Thomasio

Maybe you should get some information, before you pretend to know more than me? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-16/where-worlds-unsold-cars-go-die To answer your last question: Yes, I've worked in large companies, like Siemens in Munich, I've worked in smaller companies like a computer reseller in Stuttgart, I've run my own business for about 5 years and I'm perfectly aware of what's going on, especially the fact that small business cannot compete against the bribery driven politics in favor of large corporations and their gigantic over production.

I suggest a few lessons in basic math. An increasing productivity of about 3% per year means, every single worker doubles the amount of stuff he produces about every 25 years. 100 years of 3% increase means doubling 4 times, means every single worker today produces 16 times more stuff than 100 years ago. Furthermore between 1900 and 2000 world population has grown from 1.5 bln to 6.1 bln, today we're already over 7 bln. That means not only every worker produces 16 times more stuff, also there are 4 times more people, including 4 times more workers, all together making 64 times more stuff than 100 years ago. Do workers today make 64 times the money, or at least 16 times the money they made 100 years ago? AFTER inflation that is. Nope, they don't, by FAR not. http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/his/e_prices1.htm In 1915 (taking the middle between the numbers shown for 1910 and 1920) the average income was $990 per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States In 2014 the average income was $53,657 per year actually going BACKWARDS from 2013. Now what did consumer prices do in the same time? Let's take for example bread. http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/pdf/average-food-prices-a-snapshot-of-how-much-has-changed-over-a-century.pdf $0.056 in 1913 and $1.422 in 2013. Some things like potatoes have increased by 40 times, other things like butter only 9 times, I take a rough estimate of 25 times. The rest is easy math. Production increased by 4 times per worker, prices increased by 25 times, requiring 100 times more income to keep the same purchasing power in relation to production. But the average income increased only by 54 times, meaning in relation to production the population has only HALF the purchasing power, or in other words, roughly half the worlds industry is doomed to collapse, as soon as the population has maxed out their credit limits. Do you need examples, proving this is already happening? Half of all the cars manufactured in the world cannot be sold, because there are no buyers.

Then I guess they must have finished building their company in 1860, they make their 1 bln a year ever since and never spend any, or how else did they get to 151bln net value today? http://www.techscio.com/richest-family-in-the-world/

Man you're so wrong, I can't even begin to describe it. You're getting back over and over to points I have explained several times already, always claiming I had not. You keep adding points, asking for things I have explained long ago, yet you still claim I haven't. Take this for example: Remember my posting about atomic power in Germany? How public opinion in Germany was able to turn politics upside down within a week? No change in government needed, a simple pre election survey is sufficient, no matter what party has the government, as soon as they discover they have lost the majority of voters they change their policies. Of course in the end there will be no government anymore, but for the time being, for the first initial steps in the right direction, we can use our voting power to turn the government and their opposition against each other. Once we did some initial steps, once the people have understood who has the power in a democracy, the rest of the transition into a free society will come almost by itself. Suppose Labor would win the next elections with the promise to make manufacturing worker owned and then they wouldn't deliver on the promise. What would Cameron do right after the news is out that Labor didn't deliver? Cameron would understand how he can get the voters back, he would campaign himself for worker owned manufacturing and THAT would then make Labor deliver on their promise. For the rest, read my earlier postings, it's all there, most of it multiple times and if you insist you can't find it, I suggest new glasses. Why is Hillary Clinton suddenly against war? Maybe because election polls have shown her, with her pro war attitude she was losing to Bernie Sanders? Does that make either of them a good president? Probably not, but it gets us out of the war. Did it require electing Sanders and wait 4 years? Nope, a simple election poll was sufficient.

It's almost funny how you are able to turn the most obvious clearest possible wording into its opposite. Which part of "If the owner doesn't want the company anymore" and "give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise" contains ANY kind of force? Doesn't the owner not wanting the company anymore already include that he has volunteerly decided to sell it? Doesn't the first right include the option to pass?

