Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 12:33 pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:18:17 -0700, BobR wrote:
> > On May 15, 8:22 am, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

deleted...

> > Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to you and
> > the rest of the participants.
>
> > Lets deal with just the United States and discuss a hypothetical
> > situation and what the results would be.  Take all of the wealth in
> > all forms from all the people of this country and divided it equally
> > among all of the population so that each person starts on an equal
> > position.  What would be the result of such a distribution 10 years,
> > 20 years, 40 years later and why?
>
> Without government all the wealth would be in the hands of a few people
> all over again.

May I "correct" you by saying that "Without a low-corruption
government...." since it seems like our govt (USA, maybe many others),
there has been what looks to me an ever pro-industry, pro-rich trend
in our govt. The wealth divide has been getting worse the last 1-2
decades and all the data show that.

> The "all at once" redistribution of the wealth in the
> way you describe has never happened before.

Well, in Russia around 1917, private ovwner****p went poof, and they
changed currency so if you came to the bank with a lot, they capped
how much new currency they gave you.

Also, if you read some history of the Incas, you will find that they
did have a successufl socialist organization of society and it lasted
some 250 years till the conquistadors came.

 But it has happened slowly
> through the combined use of a highly progressive income tax and
government
> infrastructure investments.

There was a big wealth divide before the great depression and during
FDR's time, the taxes on the rich were increased.  Same deal in
England before the 1800s. The rich had the castles and mansions. Once
the taxes went on, then the rich could not afford to keep their
castles and mansions. I saw the Hearst castle in California back in
late 1960s. It was huge. Hearst had to give it up when taxes went up,
now its a tourist spot.

 But that observation begs the real question.
> And that is how to maintain a government that would use such methods to
> prevent the harm caused by extreme disparity in power and wealth.

Very very good question. My first, off the top of my head answer, is
you gotta keep the corruption down.

The
> removal of government is not the answer.  The control of government by
the
> common people as well as the rich _IS_.

Other answer: convince the rich that money, more money, and even more
money is not a good goal.

 I would highly recommend a better
> understanding of the pur****ted goals of the United States Government at
> its inception.

There are a few books out there that indicate the goals of the USA
were not much different than anyone else: power, expansion,
development, etc.

Now, look at what we have: China...a competitor that, in another few
years might be serious trouble for us, and in some ways already is.

 Such goals were not obtainable based on the technology of
> that time.  That is no longer the case:http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>
> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend