How America Went from “Mom-and-Pop” Capitalism to Techno-Feudalism

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
The crisis of 2020 has created the greatest wealth gap in history. The middle class, capitalism and democracy are all under threat. What went wrong and what can be done?

In a matter of decades, the United States has gone from a largely benign form of capitalism to a neo-feudal form that has created an ever-widening gap in wealth and power. In his 2013 bestseller Capital in the 21st Century, French economist Thomas Piketty declared that “the level of inequality in the US is probably higher than in any other society at any time in the past anywhere in the world.”

Here’s one of its extraordinary insights: We are now really all headed into a future dominated by inherited wealth, as capital is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, giving the very rich ever greater power over politics, government and society. Patrimonial capitalism is the name for it, and it has potentially terrifying consequences for democracy.

From ‘Industrial Capitalism’ to ‘Finance Capitalism‘
(See Rudolph Hilferding's "Finance Capitalism" for a description of this; Finance Capital )

The economy crashed in the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt’s government revived it and rebuilt the country through a public financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. After World War II, the US middle class thrived. Small businesses competed on a relatively level playing field similar to the mom-and-pop capitalism of the early pioneers. Meanwhile, larger corporations engaged in “industrial capitalism,” in which the goal was to produce real goods and services.

But the middle class, considered the backbone of the economy, has been progressively eroded since the 1970s. The one-two punch of the Great Recession and what the IMF has called the “Great Lockdown” has again reduced much of the population to indentured servitude; while industrial capitalism has largely been displaced by “finance capitalism,” in which money makes money for those who have it, “in their sleep.” As economist Michael Hudson explains, unearned income, not productivity, is the goal. Corporations take out cheap 1% loans, not to invest in machinery and production, but to buy their own stock earning 8% or 9%; or to buy out smaller corporations, eliminating competition and creating monopolies. Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis explains that “capital” has been decoupled from productivity: businesses can make money without making profits on their products. As Kevin Cahill described the plight of people today in a book titled Who Owns the World?:

These latter day pharaohs, the planet owners, the richest 5% – allow the rest of us to pay day after day for the right to live on their planet. And as we make them richer, they buy yet more of the planet for themselves, and use their wealth and power to fight amongst themselves over what each possesses – though of course it’s actually us who have to fight and die in their wars.

The 2020 Knockout Punch

The final blow to the middle class came in 2020. Nick Hudson, co-founder of a data analytics firm called PANDA (Pandemics, Data and Analysis), argued in an interview following his keynote address at a March 2021 investment conference:

Lockdowns are the most regressive strategy that has ever been invented. The wealthy have become much wealthier. Trillions of dollars of wealth have been transferred to wealthy people. … Not a single country did a cost/benefit analysis before imposing these measures.

Policymakers followed the recommendations of the World Health Organization, based on predictive modeling by the Imperial College London that subsequently proved to be wildly inaccurate. Later studies have now been done, at least some of which have concluded that lockdowns have no significant effects on case numbers and that the costs of lockdowns substantially outweigh the benefits, in terms not just of economic costs but of lives.

How America Went from "Mom-and-Pop" Capitalism to Techno-Feudalism - Global Research
-
The billionaire architects of chaos and disaster have enriched themselves in the course of the last 15 months. (see table below)


They will be picking up the pieces of bankrupt companies.


1621564276684.png


Varoufakis calls our current economic scheme “postcapitalism” and “techno-feudalism.” As in the medieval feudal model, assets are owned by the few. He notes that the stock market and the businesses in it are essentially owned by three companies – the giant exchange-traded funds BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Under the highly controversial “Great Reset” envisioned by the World Economic Forum, “you will own nothing and be happy.” By implication, everything will be owned by the techno-feudal lords.

"Pushing the Reset Button": "Coming to the Rescue of Humanity", Implanting Chips in Human Beings - Global Research
 
Last edited:

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRowgD0ZZs


Yanis Varoufakis is great, one of the more eloquent leftists to listen to. What do you think of his thoughts on a universal dividend? It's an interesting idea, I personally would prefer corporations which do harm not even exist rather than force them to pay us (as in I wouldn't even want to be a shareholder of a company like Pfizer), but of course things aren't that simple and I don't have a magic wand to just enact my will. Still, Varoufakis seems genuine in his pursuits, and I think anything that moves in the direction of helping the poor and the working class over the interests of oligarchs and other elites is worthwhile to pursue. Although, these companies will always try to come on top of policy decisions, and there are probably multiple ways in which they can take advantage of a universal dividend system by enhancing and legitimizing their power long term. With that being said, Its easy for me to sit back and nit-pic theoretical ideas, at least he's putting in energy to organize people and fix the problem, and each passing day that nothing is done the working class and society as a whole continues to decay.
 
Last edited:
OP
meatbag

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRowgD0ZZs


Yanis Varoufakis is great, one of the more eloquent leftists to listen to. What do you think of his thoughts on a universal dividend? It's an interesting idea, I personally would prefer corporations which do harm not even exist rather than force them to pay us (as in I wouldn't even want to be a shareholder of a company like Pfizer), but of course things aren't that simple and I don't have a magic wand to just enact my will. Still, Varoufakis seems genuine in his pursuits, and I think anything that moves in the direction of helping the poor and the working class over the interests of oligarchs and other elites is worthwhile to pursue. Although, these companies will always try to come on top of policy decisions, and there are probably multiple ways in which they can take advantage of a universal dividend system by enhancing and legitimizing their power long term. With that being said, Its easy for me to sit back and nit-pic theoretical ideas, at least he's putting in energy to organize people and fix the problem, and each passing day that nothing is done the working class and society as a whole continues to decay.

Yeah he makes a lot of good points in the video. I'm still reading on the UBI issue but it's interesting to note that conservative economist Milton Friedman and liberal market economist Friedrich Hayek both were proponents of UBI;
"Milton Friedman proposed to give everybody free money in his book “Capitalism and Freedom”. He mostly referred to this plan as a negative income tax (and he also referred to it as a guaranteed income because that’s exactly what it is.)
1. To Reduce Government Bureaucracy
A single guaranteed income program could replace the current government maze and mess of 126 separate anti-poverty programs.
2. The Efficiency of Free Markets
Markets allow people to vote with their dollars. Businesses must compete for these dollars/votes by offering a better price or higher quality product. That goes for food, housing, nearly anything. But in order for this voting power to work, people must have at least a minimum amount of money to vote with, and they must have the freedom to choose how to spend it.
3. To End the Welfare Trap
With a guaranteed income it pays to work. You can always work to earn more. However, the current welfare system punishes you for working. If you take a job and increase your income, you lose your benefits. A guaranteed income removes that disincentive to work, and allows everyone to earn more without being penalized.
4. To Enable Work
Removing the burden of needing to earn an income, even partially, will help enable people to do work that is otherwise not compensated in a free market economy, such as charity or volunteer work.
4. To Enable Work
Removing the burden of needing to earn an income, even partially, will help enable people to do work that is otherwise not compensated in a free market economy, such as charity or volunteer work.
5. Justice & Equality
The virtue of [a negative income tax] is precisely that it treats everyone the same way…there’s none of this unfortunate discrimination among people.
Hayekian arguments for basic income
Hayek supported the idea that the state should ensure “a certain minimum income for everyone … a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.”, writing that it appeared to him to be a a “necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”

Hayek’s argument is that it is based on concepts that are absolutely central to libertarian thought – the twin ideas of freedom and coercion.
A basic income gives people an option – to exit the labor market, to relocate to a more competitive market, to invest in training, to take an entrepreneurial risk, and so on. And the existence of that option allows them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free.
Of course, a basic income would need to be funded by taxation (or would it?), and so would seem to involve the imposition its own kind of coercion. Hayek recognized this fact, but like most in the classical liberal tradition, Hayek did not believe that all taxation was incompatible with freedom. What makes the coercion of the slavemaster, or the monopolist, so worrisome for Hayek is that it involves the arbitrary imposition of one person’s will on another. By contrast, a tax system that is clearly and publicly defined in advance, that imposes only reasonable rates for genuinely public purposes, that is imposed equally upon all, and that is constrained by democratic procedures and the rule of law, might still be constitute interference, but not arbitrary interference.

