Dude, you just repeated what I said... if at least you had added more details I would have learned something about the US specifics. And by the way, I guess you don't even remember when I said I would like to see private currencies become legitimate.

Just as usual you keep looking at the banks working on the margins (of interest) and ignoring the political power that kicked it all off. You know, the ones with the legal monopoly on violence. The ones that create more money with the click of a button than all the banks combined. And they do that not because bankers asked them to (for the most part - with the "too big to fail" exceptions) but mainly because "we the people" voted for it - entitlement after entitlement, of the kind you seem to like so much - minimum wages, safe retirement, blah blah...


Anyway, since we agree on the above (despite your blindness due to animus) let me go back to the actual disagreements. You will recall one of them concerns hoarding and artifical scarcity. Here's another I think I have identified. You just said: "... division of labor. ... in conjunction with productivity, both of which have only marginal impact compared to the monetary system."

The implicit is that they have marginal impact on the economy. I could not disagree more. The monetary system is a part of the economy, not separate. What you are trying to say is that credit expansion has a larger impact than division of labor and / or productivity inside the economy. This is false. We have millenia of history without the kind of monetary bullshit that became the norm in the past century and most of the progress (yes, also cultural) during those millenia came from division of labor / productivity (innovation and trade).

How near sighted to consider all that happened up to now "marginal impact". This kind of taking things for granted is the root of entitlement. The only reason you disagree (avoiding to mention your emotional prejudices) is that the inflated monetary system, which as you correctly said is an illusion and would go puff without the magical sleight of hands involved, is clearly tricking you. You need to stop looking at all the paper (electronic paper... hehehe) coming out of the magician's hands, and look harder at the magician.

Which brings us back to your last point, where you are so near to actually waking up. You point how it is not an economic reason but a naked power one that prevents counteraction - that if you go against the system overtly, you go to jail. There's nothing crazy about this. If you stop looking so hard at the [bankers] you should be able to realize that it all aligns perfectly in terms of giving more and more power to the politicians. The bankers will be the first to go to jail if they get out of line. Duh. No conspiracy required - the interests of all politicians align to a large extent, power corrupts, and inexorably the leviathan grows.

That's the thing, whether a business might struggle or even go out of business due to minimum wage hikes or just lose desired profit margins as a result of it - many businesses will look for ways to cut costs associated with employees when minimum wages go up just about anywhere, and with some businesses that will mean laying off staff that aren't strictly necessary, it could also mean getting rid of full time positions and replacing them with multiple part time positions to save some money there also, and in some businesses they will look towards computers and automation. Some restaurants in New York City and elsewhere are replacing humans with order kiosks and will probably replace some other tasks or full jobs with machinery in the future as well. As time goes on the costs of machines, robots and automation, computers goes down while computer processing power and technological capabilities goes up, so more and more machines will replace humans if the total cost of ownership is less than a human and the results meet desired expectations over the long term among other factors.

I'm in favour of people getting fair wages and not having to live in poverty, but there are consequences to raising minimum wage that often go overlooked by people too. That's not saying people shouldn't want more money because of it, but that as it happens there will be less jobs out there, or the jobs will be replaced by computer programming and mechanical engineering jobs building robots etc.

Other companies may outsource their labour overseas etc. as well. It's the nature of business to do these things unless it is not cost effective, or there are laws that prevent them from doing it. In that case, some companies have the option of packing up shop and moving it to another country as well.

Raising minimum wage ends up being a double edged sword unfortunately. :/

Well put. Thank you.

A minimum wage is worthless if it isn't tied to a maximum wage, and even then, it isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot when we have economic disparity so extreme that very few people can fathom it.

Fuck band-aids, we need major surgery.

Thanks for giving up. Again. Will you jump in once more when I'm having a conversation with someone else tomorrow? In a few days? In a month? Control yourself please.

A few parting shots:
- Of course the government is more powerful. They control the men with guns. They "bought and paid" the support of the populace.
- The Federal Reserve is part of government, it's not part of private or corporate finance.
- Your government is playing a shell game, where they mark as assets what are actually liabilities by getting their "too big to fail" stooges to hold the bag. You know that - per your earlier comments regarding ponzi schemes, debt being a monetary near-artifical construct, and so on - so stop being disingenuous regarding facile comparisons of debt X to debt Y.

