Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?

Are you saying that you support such an achievement or are willing to wait until it occurs before resisting?

Sadly, most of us who are my age have ignored many of the incremental changes that have occurred over the last century which have resulted in greatly devaluing our currency, increased the cost of living, and amassed an unbelievable and constantly increasing amount of debt, which will eventually become an unbearable economic crisis for our descendants.

Those who govern remain content as we fight among ourselves, Left vs Right, Democrat vs Republican vs Independent, capitalist vs socialist, white vs black vs asian vs hispanic, religious vs non-religious, rich vs middle class vs poor, etc., and do nothing at all in attempting to come together in resolving the issues that divide us.

 

But the world is already globalised, we have a global financial system, and global trading system, we have global capitalism, BUT many of the regulations that keep such things in check and working for society are national.

The political history of the 20th century (in the industrialised nations) has been to one degree or another about the curtailment of the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism (some call classical liberalism).

People in many nations fought for voting rights, social benefits, safer working conditions, progressive taxation, decent wages etc (1). The result of that movement was that the economic benefits of production were much more distributed. In many nations that movement reached its zenith in the 60’s.

From the 70’s onward a new idea was promoted in some of these nations (often referred to as neo-liberalism) it was in many ways opposed to the ‘distributive’ system that had developed. One thing it promoted was economic globalisation, which basically allowed back some aspects of exploitative capitalism by promoting the moving of production to nations that had not developed the more distributive systems away from those nations that had.

In this way the long fought for distributive system has been undermined in those places where it had developed. Neo-liberals argue that to ‘compete’ in the global market the elements of the distributive system need to be dismantled what is needed they say is deregulation, the cutting of welfare, tax cuts that benefit the rich, lower wages, weak government oversight etc etc.

The problem is that we now have a global 21st century version of exploitative capitalism and the only way to counter it is by fighting for a global distributive system.

Many national governments went along with globalisation out of short term self interest or ignorance but many are now waking up to what has happened when they discovered that money has gone global and their tax systems are national. And there is talk of some type of global tax system in the air – it would be a good start but…

I think we need to go further; we need international institutions that can enforce globally the say type of regulations that curtailed the adverse effects of 19th century exploitative capitalism.

 

My objective and agenda is good governance.

I believe there should be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of the people of the world.

Because in my and many others opinion, at the moment, in global terms, wealth has the upper hand and if unchecked it will manipulate things to their own advantage to the detriment of everyone else (even more than they have already have done).

However there seems to be elements on the right that favour wealth and wish to block any move to curtail its powers and that the whole ‘anti-government’ spiel is just part of that blocking process (and why so much time energy and money is spent pushing ‘small government’ ideas).

As shown they shout about Freedom and Liberty but when examined it always turns out that they only want to increase the power and influence of wealth - that the freedom and liberty they seek is the freedom and liberty of the few to exploit the people and the worlds resources.

 

Indie

But you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth be given greater voting power so that it could block the votes of the majority.

Again i ask what do you mean by 'the people', because as shown all your ideas seem to only advantage a few people not the majority.

 

Indie

Hell man you know perfectly well that we have been through this several times and you still haven’t addressed the many outstanding criticisms of your views.

To repost something again - After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that had risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=453435&page=130

 

Indie

But the ideas that we come together over should be ‘good’ ideas ones that can stand up to scrutiny and can be defended from criticism in some rational or reasonable way.

The problem as has been seen time and again is that the ideas you promote don’t seem able to be defended and seem to fall apart when looked at.

They are heavy with rhetoric and shouts of liberty but contain little of substance.

 

Actually you skewed my views to sound like those of Bush.

Right now, regulation is in place which benefits a few elitiest and harms regular individuals. We do believe in less regulation- but right now it's illegal to sell lemonade without a permit, since the government "Doesn't know what's in it." You know little girls love to poison people

And yes, does welfare truly help anyone?