Hayekian arguments for basic income
Thus, a basic minimum income is a smart solution to (a) keep our allegiance to the idea we shall accept some sort of poverty mitigation device but (b) refuse to accept the bureaucratization and the social and economic planning that inevitably comes with “organised benevolence”, as Hayek repeatedly pointed out. By providing people with a basic income you do not play with prices (including the price of labour), and society spares herself the (self-interested) intermediation of a welfare apparatus. A basic income is less paternalistic, and may have seemed to Hayek a good way to avoid what happened in the years when he was writing, particularly in England: that is, increasing redistribution, nationalizations, and regulation of the economy going hand-in-hand.
--
Yanis Varoufakis' Universal Dividend is different and seems like a much better approach;

"If UBI were meant as a substitute for the existing safety net, I would also reject it. If it were meant as an admission of defeat in the struggle to create good quality work, I would oppose it. And, if it were to be funded through normal taxation, I would campaign against it.

Like Daron, I too was left unimpressed by early UBI proposals. In the 1970s, I could see how class warriors fighting the corporate corner, notably Milton Friedman, endorsed UBI as a means of tearing up the postwar safety net which had done so much to ameliorate poverty. Echoes of their scheme hit me in 2015 when, as Greece’s finance minister, I was pressurised by the infamous troika to replace existing benefits with a flat, measly, ‘minimum guaranteed income’ – a naked tactic for eradicating what was left of Greece’s welfare state, which I fought tooth and nail.

So, why am I supporting a form of UBI now? Because the world changed drastically in 2008. Today, a therapeutic, non-divisive, progressive form of UBI – which I prefer to refer to as a Universal Basic Dividend, or UBD – is both feasible and necessary. The key is to recognise it as an essential complement to an indispensable safety net, a Green New Deal, and a jobs’ guarantee program.

Let me begin with its feasibility: In the post-2008 world, there is no need to tax struggling workers so as to pay a monthly allowance to layabout surfers or the rich. But, if not through taxation, how shall we pay for this UBD?

It will be paid, in part, by central banks directly into every resident’s bank account – replacing the inequality-maximising, inefficient practice of pumping gargantuan liquidity into private banks which, then, lend it to corporations which, in turn, use it to buy back their own shares – with next to zero green, good quality jobs added at the end of the day. As for the second source of UBD’s funding, here is an idea: Legislate into existence a Public Equity Depository where corporations have to deposit, say, 10% of their shares – in recognition of the fact that, these days, everyone contributes to the corporations’ capital stock (through their taxes for research that corporations exploit, by using Google’s search engine, or writing up a review in Amazon). The accumulating dividends can then fund part of a UBD.

Why is such a UBD necessary? For three reasons: First, because safety nets often entrap those who fall into it while offering no protection to the millions forced to join the ranks of the precariat – or those who do important, but unwaged, care work. Secondly, a poor person’s trust fund (a UBD!) would prove, today, far more effective in boosting workers’ severely diminished bargaining power than even a sizeable Green New Deal. And, thirdly, because without a UBD to fall back on, an otherwise laudable jobs guarantee program may degenerate into a latter-day Victorian workhouse.

A Green New Deal, a stronger safety net, a job’s guarantee, and legal impediments to the unbearable robotisation of the precariat are necessary. But they are not sufficient. Nothing short of the re-distribution of property rights over socially produced money and capital (that a UBD would kickstart) can reverse the post-2008 triumph of socialism for the very few and of stagnation for the many.
UBI cannot civilise labour markets. But nor can the old social-democratic toolkit championed by Daron. The reason? Post-2008 developments, accelerated by the pandemic, have caused capitalism to reach a point of no return to an economic system that smart tax, benefit and regulation tweaks might have once civilised.