PS: In other contexts what the gov is doing is fraudulent. You earlier mentioned counterfeiting and you should be able to detect the pattern... Tricky Dick was not that wrong when he said it's not a crime if the President does it. He just got the organ of power wrong.

As mentioned, the taxes would be (as they are now) based on profits and struggling businesses would not feel it.

Most employees at Walmart will eventually be replaced by automatons. At that point, Walmart should feasibly be able to pay all those "laid off" employees a fraction of their current wage to provide them a home, clothes, electricity and the internet especially if the cost of those things was kept to a minimum.

If a minimum guaranteed income cannot be met when the basic cost of living is minimized and most of the workforce can no longer be employed at 40h/week, I fail to see how they could be met now for most people (and they are met for most people).

Also, a lot of money would be saved by removing the bureaucracy behind welfare programs. If everyone gets it unconditionally, you no longer need to police who meets the requirements to get it.

I'm not advocating blanketing all professions unconditionally with a 20 hours work-week, but it would make a lot of sense to do it for all the professions that have an overabundance of qualified labor, especially in the context of a minimum guaranteed income.

A minimum guaranteed income is not a life of luxury. It pays for basic life expenses. People would still need to work for the extras (big screen TV, powerful gaming desktop, car, nice meal at the restaurant, vacation in a foreign country, etc).

Combine that with the fact that a large (I'd say most) fraction of the population NEEDs to produce some kind of useful labor (if you don't believe me, look at the amazing throughput of open-source software) and our labor needs would be met.

If nothing else, people will have more time to get interested in politics and community affairs which would be a net gain.

We certainly could use more people "sitting on their asses and monitoring what is happening with government services that are paid for with your tax dollars".

Fat chance, you're talking to someone who wouldn't be content not producing some kind of useful output for at least 30 hours a week (though I'd definitely cut back on those 60 hours week and in an economy with an overabundance of labor, that would be ok).

Correct. The people with money ... real money ... rule the world, not any tiny, insignificant governments, they can finish those off by only withholding their funds, plunging them into the depths of civil war.

So, if you look at the system in a logic way, we can even loose more than our jobs, and it will never be our fault. In the moment, we all live on borrowed time.

Enjoy the moment.

You're talking about the United States? The government is more powerful than those with massive wealth? Umm, in what century?

Because there really isn't even an argument to be made in modern America for this. The government holds very little "real" power - all the power in the States comes from wealth, and is held by those with wealth. Extremely wealthy individuals, and even more often wealthy industry groups, are the ones who dictate what does and does not become law in this country. Hell those folks control what legislation is even considered on the floor in Congress and not.

It seems you're confusing a conduit of power for a source of power. Easy mistake to make, as on *paper*, all the power is with the government. But as is often the case in life, what is on paper and how things truly work behind the scenes are two completely different things. Oh, the webs we weave.....

Saying power resides with the government in the States is like saying your bathroom sink tap is what brings water to your house, ignoring the well, municipal reservoir, lake which is the actual source.

In the States, the government serves as a conduit for power, that is actually exerted by those with wealth, exclusively. It simply functions as a very convenient tool for those with power to exercise it. In the end its really a simple system honestly - however rich you are or your industry group is, determines pretty much exactly how much power you have.

You can contrast the States with an example of a country where the government *does* hold actual power to see how this plays out. For instance, lets take the example of an absolute monarchy (there's still a few of those around, right?). There, the government does hold power. And if some major dispute boils up between the King, and some extremely wealthy business leader? Well the King can simply send his boys over, rich guy dissappears, his companies and estates are seized, and its all over. What if that happens in the States - some major public dispute between some super rich guy like Rupert Murdoch, Charles Koch, or Bill Gates and Obama or some other "powerful" government figure. You really think Obama would/could send the military, the police, whoever, to drag him off and such? And then proceed to seize and liquidate his assets? Hah, please.... First of all nobody would follow those orders, nothing would happen... but still, the wealthy folks (and not just the guy in the dispute) would leap into action at this threat, call in all the Senators, Congressmen, Judges and other members of government they control, and have Obama impeached (and branded a lunatic in the press, etc).

