The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makes me for it. You?

The criminal element hates a one world governance; that makesme for it.  You?

 Given my old criminal mind and delinquent attitude; I knowthat if I was my old self, I would hate the notion of a one world government.  

Such a bank would prevent me from talking advantage of thewhite economy.

Fair taxation makes my criminal wallet lose twofold. I losemy gain and now must pay and play fair. Bummer.

Given my reform and apotheosis, I feel it is my duty to tellall my fellow white economy taxpayers, we all pay taxes, and it is foolish notto have a fair system.

Leaving unfair advantage to the black market does not seemlike a good idea. Right?

I think I would vote for a One World Government, just to getthe One World Bank.

If your government preaches against a One World Government,they are voting with the criminals who hate the idea. 

Economically speaking; given that single source bankinggovernance is easy, --- I think that moving a huge economic advantage from theblack market to our white market, --- is a good idea.

I estimate that we all get a 30% raise in pay.

I am bought off. You?

Regards.

DL

One world government = good depending on ideology

One world government = currently impossible

All one has to do is look at all the corruption and waste that goes on in every govt in the world and just imagine the level of corruption and waste that would go on with  a one world govt. The very first thing that would happen is a dictatorship of elite puss bowl maggots would be formed and the whole world can go pound sand up its ass.

If the international criminal court had teeth and stood by actual principles, it would have a huge backlog. It shouldn’t end at Putin. 

If a one world government --see Bucky Fullers world game, how to make the world work--- spirit intention is not all-for-one and one-for-all from the get go, then, it there significantly critical factors not being considered, for the least amount of sufferring going forward.

There is going to be much more suffering for coming to humanity in relative near future --barring every last resource is not used ak ' burning down the house ', just to maintain the status quo--- is my best guess, and of Fullers and Carl Sagan and my guess is many other top notch educated thinkers, who have earned their years of critical thinking knowledge base.

How does 250 nations integrate and even worse pandemic contagion?

..."Humans routinely anticipate future events and organize current actions accordingly. This capacity has been termed “episodic foresight” (Suddendorf and Moore 2011) and is fundamental to enabling humans to control the future by planning, preparing for, and shaping events in desired ways. "...

George Orwell wrote 1984,   H.G Wells wrote The World Set Free,   They are fortune tellers. and forecasters of reality.

Which criminals?

Name names buddy.

Regards

DL

You feel the corruption right to your pocket, ignore that a world bank, regardless and in spite of it's government directors, can at least move that hand.

Think single issue, instead of all over the place, and see how easily that criminal hand can me pulled away from your empty pocket and nut sack with a single world bank.

Regards

DL

 

I agree on the ongoing suffering of the honest tax payer, as compared to the criminal non-tax payers. 

The huge economic windfall when we go to a one world bank will help in elevating a lot of the suffering.

Regards

DL

A single world bank and I imagine you would like it to be cashless to.

Perhaps it would be better to alleviate suffering rather than elevating it.

Or perhaps I'm too much of a softie.

You mean modern.

A bank wants your transactions. It cares not what you use to transact.

Use bananas if you like.

Regards

DL

Do you recognize how little it would cost our rich nations to eliminate poverty world wide?

We make poverty a make us feel good project. Shame on us all.

Regards

DL

Um, if I transact with cash what do I need a bank for? The bank doesn't print cash, the Treasury does under the direction of the federal reserve. The bank also doesn't dictate the value of cash. The only reason a bank would be needed is to write checks and conduct transactions using credit and debit cards. This is precisely why banks and govts  want a cashless system not to mention weaponizing it for wrong thinking. I know, that would never happen.

I would suggest that monetary wealth is the manifestation of natural social hierarchy.

To eliminate poverty would require the imposition of an egalitarian society, which is a contradiction in terms.

Actually creating a totalitarian system of hierarchy where control is sustained through a system of unequal reward.

And where dissent is often managed with force and oppression.

I would therefore also suggest that "Western" style liberal democracy is about as good as national consideration is going to get.

Though western style liberalism seems to come at the cost of a decline in family values. Whereby problems and responsibility is offloaded onto Nanny State.

I would finally suggest, that altruism is not the norm, and therefore a human altruistic utopia is very unlikely.....A.I. maybe, wherein inequality is not necessarily systemically programmed.

Most transactions are not using cash.

Wrong thinking to one is right thinking to another.

Right thinking is us regaining our tax loses by taking the criminals hand out of our collective pocket.

Regards

DL

 

Take a look at how little adjustment to this graph is required to end poverty.

I did not suggest anything on equality or egalitarianism.

I do suggest that if we maintain the present poverty, we are collectively being unethical.

Regards

DL

But would you be for eliminating cash? I am not for obvious reasons to me. A cashless society would be a tyrannical society.  Govt will use the banks against anyone who doesn't comply and make it  impossible to travel or buy goods and services. The fact that most transactions are cashless is irrelevant. What is relevant is a govt mandated inability to not be able to do cash transactions. In my view you don't consider the ramifications and dangers of a all cashless world. "I'm sorry we have no record of you ever existing it might take months or even years to verify if you actually exist and had money. Our computers have no record of you."

My bank does nothing to raise or lower my trust in my government, even when my government changes hands.

I would not expect a world bank to do so either.

My bank, like a world bank , would tracks my transactions and reported wealth as per your untrusted government.

It should not be called upon to do more, unless all member are in agreement.

Regards

DL

Unfortunately though.

Adjusting graphs doesn't change anything.

Just provides an income for a well paid statistician.

And the opposite of equality is inequality.

Is there anything in between.

Because you seem to be advocating for some sort of middle ground.

And I'm also not convinced that doing very little in return for free hand-outs is a sustainable situation.

I would once again suggest that it doesn't matter how one approaches the issue, society will always naturally divide into a class system.

"I would not expect" So no, you are not considering the ramifications.  Banks are regulated by govt , you understand that right?

Correct, and we can have one that excludes poverty, given how wealthy we collectively are.

Regards

DL

So are all registered and or licenced companies. 

A government presently controls the banking laws.

The only change is that all the governments will have to agree for the benefits of a too big to bust bank.

Regards

DL

So just to be clear you want a one world bank cashless society and believe govts around the world would never use this to control people. It would never happen. Is this your position?  Its OK if it is. I just want your 100% assurance on record if instituted it would never happen and if it does happen  that you will never say there is no way you or anyone else could have foreseen  govts doing such a thing.  

Interesting statement.

If you think about it, the notion of wealth is only relative in a system that differentiates upon the grounds of the ability to achieve lesser or greater wealth within the system.

So change the system and wealth and money becomes irrelevant anyway.

But experience tells us that egalitarianism is unachievable, simply because people are not equal and in the main do not desire equality.

In an egalitarian utopia where everyone is compelled to be equal and money is an irrelevant concept, why would anyone strive to achieve?

Social and material evolution would stagnate.

And who or what would govern and police the system, for no higher status or reward?

Hmmmmm. I'm not sure that a system of passive anarchy is going to work.

Compared to where?

Because although we have a tendency to think on a national level, the current system that thrives upon wealth disparity is a global system.

The world is wealthier everywhere, and remains under the control of a few rich people.

You seem to think that a one world bank and government would communize/equalize the world.

It would never do so. We all recognize that we want and live in social and wealth hierarchies. 

Communism, I agree, is a foolish notion.

Regards

DL

Cashless is not necessary, but more convenient.

With modern tech, it is more profitable to go cashless.

You may not trust your government to make the right choices, but I trust the collective governments.

Regards

DL

I give you credit for taking a position and standing behind it. You trust collective govts. I absolutely don't and never will. They all have proven beyond all doubt they cant be trusted not now and not ever.

I thought nothing of the sort.

In terms of a "Bank", we already have a one World system.

And I don't think that communizing and equalizing humanity is possible.

There's always going to be someone in control and others controlling.

And so for sure, communism is a foolish notion.