When the revolution comes

[mistermack]

When the revolution comes, and the world begs me to be a benevolent dictator I will :

1) Provide free birth control for everyone who wants it, out of world taxes.

2) Tax all inheritances heavily, after a basic tax free allowance.

3) Spend the inheritance tax money on improving the worst schools, and financial help for the poorest students to be able to study.

4) Any money left goes to reduce income tax.

5) Introduce a bubble tax on anything that an expert panel says is appreciating speculatively, over and above the normal rate, as in the property bubble in the US and Spain and the UK. etc.

6) Ban bonuses completely in the financial sector.

7) Have a law that says you can only have ONE seat on ONE board of directors. The only exception is if you own a major shareholding in a company.

8) Top editorial staff of news media must be elected, not appointed by the owners. The owners can only run the business side.

9) A new offence of untrue biased reporting, with prison or big fines available for the worst offenders.

10) Governments can't borrow. At all. Starting ten years from now, so they have time to adjust.
But they have to publish a timetable and stick to it.

That's the world saved. No doubt whatsoever. But if you think different, post your own list.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It will not, however, be televised.

[mistermack]

No, but it'll go viral on youtube.

[Rum]

But what about your tyranting, oppression and general underyourthumbness policies?

[Tyrannical]

What makes you think you will survive the Revolution? It's not like you have any guns to defend yourself with

But the key problem society faces is not being able to get rid of the grasshoppers.

[Atheist-Lite]

You must be careful to seperate civilization collapse from revolution. They both appear the same at the outset whilst the difference at the conclusion is startling to say the least.

[amused]

Here in the US we need just one change: No gerrymandering of US Congressional districts. Make them truly competitive.

Everything else will sort itself out.

[Tyrannical]

Here in the US we need just one change: No gerrymandering of US Congressional districts. Make them truly competitive.

Everything else will sort itself out.

Gerrymandering is only used in the US to ensure that Blacks get elected to Congress
But yes, it is a problem.

[mistermack]

What makes you think you will survive the Revolution? It's not like you have any guns to defend yourself with

Gadaffi had all the guns. Didn't help him.

I'll stay well clear of drainage ditches.

Oh yeh, I forgot to ban guns. Fuck it!

[amused]

Here in the US we need just one change: No gerrymandering of US Congressional districts. Make them truly competitive.

Everything else will sort itself out.

Gerrymandering is only used in the US to ensure that Blacks get elected to Congress
But yes, it is a problem.

What has happened is that the vested interests have cynically used racial representation as an excuse to maintain gerrymandering for purely political means in order to keep tight control of who gets elected. They hide behind a few 'black' seats in order to keep gerrymandering in place. In each election 85-90% of the US congressional incumbents get re-elected because of gerrymandering. I have more in common with the black/hispanic/asian/whatever family across the street from me by virtue of simple geography, but we can be in two separate districts just because it suits the powers that be. That's wrong.

I've been gerrymandered into a congressional district that extends to Houston in order to pick up enough Republicans to cancel out the Democrats in Austin. This is not representative government.

[mistermack]

Here in the US we need just one change: No gerrymandering of US Congressional districts. Make them truly competitive.

Everything else will sort itself out.

Sort itself out? Ha ! No chance.
In the US, I will apply numbers 1 to 10, with one extra, just for the US. No guns.
Edit : no, two extra. No guns, and no moneygrabbing lawsuits.

[Tyrannical]

Here in the US we need just one change: No gerrymandering of US Congressional districts. Make them truly competitive.

Everything else will sort itself out.

Gerrymandering is only used in the US to ensure that Blacks get elected to Congress
But yes, it is a problem.

What has happened is that the vested interests have cynically used racial representation as an excuse to maintain gerrymandering for purely political means in order to keep tight control of who gets elected. They hide behind a few 'black' seats in order to keep gerrymandering in place. In each election 85-90% of the US congressional incumbents get re-elected because of gerrymandering. I have more in common with the black/hispanic/asian/whatever family across the street from me by virtue of simple geography, but we can be in two separate districts just because it suits the powers that be. That's wrong.

I've been gerrymandered into a congressional district that extends to Houston in order to pick up enough Republicans to cancel out the Democrats in Austin. This is not representative government.

More likely gerrymandering was forced by "civil rights laws" to ensure majority minority (Black / Hispanic) districts in order to prevent Whites from being elected. Few Blacks were elected to Congress until gerrymandered custom made Black districts became the law. Democrats would never stand for a neutral algorithm that assign Congressional districts.

[klr]

When the revolution comes, and the world begs me to be a benevolent dictator I will :

1) Provide free birth control for everyone who wants it, out of world taxes.

2) Tax all inheritances heavily, after a basic tax free allowance.

3) Spend the inheritance tax money on improving the worst schools, and financial help for the poorest students to be able to study.

4) Any money left goes to reduce income tax.

5) Introduce a bubble tax on anything that an expert panel says is appreciating speculatively, over and above the normal rate, as in the property bubble in the US and Spain and the UK. etc.

6) Ban bonuses completely in the financial sector.

7) Have a law that says you can only have ONE seat on ONE board of directors. The only exception is if you own a major shareholding in a company.

8) Top editorial staff of news media must be elected, not appointed by the owners. The owners can only run the business side.

9) A new offence of untrue biased reporting, with prison or big fines available for the worst offenders.

10) Governments can't borrow. At all. Starting ten years from now, so they have time to adjust.
But they have to publish a timetable and stick to it.

That's the world saved. No doubt whatsoever. But if you think different, post your own list.

#5 I can agree with, providing that we can get around the problem of creating independent expert panels.

All of the rest I have issues with, even if I would sympathise with the basic motivation underpinning them. For example, stopping governments from borrowing. Businesses can borrow, non-profit organisations can borrow, individuals can borrow ... why can't governments borrow? The key (as I see it) is putting restrictions on how much can be borrowed, and attaching conditions to how it can be spent. And having the teeth to go with the regulations, so that miscreants can and will be punished.

[mistermack]

All of the rest I have issues with, even if I would sympathise with the basic motivation underpinning them. For example, stopping governments from borrowing. Businesses can borrow, non-profit organisations can borrow, individuals can borrow ... why can't governments borrow? The key (as I see it) is putting restrictions on how much can be borrowed, and attaching conditions to how it can be spent. And having the teeth to go with the regulations, so that miscreants can and will be punished.

Because it's an electioneering cheat.
Assuming that you have a democratic system. Bush borrows, Obama has to pay off the loan.
Obama borrows, next president has to pay it off. And assuming that the loans are always paid off, the country just ends up paying a lot more for everything. Just as you would, if you bought everything on credit.

It is a fact that if the US government had never borrowed, the Nation would be richer. The only people worse off would be the people who lent the money, and lived on the proceeds.
They would of course have to find someone else to lend it to, and that would help industry.

I'm not against businesses borrowing. They can use money to make money. That makes sense. A government can't. A government borrows, mainly to pay off previous borrowing. Where is the sense in that? And ten years is plenty to get it out of the system.

[klr]

All of the rest I have issues with, even if I would sympathise with the basic motivation underpinning them. For example, stopping governments from borrowing. Businesses can borrow, non-profit organisations can borrow, individuals can borrow ... why can't governments borrow? The key (as I see it) is putting restrictions on how much can be borrowed, and attaching conditions to how it can be spent. And having the teeth to go with the regulations, so that miscreants can and will be punished.

Because it's an electioneering cheat.
Assuming that you have a democratic system. Bush borrows, Obama has to pay off the loan.
Obama borrows, next president has to pay it off. And assuming that the loans are always paid off, the country just ends up paying a lot more for everything. Just as you would, if you bought everything on credit.

It is a fact that if the US government had never borrowed, the Nation would be richer. The only people worse off would be the people who lent the money, and lived on the proceeds.
They would of course have to find someone else to lend it to, and that would help industry.

I'm not against businesses borrowing. They can use money to make money. That makes sense. A government can't. A government borrows, mainly to pay off previous borrowing. Where is the sense in that? And ten years is plenty to get it out of the system.

Don't get me wrong: I detest the idea of governments effectively mortgaging the future by over-borrowing now, which is exactly what has happened in many countries. It's so bad that 10 years isn't anywhere near enough. If you tried that, you'd cause revolutions, and it would all be very ugly. Governments are in the business of making long-term decisions and commitments, so being able to borrow is a necessity.

Anyway, it takes two to tango. The bond markets have historically been over-ready to lend to governments, even when the hard analysis must have told them that levels of government indebtedness had reached (and well passed) levels that were unsustainable in the long run. It seems to have taken the financial crisis of the last few years to bring some reality to the bond markets.