There''s a reason nothing like this happens though - our politicans know damned well who their true bosses are, and they would never get into some suicidal dispute with them like that. Just look at Apple - here Ireland is going after them for massive unpaid tax debts... yet they owe FAR more here domestically... but far from "going after" Apple over this, hah, our government doesn't even have the balls to ask nicely for it.

And "who controls the guys with the guns" is irrelevant in the US. Because nobody does, directly, like they do in the example of the King in the absolute monarchy. There are far too many levels of bureaucracy between any government "power holder" and "the guys with guns", and that bureaucracy is also controlled by the same wealth-derived power system. Yeah control of the military/police doesn't reside in a central place in this country in any meaningful way, to the point that it can be used to exert power like you are imagining. Not in the current state anyways.

This all may be different in other countries, but here in the US, make no mistake about it, political power is derived 100% from wealth, end of story.

I will never deny the many ways in which politicians and large corporate interests ally. The way to effectively end that is to stop trusting representatives blindly and remove their power to limit our freedoms. That will prevent most corruption and collusion that is too frequent nowadays, while also preempting fascism, which is even worse.

In your long post, you define (implicitly) power in the following ways:
- dictate what does and what does not become law
- control what legislation is considered in congress
- make people disappear and seize their property
- control over men with guns

What is missing, is any detailed argumentation showing that wealth holders have more of the above than politicians.

From the bottom:
- it's not corporations - Koch, Soros, Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg or Gates - but rather Bush and Obama that are and have been sending your army all over the place.
- it's not corporations that make people disappear via drone strikes or via indefinite imprisonment without judicial overview.

And even without making people disappear there is a lot that can be done to harass and damage people, via for example IRS audits, or politically motivated investigations including SWAT raids. But you don't even know what I'm referring to do you?

You clearly lack perspective, because lobbying and tax evasion are incomparably small fry if compared to any of the above. Perhaps you are privileged enough that you do not believe your freedoms will be removed in the above ways of course.

But let's move on:
- it's not corporations that have the power to do Eminent Domain, they need to buy such from politicians
- it's not corporations that decide what congress sees, they need to buy politicians' myopia, or attention - as the case may be
- it's not corporations that vote on laws, they need to buy politicians' votes

Do you likewise say that we are the ones with the power over what games get on GOG, because we are the ones that want the games and ultimately buy them? We influence, but GOG decides. With enough money our influence might be decisive, but it's still ultimately GOG's power, and choice, and responsibility, to acept or deny any such offer.

Fundamentaly, you have the source and the conduit (in your definitions) reversed in terms of importance. Both parties are equally agents in terms of intention, otherwise neither would be able to achieve their common end. But only one of the parties has the capability to execute. Remove that power and all the money in the world will not be able to buy what is not there and therefore can't be sold.


PS: Ireland is on Apple's side. It's the EU that is trying to impose a particular interpretation in regards to taxation on both Apple and Ireland.

Re-read my message please. That "argumentation" was pretty much all my post contained. And as I said clearly, "control over men with guns" DOESN'T define power in the states. That is your idea not mine, and I wrote a paragraph explaining exactly why in modern America that is irrelevant. The other 3 points were made, but it doesnt really matter, as this "summary list" you've made isn't exactly relevant unless we are debating what power IS. I'm explaining the SOURCE of power in the states - "what power is" is a separate subject which I wasn't trying to explore.

First point incorrect. So you think Bush and Obama are making those calls to send troops all on their own, in a vacuum? Do you know who has profitted off those wars? And had their lackeys in Congress support the actions? Are you aware of something called "authorization of force"? Those were NATIONAL decisions, not the act of a single leader. The power brokers in this country were consulted and their opinions taken into accout, have no doubt.

Yes but it's not done, not used against anyone with *real* power anyways. More stuff that is true on paper, but not in practice. See my post again for what happens if politicians try to go after wealthy people like that.

Hah, ok one suggestion, off-topic (well for me it is): don't take this tone in conversations like this. When discussing serious issues with someone on a message board, who you know nothing about beyond the message they posted, attack their ideas, not them personally. This simply makes you look like a fool who isn't worth having discussions with, and you damage your own creditability on any of the more serious, non-personal-attack points you are trying to make... I'll put it aside for now...

