Eschew Obfuscation - Espouse Elucidation

Freedom of Speech Doesn't Ensure Freedom After Speech

skypixie0

skypixie0
Birthday
January 01
Bio
DO NOT PM ME WHEN YOU POST A BLOG! THANKS...;-)

MY RECENT POSTS

Skypixie0's Links

Salon.com
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 8:06PM

CITIZEN'S CAPITALISM - II (We need it now!)

Rate: 14 Flag
 Photo on 2010-04-05 at 17 
 
CITIZEN'S CAPITALISM - II
 
                I DO NOT consider capitalism to be any great evil. In fact I consider it to be the Rolls Royce of economic systems. But it has been poisoned by a "holdover" from feudalism - direct line inheritance. This sort of inheritance, which served a worthy purpose in feudalism - and even before feudalism - has NO LEGITIMATE PLACE in a truly capitalist system.

A capitalist system must recognize that no individual, alone, can "earn" a gazillion bucks all by his own efforts. The whole society is involved. It is the society that purchases the goods/services offered by businesses. It is the society that creates the conditions that allow businesses to start up, survive and thrive. It is from the society that the labourers and middle managers come.

I have no problem whatsoever with an individual who, by initiating a business and managing it and providing his employees with competent direction and a decent income, gets as rich as he can. I'm happy for him. I want him to enjoy the fruits of his ingenuity while he is alive. BUT upon his death those others who contributed to that wealth ought to come in for their share. I see that wealth as being a good opportunity to guarantee all the future generations a decent start in life. This puts the rich man in the position of caretaker of wealth for future generations instead of thief of the fruits of the labour of others.

I have spoken of this to some who are rich enough to have earned the designation "wealthy". Often they are so locked-in to the mind-set of feudalistic direct-line inheritance that they cannot see that it is better for them to leave their children a good egalitarian society that offers all children an equal start, than for them to leave their children well off in a shitty system that contains so many desperate "have-nots" that their children will need to spend their entire lives working hard just to protect that wealth.

Yet it might amaze and please you how many people of wealth instantly see that this system would guarantee much that our present system cannot, to their children. Rich people are often greedy and selfish - but they're not usually any more stupid than anyone else. They love and want the best for their children just as you and I do.

It always dismays me how the socialist crowd always sees the wealthy as evil beings out to harm those who are not wealthy. They are not. They are just out to take advantage of a system that places a high premium on attaining great wealth. They are playing the game they were born into, by the rules as they are. That they can often change the rules to suit themselves is a function of our political system - the one we all appear to love and desire, that we call democracy.

When we tighten up those rules the rich may seek to loosen them up to their advantage again. It is up to us to see that they can't do so. It is surely not incumbent on the rich to support rules that limit their ability to gain more wealth at a cost to others in their society. It is up to society to put such rules in place and to keep them there.

In a proper capitalist system, wealth, having come from our society as all wealth does, will be returned to that society upon the death of those who have managed to amass it. It will be “inherited” equally as a basic birthright by all the children born into that society. All ought to have a basic income, from that birthright, so that no one will be forced to rent themselves out as wage-slaves. Employers would have to treat their employees more as partners (which they rightfully are) than as “rentable slaves” desperate to earn the means of survival. The attitude shift would be remarkable!

Author tags:

business, family, politics

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
If a man gets rich by rigging the system, he is a thief, period. Paying lobbyists to get influence to change laws that benefit him and make the poor poorer make him nothing but a thief. Taking jobs overseas to increase profits for his investors and putting people out of their houses and into food lines make him a thief. Making billions and not paying taxes because of loopholes their lawyers had written into the tax laws while the poor pay more than their fair makes him a thief. All ism's as written are great. It's the greed of man that screws up the systems.
A basic wage from birth on is a good idea.

I think we should make it to where no American can immigrate to another country taking more than a certain amount of their assets out of the country at the moment while we are at it. I see that as a future problem. Don't you think they will just try to leave the country if the country decides to put in place more socialist reforms and higher taxes on them?
scanner,
When the system allows of "rigging" it WILL get rigged. The trick is to design a system that cannot be rigged. It also helps if the profit in rigging the system is removed. I know of no system, that is pyramidal in structure, that cannot be rigged by those at the top for the benefit of those at the top. This includes ALL present systems, capitalist, socialist, communist, and any other "ist" kicking around in various nations. Ergo, we need to design a system that is horizontal in structure. By this I mean one in which power flows laterally instead of from the top down.