Daron, rightly, dreads a future society divided between a minority of highly paid professionals central to the running of Big Tech and a mass of miserable folk confined to their couches and kept alive by a woeful Milton Friedman-inspired UBI.

For my part, I dread more the post-capitalist technofeudal dystopia we already live in: The wealth of the very few kept buoyant by a torrent of central bank money while economic life is increasingly dominated by tech-fiefdoms with immense extractive powers over, on the one hand, an ever-expanding precariat and, on the other, the masses who provide them with most of their capital stock for free (e.g., data, photos, reviews).

No wealth or negative income tax can even scratch the epidermis of this behemoth. No government intervention can slow down the mechanisation of workers spurred on by the new automation. Labour markets, today, are beyond reform. We can no longer fight poverty, precarity and industrial-scale hopelessness by strengthening the safety net or experimenting with novel tax rates.

To create a modicum of shared prosperity, we must liberate as many as possible from the tyranny of the labour market. Which means giving people the option to work usefully and creatively without having to sell their labour – not at all the same as paying them to be idle. And this is where the Universal Basic Dividend (UBD) comes in: as a trust fund for the many.

The affluent understand that trust funds grant their kids freedom from bull**** jobs, a prerequisite for a creative life. A trust fund for everyone democratises the right to say ‘no’ to exploitative terms, ends ritual humiliation in social security offices, benefits the Treasury (which recoups the richer people’s UBD at the end the tax year) and, importantly, allows people to do hugely important work outside the labour market (caring for others, experimenting in the arts, studying for the hell of it).

To make a modest trust fund available to all I have proposed we legislate that a minimum percentage of a corporation’s shares be handed over to a Public Equity Depository at the Central Bank which then offers a digital bank account to every resident in which it deposits both their share of the dividends accumulating in the Depository plus a top up credit – a people’s ‘quantitative easing’ whose level adjusts with the business cycle. Such a UBD would make the central bank’s money tree provide for everyone, rather than for the exclusive benefit of the top 0,1%, while making a dent into the monopoly of the same 0.1% over capital that is produced by the masses.

To end poverty and exploitation the dangerous illusion that waged labour remains key to shared prosperity must be jettisoned."
--
So while this seems like a much better way to approach the issue, it does nothing to fix a lot of the ways people are exploited or harmed by capitalism or by a market system. To use health as an example, capitalists and their firms would still be incentivized to patent and produce harmful medications and therapies such as SSRI, modified-for-profit vaccinations, and things like estrogen therapy and the pervasiveness of cheap seed oils in the food supply (*see below). Also to maintain exclusive rights to things like photodynamic therapy which Pfizer recently patented;
Error - Cookies Turned Off

So while it softens the wealth inequality gap somewhat it doesn't de-incentivize or fix a lot of the issues we're facing as a result of capitalism and a market economy, it just gives everyone one a little piece of the pie which still involves massive amounts of exploitation.

***
estrogen-Natural Estrogens
SSRI-Serotonin, depression, and aggression - The problem of brain energy.
Seed Oils (PUFA)-Fats and degeneration

Vaccinations- One Radio Network - Feb 2021 Transcript (occurred on Mar 2 due to Texas storm)
RP (36:00)- Right. Yeah, the smallpox vaccine actually worked but it was done in a traditional way, scratching the skin with the bad stuff which would induce a sore and usually life long immunity to small pox and that scratching the skin or irritating the intestine, that activates in a healthy a person a resistance rather than a sickness. That vaccine was used intelligently to encircle the isolated areas where smallpox broke out, they would encircle the area with vaccination and over s short period of time were able to eliminate the disease entirely. But that was not at all good business for the vaccine industry; to eliminate a disease from the world. So even though they know how to use a vaccine intelligently, activating the skin, not injecting it deep into the muscle in which case it gets into the brain but activating the proper immune system and using it to stop, in a focused and organized way, to stop and encircle the infections. That’s how a vaccine should be used. But because of the profitability they’re going crazy inoculating areas that haven’t suffered noticeably from the sickness. They get half a dozen measles cases and they want to vaccinate millions of people, instead of encircling and eliminating the disease forever from the world. The disorganization is a ploy to keep selling more and more vaccines to more and more people.
 