"give a man a fish and he eats for a day; Teach a man to fish, and he eats for life."
Welfare is set up to keep people down; Including their policies that one cannot work or go to school AND get government help. Therefore, they encourage people to sit on their butts and keep collecting government checks. We also believe in tax cuts for EVERYONE, because less government, doesn't need crazy money (18 trill) to run this country. The middle class in this country is stretched due to taxes! They would take 100$ from every 500$ in my paycheck, and I could've really used that money! Meanwhile the government give foodstamps to black people pulling up in their Limo (ODB)

We don't want lower wages, only REAL money. (5 silver quarters was minimum wage in 1964; Today, that's over 25$) obviously the devaluation of our dollar has crippled our middle class, and has only helped the VERY rich and VERY poor.

So what do you say to that?

People run this country, but the government takes the credit.

 

No, you misconstrued what I said. I just meant this thread is very old.
I do not support any form of n.w.o. - one world government bs.
And yes, I know people have been sleeping....

 

I didn't mean to imply anything, only looking to clarify.

The only point I wished to make is that which followed the question you responded to, and I agree with your response hoping that enough people will wake up in time to fix what is broken before it becomes unrepairable.

 

25
Sorry but your post is just repeating thing that have been covered in threads where you were a contributor and for which there are already many outstanding criticisms, why repeat the arguments forcing me to repeat the criticisms rather than just addressing the criticism in the first place?

To repeat all those criticisms and unanswered questions would take pages so I’ll limit them and see if we can move on from there.

Regulation

Oh no not the little girl selling lemonade, again – This is the Trojan horse argument used by big business – ‘oh think of the poor little girl selling lemonade in her front garden they cry –and so we need to get rid of all those health and safety laws that really wouldn’t really affect her but would help big corporations like us’

Do you think the regulations are aimed at punishing one off garden sales by little girl lemonade sellers or more about lessening possible dangerous practices by actual businesses?

So what regulation concerning food and drink preparation and sale would you remove?

Welfare

Again you seem to be encouraging the myth that anyone asking for assistance is a lazy scrounger who doesn’t want to work and is living the high life on benefits.

The thing is that a lot of benefits go to people working, but not getting a living wage.

It is said that “out of families with children suffering from food insecurity and hunger, 68 percent contained at least one adult working full-time, 10 percent had at least one adult working part-time, seven percent had an unemployed adult actively looking for work, and eight percent were headed by an adult with a disability. The main problem is low wages and few jobs, not laziness.”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7450565&highlight=lazy#post7450565

The Middle Class

When the US was doing well economically and there was a huge rise in the number of middle class families - was in the period from the end of WWII to the rise of neoliberal ideas, a period when more distributive polices were in place.

But in the thirty odd years of free market/neoliberal ideas there was a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen bringing about a social and political system where wealth has gained great power and influence.

The problem I see with many right wing ideas…is that it would most likely increase the power and influence of wealth while making life worse for most people in society through the implementation of even greater neoliberal policies.

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that had risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=453435&page=130

Taxes

Cutting taxes for everyone is mainly just going to increases the power and influence of wealth, people at the low end of the scale don’t receive back anything like those at the top. It gives disposable wealth to those who least need it and going by history would only use to further their own interests.

Let us say that there was a simple 10% tax and it was returned.

So someone earning 1000 gets back 100 dollars not much


10,000 = 1000 still not much

(Average wage in US is around 40,000 = 4000 dollars)

100,000 = 10,000 now that’s better
[“According to the census bureau, 21.8% of FAMILIES made over $100,000 a year” even fewer individuals]

1,000,000 = 100,000 now you’re getting serious money

[People and households earning $1 million or more annually made up just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed in 2009, and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more]

10,000,000 = 1,000,000 that will buy a lot of influence

[and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more – 0.003% of 300 million is 9000]

100,000,000 = 10,000,000 and that a whole lot more.

1 Billion = 100,000,000

There are only about 425 billionaires in the US – 0.00015% of 300 million is 450

To me that’s bad enough but actually there is progressive taxation meaning the wealthy pay more and so would get vastly more back if taxes were reduced.

 

I'm not familiar with any initiatives for a global tax system. Hypothetically how would such a tax be implemented and who or what organization would be responsible for its care and use? Surely the toothless UN is incapable of engendering the trust necessary to take such a role.

Furthermore, how would one get nations like the United States and China to participate in such a tax when both, particularly the former, have strongly resisted infringements on national sovereignty (a global tax would certainly be viewed as such)?

For this I reiterate my concerns above.