Since, as has often been said, power is money is power, this means that money must flow laterally instead of constantly upward as it does now in order for power to flow laterally. Not allowing wealth to accumulate by way of inheritance to the children of the rich and by spreading that wealth around among everyone's children, we prevent that accumulation of wealth in the hands of an elite which causes the consequent accumulation of power in those same elite hands. Where the money goes, there too goes the power. Spread the wealth around and the power gets spread around too.


Victoria,
Of course they will..... IF I WERE TALKING ABOUT SOCIALIST REFORMS!!

I am talking about doing something we should have done a long time ago; designing a workable capitalist system that works for ALL the citizens, ALL the time. Not our present system that only works for the elite and those who can serve them well.

I detest socialism. It is to me an attempt to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. I like a system where each can compete FAIRLY for everything above a decent survival. But we must never lose sight of the fact that "wealth" is seldom created by that elite. YES, they accumulate it but they do not create it; wealth is "created" by an entire society, not those with a bank full of money.

I would like to see whatever wealth someone amasses returned to the society by way of a birthright for ALL the children born into that society when that person dies. It would not likely be a "wage from birth" but might very well be shares in profitable companies which is how most wealth is held now. The dividends that now go to the elite could be banked for each child until they reach the age of maturity, about age 20. This would allow them funds for higher education or trade and professional training, or to start up a business, or whatever. Those of artistic inclination would even be able to live decently while developing their skills; for all of their life, if they lived modestly. NO MORE DAMN WAGE SLAVERY!!

Within a generation everybody would have shares in this capitalist economy. No one would have huge unearned portfolios of such wealth from birth. Everyone would share in the wealth of the nation. Once each received his 'start in life' it would be up to him to decide how best to utilize it. No doubt some would use it to acquire more - there are always those who love that game. Fine. Let them do so. That wealth will be inherited by the next generation. Others might elect to give to our society by other means; medicine, fine arts, research, etc. Yet none would be "up against the wall" financially and so forced to play the "money game" against their will.

.
I don't think capitalism works for all the people all the time. It is a brutal system but it is nice to be free to win and lose. When you try to take care of everyone it becomes something else. Great ideas and I wish there were a way so no one would have to suffer but I don't think that is possible.
zanelle,
You have, perhaps, mixed up this sad abortion that we have now with true capitalism. This piece of trash has been altered from fair and true competition among equals, to dog-eat-dog for mere survival; worse than that if one wants to get ahead financially.

You are certainly right that this form of capitalism cannot be very good to ALL the people. It is, in fact, much better at harming large numbers of people. We can design a form of capitalism that works for us all or we can sink into the mire of socialist "equality" where some are ALWAYS more "equal" than others (ala Orwell's "Animal Farm").

You are not alone if you have difficulty imagining a form of capitalism that differs from what we have now; most people have trouble with that. We have been indoctrinated from birth that this is it - the ultimate system. The epitome of mankind's ability to create an economic system.

One of the major stumbling blocks put up by those who espouse this system is that any other system that might be proposed is never compared to this mess, it is always compared to a "perfect" ideal system. Needless to say few such ideas can meet that level of perfection.

I suppose that I needn't mention that I have devised a system that I think could retain the good qualities of capitalism yet dispose of the excessive greed and what it makes people do to each other. I highly doubt that it is a "perfect" system. I am absolutely convinced that it is a better system. One wee step forward - not a final answer.