Missenger

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
720
UBI will be used to enslave everyone, these kinds of statements are always retarded. The people that hold the keys will make you eat bugs and laugh.
 
OP
meatbag

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
UBI will be used to enslave everyone, these kinds of statements are always retarded. The people that hold the keys will make you eat bugs and laugh.
What would you say the keys they posses are?
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Yeah he makes a lot of good points in the video. I'm still reading on the UBI issue but it's interesting to note that conservative economist Milton Friedman and liberal market economist Friedrich Hayek both were proponents of UBI;
"Milton Friedman proposed to give everybody free money in his book “Capitalism and Freedom”. He mostly referred to this plan as a negative income tax (and he also referred to it as a guaranteed income because that’s exactly what it is.)
1. To Reduce Government Bureaucracy
A single guaranteed income program could replace the current government maze and mess of 126 separate anti-poverty programs.
2. The Efficiency of Free Markets
Markets allow people to vote with their dollars. Businesses must compete for these dollars/votes by offering a better price or higher quality product. That goes for food, housing, nearly anything. But in order for this voting power to work, people must have at least a minimum amount of money to vote with, and they must have the freedom to choose how to spend it.
3. To End the Welfare Trap
With a guaranteed income it pays to work. You can always work to earn more. However, the current welfare system punishes you for working. If you take a job and increase your income, you lose your benefits. A guaranteed income removes that disincentive to work, and allows everyone to earn more without being penalized.
4. To Enable Work
Removing the burden of needing to earn an income, even partially, will help enable people to do work that is otherwise not compensated in a free market economy, such as charity or volunteer work.
4. To Enable Work
Removing the burden of needing to earn an income, even partially, will help enable people to do work that is otherwise not compensated in a free market economy, such as charity or volunteer work.
5. Justice & Equality
The virtue of [a negative income tax] is precisely that it treats everyone the same way…there’s none of this unfortunate discrimination among people.

Hayekian arguments for basic income
Hayek supported the idea that the state should ensure “a certain minimum income for everyone … a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself.”, writing that it appeared to him to be a a “necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”

Hayek’s argument is that it is based on concepts that are absolutely central to libertarian thought – the twin ideas of freedom and coercion.
A basic income gives people an option – to exit the labor market, to relocate to a more competitive market, to invest in training, to take an entrepreneurial risk, and so on. And the existence of that option allows them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free.
Of course, a basic income would need to be funded by taxation (or would it?), and so would seem to involve the imposition its own kind of coercion. Hayek recognized this fact, but like most in the classical liberal tradition, Hayek did not believe that all taxation was incompatible with freedom. What makes the coercion of the slavemaster, or the monopolist, so worrisome for Hayek is that it involves the arbitrary imposition of one person’s will on another. By contrast, a tax system that is clearly and publicly defined in advance, that imposes only reasonable rates for genuinely public purposes, that is imposed equally upon all, and that is constrained by democratic procedures and the rule of law, might still be constitute interference, but not arbitrary interference.