 

Yes, I think some Regulation is used help some big business, and hurt their smaller competitors. I'm not speaking hypothetically at all; police in this country HAVE shut down little girls lemonade stands (See John Stossel 'Illegal everything')

First of all the FDA would become the FA, and be decreased majorly. Alot of regulations can be removed, but I would start with the silly ones (IE what drugs one can ingest/plants one can grow on their property etc. I would have the newly found FA to investigate GMO's in a non bias manner. (As Monsanto manipulated previous tests.) But even if every Regulation were removed (I don't think many Libertarians advocate that) but, if so, Companies are Liable to their customers today; All the government has done is taken the Liability from companies, and placed it on government. Now, if someone we're to die from something in our food, they'd have to essentially sue the taxpayer (themselves) instead of the company that did it to them. Therefore, from my perspective, suing the industry is alot more damaging. IE if someone was polluting the air, and people were exposed to chemicals, that individual can sue for damage to private property (including ones body) and in a perfect world, it will sue them out of existence!

Buy anyway, right now the government is essentially ran by those industries because they're paying His salary.

This is usually a touchy issue. I'm not saying people are lazy who are on foodstamps, but it doesn't encourage work ethic (I know because I've been on them) They told me if I had any kind of income or was going to college- they absolutely could not help me.

But you know who does help people, regardless of their situation? Charities and other individuals who take care of that person. If you see someone homeless on the street (Which I have also been.) you may have a moral incentive to help them, and on an individual level, that's fine. But on a National Level, lets be honest, taxes are misspent, and unequally distributed to richer counties rather than poorer ones. Is that fair? It doesn't hurt the government, or the 1% to spend someone elses money; hell they advocate it! Furthermore, the taxes pushed on the people already (not to mention the current debt.) We just don't have the money to run this government, and I don't believe the "safety net," was in the true best interest of the poor. (It was put in place by Nelson Rockefeller; we spend $131.9 billion every year on welfare. Furthermore, in 40 different states welfare pays more than an 8 hours job, and in 7 states welfare pay more than a 12 hour job.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Well I disagree that these policies were "neoliberal" (Libertarian for Americans,) and I contend that the views that destroyed us was too much bipartism too much government, with too much money! The Government has been corrupt like this for a long time, and what's actually happened is we've been manipulating our money while expanding our military influence all over the world. These Ideas were those of Democrats and Republicans but BOTH of them failed to uphold and adhere to the Constitution.

Again, our problem is we've fallen into Leftist idealism. The government today get 90 cents of every dollar printed. They spend our money totally foolishly (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...-us-government-blowing-your-hard-earned-money)

Businesses come and go, the only fallacy here is that Detroit went on with Leftist polices of taxation, and they couldn't even afford to keep running the city! So I disagree with the premise that it's the true right destroying this nation (You know, VERY far right is Anarchy,) I believe in small government; that is not what we have, we have very leftist ideals draggin this nation into debt/slavery.

That sounds good; hopefully companies would make a good choice and spend that money on employees. We can't demonize all rich people for what has really been the doing of an elite few. There are some companies who have made a living and gotten incredible protections from our government (Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Jp Morgan etc.) Even the EPA merely takes bribes when enviormental harm is done, and don't truly protect the people from corperations.

Monopolies in this country are illegal, unless you're the government!
The truth is, corporations love leftist ideals, because it creates a need for government. Meanwhile the government is collecting info on us, violating our Constitution everyday, and alot of it is the agenda of those very same businesses the government allegedly "protects us from."

http://www.theatlantic.com/events/a...te-sector-is-threatening-your-privacy/277018/

 

25


Go back and read what you put and you’ll see you haven’t actually addressed any of the criticisms your only reply seems to be more slogans and hollow rhetoric.


It full of unsubstantiated assertions that just prompt the question - why.

 

Regulation

So why would you seemingly want to give big companies more power and influence?

I already know the right wing libertarian perspective and there are already outstanding criticisms of it why not address them?

It seems to me that often right wing libertarian though thinks in terms of punishment as a deterrent rather than prevention as a way of lessening harm.

So it’s more about prosecuting the perpetrator afterwards for fraud or negligence rather than having the mechanisms in place to check and see if fraud or negligence is taking place.

