I hear you; but for me, that's all thinking inside the "capitalist" box. You see, I don't see borrowing. I see funding: just decision-making and accounting/measuring. Who decides? Who decides now?
The bankers used to be pretty "conservative." They aren't anymore. They stopped doing due-diligence about when I decided to get out: 2002-3. I was appalled when cap rates didn't matter anymore in real estate. Brokers were telling me, just go for it. I said that this is a huge bubble that's going to blow up and crash the system. They looked at me as if I had just landed from Mars.
Anyway, you don't get harebrained ideas from citizens working together and being monitored by other groups of citizens all voting about the direction for the local economy and nation. More, not less, due-diligence would occur because everything would be riding on everyone's open participation.
Right now, we vote for others to make the decisions; and they've done a terrible job. What I'm saying is decentralized socialism, frankly. I'm suggesting that everyone is an owner-employee-citizen. The choice they make will be what they reap. What's more, all of the accounting would be open. Where could anybody stash money or go hide and still function in such an open society? The currency would be cyber. The banks would be public. Fund-control would be utterly transparent. No one could go overseas and spend such monies from such accounts. The system wouldn't allow for it.
I'm talking about doing away with secret banking. Think about it. There'd be no more money laundering.
There are many, many examples in the world of employee-owned enterprises that are pretty much in company towns. The difference after implementing what I'm suggesting would be no booms or busts to ruin things and no cutthroat competition from rabid capitalists buying governments to undermine the people's common efforts. There would be no hyper-centralization such that a dictator would arise: no fascism, left, right, or otherwise.
In your radio talk, didn't you say that character loans were as good, or better, than what we have now? Well, what's to prevent character funding where the characters are all of us and we're the one's evaluating the plans?
We aren't stupid. We've just been oppressed by the greedy, who need to be stopped or there's no point to this coercive government.
I'd love for the banksters to just see the light; but with the way things are, they're tempting people to violent revolution. I'm a pacifist and don't want to see the masses get so fed up that they lose it.
You're in a local group, and you have an idea. You have to present it. Other people will have ideas too. The decision has to be consented to, and consensus will be the winning strategy every time. The people will be practical, the way people usually are when they aren't constrained and abused by the selfish and greedy.
If you read the NEED Act with an eye to seeing how it can fund everything, then what competition, what profits? The Act doesn't say housing, food, clothes, etc., verbatim, but it's all implied as there for the people to set up if they want it.
Would you not have liked working all these years in a cooperative-only environment rather than watching the sharks eat the wounded? I know my answer.
So, what am I, a utopian socialist? Utopia is nowhere. That's not what I'm talking about.
Also, I know this all finally leads to a moneyless society: no taxes, no interest, no debts, no money, just provisioning at the highest possible standard/quality of life conceivable. It would be work as pleasure: giving; contributing; getting that good, altruistic feeling.
Thanks for the Seasons Greetings. May I say Merry Christmas early?
Land & Building Fund Donations
Less Applicable Transaction Fees
reflects cleared transactions
& donations before expenses
to the Christian Commons Project™