Economy of Rights not Ownership
| Author | Topic: Economy of Rights not Ownership |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 03:41
Profile
I was looking through the advertisements today. I saw that you could mortgage a house and only pay interest on the house for 30 years. Thus you would have an interest mortgage-- this is cheaper than renting but not as effective as buying. Of course buying is completely out of the price range of large portions of the middle class right now. Owning anything outright is an expensive proposition. Pay no interest for 90 days, etc. In a similar manner you can lease a Hummer or BMW for several years but not buy one because it is too expensive. I can see a future where you pay interest on your house-- but never buy it, lease your car, lease your computer and other stuff because buying becomes prohibitively expensive. The only way to buy for the middle class would be to live in near poverty for a long time. Big corporations would own everything and you would have the rights of use. This is especially true under the Bush administration-- you have very low interest rates, high amounts of debt, and extreme tax breaks for large corporations. You could live quite well as long as you made your payments. But, if you had a catastrophic illness, or accident you simply wouldn't be covered and would be knocked out of the middle class. Health care would be an investment for your future just like your social security. Those willing to take the most risk who succeeded would be the ones who were looked up to. The majority would fail. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3870
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 04:18
Profile
Homepage
There is hardly a difference between that and communism, apart from the fact that the corporations get all the money. Then again, the corporations are the ones who make the government decisions now, so you might effectively call them the government now... So it seems what we effectively have here is the corrupt kind of communism where the party officials enrich themselves at the expense of the population, only they aren't called "party officials" but "CEOs". Ironic, yes? :P -------------------- "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it." ---Thomas Paine Posts: 156 | Registered: Thursday, January 8 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 04:36
Profile
Homepage
Except with communism, you would always be protected by way of the coersion- taxes would be collected for all that you owned, but only insomuch as it payed for your housing, health care, education, sustenance, et cetera. So it's not like "capitalism" at all, since it provides everyone with a safety net whereas its antipathy would see fit to let everyone else die. Even if there's some degree of "corruption," there will be a safety net to keep you alive rather than a hollow notion of self-improvement whose death was unannounced for centuries. And hell, both the twisted version of "communism" and its "capitalist" counterpart both see fit to tear away civil liberties left and right, so I'm not entirely sure anymore that it was a good thing that we "won" the cold war after all. [ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 04:36: Message edited by: Roger Fickmann ] -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 05:30
Profile
Hey, at least Ashcroft's out. :) BT, isn't just paying the interest essentially the same thing as renting, with crazy additional liability? Doesn't seem like a great deal to me... Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3870
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 06:09
Profile
Homepage
Neither of the two systems used during the Cold War was working as it should have, and both were excessively dictatorial... The problem with both systems is that their theory makes them out to be simpler and more reliable than they are, while in practice one is as utopian as the other. I can't really say what I think would be the better system, much like I can't decide if it would be better if humans had wings or were immortal. -------------------- "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it." ---Thomas Paine Posts: 156 | Registered: Thursday, January 8 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 07:59
Profile
The crazy thing about a system like this is you could give everyone extremely nice stuff that was shiny and new, then make them liable for any damages they incurred. There would be an illusion of incredible richness with permanent indebtedness. For the young and inept they would love it. But once you got older and had nothing and could barely pay it would be a messy hell. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 08:14
Profile
Leasing would be generally cheaper than renting because the owner doesn't take on the liability of fixing anything. Also it generally would be much longer term -- a 30 year interest only 200,000 mortgage runs about $690.00 a month -- this would cover a two bedroom house in many places. I think the same place would cost $1200 to rent in New York for example. However, it requires a much longer term committment. Suckers would fall for this because they would not think about property taxes or repairs to the building. However, if the value of the property goes up and you could resell it quickly, it could be a good deal. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 09:04
Profile
Yes with real estate this would not be absolutly bad. Since you own the property when the value goes up you get money but when it goes down you can default on payments and the company is screwed if you don't have assets that they can take from you. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 2775
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 10:59
Profile
Homepage
Here's an online book about "feudalism" in present day America: http://www.mindmined.com/public_library/nonfiction/david_f_feudalism_aka_capitalism.html -------------------- "I can't give you brains," said the Wizard of Oz to the Scarecrow, "but I can give you a diploma." - L. Frank Baum Posts: 381 | Registered: Sunday, March 16 2003 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 11:52
Profile
Quite honestly, I think it stinks. People should be able to buy property and invest in it, especially the middle class. The key word is "own". There is no true free and clear holder with leasing. This is the cornerstone of the idea of the "American Dream". Without it there is very little reason to invest in the ideology of the American Dream. Leasing creates a kind of debt slavery. You get nice things to be a cog. The only reason for doing this is to turn over property quickly. If you can find property that can be "fixed up", there is very little money up front required to buy what I would call "leasehold" property. The difference could be pure profit. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 12:43
Profile
Homepage
On the other hand, most mortgages on houses are really protracted purchases. You pay more overall, but you pay it slower so you can actually afford the house. Evictions aren't all that common, and most people either sell their houses and repay the loans (but buy new houses with new loans) or pay off the mortgage after living in the house for 30 years. It's not a great system, but I don't quite see it as a form of capitalist exploitation of the masses, either. The difference is that the banks don't go out of their way to foreclose and confiscate your house. Mostly they just want the money you borrowed plus interest. —Alorael, who does find the new idea of leasing everything unnerving. Most people seem to manage fiscal responsibility when it comes to houses, but when all the furniture is leased, to say nothing of the car in the driveway, people tend to screw up more. This is especially true with all the "you don't have to pay for X months!" deals. X months later, someone's dream life falls apart when the bills start pouring in. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 15:04