.
So you want to do away with inheritance? That’s basically Socialism.
Jack,
I normally respect the things that I read of yours. Not this time.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

First, I have no intention of doing away with inheritance. Go back and read what I said, please. Don't jump to conclusions thinking you can give this a quick scan and know all about it, you can't. I've been working on this for almost 40 years and I can't do that. I'd hoped that you, of all people, would have had better to offer than a snide, off the cuff, remark.
Hi, skypixie! Good luck with this one! Hugs and meows...xox
Robin,

Purrrrrrrr ;-)

.
Skypixieo for Prime Minister!
Actually yes I did make that remark rather hastily I have been playing OS to long today. I read it again Sky end to end: you want to do away with inheritances. I did not mean the first comment in any sort of a derogatory way. I meant it as an endorsement. I have also discussed this at length with people who are involved in high level politics as we have discussed at length (long fishing trips and family dinners) exactly what this condition would be called: Communism or Socialism I didn’t hear anyone come up with any label that would be more suitable or for that matter deny that it was either one or the other. My position on this is that most fortunes are acquired through severe reliance on the infrastructure of the country to which the beneficiary originates. The Tax laws are entirely inadequate to compensate for this I mean what should company's like Halliburton be paying in tax's? Outlawing inheritance would be to moderate a solution.
What a thoughtful interesting post, outside of the box. I'm for thinking in that fashion and admire your input. I'll cogitate on it.
I do like your reply there. Thank-you for answering me.
steve s,

OMG ....NEVER!!!!

Power would do to me what it does to everyone else! And I'm already quite corrupted enough, thanks anyway.
RedNose,
There is a bit more on this in an earlier blog of mine, if it interests you.

Thanks for dropping by. I'll come by your page to see what you have to thrill and delight, soon.

Victoria,
Yer welcome!
.
Jack,
No. Either I didn't explain it well or you are reading it wrong.

I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT want to do away with inheritance.

I want to convert from direct line, "only my own brats inherit", to a form of give back to society that which came from society, "generational inheritance". An inheritance that goes to EVERY child born into this society. The inheritance would be made up of the wealth of everyone in the society who dies; that would, if I'm not mistaken, eventually be just about everybody.

I'd probably want to chop it up into 5 year time periods (example only - could be longer or shorter) and all the wealth of everyone who dies during that time would be shared up equally as an inheritance for all the children born during the same time period.

What I AM doing is changing the beneficiaries, NOT doing away with inheritance. I certainly recognize that all children born into our society will inherit a share of the problems that we leave them. It seems only fair to me to also leave them a share of the wealth that we, and our ancestors, have created in this society.

As things stand now, our system of direct inheritance is destroying capitalism. With something like 96% of the wealth concentrated through direct line inheritance into about 6% of the population. It does the society no damn good at all when it can't keep moving. In fact, I'm told that wealth in our society MUST move in order for our economic system to work. The super rich, by passing their wealth on to their direct progeny, are actually killing the goose that laid golden eggs in their own nest!!

By using a generational form of inheritance (I usually call it a birthright) we put that wealth to use. This puts money in the hands of the population. This means that they have the ability to purchase the goods and services offered by companies. This makes the companies profitable. Whether they spend those profits, thus putting them into circulation, or hold them, thus building the inheritance funds for the next generation, is of little importance. What IS important, is that the money gets into people's hands, one way or another, sooner or later, and is not sitting in some bank rotting.

I cannot imagine anything further from socialism than this. This is even further from socialism than our present system!! This honours those who play the "business game", those who contribute by other means, and enhances the idea of individual responsibility for one's own well-being. There would be no need for "social services" on the scale we have today; nor for "unemployment insurance" or any other part of the so-called "social safety net" that is so expensive that the government taxes us to death to pay for it all. Can you imagine how low our taxes would be if we didn't have to carry that weight? I venture to speculate that no personal income taxes at all would be needed. Just a modest tax on business profits. And would there be business profits? What? In a society where everyone has money? Need you ask?

Even better, since most of the wealth inherited would be in the form of company shares, those shares would provide a life-long income for every person in the society. I would also provide those citizens with the voting power to ensure that those companies were run properly. Jacking up the prices might be very heavily frowned upon by the people who have to pay those prices, and they'd have control through voting their shares!!

Still look like socialism?

.
So, what is it called when parents spend their kid's "inheritance?" Just an expression, of course, but as I get older and "wiser" (doubtful), I am holding on to less and enjoying the "fruits of my labor" more. The one thing that cannot be carved up into tiny pieces by society, is our family home. Most everything I've worked for and saved, for over 40 years, has gone into our home. When I've died and gone to Heaven, it will be theirs, bought and paid for. Nothing would make me happier (though I only know that emotion in this moment). No guarantee for the hereafter. I also do not think accumulated wealth, for want of a better expression, is not all created equal. Say you're a babysitter/day care provider, house cleaner, non-company wage earner with no benefits or work a menial sales job on small commission, also no benefits or company perks? Then, let's say you have a strong work ethic, work your ass off since you were a kid and actually saved a portion of everything you earned for most of your life? No corporate ties, no graft, no incentive other than the ones your parents taught you and pushed you out of the nest to make it on your own? There are a lot of us out there, believe it or not. Society is not entitled to your life savings nor is it entitled to parcel off your property or the home you built with your hard earned money and have paid taxes on year after year. What's left after that, belongs to you. If you want to leave what's left to your kids, your dog, your favorite charity, the mistress, the baker, the candle stick maker...is nobody's business but your own. Certainly, not your government's. If I live a long stubborn life, as I would desire in this moment, there will be no argument whatsoever. If, on the other hand, I leave this mysterious thing called life a lot sooner than envisioned, my loved ones will benefit greatly...as they should!

Having said that (and you've more or less heard this before) I honor and respect your wisdom and take on "distribution of wealth," IF and only IF, wealth were created equal. Which, it is not.
Oh and I know I butchered the English language in parts of my previous response, but pretty please, cut me some slack. I am cranky, old, feisty and so tired of working, since the age of 10. I am not alone in this. Think of all the baby boomers of like sentiments?
Cathy,
I wonder if you might be mingling the system we have today for creating wealth with the system I propose for sharing it, and coming up with a hybrid cross of some sort. In this system, it is helpful to your children for you to leave them the family home and whatever else you can manage to leave them. This is a dog-eat-dog system.

My system is so much different that to even think in terms of wealth being created "unequally" would be impossible. I am making the assumption here that when you refer to "wealth being unequal", you mean the work necessary to obtain and hold onto it. I wonder if it is possible for you to grasp the idea that wealth, as it is meant by an economic system, and wealth as it is measured by the effort it takes to acquire it, are two different things.

Because we have allowed an economic system to grow up that makes the accumulation of wealth the only game in town, those without expertise in this "game" work a whole hell of a lot harder merely to survive than they should. Why would this be? It's because we are all competing for the 4% of the wealth not amassed by the wealthy. Can you imagine how much easier it would be to get the necessary funds to live properly in a world where ALL the money is available to be earned? All the wealth of the nation in motion, moving from hand to hand in a healthy economy.

You are speaking from the point of view of a lone cave man who has hunted down an animal, all by himself, and sees no reason to join with a tribe and share his kill. Our present system makes each and every one of us a "lone hunter", fighting our fellow citizens for survival. We'll all do a fair bit better if we can start out on an even footing with our fellows. A footing that does not see us competing for raw survival but only for extras.

I get the impression that you will not likely be leaving your children any vast amount of wealth. Tell me this; is it better to leave them a bit of wealth in a dirty society as your legacy, or better to leave them a clean society wherein they can compete fairly for anything they wish to have, while certain that they will have their fair share of the wealth of the whole society? That's pretty much what it boils down to; we leave our own kids well off in a dirty society or as well off as any other child in a decent society. Remember - in my society your kids will not be competing with the rich for a fair share. That kind of competition is a mugs game; it's the one we have now. I don't know about you but I am confident that my children would have done much better in a fair system than I could give them from my own pocket. With the life span that we enjoy today, my wealth will not go to my children anyway, it would, if I bequeathed it in direct line, probably go to my great, great grandchildren. I will be following my own philosophy and my wealth, not great, but not pocket change either, will be bequeathed to children in my community who are born within 3 years of my passing. My wealth came from my society - it will go back to that society.

.
Skypixie's answers to jaxk make anything I would say superfluous - the only difference is that she speaks like a gentlewoman; I, a thug.


-R-
As someone who has never been rich, I obviously come to this from a perspective that inheritance serves no good purpose. Had I inherited wealth and lived the life that so many wish they could live, I would probably think differently. And that's the problem right there. Justifying the removal of inheritance means going against everyone who has ever benefited from that system and everyone who expects to benefit (or to have children benefit) from it. That's a pretty hard task, and unfortunately, it's the reason why it would probably never change.