Because if employers attempt to keep things going as they are now, by the time the fact they can't find workers anymore will force them to pay more, economy will have collapsed already and it will take a LONG time to rebuild society afterwards. If you can mange to make deals with Asian manufacturers and international transport companies that through the sheer size of the business allows you to negotiate prices nobody else can reach, if you then have the money to launch a gigantic chain of stores, if you then can manage to locate these stores in areas where there are so many unemployed that workers are willing to work for next to nothing, you surely could do that, just like Walmart did it. Here are the actual numbers An increasing profit reaching $130 bln in 2015. All competitors combined make less profit. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Wal-Mart_%28WMT%29/Data/Gross_Profit Running 11,500 stores in 28 countries. $7.2 bln paid out to shareholders. http://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/company-facts $2 bln donated to charity. => means over $120 bln left for the Waltons. 2.2 million employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart Do the math, a rough estimate will do, even without knowing the minimum wages in all 28 countries and without knowing how many hours they work on average. Let's say $10 per hour tripled gives $20 per hour and worker extra cost for the Waltons. Let's ignore the vast amount of part time workers and those working for less than $10, let's say that evens out with those who earn more than $10. (If you want to insist their average worker makes more than $10 per hour and/or works more than 40 hours a week, just alter my initial statement from triple to increase by $20 per hour, that's the same to me, but maybe you find it easier following the calculation then.) $20 * 2.2 million workers * 40 hours a week * 52 weeks a year = $91.5 bln. Still leftover profit for the Waltons roughly $30 bln a year. Obviously those are the numbers before taxes. If there's a tax on wages, that would be deduced from wages, same as workers who work for $10 do not get paid the full $10, while a tax on their profits would automatically be reduced by the smaller profit they make when paying higher wages. At the same time the economy in all these 28 countries would experience a gigantic boost in demand. $91.5 bln more purchasing power in the population would create demand for more goods, would create the need for more production, would create investments, factories and jobs, which would allow Walmart to get back to (if not exceed) their 120 bln profit upon triple wages, they would have more diligent and better motivated workers, better service and they would force their competition to pay more as well, or else the competition would end up with the bottom end of worker skills. Furthermore it would force literally ALL other businesses in ALL other branches of business to raise wages accordingly, because no hairdresser would do haircuts for minimum wage, if he could make 3 times as much filling bags at Walmart, which would again cause an even bigger increase in demand, even more investment, even more jobs and so on, an endless spiral upwards in a win-win-win-win-win situation. But before you come up with the usual counter argument: Nope, nobody would mind if a haircut would become more expensive, if everybody had that much more income. There wouldn't even be any inflation, as long as production can keep up with the increasing demand, only if production would fall behind, prices would increase.

I don't even have to go to any other posting, RIGHT HERE you're doing it AGAIN. I point out a pretty good idea, you point out that the source this idea comes from is a political party, therefore cannot be trusted, therefore the idea isn't going to work and anyone supporting it must be a communist (which again you mistake for socialist). In fact this idea is VERY old, it is the core idea of socialism, it only was forgotten when in Russia the communists took over and declared a state organized capitalism to be socialism. Ever since that ALL attempts towards socialism copied communism, nobody ever tried the original idea of socialism. That's why socialism has a bad reputation now, while communism is the actual problem. In fact, the labor party is a center right wing authoritarian party, therefore as far away from my personal point of view as it could be, only beaten by the extreme right wing authoritarians, which would be UKIP and Conservatives. Another fact is, YOU are one of those who want to do a SLOW transition from authoritarian government to a free society, therefore YOU support the current authoritarian government, meaning YOU trust them to keep going until the slow transition to a free society is done. I on the other hand am one who does NOT believe the authoritarian government has much time left, before the exponential increasing debt will cause a complete collapse of the system, therefore I am more into a faster transition, which does require active self defense against the stealing done by authoritarian governments. Still I am aware, we cannot do revolution like they do in North Africa or so, we have to begin within our existing system, pick any idea that would lead into the right direction, in this case worker owned manufacturing, support it and push for it by voting for the party. If they then don't fulfil the promise (which I fully expect) at the very least all other political parties will understand, what the voters want, namely worker owned manufacturing. Sooner or later, where it becomes the sooner, the stronger the support is, we will get to a movement that the political parties cannot drop in an empty promise anymore, sooner or later there will be a politician that actually does implement a law supporting worker owned manufacturing. Then we're one step done and can go for the next. Turning everything anyone says down, only because you expect he won't do it, while nobody else even says anything in this direction will never get you anywhere and accusing me of supporting the labor party is the precise opposite of what you should be doing if you were anywhere near libertarian.

I don't think repeating that would help either of us any. You seem to have the impression of me being a communist and no matter how often I express that libertarian left is as far away from communism as libertarian right is from authoritarian right, you keep ignoring that and keep contesting my postings by claiming that my communist ideas (even though you call them socialist, what your're contesting is communism) wouldn't work. How would you like it, if I would keep calling you a supporter of big government on the authoritarian right? If you want to see what I want to do, read through my previous postings. While you're at it, try to find ANYTHING I wrote that sounds like communism and if you cannot find anything, check your reply right underneath my posting, accusing me of being a communist (even though you call it socialist). Then come back to me and explain to me, why you contest the opposite of what I'm saying and why you're not simply agreeing with me, which is identical to contesting the opposite of what I'm saying, only sounds less negative. If you then still want some clue of what I want, THIS http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35370234 seems to me like a pretty good first step in the right direction. Take government AND the super rich out of production at the same time. If the owner doesn't want the company anymore, give workers the first right to purchase the enterprise. Let workers have the full fruit of their labor.