Profile
Well...I think Puppet Account hit the nail on the head. Every economic system ever used with the exception of capitalism have been integrated with the system of governance. Socio-Communism and Coprorationism are the most extreme forms of this, where the government system becomes economic system or the economic system becomes the government system. Mercantilism, Feudalism, Facism, Absolutism: all of these rely on government control of the market to one extent or another. The odd ball out is true capitalism. In a true capitalis society, there is no government except for the invisible hand. The scoial good is served by the individual's urge to profit. Unfortunately, in order for this whole plan to work, utter honesty, and utter non-violence is required, and, ultimately, an utter lack of humanity. Remember, in true capitalism, there is no religion, and no government. Marriage becomes an anachronism. When there is no government, what punishes people for wrongdoing? If one person goes out of line, the entire system breaks down. Breach of contract destroys the system. Incidentally, there is no money, so you return to a barter economy. Additionally, if I pull a gun on you, that, too destroys the whole concept of the invisible hand, as I am effectively circumventing the laws of supply and demand by artificially creating a shortage of supply. Even nature must be subdued, as a natural disaster also creates an artificial shortage. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 15:24
Profile
That is what you believe "true capitalism" to be? I find it odd to imagine a large society that is purely governed by their own economy, even in some fantasy land. I am also amused at the thought of shooting someone is bad primarily because it reduces the number of people in an economy, though. -------------------- What do I put here? -Garrison Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, November 10 2004 16:21
Profile
Homepage
I practice faith-based politico-economics. Levy a 70% flat tax on income and a tax progressive to 100% to $100,000 on inheritance, provide everything you could concievably need free of charge or invasive oversight, subsidize luxury items, publicize real estate and socialize industry. Invest trillions in research; kill the diseases of today and tomorrow so our children don't have to. Then build up the infrastructure and the education system; we can't keep throwing money at the problems of the past, after all. Install voting and news machines in every household, and establish direct democracy. Turn the President into a foreign minister and Congress into an American House of Lords. Then go abroad under the Stars and Stripes, lather, rinse, repeat. Yes, you can tell me that the economy will do better under a 25% flat tax, or that government intervention is the devil, or that Rugged Individualism is worth more than Godless Communism. Really, so far as I'm concerned, any system in which all men are their own masters and none else's is OK by me, 1.4% lower rate of GDP growth or no. I can understand rendering unto Caesar, but I really can't say I get rendering unto Crassus. [ Wednesday, November 10, 2004 16:25: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3870
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 03:58
Profile
Homepage
Edit: That shall teach me to read posts more closely... Edit 2: I was responding to Dastal, Alec. :) [ Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:47: Message edited by: I Am A Puppet Account ] -------------------- "Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it." ---Thomas Paine Posts: 156 | Registered: Thursday, January 8 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 04:04
Profile
Homepage
I'm almost certain he wasn't arguing for his system. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 09:39
Profile
Homepage
Actually, I was; I was just in a foul mood at the time. Really. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5181
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 11:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:Answer me this: Who was killing millions of their own citizens and who wasn't? Posts: 262 | Registered: Thursday, November 11 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 12:14
Profile
True capitalism is governed soley by market forces. My argument is that true capitalism cannot exist, because the conditions required by true capitalism are also the conditions that destroy it. If a government is taxing you, remember, that is an artificial cost associated with buisness. And if the government cannot tax, it cannot exist. Perhaps you could have some concievable double system, but I have no idea how it would work. Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 12:43
Profile
Homepage
Well, some extreme capitalists believe in a government funded entirely by donations, which runs the police and military and essentially nothing else. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3610
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 13:24
Profile
That's sorta what I was thinking. Except if I donate $100m to the govenrment, and you only donate $100,000, don't you think I could encourage the government to raid your buisness? Posts: 129 | Registered: Tuesday, October 28 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 13:28
Profile
Homepage
Why, that couldn't possibly happen, because if a government were corrupt then people would stop donating. Well, uh, unless the bulk of donations came from a small group of very wealthy individuals or groups who benefited from that corruption. The logically-minded will notice that the likely end-point of this is for everyone to donate enough to keep the government out of their business. Some would say that this is not so different from the situation we have now, except that the government is more openly a protection racket and doesn't have any particular obligations to use the money to the benefit of its people (or at least, none that are enforceable). [ Thursday, November 11, 2004 13:33: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, November 11 2004 15:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:Augusto Pinochet; Salvador Allende. I don't approve of demonizing either 'capitalism' or 'communism'; a heavy-handed, inhuman dictatorship is a heavy-handed, inhuman dictatorship, regardless of who gets money and how. Similarly, communist and capitalist extremists tend to assume that the world is immediately ready for their system and try to put it in place pretending it is. No one wants to spend two hundred years building a house; they're perfectly content to pour the foundation and pitch a yurt. It may do you well to know that TM is what I'd call an ideologue, or, when I'm feeling less charitable, a word fetishist; he doesn't have a personal idea, but he nevertheless is very fervent about what he believes. [ Thursday, November 11, 2004 15:37: Message edited by: Fear Uncertainty and Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |