Is not the ability to imagine, aspire to, and strive for, a better future the very Essence of what it is to be Human? There are always Luddites, those unwilling to dream, resistant to new ideas, fearing change. It would seem to me that every major advance in Human affairs has been made in the face of such resistance. Why try to chain our Dreams, to cry.."you must only try within the existing framework", it has never worked, the human mind accepts no such boundaries.
We would have halted our rise at the cavemen level if that view prevailed, surely? The very society we live in is the result of millenia of dreamers and fighters changing things, why should we stop now? Apart from human Life, nothing is sacred, nothing is "written in stone", the cessation of Growth is Death.

Now don't get snotty, Maximillion.

>>Your supercilious response belittles you, try explaining why the system is good rather than sneering at my "Idealism"<<

I was actually trying very hard to admire your idealism, despite its solid basis in fantasy.

Dreaming butters no parsnips, as my old granny used to say.

Nevertheless...

>>Is not the ability to imagine, aspire to, and strive for, a better future the very Essence of what it is to be Human? There are always Luddites, those unwilling to dream, resistant to new ideas, fearing change. It would seem to me that every major advance in Human affairs has been made in the face of such resistance.<<

Precisely. I could not agree more.

In fact, how do you think money was created in the first place?

I'll tell you. From precisely that wellspring of ingenuity and progressiveness that you admire so much.

I am sure that while the progressive fiscalites were promoting the concept of an intermediary system, where value was translated into a single, consistent, measurable form, the Luddites of those times were chuntering away in the background...

"Is it so hard to see a society that just gives? I give, you give, everyone gives, and all enjoy the fruits of that giving?"

The pro-money folk would undoubtedly have had an uphill battle, to introduce the concept. They kept meeting resistance, mostly along the lines of...

"Food is available, power and water too, and everything else. We have no need to pay for anything, so why do we need money?

But, as we know from history, the stubborn resistance to change of the nay-sayers was eventually overcome, as the logic and essential fairness of the exchange system was explained to them. Not to mention the enormous opportunities to trade with strangers from more than two villages away.

One of the fiscalites was even heard to say:

"The very society we live in is the result of millenia of dreamers and fighters changing things, why should we stop now?"

Now it appears you want to turn back the clock.

Can't quite see that as an improvement, myself.

"mikk, I'd hate for this to turn into a Capitalist Economics 101 seminar, because that would be boring for all of us, including me."

Fixed

"If you reduce profits, your share price goes down. If your share price goes down, your Bank might decide you are no longer a good risk, and call in its loans. At the very least, it would increase your interest payments, which would squeeze your profits even further. This would make you a takeover target, and usually what happens in a takeover is that a ton of people lose their jobs."

To me this is just an argument to close down the share market Casino.

"Then there is the permanent battle to stay relevant to your customers, which usually means that you have i) a good product ii) at a good price that is iii) well-known to your customers. So it goes without saying that you also need iv) great, well-motivated, properly-rewarded people."

So what business are you talking about. Never met a large company like that. A few small businesses maybe but they are all gone now swallowed up into multinationals. Multinationals who have no resemblance to your above statement. The overriding permanent battle is to increase profits as much as possible by any means possible.

OK Pericles, yet again you’ve NOT answered my questions, and yet again you prate on about the workings of the capital system. As I’ve said repeatedly, within the strictures of that system, you’re right, no argument.
Now, I’ll make it simple for you:
(1) Why is the tax system so un-democratic, so unfair to the PAYE workers?
(2) What is so bad about making a profit , without the need to increase it every year?
(3) Since we are now effectively a “global village”, why the need for a “medium of exchange” AT ALL?
(4) Can you explain what is good about a system that allows millions to starve, or live at subsistence levels, while food is wasted, destroyed, or thrown away elsewhere?
(5) Why do you define moving beyond money as turning back the clock?
(6) Can you tell me why you don’t consider yourself as resisting change when you so blatantly are?
(7) Was the world that gave rise to money the same as the one we now live in?
(8) Do you consider our society as having reached its zenith, no more progress needed? And if not, why defend it, and resist new ideas?

How about having a go at those? Please try to answer without lapsing into contempt for my “idealism”, or reiterating endlessly the business model we all endure.

as normal this thread has gone at a tangent, prior to one of the NGOs suggesting counselling and Graham winds the thread up

So let's get back on track where OP Rectum said:

"Welfare, introduced as an old aged or invalid pension around the turn of the 19th century was introduced to provide support for seniors with those eligible receiving around one quarter of the average annual income.

Today, there are all types of hands dipping into the cookie jar as welfare covers a much broader range of recipients from single parents to seniors and almost everything in between."

So, because of all the confusion, I have decided to release the CentreLink Chapter of my book free. After all your Cash for Comment brothers [and sisters] under Howard instuctions pirated the book, so it IS out there in the public domaim, albeit illegally [and still facing a million dollar lawsuit]

so goto http://www.ablokesguide.com to read it.

And you will note the reason for the conjunctive thread on Conspiracy Theories

And you too, Maximillion, are right, no argument.

>>As I’ve said repeatedly, within the strictures of that system, you’re right, no argument.<<

Within the framework of idealism, you are right to conjecture how life could really be beautiful, if only...

For the last time, I'm not knocking idealism, yours or anyone's. It is an important part of being alive.

But it is at the other end of the spectrum from practical reality. They are genuinely, semantically, opposite.

And as such, you should not confuse an idealistic solution (hey, wouldn't it be great if we were all nice to each other) with the practical necessities of daily life.

That's the only concession that you will ever need to make to your dreams.