In a truly free market, business models that depend on paying the workers less than they need to make a living cannot exist, simply because no worker would be able to afford taking a job there. That's why in a free society wages will automatically adjust to a given minimum, completely without any government setting any minimum. Companies like Walmart will simply lose all their workers, or have to replace them with students who don't have to make a living out of their wages. How on earth could you possibly believe that? Isn't Walmart the perfect example that the wealth of the owners has no influence on the wages they pay? Walmart could easily triple the wages of all their workers without increasing any of their prices, just by lowering the personal profits of the owners a bit, yet they don't have to, because there are more than enough unemployed workers around willing to take any job, no matter how low the salary and that's why they don't pay more. Only and exclusively the fact, in a free society without welfare they won't find workers for these low wages anymore will force them to increase wages.

It's easy to lose the perspective. $2.41 bln sounds like incredibly expensive, but divide it by the 100 years it will last, divide that by the amount of atomic power plants that haven't melted down, then divide that by the energy these power plants produce. You will get to a total cost of (I'm too lazy to calculate that precisely now) a tiny fraction of a cent per kwh. Then compare that to the continuous cost of medical supplies for all those millions that suffer from the pollution of cole and gas fired power plants. I haven't done that calculation, so I'm still not sure, but I guess you wouldn't get to a result that would give either form of energy a clear edge over the other.

Sometimes I have the impression, some of you guys in here misunderstand me on purpose. I NEVER said anything remotely close to "need artificial help", I said the precise opposite of that. I said, it will happen automatically once the free market has learned how it works. Any attempt of whatever form of artificial help only prevents the markets from learning the true conditions of life in a free world.

It may be quite late for me to step in here, since this is a rather old topic, but since there is still activity in here, let me give you a few ideas out of my personal experience. I grew up in an almost pure male environment, aside of my mom and my younger sister. Almost all the neighbors who had children my age were all boys, some coincidence. In school I was in a 100% boys class, because in my school in my year there were so many more boys than girls, that they decided to make all classes mixed 50/50 plus one class all boys and I was one of those. By the time I got to high school, out of the past experience with girls, or better the lack thereof, I kinda avoided any contact to girls. When my interest in girls awakened, sometime around my 16th or 17th bday, I had the (false) impression, I should look for a girl outside my own environment, no clue why, maybe I didn't see any attractive girls among my friends, or because I was kinda late and all of the girls I knew already had a boyfriend and I wasn't in for "stealing" one from one of my friends. I went to bars and discotheques just to discover, there was a vast majority of single men, all looking for girls, but rarely any single girls and the few there were, mostly were looking for a rich guy. After a while I kinda gave up, thinking I might remain single for the rest of my life. But then things happened on their own, or at least without me consciously working in that direction. My first job was a computer technician, doing PC home service at customers, in the very earliest stages of personal computers, where anyone knowing how to fix a computer was considered an over natural being or something like that. At first I didn't even realize what was going on, I just wondered, why some single women, working at home with their computer would call me for help, while there was nothing wrong with their computers. Call me dumb or slow, but it took me almost a year before I discovered, they didn't want my help with computers, they wanted ME. Once I got the point I had a WILD time with up to 5 "girlfriends" simultaneously, up to 15 years older than me, which gave me some good experience. But then one day I messed up, those girls got to know each other and I was single again. Then I started playing pool billard in a club and at least within the limited skills available in my town I was pretty good at it. I became the #1 in the club ranking, got quite some attention, including all the girls in the club, I had somewhat free choice which one I wanted. Of course I picked one and this time I was smart enough to limit it to that one. We were a good match, but her parents didn't like me, maybe because they had heard of me and my story with those 5 girlfriends, however, it didn't last too long. Next the internet was invented, I was among the first people online, I saw the development of the very first chat rooms, followed by the very first gaming rooms. I learned to play backgammon there and even on a global level I was pretty good at it. In the early times, a game room was mostly a chat room, where the actual game was somewhat only a side event, but different from plain chat rooms there was no majority of men and the general attitude of lonesome men bothering anyone who pretended to be female didn't exist in the game rooms. I managed to become #1 in the ranking of one of the biggest backgammon game room on the web, got the attention of all the others, including all the girls, meaning now I had somewhat free choice worldwide among 1000s of girls. There was one who lived only 20km away from me, I met her, she was by only a few days difference my age and I fell in love instantly. She must have felt the same and we had 4 wonderful years, until she had an opportunity for her own career that took her 1000s of km away. She took the offer and despite promising to stay in touch, she disappeared, I never heard from her again. I went back to the backgammon room, which by now was a bit converted, because those lonesome men from the chat rooms had discovered where the real girls are, but there still were some players who remembered me. We founded a little online club for backgammon, setting up teams, competing against each other, where I became the captain of my team. After a year or so, one of the other captains had a problem with her computer. I offered to come over and fix it, even though she lived 1000km away in a different country. Since that country was Italy and it was summer, I figured taking a few days vacation at the beach would be a good idea and fixing her computer was a good excuse to take a few days off work. I got stuck there, I moved in with her a year later, later on married her and tomorrow is our 10th anniversary. I found her too late, so we don't have kids, but we're quite happy anyway. In short: You shouldn't try and seek a girl, the whole idea of going around looking for a girl is already the wrong approach. Try to be good at something, if possible the best, even if it's something as meaningless as online backgammon and the opportunity, maybe even a choice will come to you by itself.

