15 Mar 11
A recent letter to The Economist:
"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should draw up plans so that all their citizens share in the wealth from oil; creating a wealth-owning middle class would help secure a more stable future. The Norwegian model is a good example."
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFIt would be nice.
A recent letter to The Economist:
"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should d ...[text shortened]... "
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFOil wealth should primarily go to the God Men who by their creative brilliance compressed animal and plant remains together millions of years ago to create the oil. They are the Creators; the rest are mere Second Handers.
A recent letter to The Economist:
"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should d ...[text shortened]... "
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
16 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAlaska writes every resident a check every year for his or her share of the state's oil wealth. Maybe Saudi Arabia should do the same?
A recent letter to The Economist:
"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should d ...[text shortened]... "
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFSuch idea strikes me as a truly wicked and inherently evil product of socialistic thinking. Karl Marx must be truly proud of the fact his ideas remain alive in the hearts and minds of individuals such as this guy who wrote that letter, statism is on the rise, anybody who has not fallen victim of the treacherous socialists would be wise to cling to their guns and their money before they're confiscated by Big Brother.
A recent letter to The Economist:
"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should d ...[text shortened]... "
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by FMFMost countries have such mechanisms. The easiest one is to tax the natural resource being harvested. This supports the government and allows lower taxes on the populace.
Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?
Of course, there is often a lot of corruption, and low taxes are negotiated by the mining/drilling companies, and much of the wealth ends up in the hands of a few.
In Zambia, the taxes were negotiated when the price of copper was low, and now the price has gone up, the miners are making a killing.
16 Mar 11
That is Gaddafi and Chavez thinking. What went wrong? How could liberated citizens avoid falling into similar traps? Because we can't have BP or the despicable Eni back in Libya (Eni the first oil company to ask for sanctions on Gaddafi regime to be lifted), but we don't want another Gaddafi (or Chavez).
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'd take a few more like Chavez.
That is Gaddafi and Chavez thinking. What went wrong? How could liberated citizens avoid falling into similar traps? Because we can't have BP or the despicable Eni back in Libya (Eni the first oil company to ask for sanctions on Gaddafi regime to be lifted), but we don't want another Gaddafi (or Chavez).
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat objection do you have to the wealth generated from a nation's national resources being broadly distributed? The wealthy didn't create those resources. Why should they expect to profit disproportionally from them?
Such idea strikes me as a truly wicked and inherently evil product of socialistic thinking. Karl Marx must be truly proud of the fact his ideas remain alive in the hearts and minds of individuals such as this guy who wrote that letter, statism is on the rise, anybody who has not fallen victim of the treacherous socialists would be wise to cling to their guns and their money before they're confiscated by Big Brother.
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe only current alternative to corporate tyranny is Chavez. Take your pick. As the position of the world's financial elites are virtually unassailable, I'd take Chavez any day. At least he has to run for re-election.
Gaddafi's buddy Chavez, champion of the under-dog, the Ahmedinejad fan? A despot in the making, if he isn't there already. I'm as sick of his ilk as I'm sick of Big Oil. Give me an alternative.
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettThat 'only' surprises me -- you don't strike me as having a limited imagination. Chavez is yesterday's news.
The only current alternative to corporate tyranny is Chavez. Take your pick. As the position of the world's financial elites are virtually unassailable, I'd take Chavez any day. At least he has to run for re-election.
If anyone is going to come up with a practical alternative, it will be the Libyans. Watch that space on the map very carefully.
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYesterday's news? Because he hasn't done anything to arouse the wrath of the capitalist press lately? I'm afraid your attention span is lacking. How many other countries around the world are offering an alternative to the neo-liberal "free" market system?
That 'only' surprises me -- you don't strike me as having a limited imagination. Chavez is yesterday's news.
If anyone is going to come up with a practical alternative, it will be the Libyans. Watch that space on the map very carefully.
As for the Libyans, what makes you think they'll even manage to survive Qaddafi's offensive, let alone make themselves into something worth watching? I'm sure many people thought the same thing when Qaddafi toppled King Idris.
16 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettIt is just a complete distortion to consider corporate contributions tyranny and Chavez the only reasonable alternative.
[b]The only current alternative to corporate tyranny is Chavez.
I'm guessing most people would rather have corporate contributions in a viable democratic economy than a Chavez-like tyrany. I certainly wouldn't leave my country (the United States) to go to Venezuela, nor would I want to lose my freedoms to make my country more like his.
Nothing gets done without capital and for owners of capital to be compensated for the risk they take certainly seems resaonable to me. Your system where everyone shares equally would discourage new ideas and encourage shurking and would certainly not be a system that would appeal to me.