Hah, oh wait, you did it again. See the above. And i never compared lobbying and tax evasion to anything. Straw man now, too? Heh..

And again?? Ok this is starting to just amuse me now. See what i was saying about how this effects your ability to get a serious point across? IDEAS, not persons, remember that from this conversation if nothing else - you don't know me (and I'm starting to be thankful of that...), so avoid this type of attack. I'm not sure if its more laughable or pathetic, after the third time now....

Yes, please do that... hah, and tell me its not more of the same....

Ok, back on topic, thankfully. But - more stuff that only matters on paper. When the hell has Eminent Domain NOT been used to further a business interest? Last time was probably WWII. Try to use it to move Bill Gates off his property. Let's see how well that goes.

Yes it is. You're not paying attention. That's what you get when you control members of Congress by bankrolling them.

That statement is meaningless - buying politicians' votes GIVES you votes on laws. Come on now, that's some rather simple logic to follow, please don't make me repeat unnecessarily.

This makes even less sense. By this analogy we GOGers are the voting public of the US, not the financial power brokers. Fund GOG's budget next year to the tune of several million dollars and then your point is valid - and I'm sure then you'll gain the kind of access with GOG that our wealthy have over our political process. That ends up being a great analogy, when you turn it around so it actually makes sense, hah....

Hah, ok that was precisely my point in responding to your post, was that you have source and conduit backwards. Eh what the hell, I'll make the same point one more time for you: look at how the mafia works - money can and will always be able to buy "execution" (no pun intended). Unless we begin to live in a utopian paradise, there's always someone trying to get ahead and gain for themselves. You simply pay one of those guys to go break your enemies legs. Government is NOT needed to execute power based on financial strength. Financial strength will always find other ways to assert itself - just like the mafia does. If tomorrow the government folded and America became anachistic, the wealthy would still come out on top, likely even MORE on top, as they can afford the most bodyguards and hit squads. Government is just a convenient tool, NOT a requirement, as I demonstrated in my original post and again just now. You have these backwards.

Interesting, but doesn't change or invalidate my point regarding this.

PS: A lot of good stuff in your reply. I lack the time to rewrite it all in light of what I read later, just taking one editing pass. I will try to summarize at the end. What follows was written in order of top to bottom going through your post.


I apologize if this will be hard to follow. I dislike the quote breakign that is so common online and you just employed. I find it makes the broader points lose focus in minutia which can sometimes be irreleavnt - it fragments thought into incoherence IMO.

How do you expect to agree on the source of power if we don't agree what power is? It's precisely because I intuited that you would disagree on the relative importance of economic power versus physical power that I made that summary explicit.

The reason I said you implied that control over men with guns was part of power is that you wrote yourself "the King can simply send his boys over, rich guy dissappears, his companies and estates are seized" if this is not control over men with guns, and if this is not a part of the King having power I don't know what you could have meant here.

Regarding your argumentation, I see that post of yours as a number of examples. What was missing as I pointed out was generalization. You had examples about hypothetical monarchies where political power is stronger than economic. You had examples of economic power buying / influencing politicians. It did not disprove my original point, which I then expanded on, that political power is always inherently stronger as long as it has the monopoly on legitimate violence.

Here is the key question for you. What happens if the politicians being bought refuses? What power does the economic mogul have to force someone to sell x or y?

Regarding the use of military force, my point was never that political decisions are done in a vacuum, in fact I started my reply precisely by saying I do not deny the corruption, the collusion and the alignment of multiple interests. All of those influences do not change the fact that Bush and Obama have the ultimate say. If they are not willing to say No, they are ultimately responsible. That's pretty much the definition of executive power in the US. That Congress can deny funding does not change the fact that the President is the Chief Commander, can declare war, and can order deployment of troops.

Are you seeing the pattern? You keep implying that decisions are more defined by their context and influences (money, consultation, etc...) than they are by the actual free choice of going: Yes or No, I Do or I Don't, I take the money or I reject it. Any wonder people with my political philosophy ultimately see people with yours as denying the fundamental freedom of every human being? You seem to think it's all outside, and that the internal free will is irrelevant somehow.