Can't remember in which one, because I've seen too many of them, but I remember Richard Dawkins stating in a discussion about this topic, there are in fact not only fossile, but existing trees today that have more than 6000 rings.

I only have a few unsorted thoughts on this, but maybe I can give a few starting points of discussion. First of all there is a limited amount of natural energy, such as hydroelectric power, but the consumption of humanity is way more than that could ever produce, so let's take that for a given base amount and let's talk about the rest. Ethanol causes during it's production more pollution than it saves in the end, so that's nonsense. There is no renewable energy that could work without backup, because we do not (yet) have any efficient way of storing energy over longer periods of time. Whether it's wind or solar, during a night without wind it requires the same capacity of non renewable energy. The only question is, what kind of backup power to build. A cole or gas fired power plant produces pollution that causes a near endless amount of health problems and (according to the Heal-Study) kills on average 18,000 people per year alone in Europe. http://www.env-health.org/resources/projects/unpaid-health-bill/ Not sure about the whole world, but I guess it would number in a few 100,000 dead per year. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima kill (by inofficial numbers, so don't take them for a fact) 1-2 million people. Furthermore smaller incidents in atomic power plants kill on average roughly 50 people per year per power plant. Furthermore atomic waste will cause environmental problems for millennia to come, or at least until technology develops a new generation of atomic power plants that can use spent fuel (which is in development). The calculation isn't easy, but it comes down to which type of power causes less death. Are two major disasters times 1-2 million plus a few 100 smaller incidents in 50+ years more than a few 100k dead plus millions of sick people per year? I myself am not sure at all, looks on first view like it's about the same numbers. I'm only aware, until we develop the technology for cold fusion, there will be no power that doesn't cause harm, above the on start mentioned base amount. I'm also aware that without using all this power, if we would reduce power consumption to the natural base level, the loss in technological options, slower progress in medical research and all that would cause WAY more death than the production of the energy causes.

Let me see if I got that right. First you claim what I said is wrong and you contest my claim that the poor will need a sufficient income by: And two sentences later you repeat with slightly different words precisely what I had said, contradicting yourself: How is that any different from me saying the rich may make more than the poor, but they must leave the poor enough to buy what the rich produce? Same thing with you, @B0b No difference to what I said, only different words. So let me put it in different words again: Today, under an authoritarian government that redistributes income from the middle class to the poor, employers can squeeze down wages and employees are still willing to take the job, because they can rely on welfare to fill up whatever is missing between their salary and their needs. Without governement BOTH employers as well as employees will have to adjust to the new situation. Employees will not be able to take jobs that they cannot make a living from, that's quite obvious from start. Employers will have to learn the lesson that they can no longer squeeze down wages below the basic needs of their workers. All I'm saying is, IFFFFF there was an instant switch from todays authoritarian welfare system to a free society there would be some employers still trying to pay less than required for a living, those would on start still have employees, simply because not all poor people can launch their own business instantly. These "unfair" employers would outcompete the fair employers and by the time they lose their workers because the workers cannot afford to work for so little money anymore, a great many of fair businesses would have gone bankrupt. That would cause a huge crash in the markets, before new fair employers can build a new fair free society. IFFFF the switch to a free society comes slow enough, so employers can adjust to the new situation slowly, there wouldn't be much of a problem, except of the fact that during the time of transition we have to keep the old system alive. If the old system collapses before we're done with the transition, there won't be a transition anymore, but complete collapse with unpredictable consequences. Since I believe our todays corrupt authoritarian system will not survive for long anymore, I'm afraid we do not have the time for a slow transition. But then a faster transition will cause the huge crash described above.

