Now to put my money with my mouth is even though I do not have massive amounts of money I can easily contribute 100 Euro to commit to a fund to change the world.. I do not know if others are willing to develop a world improvement fund. as I know this discussion will go one for years after we are gone I could for see it still in existence 500 onward..
there needs to be unchangeable able rules like
The principle can not be spent..
No more than 20 % of the income can be spent on fund administration.
20 % of the income generated must be added to the principle every year, (or more often)
How the 60 % well .. some types of projects just do not make nor are meant to make money just for the improvement of society some where..
Now there is even a small amount of money available.
We need to discuss how to set it up maybe I have it all confused,, anyways I will send the money to where it is decided to set up the funds,, There is one hundred Euro available sitting in a tin behind me.. If others do contribute it should be in amounts of their own currency and to an amount that will not cause harm to them or thier families... as once the money is gone it is gone and can not be expect to have it returned.
If we set it up and develop it correctly in five hundred years that 100 Euros will have a value if it grows at a simple 4% of:
32,860,158,157.oo Euro
32 billion is an amount that can have some on going effects to improve society.. It is called putting your money where your mouth is.. The question is who wants to run it.. I am not able to Vam? Molly? Neil? Chris? Rigsy? hmmm
Allan
Because
--
(
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, Rigs... that isn't as tragic... as the fact that Cheats are Elites
and Elites are Thieves !
On Oct 24, 2:23 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Machines/technology are replacing human labor. Children might do
> better being educated via computer and leave socialization to play
> groups and sports. The military can effect as much damage via remote
> control. But- will women return to being stay-at-home moms/homemakers
> thus freeing up what jobs remain for the men? I doubt it - it has
> become an ego/security matter for Western women. There will always be
> cheats and thieves, Archytas, who cause as much monetary losses as the
> "elites"- it's all relative, depending on the number of zeros.
>
> On Oct 24, 1:37 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people
> > were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few
> > hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so
> > concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was
> > accused of being crude in its use of brute fact.
>
> > The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not found a
> > way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the
> > sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of
> > representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed
> > or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
>
> > One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let
> > Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this
> > never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech situation'
> > as an ideal type (following Weber).
>
> > The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material
> > conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding of
> > this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards these
> > is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it was
> > possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because there
> > were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is
> > not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions are.
>
> > Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work
> > ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr
> > working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst
> > increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I
> > have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen
> > vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers.
>
> > The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of
> > these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and
> > whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the paradox
> > is we need the technology to start working to this end with most
> > people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which
> > dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts.
>
> > Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of
> > us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a
> > key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is
> > environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most
> > economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC
> > (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have
> > similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the
> > Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today).
>
> > The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link
> > between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands,
> > not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful
> > democracy.
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário