The Czars Obama Really Needs

I don't know how much you enjoyed it, but I loved it. Funny thing is I remember when that episode was aired.

LOL, well plain speaking today buys no taters...its a dying art and non existent in the world of politics

How poetic. The self-absorbed fable-teller was heir to one of the world's first pharmaceutical fortunes. Her anti-health-care anti-collectivist followers collecting at the capitol. Whatta hoot.

I did say MOST of her principles. Of course, she died before the technology we have today which can truly provide healthcare and other needs without extorting the means to do so from others.

I also happen to believe in God, which she did not. However, I am opposed to collectivism for many reasons I won't get into here. Perhaps I should write an article for that...

She and her cohorts may also have been eugenicists, which I am not... but the core of her beliefs, that we deserve to keep what we earn, is the foundation of the system we promote.

Guy you obviously know nothing about the Freedom movement. Health Care was only one of the issues in that gathering and a minor one at that. The main issue was the trillions of dollars in government debt.

You did say that, Lydia. I think the keep-what-you-earn thing is too simplistic an outlook on economics. I mean, do you guys all print your own currencies? Who enforces the contracts that bring in all those earnings?

Rand's is an understandable personal reaction to Stalinism in view of her family's entrepreneurial wealth, but there was a lot of the Harry Lime in her family's riches, too.

Most people move beyond Ayn Rand before they become sophomores.

If you would read the material on http://nopom.info or http://benefitism.com you would see how we expect everyone to keep what they earn while still providing above and beyond what our current system could ever DREAM of doing. If you dismiss Larry K. Mason's work with a grain of salt, then there isn't much more I can say to convince you.

What does this Mason have to do with Ayn Rand?

Not a thing, but we still believe in some of the same principles she did. Private ownership and personal responsibility, for example.

oic, of course, those principles were around long before Rand got here.

Indeed. But she articulated them quite well.

I've seen better.

Links, please...

What am I under some obligation to persuade you? If you've never heard anyone speak more eloquently about these things than Ayn "they-stole-my-daddy's-fortune" Rand, you badly need to educate yourself.

If you want to hear someone speak about personal responsibility you could start with Lao-tse, Je tsong-ka-pa, Socrates, and the Bhagavad Gita.

Jesus had a few things to say about our personal responsibility to our fellow man that Rand obviously didn't credit.

And he seems to have been a lot more popular...

Oh, yeah, that Jewish guy, too.

We now have a theoretical society. Things that work in theory but not in life are being pushed to the front. Obama wants to lower the income of the rich and raise the income of the poor. That would make everyone middle income. The problem with the middle is that it requires two ends. Think about it.

If we must advance theories to the forefront, then I vote for the one which Larry K. Mason developed in "Invisible Hand" and further explains in the articles on our sites. We do not seek to lower anyone's income at all, but we do intend to improve the standard of living at and below poverty level while abolishing all classes - without extorting anything from you or any other citizen to do so. WE CAN DO THIS!

That's what Marx thought. Utopian ideals are unobtainable for they totally discount the NEED for greed ,of some.

Our plan is neither utopian nor unattainable. And we COUNT on greed continuing to be a driving force.

What that book espouses is just another form of money. Changing the nature of money does nothing. The Lust For Money is the driving force no matter what the money looks like.

What is outlined in the book is a modification of communism.

Colonel, you know I love you, but I find it hard to believe you could read the entire novel and come away with that opinion.

The net-benefit based system is a cooperative form of capitalism in which we all keep what we already had when we transition to it and no one loses anything. It's all about making life and all that goes into it actually make sense.

The PAYERS are what makes it different. And it IS different. And it's NOT communism, as NOTHING is owned communally, it's ALL private ownership. It's unlike any other system that has ever been attempted, so to suggest it is like any of them is to mischaracterize it.

Yes, there would still be greed but if your pay system is based on net benefit then in order to get rich you have to provide net benefit. Net benefit is derived by taking overall benefit and subtracting negative consequences. Therefore greed would lead to great things - the more people earn, the more benefit they'll provide to others.

I don't understand why you have a problem with that unless you truly just do not fully understand it.

