There are elitists out there, MajorKong. Many of them. People who think they are too good to do such a thing like working themselves, who pay for getting things done instead of moving their own hands. See this example of that woman I wrote about (and she's a person I had the doubtful "joy" to meet in RL).
I'm glad you and MAC don't seem to be like her.

---

Account frozen...

Of course not. Like you I'm an advocate of freedom.

No, you're an advocate of forcing others to think as you do. I don't think as you do, I never will, and I will not pay for your silly ideas. If you are an "advocate of freedom," then you can understand that I am free NOT to pay for your crappy collective. If you can understand why you wouldn't want these egoists you hate so much using force to PREVENT you from helping others, you can understand why others would hate you using force to make them think as you do.

But: unlike you, I'm advocating solidarity rather than self-interest, collectivity rather than egoism, communal property rather than private property of production means, working because I want to rather than working because I have to to earn my living.

Dude, you can believe all this crap all you want. Do all of it that you wish. Be as solidarilicious as you want. Share YOUR property with the commune all you wish. The point is obvious: I couldn't care less what you (and those that think as you do) do, as long as you don't try to force me (or others) to think your way.

Your communes are fine. Pay for all the health care for others that you wish. Work as much or as little as you wish, I don't care. Do not try to force me to believe as you do, or pay for this crap for you. I will do fine on my own, with those that think as I do.

You see, I don't need you and I don't need to force you to believe as I do. History, on the other hand, has shown that you need me, deeply. You aren't going to be able to create high end pharmaceuticals on a commune--you'll have to buy them. From me. On the open market. Just like Cuba does and the Soviets did.

That's a real problem, you know, if you cannot develop multi-million dollar pharmaceuticals on your commune. Or, say, if you cannot build your own tractors and combines...

Actually I could create high end pharmaceuticals on a commune.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

Well, I think what is needed are tax reforms so the one who can afford it pays indeed more taxes and that way tax level for all can be lowered. Speculation also needs to be limited and true freedom of the individual needs to be kept up. Work has to pay off, not only intellectual but also manual - so everybody who works for it can afford his house, car, wife@home, children and holiday trip.

That's all it needs IMHO for a rather perfect system.

Thorin, even if I understand and mostly share you aversion against such elitists, I just wonder how you want to diverse between money earned by MajorKong, me and others, who you don't rate elitists without a system of total control, hence no freedom. The actual system still leaves you a lot of freedom and as long as they let me live my life the way I want I don't care how they live their lives.
We have to be watchful, that it stays that way, though - and here lies the actual problem, they are steadily cutting down our freedom.

One last thought: I don't see a problem when I made up enough money to stop working and live from the interests the money generates. That leaves others the opportunity to step in and take over my "job".

Well, I think what is needed are tax reforms so the one who can afford it pays indeed more taxes and that way tax level for all can be lowered. Speculation also needs to be limited and true freedom of the individual needs to be kept up. Work has to pay off, not only intellectual but also manual - so everybody who works for it can afford his house, car, wife@home, children and holiday trip.

That's all it needs IMHO for a rather perfect system.

Thorin, even if I understand and mostly share you aversion against such elitists, I just wonder how you want to diverse between money earned by MajorKong, me and others, who you don't rate elitists without a system of total control, hence no freedom. The actual system still leaves you a lot of freedom and as long as they let me live my life the way I want I don't care how they live their lives.
We have to be watchful, that it stays that way, though - and here lies the actual problem, they are steadily cutting down our freedom.

One last thought: I don't see a problem when I made up enough money to stop working and live from the interests the money generates. That leaves others the opportunity to step in and take over my "job".

10% national sales tax on all items not necessary for the maintenance of life.

That should work nicely.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

If I had something to say, I would not only introduce equal wages for equal jobs, but even that each hour of work, no matter if intellectual or manual, would be paid with the same "x" $ of salary. In my opinion, no kind of work is worth less or more than the other one (besides extra-pay for overtime, shifts, danger, or working abroad).
Example: a skilled construction worker at a building site works not harder than an unskilled construction worker, so why gets the unskilled worker less money by the hour + less benefits?
I'd like to advocate an equal salary for each job, high enough that the worker can afford his family, house, car etc. while working even just 30 to 35 hrs a week.

For me, money is only a medium of exchange for things and services (as it is supposed to be), so I see no reason to count any person who has more of it better than a person who has less, and why it HAS TO have the ability to be stored at all. Introduce a high Torbin tax, a tax on assets, a high tax on all luxury goods, so that the rich lose the same part of their income (in percentage) to the community as the poor do.
Imagine: here, a worker pays 1/2 to 2/3 of his salary for mortgage, then come the costs for insurances, electricity, his car (if they can afford one - else they have to pay the high prizes for train tickets), then comes food (with 19% tax on it which is day-light robbery), and if they have kids the costs for school stuff or the fee for kindergarten or university... - after all these necessary payments they can think about saving some money, if there is any money left to save. So if the average worker has to give away the most part of his money, why not also the rich ones? On the contrary, they get benefits in tax reliefs, even gifts from the government when they give people what everyone should have a right to have: a job.