And just WHOM do they make that off? How would the talented make any money, if the poor didn't have any? There's nothing wrong with the talented making more than the lazy, there's also nothing wrong with the overall wealth increasing alongside with technological improvements, but if you don't leave the poor a minimum they will use to buy what the talented produce, the talented won't be able to sell their products, no matter how ingenious their products are. I said it several times above already, let me put it into easier words: If you ruin your customers, you cannot sell anything anymore. A society that lowers the income of their average earners to a level where they can't afford a car anymore mustn't wonder, when their car manufacturers go belly up. That's why I said several times, if the employers don't have the time during a slow transition into a free society to learn how it works, there will likely be many employers trying to maximize their profits at the expense of their customers, until they discover that they cannot sell a thing once their customers are broke. Then the system would go through a big crash during which employers would learn their lesson. Fairly obvious it would be far better, if during a slow transition employers would learn it without going through major crashes, but I'm afraid precisely THIS huge crash is what we are seeing the beginning of since 2008. I'm convinced this crash will continue, it will speed up shortly and it will end up in a complete collaps of all world economy, simply because nobody is willing to see the problem for what it is: Ruined customers who cannot buy what the diligent ones produce.

Yes, there would still be the very same problem, only without a state that keeps redistributing money, the markets have to and will figure out how it works. I'm fully aware how wages are set within our current system and I'm fully aware that everyone believes this is how it should be. Still it doesn't solve the problem and as long as there is a state that tries to fix the broken system the problem will never be solved. Only after there is no more government, once a market system that expects exponential growth of fiat money without naming the ones who shall be the debtors experiences a big crash, out of the ashes will rise a new free market that has understood how it works. I mean, you may point out things are different in reality as often as you like, it doesn't solve the problem that a system that pays out less than it takes in, while the ones it takes in from are the very same people it pays out to, must collapse as soon as these people are broke. Take the average American: The average income in an average state in the US is currently is $51,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income If someone earning 51K takes no vacations, buys no house, has no car, just by the normal cost of living in an average household he will end up $50 in the red per month. http://cost-of-living.careertrends.com/l/615/National-Average How long can you keep an economy going in which the average increases their debt by $600 per year and how many cars can manufacturers sell to people who are already overspending?