Lydia, people work and expect to get paid. The book says everyone is furnished the necessities of life. Who furnished those necessities? Who pays the wife who stays home and does all the wifely home chores? Who pays when somone don't work? If profit is the sourse of pay then everyone who works has to wait a year to get those "credits". In they book there is a guy who is working on something but will not receive credits for a long time. In the mean time they are living on what she makes as a housewife.
Where are the credit coming from and how are credits different from dollars other than the name? How is that society different than today. I never see a dollar of my checks. I get essensually "debits" and use a debit card.

My friend, I must respectfully point out that if you had read the book... as you claim to have done, you would not have to ask these questions. The payers pay people, and people are paid differently but they're paid well... and remember, if you don't have to pay for necessities then you can afford to wait for your pay to buy new luxuries. You're not "living on" your income any more when your necessities are free.

The credits are different because they do not represent any physical object. They are non-transferable and come into existence when you earn them and cease to exist when you spend them (sort of like points in a video game) but most importantly they can not be lost, stolen or otherwise taken from you against your will once you earn them.

Money is a medium exchange. It makes no difference what you call money it is still a medium of exchange. The idea of furnishing all nedessities is nice but Who furnishes them. The government or whoever is in charge. That dear is Communist. It works fine on paper but does not work when put in practice.

No, you have it all wrong. The new money we propose cannot be transferred from one person to another... Payers pay those who furnish necessities just like they will pay everyone else. The government is in charge of nothing regarding money or finances and there is no joint ownership of anything. Under communism everything is (theoretically) owned by all but the problem with that is that no one has incentive to be responsible for it. Under our system EVERYTHING is privately owned and no one can take it away from you, nor can anyone take your money.

Who is the payer?

See? I KNEW you didn't read the book. If you had, you would not ask that question!

Payers are the only separate class of people under this net benefit-based system. There is no more high, middle, low class... none of that. Payers are volunteers who choose to live for the rest of their lives without luxuries (so they can't be bribed) and devote their lives to paying others. They cannot receive income but most of them will be people with simple tastes and desires... retirees and those who are quite content to live on necessities only.

Payers determine what is a luxury and what is a necessity... and since they live at poverty level, among the poorest people (mostly those who can't work such as disabled and elderly) it behooves them to make sure that this level is comfortable. Otherwise they'll have angry mobs on their doorsteps.

There is so much to this system... and I'm so excited about it I could talk about it all day and night, but unless you actually read the novel it's hard to understand. That is why Larry wrote it... 30 years of trying to explain it to people and getting blank stares or accusations of communism.

Key points:

1. Private ownership is protected, no one can legally take anything away from you. Nothing is owned jointly or in common - no more corporations (fake people essentially) nor stockholders (at the moment of transition if you have a million dollars' worth of stock somewhere, your new money account will be credited with that million dollars - you keep what you already had, no one loses anything except the parasitic elements of society)
2. No taxes or fines... money comes into existence when you earn it and it ceases to exist when you spend it on luxuries. You can't buy necessities as they are free to all but the providers are paid by the payers for the net benefit you or others receive from these things.
3. People are paid not by the hour nor by the job, but on the basis of the net benefit which is derived by subtracting negative consequences from overall benefit.
4. No more insurance as needs are met by other means and therefore insurance is rendered obsolete and unnecessary by this system.

Again, there is so much more to it than what I've written here, but until you've read the material you can't possibly grasp it all.

By the way, under this system anyone who wants to work will be able to do so, and all will be paid on the same basis: the amount of net benefit they have generated. No one will be paid any more or less based on their gender, race, education/lack thereof, or any other of the factors that currently affect how much people pay us. Anyone who is willing and able to work will have the opportunity to do so... and those who would rather try to write the Great American Novel or paint a masterpiece will be free to work on those things without concern for their necessities - so with those people (who'd rather not be there anyway) out of the workforce there will be more work available for people who aren't writers and artists etc.

If you pick up trash on the street, the payers will pay you. If you take care of your elderly mother, they will pay you. If you homeschool your grandchildren, they will pay you. As long as someone receives net benefit from your work, you will be paid.

Would you like to know how this plan would eliminate planned obsolescence?

Who figures that net benefit? Who determines what amount of credits a benifit is worth? What role does government play?

The net benefit is determined by the payers and is based upon the value of the raw materials and other factors. Keep in mind that since necessities are free, we can afford to wait longer for our pay which can only be used to purchase luxuries... but the pay structure must be fair or people would riot and attack the payers. Government is shrunk down to bare minimum... primarily for International commerce and of course the President would still be Commander in Chief of the military - but the payers would not pay them if their actions cause more negative consequence than positive... so the military would likely all come home.