---

Account frozen...

If I had something to say, I would not only introduce equal wages for equal jobs, but even that each hour of work, no matter if intellectual or manual, would be paid with the same "x" $ of salary. In my opinion, no kind of work is worth less or more than the other one (besides extra-pay for overtime, shifts, danger, or working abroad).
Example: a skilled construction worker at a building site works not harder than an unskilled construction worker, so why gets the unskilled worker less money by the hour + less benefits?
I'd like to advocate an equal salary for each job, high enough that the worker can afford his family, house, car etc. while working even just 30 to 35 hrs a week.

For me, money is only a medium of exchange for things and services (as it is supposed to be), so I see no reason to count any person who has more of it better than a person who has less, and why it HAS TO have the ability to be stored at all. Introduce a high Torbin tax, a tax on assets, a high tax on all luxury goods, so that the rich lose the same part of their income (in percentage) to the community as the poor do.
Imagine: here, a worker pays 1/2 to 2/3 of his salary for mortgage, then come the costs for insurances, electricity, his car (if they can afford one - else they have to pay the high prizes for train tickets), then comes food (with 19% tax on it which is day-light robbery), and if they have kids the costs for school stuff or the fee for kindergarten or university... - after all these necessary payments they can think about saving some money, if there is any money left to save. So if the average worker has to give away the most part of his money, why not also the rich ones? On the contrary, they get benefits in tax reliefs, even gifts from the government when they give people what everyone should have a right to have: a job.

I have to disagree with the first part of your post. I'm very comfortable with the idea of a doctor getting paid more per hour than I am.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

---

fantumfighter

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

Exactly so. It is hard to see them as exploited if they choose to act in a certain way. We are all free to act however we choose. Each path of action has up- and down-sides. Some results are short-term, some are long. Some are sure, some are expected/estimated/hoped-for. Sometimes we are right, some wrong. We get to choose. It is called freedom.

A good rule of thumb financially is that the greater the potential profit, the greater the risk of loss. Seems "fair" to me.

I put fair in quotes because it is another of my favorite meaningless words. Fair is easy to measure--If the outcome is something I want, it is fair.

---

fantumfighter

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

Exactly so. It is hard to see them as exploited if they choose to act in a certain way. We are all free to act however we choose. Each path of action has up- and down-sides. Some results are short-term, some are long. Some are sure, some are expected/estimated/hoped-for. Sometimes we are right, some wrong. We get to choose. It is called freedom.

A good rule of thumb financially is that the greater the potential profit, the greater the risk of loss. Seems "fair" to me.

I put fair in quotes because it is another of my favorite meaningless words. Fair is easy to measure--If the outcome is something I want, it is fair.

I'd rather say: if the outcome is a win-win situation for both parties, without cheating of any kind, and none of both parties has advantages on the costs of the other, then it's fair: as defined to be just or impartial. Like in Fair Trade:

Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade.

---

Account frozen...

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

Exactly so. It is hard to see them as exploited if they choose to act in a certain way. We are all free to act however we choose. Each path of action has up- and down-sides. Some results are short-term, some are long. Some are sure, some are expected/estimated/hoped-for. Sometimes we are right, some wrong. We get to choose. It is called freedom.

A good rule of thumb financially is that the greater the potential profit, the greater the risk of loss. Seems "fair" to me.

I put fair in quotes because it is another of my favorite meaningless words. Fair is easy to measure--If the outcome is something I want, it is fair.

I'd rather say: if the outcome is a win-win situation for both parties, without cheating of any kind, and none of both parties has advantages on the costs of the other, then it's fair. Like in Fair Trade:

Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade.

Well, buying a house with borrowed money is win/win. If you make your payments on time, you keep the house. If you don't, the bank takes the house and sells it to someone else.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

Exactly so. It is hard to see them as exploited if they choose to act in a certain way. We are all free to act however we choose. Each path of action has up- and down-sides. Some results are short-term, some are long. Some are sure, some are expected/estimated/hoped-for. Sometimes we are right, some wrong. We get to choose. It is called freedom.

A good rule of thumb financially is that the greater the potential profit, the greater the risk of loss. Seems "fair" to me.

I put fair in quotes because it is another of my favorite meaningless words. Fair is easy to measure--If the outcome is something I want, it is fair.

I'd rather say: if the outcome is a win-win situation for both parties, without cheating of any kind, and none of both parties has advantages on the costs of the other, then it's fair. Like in Fair Trade:

Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade.

Well, buying a house with borrowed money is win/win. If you make your payments on time, you keep the house. If you don't, the bank takes the house and sells it to someone else.