I believe you misunderstood. Of course a bakery cannot pay their shop assistants as much as they sell for bread, that's obvious. First of all you have to consider the owner of a company a receiver of a salary as well, even though the correct word there is profit, but because that owner is a consumer himself, his profit can be considered a salary he pays to himself, meaning as long as he doesn't make more money than he spends, the economy remains in balance. Second you have to consider the whole chain, from the farmer planting, over the helpers bringing in the harvest, over the truck drivers or trains or ships or whatever that transport the raw material to the mill, over the miller and his employees, and so on, and so on, until you finally get to a loaf of bread sold in a shop. This whole chain of earners has to earn in total as much as the total of bread sold is worth. Of course you can shift earnings, let the baker make some more, the harvest helpers less and so on, important is only that the total matches. Of course I am aware that this total today isn't matching, at least not for most of all production and that's precisely why I believe our current authoritarian system will collapse soon. It's also why I believe a free society that doesn't take it's time to do the transition step by step and learn on the way, that hasn't learned this will on start run into a big crash of the economy, through which manufacturers will learn it the hard way. Once learned, whether knowing it from start or learning it in a crash, afterwards a free society will do just fine. Let me try if I can explain it in short, but I'm afraid it's going to be a long text anyway. Suppose you're in a free society, everyone is getting along just fine, everyone has a job, paid according to his skills, everyone happy. The money in circulation is rolled over once a month, from the manufacturers to the workers, through several hands selling services, returned to manufaturers through buying their products, who then can pay their workers for another month. After a year, new developments in technology or anywhere else in the production process manages to produce 3% more stuff. What happens if production increases and the money in circulation doesn't? Either all products must drop in price by 3% on average, or 3% of all products can't be sold anymore, or 3% of the workers aren't needed anymore. Suppose manufacturers decide to fire 3% of the workers. What happens the next day? The fired workers will apply for a job, offer to work for less and replace 3% of the "old" workers. And so on and so forth, until ALL workers work for 3% less. Did you follow? We now have 103% production and 97% wages, meaning the problem is no longer 3% it is 6% now and another round of lowering wages will begin. The following year production increases again by 3%, and so on and so on, the problem increases exponentially, for the simple reason there isn't any new money added into circulation in the first round, which gives from 2nd round on a spiral downwards. You'll end up with nobody producing nothing at zero wages. Do you believe that at any given point in this spiral downwards the manufacturer has any kind of reason to invest in more production? Nope, just the opposite, since production is already increasing without investment, since the manufacturer already cannot sell as much as he is producing, he will more likely cut production than invest in expansion. Manufacturers can easily calculate, if every investment, every single job created produces 3% more than he can sell, there's no point in investing, because it will be a secure 3% loss. That's why ANY capitalistic organized society requires a continuous addition of new money, so the money supply can keep up with the increase in production or else the prices would fall. In a stateless society, where there is no state that could print money, the only way how you could get new money into circulation is through increasing wages. Of course it doesn't matter who gets a raise, it may be the workers or the manufacturer himself or both, important is, whoever makes more actually spends it, because spending it gets it into circulation, putting it in a safe at home doesn't. Now suppose same story as on start, free society, all fine, but one single earner anywhere in the chain of production makes more than he spends. He saves money, for whatever reason, for pension, for his children, or because he makes so much that he cannot spend it all. He puts his savings in a safe. What happens in the overall economy? The money supply shrinks right there by the saved amount, somewhere in the economy there will be some products that cannot be sold anymore, because there isn't enough money in circulation to buy them. Right away you get to the same chain of events. Too much production, no reason to invest in more production, leads to layed off workers, leads to lowered wages leads to closed factories until nobody produces nothing at zero wages. So again, not only does a capitalistic society require a continuous addition of new money to keep up with increased production, it also requires a continuous addition of even more new money to keep up with the savings or else the prices would fall. If you have a fiat currency, the problem is, all money must be loaned into existence, which requires finding ever greater numbers of debtors, which (as you can tell in todays economic situation) at some point isn't possible anymore, because almost all possible debtors are already so deep in debt that creditors do not give them any more credit and public opinion about the exponential increasing debt will sooner or later cause civil unrest. If you have a fixed currency, you have the problem the other way around, a fixed currency that cannot increase the money supply alongside of increased production and savings will experience eternal deflation. Only if you have a kind of currency that does increase the supply in a controlled way, i.e. gold, if miners bring up precisely as much new gold every year as production and savings increase, prices would remain near stable. Doesn't require a government or anything, the cost of minig gold regulates the amount added into circulation by itself. In todays authoritarian system the two big problems are: 1) The money supply in circulation IS shrinking. No matter how much money the central banks pump into the markets, they inflate the stock market and real estate, but they do not reach the circulation among the general population and that's why prices for consumer products are falling. (Here in Italy prices have fallen by about 30% within the last 2 years.) 2) In an attempt to keep the money supply up, while there are almost no new debtors available, governments take on the debt required to loan new money into existence themselves. In addition with government spendings like military, welfare and stuff that leads to exploding national debt. The ONLY way, how we could get out of the spiral downwards, that for example Japan has experienced for the last 25 years, would be if we find a way other than exponentially increasing debt in the world, how we could keep a sufficient (and increasing) amount of money in circulation and that (to my mind) can only be achieve through increased wages, up to a point where the distribution of income is at least equal enough so nobody makes more than he can spend. Once that's achieved there's nothing wrong with expanding production and creating new jobs, even manufacturers cutting back on wages temporarely in order to invest in more production wouldn't be a problem, as long as once the investment is done, wages are increased to compensate for the higher production, because once you made sure all manufactured products can be sold, additional workers producing additional stuff become at same time the consumers that can buy the additional stuff.

Of course you cannot just double or triple all wages. You have to keep up with productivity. Since the manufacturing industry manages to produce on average roughly 3% more stuff per year with the same amount of workforce, somehow there has to enter 3% new money into circulation as well, or else prices would fall by 3% per year. Creating more jobs doesn't help, just the opposite, creating more manufacturing jobs, that then all have the increased productivity requires even more money to enter the circulation. Fairly obvious, there are two ways of putting money into circulation. 1) Government printing 2) Increased wages The problem is finding the right balance there. Print too much or increase wages to much, you get inflation. Print not enough or increase wages not enough you get deflation. You may print none and increase wages enough, or keep wages flat and print enough, you could even cut wages and print even more, all no problem, but you cannot not print nor increase wages, because that would automatically deflate average prices by 3% per year. What we have seen in the last 3 or 4 decades is flat wages upon increasing productivity, which resulted in todays situation, where many governments all over the world (i.e. Japan) are printing money like mad, but still have deflation and depression, because they can't print new money as fast as productivity increases. Okok, they could "print" fast enough no matter what, but in our fiat money system all money must be loaned into existence, so to be precise, it would have to read: They can't find debtors as fast as productivity increases. That's the precise opposite of what I keep saying, therefore no wonder if you call that wrong, I agree that would be wrong, it just isn't what I'm saying. I cannot repeat all I've said about it, even though that might be neccessary right here to avoid further misunderstandings, but I will make it as short as possible, if you can't understand it in this short form, please read through some of my recent postings. I'm saying a free society would be the solution, I only believe we will have to get to that free society fairly soon or else the currently existing authoritarian government, the fiat money, the corruption and all the other bad effects that has on our society will cause a collapse of civilization as we know it, making it literally impossible for humanity to get to a free society for a LOOOOOONG time. Ok, let's have a look. Before the welfare state, the only "pension plan" poor people had was to have enough children, so they would support them at old age. Up to today that's the common practice in most of the poor countries in Africa. Before the welfare state, before humanitarian aid, Africans were dying from starvation by the millions, there only was no global news network, meaning we didn't have to see them. Once humanitarian aid delivered food into countries that couldn't grow enough food for their own population, less people were starving, more people survived and started having children at a rate of about 1 child per every woman between 15 and 40 per year. So now we have over a billion people living in Africa, where the conditions of the climate there can't even sustain half of them. If you keep on paying humanitarian aid, you will have 2 billion Africans in a few decades. If you stop paying that humanitarian aid, you will see half a billion people starve to death near instantly and starvation rates will return to pre humanitarian aid levels, but it won't alter their birthrate of about 1 child per every woman between 15 and 40 per year.

The very first thing required to do that would be figuring out, how do you prevent them from getting those children? Stop paying doesn't mean they stop having sex and being poor often means they cannot afford contraception. Furthermore poor people as well as those with low IQ are on average more religious than rich and/or intelligent people, therefore religious reasons make them refuse contraception. So if you stop paying, you either have to sterilize them, or you will get to literally BILLIONS of starving people all over the world, where you have to be willing to watch them die in order to reduce their numbers. The Nazis were on that line, online a few more steps further ahead, actively killing those they believed to be inferior. This is a tricky problem I don't have any solution for either. Killing them is out of the question, so is sterilizing them against their will, but feeding them allows them to have more children, so no matter how many poor people the world might be able to feed, a few years later their numbers will have increased. There's a given deadline, from where on the world just can't feed the growing population anymore, even if none of them were poor and/or had a low IQ. From a humanitarian point of view one tends to help them, even a free society would have charity, but from a logic point of view it's doomed to collapse one day. The only solution that has worked so far is industrialization, education and increasing wealth to a point where having too many kids doesn't fit into their lifestyle anymore, but that's about the opposite of not paying anymore, because it would mean extremely big investments into poor areas. I'd love to find a peaceful working solution to this one.

I've been accused of being lazy, taking things too easy, but I've never been accused of being a busy-body. I'm known for finding solutions for tricky problems that on start seem so easy that nobody believes it could work, often to the extend that they wouldn't even try. There are plenty of cases where I don't have a solution, but there isn't one single example where I have a solution, someone tried it and failed. I'm known for extreme patience, there are cases where between someone coming to me with a problem, me suggesting a solution, him turning that down, me pointing out the consequences of not doing that and me being able to say: "I told you", there were over 20 years. I'm known for making predictions that nobody believes on start, where not a single one of them has ever failed. Want an example? I used to be a heavy smoker, until I discovered e-cigarettes 3 years ago and I'm involved deeply into vapers communities who are currently facing upcoming strict regulations from governments almost all over the world. When the first rumors about regulations came up, prizes for the liquids used in e-cigarettes here in Italy were around $300 per liter and there always was the option to buy the components of the liquids, mixing it yourself and pay only about $50 per liter. I've predicted back then, prices will move up to at least, most likely above $1500 per liter within 5 years and I've suggested to all those who don't want to quit vaping, since these liquids can be stored in a dark and cool place like a cellar for decades without spoiling, stockpiling supplies while they are still cheap. I was laughed at and ridiculed, out of some 35000 users in one of the biggest vaper forums less than 5 actually agreed with me, the rest came up with the usual arugments like: "Even though the regulation will bring some increase in prices, even though government hinders the free market a lot, still prices cannot raise THAT high". Today we're 3/5 into the timeframe I predicted, prices here in Italy have reached $1300 per liter and even the components for mixing it yourself have reached $750 per liter, while the actual regulation isn't even in effect yet (that's coming in may this year and will bring a ban on online sales, meaning users cannot buy vaping stuff anywhere else but local shops anymore). There is nobody anymore who would still contest my prediction, but there are PLENTY of vapers who now have to pay the high prices, because they don't want to quit and haven't listened to me in time. There's a gigantic rush of people who now want to stockpile before prices raise even higher, who could all have saved 1000s if they had listened to me.

That very much depends on the situation on the market and the way of thinking among the employers. Fact is, consumers have to be able to buy what manufacturers produce, the sum of all wages in production must match the sum of all products manufactured, or else either prices have to come down or part of the products cannot find buyers. Before anyone comes up with the "service jobs" that create additional wealth: Service jobs have no influence on the sellability of manufactured products. If a worker in a factory uses part of his income to buy services, all he does is forward part of his income to other people who then are able to buy the manufactured goods. The money in circulation may run through 100 hands, letting 100 service jobs participate in the wealth before someone buys the manufactured goods and returns the money to the manufacturer, but the amount of money in circulation isn't increased through service jobs, therefore the wages in manufacturing have to match the sales prices of all manufactured products. In a market that has a lot of competition in ALL sectors, there won't be any problem, because all sectors individually will come to more or less the same results as the overall market and there won't be any kind of problem. In a market that has some branches with only very little competition due to the complexity of its technology, i.e. CPUs for computers, there will always be the temptation to pay workers less than the value they produce, simply because Intel, AMD and Motorola could easily form a cartel that sets consumer prizes independent from wages, expecting that they can sell their products through pulling money out of some other branches of the market, what's known as "begger they neighbor". In such a market, IFFF some manufacturers would do that and given the fact most people would still buy computers even if they knew workers aren't paid what they are worth, the loss of money in other branches of the market would lead to more and more bankruptcies among fair employers, until only the unfair employers are left, after which those would discover, once they ruined the rest of the market, they cannot sell their own products either anymore. That's when the system will crash and that's when unfair employers will learn their lesson the hard way.

I cannot speak for left wingers in general, but from my personal point of view the two things you mention make a difference exclusively under authoritarian government. Whether left or right, as long as it is authoritarian, the government can print money into inflation and set interest rates so low that they can afford to pay interest on an otherwise overwhelming national debt. From a libertarian point of view that's all meaningless, simply because the question whether it's left or right libertarian ideas doesn't matter, neither of them has a government that could do any of it. I believe you're making the mistake of comparing libertarian right to authoritarian left, which could show a wild amount of further nonsense left authoritarians might do, but says nothing about what left libertarians would do. Try comparing your ideas to right wing authoritarians and you will find almost the same downsides as you find comparing to the authoritarian left, which should tell you, the main point is being libertarian rather than authoritarian, while left vs right makes a smaller difference in a free society.

I didn't say all, I said "a lot of". Even people like Peter Schiff have understood by now that our problem is on the demand side.

I believe the distribution of wealth would be far more equal, even though it may take a while for the rich to understand why that's required. The simple basis of capitalism is, that consumers have to be able to buy what producers produce, therefore at all times, workers have to earn enough income to buy what they produce and their income has to increase same fast as productivity increases. If too many rich people would invest too much money into increasing production without paying the workers enough to buy the products, they would end up in deflation and depression. A single country may be able to even out ups and downs through their trade balance with other countries, but on a global scale the above holds true. If we would abolish all laws today, I'm quite sure there would be a lot of rich people not understanding this, trying to cut wages of their workers way below the income needed to buy the products they produce, but without a government that would step in and try to even things out, these ignorants would get wiped out quite quickly, simply because their system would collapse after a short while through the fact, they cannot find buyers for their products. Once the rich learned this lesson, which might have to go through a hard crash of the markets after which it might take a long while to get society back on its feet, the capitalist system would automatically figure out, increasing wealth is possible only, if all people allow all other people to participate in the increasing wealth. If we wouldn't do the initial step today, but go for a slow transition during which all people including the rich people can learn what's required step by step, we might get to the other end without major crashes. The only thing I'm afraid of is that the current government driven redistribution system, which in fact supports and rewards the greediest corporations, who in fact today on a global scale pay their workers far less than required to buy all the products, won't last long enough, so the big crash (I believe) will come before we even get started with the transition to a free society.