So the ‘market’ is deregulated but if people act ‘fraudulently’ then they get prosecuted but if there is no regulation something that is detrimental to society may take place but which isn’t actually against the law.

And let us say a factory has no appropriate means of fighting a fire and the management has locked the exists (to prevent let’s say unauthorised breaks) and a fire happens and over a hundred people die.

Many right wing libertarians seemed to have the idea that the management would be severally punished to deter other owners from doing the same.

Of course in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory case where 146 workers died the owners got off.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=465568&page=12

 

Welfare

So your argument is that people are not lazy until they seek assistance which makes them lazy and your evidence for this that it made you lazy?

I’ve lived in countries where I could get unemployment assistance and I’ve lived in places where I couldn’t, and been unemployed in both and when I have received unemployment assistance it didn’t make me any more lazy than when I couldn’t, but it did make it a easier to find decent employment.

And I’ve meet many people that at one time or other sort unemployment assistance and went on to successful careers. Apart from your own lazy tendencies what are you basing your beliefs on?

I mean there are many countries that give much more generous unemployment benefits than the US but have lower unemployment rates than the US. And there are countries that are less generous with higher unemployment rates than the US.

Also as pointed out many people that are poor enough to claim food stamps are also in employment.

 

So why why why

Why do you disagree?

Why do you contend this?

Why do you think this?

Again WHY do you disagree?

Why would you think that?

Try reading Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall

Try reading this extract on anarcho-capitalism.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10

But why and what is it?

I’ll ask why this obsession with ‘small government’ it seems to me to be missing the whole point of governance in which what is important is good governance. Just being ‘small’ doesn’t mean it will be good, in fact if it is so ‘small’ as to be weak it is more likely to govern badly and be under the influence of those with power
From thread - Question About Operation of Small Government
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

Why do you think that?

That has not really been the case in the past so why do you think they would in the future?

 

McFuddy

On the tax thing it is very very early days,

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/183c2e26-f03c-11e2-b28d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bSODwXdU

Here are a few ideas been talked about

• Eliminate double non-taxation: Sure, taxation by multiple countries that claim the same chunk of a company’s profits is a headache. But so is double non-taxation, where a company finds a way to shift revenue untaxed by its home country to a country that also doesn’t tax it, in what’s called a “hybrid mismatch.” The OECD thinks countries should harmonize their tax systems to make sure that doesn’t happen.
• Marry “intangibles” to the profits they generate: The assets of a company like Apple are largely vested in its intellectual property, which it’s been able to store in low-tax jurisdictions. Tying them more closely to the jurisdictions where they’re earning money would slow the “race to the bottom.”
• Root companies somewhere: Some companies have found ways to avoid being “permanently established” in any one jurisdiction, allowing them to avoid income taxes. A solid definition of permanent establishment and a transparent accounting of who exists where could help stop that.
• Sunlight everything: The plan recommends that corporations be required to disclose their accounting practices, so that tax administrations can understand their global value chains.
• Make it easier for countries to resolve disputes: Since countries already have bilateral treaties that conflict with those of others, a “multilateral instrument” to amend them would avoid years of complex negotiations and likely stalemates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...greement-stop-the-global-taxation-shell-game/


*

We already have international organisations and institutions they would need to be reformed to become more democratic and/or adapted to suit their new roles.

Such entities as the World Bank, international Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation.

*

Try and get a copy of –

The Age of Consent by George Monbiot

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Age-Consent-George-Monbiot/dp/0007150431"]The Age of Consent: Amazon.co.uk: George Monbiot: Books

*

 

I'm curious, how would global government give big companies less power and influence?

 

If we had a global government and a New World Order, who would wield power? The poor?

 

Oh hell Indie we have been through this a thousand times or more,

Look man I know you are not dumb but do you have a problem with your memory or something?

OK first

Try reading post 62 of this thread
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7735586&postcount=62

And

[FONT=&quot]Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.[/FONT]
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Again we have been through this in a lot of our many talks about democracy, can you not honestly remember any of that?

To repeat it should be about balance, the balancing of interests. Its not either/or, black/white, rich/poor.

And again I’ve many times explained to you that ‘poverty’ is relative, can you not remember the long ‘poverty’ thread we were in?