Hayekian arguments for basic income
Thus, a basic minimum income is a smart solution to (a) keep our allegiance to the idea we shall accept some sort of poverty mitigation device but (b) refuse to accept the bureaucratization and the social and economic planning that inevitably comes with “organised benevolence”, as Hayek repeatedly pointed out. By providing people with a basic income you do not play with prices (including the price of labour), and society spares herself the (self-interested) intermediation of a welfare apparatus. A basic income is less paternalistic, and may have seemed to Hayek a good way to avoid what happened in the years when he was writing, particularly in England: that is, increasing redistribution, nationalizations, and regulation of the economy going hand-in-hand.
--
Yanis Varoufakis' Universal Dividend is different and seems like a much better approach;

"If UBI were meant as a substitute for the existing safety net, I would also reject it. If it were meant as an admission of defeat in the struggle to create good quality work, I would oppose it. And, if it were to be funded through normal taxation, I would campaign against it.

Like Daron, I too was left unimpressed by early UBI proposals. In the 1970s, I could see how class warriors fighting the corporate corner, notably Milton Friedman, endorsed UBI as a means of tearing up the postwar safety net which had done so much to ameliorate poverty. Echoes of their scheme hit me in 2015 when, as Greece’s finance minister, I was pressurised by the infamous troika to replace existing benefits with a flat, measly, ‘minimum guaranteed income’ – a naked tactic for eradicating what was left of Greece’s welfare state, which I fought tooth and nail.

So, why am I supporting a form of UBI now? Because the world changed drastically in 2008. Today, a therapeutic, non-divisive, progressive form of UBI – which I prefer to refer to as a Universal Basic Dividend, or UBD – is both feasible and necessary. The key is to recognise it as an essential complement to an indispensable safety net, a Green New Deal, and a jobs’ guarantee program.

Let me begin with its feasibility: In the post-2008 world, there is no need to tax struggling workers so as to pay a monthly allowance to layabout surfers or the rich. But, if not through taxation, how shall we pay for this UBD?

It will be paid, in part, by central banks directly into every resident’s bank account – replacing the inequality-maximising, inefficient practice of pumping gargantuan liquidity into private banks which, then, lend it to corporations which, in turn, use it to buy back their own shares – with next to zero green, good quality jobs added at the end of the day. As for the second source of UBD’s funding, here is an idea: Legislate into existence a Public Equity Depository where corporations have to deposit, say, 10% of their shares – in recognition of the fact that, these days, everyone contributes to the corporations’ capital stock (through their taxes for research that corporations exploit, by using Google’s search engine, or writing up a review in Amazon). The accumulating dividends can then fund part of a UBD.

Why is such a UBD necessary? For three reasons: First, because safety nets often entrap those who fall into it while offering no protection to the millions forced to join the ranks of the precariat – or those who do important, but unwaged, care work. Secondly, a poor person’s trust fund (a UBD!) would prove, today, far more effective in boosting workers’ severely diminished bargaining power than even a sizeable Green New Deal. And, thirdly, because without a UBD to fall back on, an otherwise laudable jobs guarantee program may degenerate into a latter-day Victorian workhouse.

A Green New Deal, a stronger safety net, a job’s guarantee, and legal impediments to the unbearable robotisation of the precariat are necessary. But they are not sufficient. Nothing short of the re-distribution of property rights over socially produced money and capital (that a UBD would kickstart) can reverse the post-2008 triumph of socialism for the very few and of stagnation for the many.
UBI cannot civilise labour markets. But nor can the old social-democratic toolkit championed by Daron. The reason? Post-2008 developments, accelerated by the pandemic, have caused capitalism to reach a point of no return to an economic system that smart tax, benefit and regulation tweaks might have once civilised.

Daron, rightly, dreads a future society divided between a minority of highly paid professionals central to the running of Big Tech and a mass of miserable folk confined to their couches and kept alive by a woeful Milton Friedman-inspired UBI.

For my part, I dread more the post-capitalist technofeudal dystopia we already live in: The wealth of the very few kept buoyant by a torrent of central bank money while economic life is increasingly dominated by tech-fiefdoms with immense extractive powers over, on the one hand, an ever-expanding precariat and, on the other, the masses who provide them with most of their capital stock for free (e.g., data, photos, reviews).