That political power easily allies and lets itself be coopted by moneyed interests instead of doing its purported duty of protecting the weak is all the more reason to reduce that political power instead of continuing to believe politicians are able and willing to work for the "greater good". So the obvious fact that the weak and poor suffer more than the rich and powerful does not disprove that political power is stronger than economic power. It only shows that economic power exists, and that those with less economic power are even more at the whim of political injustices.

Ah, I see a tone argument follows. I am more than willing to park it, and even to apologize for the offense you took from that rhetorical question. (you don't seem too offended though... so I'll carry on mostly unashamedly) But please do not expect me to be delicate in this kind of argument:
- For one I just came out of a heated argument in this very thread with a practically self admitted anti-semite, which clearly harbors almost stereotypical New World Order conspiracy theories - and you pretty much decided to step into his shoes and carry on the conversation. That is unfair to you and your motivations, but it colored my perception.
- For another, here are some select examples of your language in your original reply:
"Because there really isn't even an argument to be made in modern America for this." you said, despite the fact I am and have been making that argument from the start.
"It seems you're confusing a conduit of power for a source of power." you said, despite the fact this distincton is precisely the crux of my argument. The source of ultimate power is violence, government is its monopoly holder, the money is just buying access to same, and trying to conduct it in this or that direction.
I'm not saying these are big rhetorical sins of yours. Just like I don't see my question as one. But these are very good at rhetorically diminishing me instead of actually being counter arguments. And they show you pretty much have ignored and disregarded all sorts of examples and arguments I've made in the previous long discussion. For example, the very basic one that government, ergo political power, has a huge amount of economic power, not just via regulation obviously, but also via its setting of monetary policies and monopolist control (enforced via those men with guns ready to come in) over currency. In a context where politicians buy the masses with promises of economic welfare benefits and basically create debt out of thin air, it is strange to see arguments trying to imply that economic power is somehow separate from government, and in fact defines what government does.

Anyway, I had a look, and I see you have been having a conversation with others in the thread and have been polite and considerate. I am therefore adjusting and will try to be more delicate despite being quite exasperated by my point not getting across.

Ok, I see then you continue the tone argument - hopefully that's covered higher. Your actual point is that I'm strawmanning you. Well... if not lobbying, what kind of name do you give to the influence corporations have over legislation? You did refer to the control or influence over legislation that moneyed interest have as being a part of power? I'm agreeing with you that is power, but saying that is a lesser power than the others under discussion. And anyway I still consider the power to accept or reject the lobbying more morally relevant. As to tax evasion, that was more indirect but you did bring up the Apple Ireland situation. At the heart of that are disputes over what constitues tax evasion. And to be pedantic, I did not say you compared lobbying and tax evasion to anything. I am the one saying that your opinion that economic power (of which you explicitly consider lobbying, and IMO implicitly are considering tax evasion) is more important than political power shows you are missing the broader perspective which I am trying to detail. Namely, to be boring that:
1 - power over the men with guns is more improtant than power over money
2 - politicians do have some significant power over money


BREAK - Too long for one post

AND NOW FOR ANOTHER EPISODE OF: Brasas has no life, enjoys moral / political philosophy too much and should know better than this by now...


It seems I can start being shorter now.
My point is not if or not Eminent Doman is used to advance business interests. But that Eminent Domain IS political power. In your language, the source of that power is political. The conduit is law and police (also poltical). Only the motivation is economic.

I am paying attention, you are just disagreeing (from the start) without actually acknowledging my arguments. Heck, as I indicated by quoting, you dismissed my points without even considering them. And you are surprised / amused / offended I get somewhat aggravated and employ rhetoric to implicitly question your motivation? By the way, that I make this explicit is the way I make myself more delicate. I am trusting you by telling you I suspect your motivations. I think we can have a perfectly fine and rational conversation despite that.

My point is that the politicans can choose what they see or not. They are moral agents. They have responsibilty for being or not corrupt. They are the ones holding that power. That is then bought by someone else, for a time, or whatever. The source is political. Basically you are confusing the source of power with the source of "corruption". But let me not get ahead of myself, because if we start already questioning why you see "economic" self-interest as inherently immoral (ergo corrupt) despite not coercing others we will get to the core moral philosophical disagreement too fast. And this interesting conversation will get cut short too soon.