No. it's not a win win. The winner is the bank, the loser is you when you are unable to pay the high rates anymore. They shouldn't be allowed to make anyone homeless - better when they put the rates lower that you can pay it back even when you're on welfare.

---

Account frozen...

And yes, banks exploit their customers , letting them pay back more than they borrow them. Interests ARE unjust.

When I borrow someone money, I want them pay back the exact amount, in amounts they are able to pay back. When I borrow somebody €100, this person can either pay me the entire €100 back if they are able to, or 10 rates a €10 or even 20 rates a €5 if they are not able to. I don't need to exploit my neighbor's need

---

Account frozen...

I assume Thorin has some savings. The cash could be stored under his mattress if he chooses. Or he could put it in the bank. The bank will pay him interest that I assume he does not refuse. The bank lends the money to others at a higher rate of interest so that others can, for instance, buy a house. Isn't the bank acting in Thorin's behalf in exploiting the situation of the borrowers?

Nope. They don't have to borrow the money. They could always just save up for the house.

Exactly so. It is hard to see them as exploited if they choose to act in a certain way. We are all free to act however we choose. Each path of action has up- and down-sides. Some results are short-term, some are long. Some are sure, some are expected/estimated/hoped-for. Sometimes we are right, some wrong. We get to choose. It is called freedom.

A good rule of thumb financially is that the greater the potential profit, the greater the risk of loss. Seems "fair" to me.

I put fair in quotes because it is another of my favorite meaningless words. Fair is easy to measure--If the outcome is something I want, it is fair.

I'd rather say: if the outcome is a win-win situation for both parties, without cheating of any kind, and none of both parties has advantages on the costs of the other, then it's fair. Like in Fair Trade:

Fair trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater equity in international trade.

Well, buying a house with borrowed money is win/win. If you make your payments on time, you keep the house. If you don't, the bank takes the house and sells it to someone else.

No. it's not a win win. The winner is the bank, the loser is you when you are unable to pay the high rates anymore. They shouldn't be allowed to make anyone homeless - better when they put the rates lower that you can pay it back even when you're on welfare.

High rates are not the problem. You can always refinance at a lower rate IF you kept up on the payments. The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

How many people really do buy more house than they need? (Well, except the rich ones who live alone in a 20 room villa). People who buy a house normally buy it big enough to live there, with appropriate room for themselves and their family. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this too much already?
My ex-wife for example lives with her kids in an 86 square meter apartment with 3 bedrooms - she and 6 of her kids (if none of them has moved out meanwhile which I doubt, thinking of our strange laws here in Germany). She pays entire €1200 rental payment for that "municipal housing unit", even more than she really can afford having no high-paid job. Is that more apartment than needed? There are apartments with 6 or even more bedrooms in the town she lives, but they cost at least twice as much, and often are rented by companies which use them as offices.

There are 2000 empty apartments in my former home town, and there were about 650 homeless people. do you think the town bureaucrats gave them such an empty apartment, even though 1/3 of them were "municipal housing units"? Nope. Money counts more to such people than humans and their fate.

---

Account frozen...

And yes, banks exploit their customers , letting them pay back more than they borrow them. Interests ARE unjust.

When I borrow someone money, I want them pay back the exact amount, in amounts they are able to pay back. When I borrow somebody €100, this person can either pay me the entire €100 back if they are able to, or 10 rates a €10 or even 20 rates a €5 if they are not able to. I don't need to exploit my neighbor's need

You're free to open a not for profit loan operation if you wish. If you feel exploited when a bank wishes to charge you interest for a loan you desire then refuse to be exploited and walk out of the bank. If it's worth it to you to borrow money to buy a house, an engagement ring, or a holiday trip and pay interest then do so. If you feel exploited just say, 'No!'.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

How many people really do buy more house than they need? (Well, except the rich ones who live alone in a 20 room villa). People who buy a house normally buy it big enough to live there, with appropriate room for themselves and their family. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this too much already?
My ex-wife for example lives with her kids in an 86 square meter apartment with 3 bedrooms - she and 6 of her kids (if none of them has moved out meanwhile which I doubt, thinking of our strange laws here in Germany). She pays entire €1200 rental payment for that "municipal housing unit", even more than she really can afford having no high-paid job. Is that more apartment than needed? There are apartments with 6 or even more bedrooms in the town she lives, but they cost at least twice as much, and often are rented by companies which use them as offices.

There are 2000 empty apartments in my former home town, and there were about 650 homeless people. do you think the town bureaucrats gave them such an empty apartment, even though 1/3 of them were "municipal housing units"? Nope. Money counts more to such people than humans and their fate.

I'll give you an example from my area. A husband and wife making ~35K/yr between them were building a 5000sq ft house using an interest only loan. When the bottom dropped out of the loan market, they wondered why they were having trouble repaying the loan.