No wealth or negative income tax can even scratch the epidermis of this behemoth. No government intervention can slow down the mechanisation of workers spurred on by the new automation. Labour markets, today, are beyond reform. We can no longer fight poverty, precarity and industrial-scale hopelessness by strengthening the safety net or experimenting with novel tax rates.

To create a modicum of shared prosperity, we must liberate as many as possible from the tyranny of the labour market. Which means giving people the option to work usefully and creatively without having to sell their labour – not at all the same as paying them to be idle. And this is where the Universal Basic Dividend (UBD) comes in: as a trust fund for the many.

The affluent understand that trust funds grant their kids freedom from bull**** jobs, a prerequisite for a creative life. A trust fund for everyone democratises the right to say ‘no’ to exploitative terms, ends ritual humiliation in social security offices, benefits the Treasury (which recoups the richer people’s UBD at the end the tax year) and, importantly, allows people to do hugely important work outside the labour market (caring for others, experimenting in the arts, studying for the hell of it).

To make a modest trust fund available to all I have proposed we legislate that a minimum percentage of a corporation’s shares be handed over to a Public Equity Depository at the Central Bank which then offers a digital bank account to every resident in which it deposits both their share of the dividends accumulating in the Depository plus a top up credit – a people’s ‘quantitative easing’ whose level adjusts with the business cycle. Such a UBD would make the central bank’s money tree provide for everyone, rather than for the exclusive benefit of the top 0,1%, while making a dent into the monopoly of the same 0.1% over capital that is produced by the masses.

To end poverty and exploitation the dangerous illusion that waged labour remains key to shared prosperity must be jettisoned."
--
So while this seems like a much better way to approach the issue, it does nothing to fix a lot of the ways people are exploited or harmed by capitalism or by a market system. To use health as an example, capitalists and their firms would still be incentivized to patent and produce harmful medications and therapies such as SSRI, modified-for-profit vaccinations, and things like estrogen therapy and the pervasiveness of cheap seed oils in the food supply (*see below). Also to maintain exclusive rights to things like photodynamic therapy which Pfizer recently patented;
Error - Cookies Turned Off

So while it softens the wealth inequality gap somewhat it doesn't de-incentivize or fix a lot of the issues we're facing as a result of capitalism and a market economy, it just gives everyone one a little piece of the pie which still involves massive amounts of exploitation.

***
estrogen-Natural Estrogens
SSRI-Serotonin, depression, and aggression - The problem of brain energy.
Seed Oils (PUFA)-Fats and degeneration

Vaccinations- One Radio Network - Feb 2021 Transcript (occurred on Mar 2 due to Texas storm)
RP (36:00)- Right. Yeah, the smallpox vaccine actually worked but it was done in a traditional way, scratching the skin with the bad stuff which would induce a sore and usually life long immunity to small pox and that scratching the skin or irritating the intestine, that activates in a healthy a person a resistance rather than a sickness. That vaccine was used intelligently to encircle the isolated areas where smallpox broke out, they would encircle the area with vaccination and over s short period of time were able to eliminate the disease entirely. But that was not at all good business for the vaccine industry; to eliminate a disease from the world. So even though they know how to use a vaccine intelligently, activating the skin, not injecting it deep into the muscle in which case it gets into the brain but activating the proper immune system and using it to stop, in a focused and organized way, to stop and encircle the infections. That’s how a vaccine should be used. But because of the profitability they’re going crazy inoculating areas that haven’t suffered noticeably from the sickness. They get half a dozen measles cases and they want to vaccinate millions of people, instead of encircling and eliminating the disease forever from the world. The disorganization is a ploy to keep selling more and more vaccines to more and more people.
Amazing response. Thank you. This wealth of information is a huge help to conceptualize the issue and i'm going to try and go through it piece by piece. it's certainly a nuanced situation in which I think it would be an injustice to categorize it in black and white terms such as it being bad in its totality because it's a form of elitist enslavement.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom