in the business world.