The plight of the homeless is sad everywhere, including here in the US. It does give one pause to think that a country as 'rich' as the US has homeless people.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

How many people really do buy more house than they need? (Well, except the rich ones who live alone in a 20 room villa). People who buy a house normally buy it big enough to live there, with appropriate room for themselves and their family. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this too much already?
My ex-wife for example lives with her kids in an 86 square meter apartment with 3 bedrooms - she and 6 of her kids (if none of them has moved out meanwhile which I doubt, thinking of our strange laws here in Germany). She pays entire €1200 rental payment for that "municipal housing unit", even more than she really can afford having no high-paid job. Is that more apartment than needed? There are apartments with 6 or even more bedrooms in the town she lives, but they cost at least twice as much, and often are rented by companies which use them as offices.

There are 2000 empty apartments in my former home town, and there were about 650 homeless people. do you think the town bureaucrats gave them such an empty apartment, even though 1/3 of them were "municipal housing units"? Nope. Money counts more to such people than humans and their fate.

I'll give you an example from my area. A husband and wife making ~35K/yr between them were building a 5000sq ft house using an interest only loan. When the bottom dropped out of the loan market, they wondered why they were having trouble repaying the loan.

The plight of the homeless is sad everywhere, including here in the US. It does give one pause to think that a country as 'rich' as the US has homeless people.

Who the heck needs a 464.5 square meter house? That's really more than needed for just two persons. :-O
YOu can take the same area to give 2 or 3 big families a housing!

---

Account frozen...

The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

How many people really do buy more house than they need? (Well, except the rich ones who live alone in a 20 room villa). People who buy a house normally buy it big enough to live there, with appropriate room for themselves and their family. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this too much already?
My ex-wife for example lives with her kids in an 86 square meter apartment with 3 bedrooms - she and 6 of her kids (if none of them has moved out meanwhile which I doubt, thinking of our strange laws here in Germany). She pays entire €1200 rental payment for that "municipal housing unit", even more than she really can afford having no high-paid job. Is that more apartment than needed? There are apartments with 6 or even more bedrooms in the town she lives, but they cost at least twice as much, and often are rented by companies which use them as offices.

There are 2000 empty apartments in my former home town, and there were about 650 homeless people. do you think the town bureaucrats gave them such an empty apartment, even though 1/3 of them were "municipal housing units"? Nope. Money counts more to such people than humans and their fate.

I'll give you an example from my area. A husband and wife making ~35K/yr between them were building a 5000sq ft house using an interest only loan. When the bottom dropped out of the loan market, they wondered why they were having trouble repaying the loan.

The plight of the homeless is sad everywhere, including here in the US. It does give one pause to think that a country as 'rich' as the US has homeless people.

Who the heck needs a 464.5 square meter house? That's really more than needed for just two persons. :-O
YOu can take the same area to give 2 or 3 big families a housing!

Exactly, which is why I had no sympathy for them. Too much house.

My wife, child, and I live in a two floor 1400 sq ft condo. It's just the right size but too big when it comes to housekeeping.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

The problem most people run into is they try and buy more house than they need or can afford.

How many people really do buy more house than they need? (Well, except the rich ones who live alone in a 20 room villa). People who buy a house normally buy it big enough to live there, with appropriate room for themselves and their family. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this too much already?
My ex-wife for example lives with her kids in an 86 square meter apartment with 3 bedrooms - she and 6 of her kids (if none of them has moved out meanwhile which I doubt, thinking of our strange laws here in Germany). She pays entire €1200 rental payment for that "municipal housing unit", even more than she really can afford having no high-paid job. Is that more apartment than needed? There are apartments with 6 or even more bedrooms in the town she lives, but they cost at least twice as much, and often are rented by companies which use them as offices.

There are 2000 empty apartments in my former home town, and there were about 650 homeless people. do you think the town bureaucrats gave them such an empty apartment, even though 1/3 of them were "municipal housing units"? Nope. Money counts more to such people than humans and their fate.

I'll give you an example from my area. A husband and wife making ~35K/yr between them were building a 5000sq ft house using an interest only loan. When the bottom dropped out of the loan market, they wondered why they were having trouble repaying the loan.

The plight of the homeless is sad everywhere, including here in the US. It does give one pause to think that a country as 'rich' as the US has homeless people.

Who the heck needs a 464.5 square meter house? That's really more than needed for just two persons. :-O
YOu can take the same area to give 2 or 3 big families a housing!

Exactly, which is why I had no sympathy for them. Too much house.

My wife, child, and I live in a two floor 1400 sq ft condo. It's just the right size but too big when it comes to housekeeping.

Wow, still big, in relation to the a bit more than 900 sq ft my ex and her kids have to "live" in ...
But you're right, This is the right size...

---

Account frozen...