Add in the fact that people like me have no economic power whatsoever, and you realize why groups of people with economic power that benefited from inheritance are probably going to use that power to make sure that the system never changes. It leaves us with a no-win situation that even James T. Kirk couldn't succeed against. Okay, maybe he could, but it would involve really hot green Orion slave girls and badly choreographed fighting as well. And that could only lead to communism.
Good morning, Sky. Thank you for your kind and though provoking response. I do, as a point of record see and understand that there are two or more, ways in which the wheels of amassing wealth, are quite different. In my own way, was saying just that. Definitely not the lone cave man type. You don't know me well enough yet (working on it). I am generous to a fault, a giver, learned to share my toys at a very young age. You know my background somewhat and giving to those less fortunate was a patent business in our household and ties to 'the church.' No matter our financial station in life, we as a family and I as an individual, always find ways to give back, to give thanks and to give all that I can to others, both near and far. That is ingrained in me as a member of society, of my community and in the way I tick. You and I aren't that different in some of these views/commitments to self and others. We both see how the wheel turns, however, I see that there are those who do as I have done, with a lifetime of hard work ethic and many others who would just as easily sit back and collect from the government dole, letting the rest of us pay and pay and pay into it. At the end of the day, most of us here who are in the middle or lower economic classes of American society and not the uber wealthy tippy top 4-10%, would have it no other way. That is to say, that we can choose how much education we need and desire, pay our way through school and suffer the debt for years after, work one or two jobs to rid ourselves of the debt, while saving for a rainy day. I may and am likely far off topic now, but my parents came from nothing; near or poverty level with no college educations. How hard I saw them work, save and provide for 7 children, will always be my water mark for recognizing the benefit of a free society and one in which you can create your own level of wealth (varies greatly by individual) and that we can benefit from hard work, motivation and saving some of our earnings religiously, no matter what. Most of us were not born with a silver spoon in our mouths, nor do we ever care to possess such a non-essential.

I think I do get what you are describing, as a society where there could be no "lack of" for all it's citizens, especially it's children. The sad reality is, that if there isn't a "pill for that," or a way to make oodles and oodles of $$$$$$$$ on the idea, it is not likely to be embraced in any measurable way.

Therefore, most of this society's citizens, who are indeed hard working and trying to make a living, day to day, week to week and so on...are also the very ones who are most generous with what they have and wouldn't hesitate to help others in need, by any means possible.

You will find me outside of my well appointed cave, dancing around the fire. Stew is simmering nicely, so come on over and join me.
nice conversation here... rated (last night)
Your answer clarifies the solution you are proposing.

I have been on OS for over a year I doubt my position requires any clarification at all. We have done things to our environment that can never be fixed starting with the Gulf oil spill. We have turned the sources of our sustenance into privately “owned” assets at the expense of our neighbors, children, and future. We have allowed ourselves to be led down the primrose path to oblivion by a mercantile class who for thousands of years were kept in line by a central authority whether it be Kings and Queens, Aristocrats, or Warlords, all were more qualified to be guardians of the people before those whose existence depended on their ability to dicker over the price of a cabbage in the marketplace. Aside from Athens which was laid to waste by the Spartans for the very avaricious behavior we see now the merchant has always occupied the lowest rung on the social ladder: a source of derision for warriors, a source of funding for artists, and a source of goods for everybody else. The merchant had no say so in how social order was achieved. Why would anything as important as that be entrusted to an entity whose primary occupation was the acquisition of material gain. The merchant neither conquers, creates, or fix's anything he is probably the most expendable of all the inhabitants of any given culture and for thousands of years he was treated accordingly. Along comes industrialization and the Free Masons with their 500 year old axe to grind against the oligarchy and before you know it we have Adam Smith and William Graham Sumner. We now have a world with 10 times more people on it than its resources can sustain just because the merchants needed consumers for the brightly colored beads their new people free “industrialized” factory's were manufacturing. I am not concerned with preserving any of the merchants ill begotten gains so tweaking the inheritance laws mean nothing to me. I advocate nothing less than a
Pol Pot styled extermination of the entire mercantile “class” and the systematic eradication of the “ideas” of his enablers. Right now you may think this harsh and extreme but I do not yet think you have seen the bill yet for the 7 billion people. You will!
Tax 'avoidance' is legal and sensible where_as tax 'evasion' is a sick_bird_of_prey aka ill eagle.
Why pay more than necessary within the system - Brits pay one hell of a lot more tax eg. 80% is included on every gallon of fuel, 50% on income etc and 20% sales tax aka VAT.