"That statement is meaningless - buying politicians' votes GIVES you votes on laws."
Ah, another sign you are simply dismissing my argument and the logical distinction I am relying on. Well... I am nothing if not persistent... The politician votes. The power to vote is the politician's. What is bought is a particular vote, as in a particular outcome of the vote. That the vote was bought does not remove the agency from the politician. HE is still responsible for HIS vote. The vote is HIS. The power is HIS. If the politician takes the money and votes against what he agreed, who had the power?

It's easy to confuse matters when one looks only at the two easier scenarios of alignement:
- Axis 1 is the corrupter wanting the vote to be Y or N
- Axis 2 is the voter wanting the vote to be Y or N
If they align in the two situations where they are both Y or both N, then as you have been arguing one might (for whatever strange reason IMO) say the power was rather on the corrupter side.
But that's only 50% of the possibilty space - so far all in favor of both of their wants. In the other two scenarios, one sees very well where the power is.
- 3rd scenario: Corrupter wants Y, voter wants N - result is N (I am obviously defining want or not after the money was offered - unless you want to argue that the voter cannot decide to not be bought - a point I already made earlier that I suspect your logical coherence on free will)
4th scenario - Corrupter wants N, voter wants Y - result is Y
And there we go, all the logical space covered. 100% of the time the voter got what he wants. The corrupter only gets it 50% of the time. Actually, sorry, I should not say "of the time". The point you rely on is that the corrupter can shift the probability towards alignment via his money power.

Ergo that 1st and 2nd scenarios dominate in practice. But my point is that does not change where the power ultimately resides, it just muddies the waters of responsibilty by conflating the interests and making them harder to disentangle.

And (skipping) over the GOG point we get to the Mafia one. This will likely be insulting but I can't help it. I apologize in advance. Because I find it a crucial point, and I have in fact alluded to it earlier. All I can say to your:
"money can and will always be able to buy "execution" (no pun intended)." is that you should speak for yourself. I might be deluded and foolish, but I choose to believe I would rather die myself than accept money to kill someone else. The example is stark and therefore useful to enlighten our disagreement. I will refuse to agree with you that money is somehow equally powerful as physical violence. Someone can force me to press a trigger, someone can threaten and coerce me or those I love and therefore get me to pull the trigger, but with money? F that.

Turning it around though, because I'm not blind - of course money will be able to buy X. IF X is for sale. Therefore my approach - remove the power from any agency, particularly governmental to sell X. Nothing to sell, buyer is left to other approaches to achieve the intended result. It's either that or removing money completely. I know which one I consider the more unrealistic utopia. Becaue money is just one mean to many ends. As long as the ends are there (and we are human therefore will always have ends we desire), we will find ways to "buy" each other - from sexual favors to rational persuasion.


Summary:

So it seems to me we do need to define power. Or rather to agree on some working definitions if we are to align eventually. Neutral language usually does the trick for such situations.

It seems clear to me where our differences come from (exemplified by the source versus conduit dichotomy) and their moral implications - I don't mean some manicheist good vs evil classification - merely that I can easily imagine the kind of violence / harm that you or I consider justified based on the conversation so far.

I'm not sure what else to say. I just spent 3 hours typing this which I mostly see as a lot of counterpoints to your points which I do not find were actually countering my original argument. I have no interest in trying to convince you money is not power (a position you have bordered on implicitly strawmanning me with by the way), but I find it hard to believe you are really that dismissive regarding my actual point about political power: that monopoly on violence + monetary control > money, corruption, lobbying, tax evasion, etc... etc... Sure you can disagree with that relative assessment, but I'd actually enjoy it if you explained why instead of ignoring that that is my point.

How about you? Where do you see this going or not?

That's why I prefer reading paper books, it's too tiring for the eye to read long texts on a screen. Go to CreateSpace/Lulu and do some self-publishing ;)

I doubt that his books would be perceived as scientific accurate because he lacks in the source/quotes department. It may be that he read many books and has a lot of knowledge but because he gives no sources that support his "claims", it is pretty tedious for non-experts to check if he is telling the truth or not.
As far as I understand it, it is the job of the person who make claims, to support them with examples and verifiable sources.