Oh... I forgot to add that since government is not a person it could not have an account in the new money system and would have NO money. The payers would pay only for things which generate net benefit. Like actually protecting U.S. citizens from attack by invaders... or helping out when there is a natural disaster, NOT for acts of aggression in other countries.

Exactly what does the government DO Lydia?

What I consider a necessity and what someone who don't know my life considers a luxury may be a necessity to me. When you say other folks who are retired or dedicated to living without luxuries determine what is necessary and what is not you open a can of worms. To me a Cell phone is not necessary, nor a TV, not even an automatic coffee maker. I have those but they are not necessary.

Okay. The government question is best explained by reading this article.

Necessities will vary by area etc. (skis for a Floridian would be a luxury whereas for an Alaskan they might be considered a necessity)

ALL old folks won't be required to live without luxuries... only those who choose to become payers. If you're not a payer you'd have an account to pay for luxuries... if you were perfectly happy living on necessities you could spend your money buying fun things for your grandkids or whatever you want - but you'd never need to use your money for basic food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care. Only for fancy food or clothing, luxury-level living accommodations, a private car instead of public transportation, etc.

Cell phones would likely be considered necessities and so would TV's but you would not be required to have one. It would just be free of charge to you if you wanted it.

There would be millions of Payers in an economy the size of the United States and each would be independent, making up her own mind about whom to pay and how much to pay them.

Who appoints them? Who makes sure the do their jobs fairly? Who determines what a necessity is?

This system would have NO way to trade with other countries for either exports or imports. Each individual would be a government unto themselves, few people would work because most are essentially lazy if they don't have to work to provide for their families.

In the book there is a couple who are existing on what they are allowed and have to watch what they spend in credits. He will not get credits for work he is doing for some time so they must struggle. They live in an appartment. Does everyone have to live in an appartment? If everyone is equal no one would be able to own a home, or is that a luxury?

Yes, there would be millions of payers but they wouldn't have nearly as much autonomy as you suggest. For one thing, each payer would only be able to pay a certain amount, so for larger payouts multiple payers would be required. They're not appointed, they must by the very nature of the job be willing volunteers. If they consistently break the rules they'll no longer be allowed to continue as payers. The line between luxury and necessity is admittedly a thin one, but the payers determine it, and if they don't make enough things necessities the people among whom they live will make their lives miserable.

Other countries would have to trade goods and services for our goods and services of equal value. No more trade deficits and no more of people abusing the Dollar worldwide. No more counterfeiting or money-related crimes... the list goes on and on.

You are wrong about people not working... most of us do want to work but feel that the system is set up to keep us from being able to do so. Under Larry's system anyone who wants to work will be able to do so. No more "jobs" held hostage by this tool mankind created called money.

I do not know of anyone in the book who is struggling, except the portions that discuss life before the transition, and the POM colonies that refuse to participate in the new money system.

If you own a house (or several!) before transition you will own it after transition. The difference is that any mortgages you had will go away and there will be no more property taxes or insurance breaking your back.

Standard housing will be a variety of homes not just apartments... if you own a house and let people live in it you'll be paid by the payers for the net benefit they receive from living in that house. If you own a building and let someone set up business there, you will be paid for a percentage of the net benefit received by those who use that business' products or services.

In that scenerio who appoints those volunteers? Who determines how much they can pay? Who determines the net benefit of a person's work?

read the first chapter. The young couple has to watch every "credit". The man for over seas moves in and buys some decent food for them and they are thrilled.

All though the book there is the overcast of a super power or super something that orchastrates it all. That is government and the everyone works for the common good is utopian communism. It works great on paper but is impossable to implement.

They're not appointed. When they volunteer they go through training at a payer school. The maximum amount each payer can pay is predetermined by the payers' organization. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that, Larry...) but the amount payers pay each person for the work they perform is based upon the net benefit received from that work, and the formula for that will include the value of the materials used and other factors.

The young couple you are talking about are perfectly happy to live on standard fare, it is the father who WANTS to buy them some luxury items.

The whole story is about how Niall THINKS there is a "Big Brother" or some sinister power behind it all, but by the end of the novel he understands the system and that he was mistaken.