"Shoot the Illuminati FRed(tm) then press send please"
I agree with you. The problem is the new world order elite do not. They have moved beyond capitalism. We have a new global economic system unlike 19th and 20th century capitalism. It operates according to different rules and the old conception of "national borders" or "national duty" is anathema to them.

I heard some Wall Street guy on tv this morning saying that he has no idea why people have the "silly and misinformed idea that Washington, D.C. only works for the American People. certainly, voters in America get some role and say in US gvt, but the US gvt doesn't answer only to them nor is it the job of the US gvt to primarily be concerned with the American people."

He was discussing the duty of the US Congress and White House to help other foreign commercial banks and corporations during this recession, and how the needs of US consumers should come after, let's say, Obama's duty to Saudi Oil or DeutscheBank or Mitsubishi.
I hope you don't mind me adding another comment here but having just read the 'previous' comment it seems appropriate.

WElcome to the REal World America.
For arguments sake there are 300million in the USA and now 300million in the European Union (27 countries with central laws etc) and all interact and distrust one another.

Everyone outside the US see what n where your Government get involved in.
I hate to sound like I'm being picky as thats not my intention - but Americans can tend to me very insular and poorly informed what happens outside your huge country.

"Press send please FRed(tm) - The Truth is OUt There"....
Duane,
I grow weary of repeating myself. Let me shout....
I DO NOT ADVOCATE THER REMOVAL OF INHERITANCE!!

There, loud enough? That out of the way, let's look at the difficulties involved in a "changeover". I see four possibilities:

1- Violent revolution (the traditional way) This is likely to lead to horrendous bloodshed, as it usually does. This would probably so devastate our society that little would be left for the very children to whom we want to leave a better situation. Keep in mind that this proposed system requires a functioning economic base which provides the wealth of the society to be inherited by our children.

2- Evolution (because control of our system rests in the hands of the wealthy elite this is highly unlikely)

3- Initiating a different system after the collapse of our present one.

4- Initiating the desired changes, amongst those who like this idea, by the voluntary joining of people in a (local?) group of like minded individuals. This would allow all who like the present system to continue with it until so many people have joined such Citizen Capitalist groups and there are so many groups that they are in the majority and can simply end the present system. This involves a kind of 'parallel system' that operates within our present system.

Of all these possible ways for this to come about, and there may be more that I've not thought of, the 3rd and 4th seem to me the most likely. What do you think?


Cathy,
I see, only too clearly, where you are coming from. I, born in 1941, also grew up in a family such as yours except there were only 5 kids. I left school after grade 8 to go to work because the family needed the income - my father did his best but my mother became increasingly ill and there just wasn't enough money. At age 21 I had the chance to go to the first adult 'school' for those who needed high school. I did it in 7 months. I married and went back to work. My very soul was outraged at the arrogant shit I had to take from bosses who had inherited businesses and never missed a meal in their entire lives. I was affronted by their assumption that I was some sort of a "lesser" being than they because I didn't have money. Oh yes, I know where you're coming from all right. I have also managed to earn myself into a comfortable situation. I have more money than I'm likely to spend before I die. Of course I could spend it faster if I chose to but I am content to live modestly rather than lavishly.

But this is a different world than you and I grew up in. Our world contained such principles as honesty above all, honour, fairness, respect for others, guarding one's reputation, etc.

Today's world has done away with these things. Worse it is rapidly doing away with job opportunities that were readily available in our 'day'. Automation alone has done away with millions of good paying jobs. Off-shoring of jobs has cost us many millions more jobs. The sad fact is that there is no longer a job for everyone who wants one as there was during our working years. This didn't bother us much when it was only the poor - poor of education or brains or opportunity - who were effected.

Now they are coming for the jobs of the middle class, the heart of our nations. People, fully qualified and experienced people, who have NEVER been out of gainful employment in their life, are being dismissed and CANNOT find suitable replacement jobs. It is apparent that our present system is broken (broke too). It is also apparent that the "recovery" spoken of by politicians is NOT going to lead to a recovery of job opportunities; only a recovery of the fortunes of the elite.

If you were leaving your children the world you grew up and worked all your life in, that would be one thing; are you ready to leave them THIS mess? Of what value will your house be if they can't survive in the area where it is? When it can't be sold off because no one has the money to buy it?

I urge you to think twice. It serves NO purpose to leave your children well prepared to live in YOUR world if they can't survive in the present world. The best inheritance we can leave our children is a world where they can educate or train themselves to follow their own star in life. What will it help to leave them a bit of money and/or a house in a world that is in economic collapse? Leave them a bit of money in a world that is tearing itself apart or leave them a REAL inheritance - a world where they can live comfortably and follow their own muse. A world where they will own their part of the wealth of society in person! Not as a collective owner in some socialist "paradise" where personal choices are forbidden by "the state".



Tr ig,
Thankee muchly - c'mon, join in!


Jack,
Now you are off on a tangent that I'll not follow here and now. Perhaps later on a blog of yours. But thanks for chiming in - you are always welcome! ;-)


Creekend,
I can't quite make out your point.....


Rw,
Those who played the game as it was taught them to play it and are now sitting on mountains of wealth, would be nuts to want to see any change not initiated by them. I wouldn't if I were them, would you?

It is up to the citizens to make the changes that are necessary. If they don't do it, they will die.

If you think my ideas about our economic system are radical, wait until I put up a blog about my idea of Citizen Democracy!! (Participatory democracy instead of voting). Whooo hoo! Much fun yet remains!

.
Creekend,

It is an unfortunate truth that we in Canada and the US tend to think of European countries merely as "quaint holiday destinations". We are so blindly certain of our superiority that we just cannot see past the end of our credit cards. This ignorance is costing us dearly and will cost us even more dearly in future; maybe terminally dearly.

Too bad for us......

.
Interesting discussion. I'm staying out of it. R
Yes, you are right, it is a very different world. Fortunately for them, they have all been well educated by their own choice and have landed on their own two feet...so far! My father always said that, "So far!" He left nothing to chance and prepared for whatever life dealt him. What I hope to leave my girls, is what has already been given to them. A hard work ethic, belief in themselves and their abilities, their god given gifts and talents and the gratitude to walk through their own lives with their own sense of accomplishment. I am a less watchful mother these days, as they are now wanting to give back to me. Fancy that! It always surprises me now, when they insist on picking up the check. Who'd of thought? I guess when all is said and done, I am a lucky mother, who's kids survived (so far) and are making a decent living, sharing their lives with great guys that even a mama could embrace with loving approval. For what it's worth.

I cannot change the world that has evolved in our lifetime for my grown daughters or for anyone other than myself. As I believe and you may also, most of society has grown numb to what has happened and is choosing to see only what is manageable, one day at a time. My girls are navigating through their own waters now. If, upon my demise, there is some pittance of savings or assets left for them, it will serve to remind them of a hard working mother who saved for a rainy day. It's their turn now, to figure things out and to contribute to a better life for the society in which they choose to thrive.
Cathy,
B I N G O !!

I can see that you "get it" now. I understand that it is asking a lot of you to change your philosophy at this late point in your life. I am, however, happy that you seem open to your daughters adopting a view point that is different from your own and might be more in line with to-day's requirements. You have my highest respect for that.

So from one ol' fart to another......."Smooth sailing and sunny skies".

;-)

.
Does a little dance! It was there all along. I just took the long way around to expose my truer self. Part of the dance of acquaintance.

Those girls are all very different and definitely dance to the beat of their own drummers. Like to think I aided in that discovery. Love them more than any mother can say and naturally, only hope for the best for them in this ever changing and challenging existence.

I do appreciate well, all the enthusiasm and passion you bring forth; willing to share and bring together in this sometimes tentative forum. Meaty discussions always welcome. Now I need to go floss.

Glad we could come around to a meeting of our minds. Never doubted it for a minute. Though I am not a fan of the term, "agree to disagree," it is sometimes the necessity of individuality.

Care to dance?