Englands easy way to recovery.

[Longcol]

Instead of everyone being negative towards this idea how about looking at it from another angle and suggesting improvements? Capitalism cannot go on the way it is with 1% of the population owning 80% of the planet (might be an exaggeration but not by much) and accruing more each decade.

 

Eventually, we will be living in a dystopian world where we work simply to survive, like a huge proportion of the world population does anyway. Something has to change but if every time someone puts forward an idea it is immediately shouted down with cries of "more left-wing drivel" we will never move forward. Come on, think outside the box, how can we improve the distribution of the world's assets?

 

I think it's something like the top 10% own 90% of the wealth.

 

The rich are getting richer - but so generally are the rest of us. The total assets aren't fixed - they grow as the does the economy of the world. So why does something have to change?

[spooky3]

A minute ago the proposal was communist, now it is fascist? Can't be both.

 

Not true!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist#Used_within_and_against_Communism

[Longcol]

A minute ago the proposal was communist, now it is fascist? Can't be both.

 

How about "totalitarian" - will that do?

[espadrille]

It's interesting that only you thinks that.

 

It's blatantly clear that the rest of the posters vehemently disagree.

 

First step of finding out whether something's a good idea: listen to other people.

 

Yes. Thats democracy, which he/she obviously doesnt agree with.

[Leopold]

I'm sorry i'm having trouble understanding most of that last post!

 

Starting ahead shouldn't be identified as the only factor which deters people from trying!

 

Athletes who compete, well, they compete!

 

Yes it is a communist ideal! Absolute equality is what communism (1, 2) is all about, don't get me wrong I start most my ideas out as communist ideals (just because they are logically idealist), but through rationalisation and considering reality, they get tempered and formed into something reasonably acceptable.

 

 

It is not absolute equality as some people are brought up in wealthier families and go to fee paying schools. That would continue. As for not understanding some of the post, perhaps there is a reason for that. You said that my idea would take away peoples motivation..it would not.

[espadrille]

I think that most people here realise that this idea would work. It is simply that you are the only one who has been honest enough to admit it. The rest of them are too busy plotting out how they are going to get their greedy hands on grannies house!

 

I have only introduced this as a principle , the details of course would need to be thrashed out. The principle however is just so fair and sound.

 

Looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles comes to mind. It seems to me that you havent got any support so far. You just seem to disregard what people are saying. I think you are just trying to wind people up TBH.

[Leopold]

Yes. Thats democracy, which he/she obviously doesnt agree with.

 

Hmmmm....but people do agree with me if you take the trouble to read through the thread.

[espadrille]

People would own what they earn for as long as they live. When they die they have the satisfaction of knowing that tyheir money will help the needy. They would die at peace.

 

But people can do that now if they want to. Many people do leave their assets to charities through their own choice, not because they are dictated to by Government.

[max]

The worlds assets are being redistributed. East.

 

China, India, Korea are all going to be the new economic superpowers and the USA will be reliquishing its place as the world leader.

 

The only way to re-distribute is on a national and global scale. Individuals can't make a difference only nations can.

 

Does that imply we need a new world order which prevents the flow of assets in such a major way? As some posters on here have pointed out, if you try and re-distribute in an equitable manner nationally all that will happen is that the 'haves' will move their assets off-shore leaving fewer assets for the 'have nots'.

 

What is needed is a global solution and as long as the world is driven by the economics of petroleum and armaments then I can't see that happening any time soon. However, it doesn't prevent us having debates like this as to what the new world society would look like and how it would operate without the usual nay-sayers dismissing any attempts at reasoned arguments.

[espadrille]

Instead of everyone being negative towards this idea how about looking at it from another angle and suggesting improvements? Capitalism cannot go on the way it is with 1% of the population owning 80% of the planet (might be an exaggeration but not by much) and accruing more each decade.

 

Eventually, we will be living in a dystopian world where we work simply to survive, like a huge proportion of the world population does anyway. Something has to change but if every time someone puts forward an idea it is immediately shouted down with cries of "more left-wing drivel" we will never move forward. Come on, think outside the box, how can we improve the distribution of the world's assets?

 

Basically when people who have money decide they either want to give( voluntarily) some of their hard earned money to those that need it, or when they agree to share their experiences with those who would benefit from it , in order to allow them the same experience and enable them to earn money for themselves.Simple really.