You are right about utopian dreams and communism, but I don't believe this system is as utopian as you think and it's NOT communism. Everyone does NOT work together for the "common good" at all. People work to earn money for their own desires... and yes, they work together but nobody is forced to do so, it's all voluntary.

I know it's hard to wrap your mind around it all, that is why Larry had to put it in a novel. Without reading the whole book from beginning to end you can't possibly comprehend it all. When I began to read I did not think I would agree with it at all but now I believe that it's our only hope.

If you can suggest a superior proposal... one that won't bankrupt our children and will provide for you in your old age without having your healthcare rationed or the government just deciding to one day come in and take what you own... I'd love to hear it. If we continue on the path our leaders are taking us down, we will all lose. With Larry's system, we can all win instead.

The thing is Larry's dream system flat will not work. Who makes the laws? Who enforces them? Is it total anarchy? There IS some governing factor that runs the show, well hidden but it is there.

Who is going to work long hours on a project in hopes it might maybe someday be considered a benefit and finally get paid for effort? Who decides the amount of benefit? Someone who has no benefits and don't want them?

I pray that you are mistaken that it will not work... because the system we have gives me no hope for my children's future.

The laws are still made the way they are now, however a good number of our current laws will become obsolete at transition, as money-related crimes will no longer be possible.

No, it's not total anarchy, but it's very minimal government because it just won't be needed. Of course, it will take a while for the government to shrink down to the size it should be, but we have to start somewhere, don't we?

There will still be a President and Congress, Governors, Mayors and such... that much won't change. None of them will have any power over the money any more, however, so what those entities DO will change.

Anyone who understands that the system works very much the same way as royalties and so forth do now will be glad to work for what they will get. Here is an example.

John obtains a table. It will most likely be considered to be a necessity or capital goods depending upon whether he is using it for personal or business purposes. The minute he begins to use that table, everyone involved in bringing that table to him will begin to receive a percentage of the total worth of that table - and will continue to receive that income for as long as the table continues to serve him or someone else... for as long as the table exists, and even longer if it is made into something else after it is no longer used as a table. When I say everyone who helped to bring it to him, I mean the driver who delivered it, the person who built it, those who provided the hardware for it, those who provided the board for it, all the way back to the person who grew the tree and the logger who cut it down. Lifelong income, most likely, for each person involved in the creation and delivery of that table. Multiply that by however many tables those people make in their working lifetime and you see that they will have quite a bit of steady income long after they quit working.

What you just described could be solved easily. It is what we HAD before the Civil War. Return to the Constitution and downsize the Federal Government to what it is supposed to be. As to money, money is still money no matter what you call it and greed is still greed and will always exist. There is the falicy of Larry's book. As to the payment system I see no difference. That one table and all other tables support a great number of people now. That's how working for a living goes. The supplying everyone equally for food and shelter etc is a FDR ideal based on a dream, not reality.

If you see no difference and won't read the book, there is no use continuing to try and explain it to you. You are seeing the picture you want to see, and not the one that is really being shown to you. There is a difference. And it's nothing like you're suggesting. I can see that you have missed by a country mile. Good luck with going back to the Gold Standard and all that... I don't believe that will help either.

How wonderful to find someone who wouldn't look at me as if I'd grown horns when I say, "Who is John Galt?" I admire Rand's works, and I teach them, but I don't think she's right about many things. A lot of us are altruistic, and not foolish to be so.
Do you think we can arrange for everyone to have to see that Dragnet clip?

I agree. One can be a mixture of altruistic and realistic. The danger lies in being too much of either one. I believe in God, therefore I certainly believe in charity... which Ms. Rand and her Eugenicist pals clearly did not.

How could we arrange for everyone to see it? I suppose we could send out emails to everyone on our contact lists... and hope that they were forwarded on relentlessly...

Maybe we could get Kanye West to interrupt somebody's honor to show it! LOL! I've already forwarded it to everyone on my contacts list.

I can not BELIEVE he did that. Such a yutz. Beyonce showed such grace and class when she sought to rectify the situation later on... but that boy should be banned from awards shows. There is a such thing as decorum, and lately more and more people seem to be deciding it's unnecessary.

I very much enjoyed invisible hand, couldn't stop reading once I started. I think it be an excellent system, because neccessities are automatically provided, and people make money according to the effect their actions have on people or society as a whole.

Hi Ellen! Nice to see you. I think I'm going to be around here a bit more in the near future... I have some plans.
; )

Glad you'll be around more!