Honestly, I don't know. Short of a full scale revolution and bringing the whole corrupt system down, I don't know what can be done.

revolution [rev-uh-loo-shuh n] 4. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point. 5. a single turn of this kind.

We don't want revolution - we want evolution.

What kind of evolution?

The kind that brings something unforeseen, new and exciting that helps keep us alive a little longer, like any good evolution. Only this time, in the sphere of political science/philosophy.

Even back when I considered myself a bleeding heart liberal I thought that one scene with the two kids on the beach was kind of inappropriate.

Get money out of politics. No SuperPac, Super donors, corporate personhood.

Would you support public campaign funding to cover basic expenses or is there a better route?

I think an Ad spending cap would be ideal. If say a campaign was capped at $300m-500m then there would be less of a need for more, more, more (obviously smaller races have lower caps). This puts good grass roots people at least in the mix vs just being a non-starter or bulldozed with opposition ad funding.

Wow yeah I agree limiting advertising would do wonders for the tone and focus of campaigns. Do you think additionally capping individual contributions would help regular people have a voice / reward candidates for listening to them?

I mean don't be sad, but you said you'd like to hear other peoples' thoughts. If you're only interested in certain types of 'solutions', might as well put that out front- this is a diverse sub. Politics doesn't mean just the current parties and people, there's always going to be politics if you're talking about the State and tyranny. I don't watch tv but I'm always up for hearing a new idea or a good story so by all means...

Let's keep politics out of politics.. What?

So now you are asking for someone to solve all these problems without politics? Good luck finding your genie lamp

Well, guess what anarcho-syndicalism you and other users were talking about is still a political philosophy. Just because you're not happy about current politics, doesn't mean that you can come up with an approach to solve these problems that isn't political.

Also end gerrymandering, hold open primaries, use ranked choice voting, secure election systems, equal candidate access to the ballot, debates, and media, and anything else that reinforces the two-party duopoly.

And implement and enforce lobbying rules and anticorruption laws, too.

Set mandatory term limits that include recall elections for politicians that don't deliver on promises, or vote against the will of the public.

Eliminate the electoral college.

Eliminate gerrymandering.

Create a laws that mandate that all wars require a majority vote, and wars can only be voted on by the people who will fight in them.

Give children the right to vote.

Give children the right to vote.

Children, the most susceptible to propaganda, given the right to vote? That's like a MKUltra wet dream.

Personally I am an anarcho-syndicalist and see radical change as the only option to fixing the current system. Capitalism as we know it is destroying the planet and the profit motive leads to so many of the worst crimes of humanity.

If you want an explanation of the changes I am proposing you can google Noam Chomsky talking in depth about why exactly anarcho-syndicalism is the ideal political and social arrangement for a modern industrialized society

I will say that is is REALLY hard to explain any political philosophy in a nice sentence or two, so wall of text incoming.

First, probably important to understand the two words used

Anarchism and Syndicalism

Anarchism is a simple concept but largely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is a political theory that is concerned with one thing: Power. It wants to understand power relations, balance and imbalance, and seeks out to critique those in power regardless of the institution it is analyzing. We know power exists, so we have to make sure those in positions of power are kept in check. There IS such a thing as legitimate power, but the burden of proof lies on the powerful. If you cannot consistently prove your adequacy in leading, you are out and someone else is in.

Syndicalism is more an economic process. It advocates for democracy in the workplace. Most businesses now use a corporate model, this model is extremely hierarchical. You have a handful of people (the execs/board of directors/major shareholders) making decisions for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people. But what if ALL the workers got to decide things; how much we all make? how much we all work? how much time we get off? You would see very quickly it become a more fair system. The idea is that the people can self manage the operation of the capital. The best decision makers are the workers themselves who see the day to day operations, not people sitting in meetings all week long. There is profit sharing, but if the company isnt doing so well that is shared too. Companies fully understand the impact they have on the community they are in. Instead of like corporations just shutting down manufacturing in one city and moving it all across the globe to pay lower wage workers, the workers themselves are making the decision, they would never vote themselves collectively out of a job so someone else can have it. They might all have to agree to take a pay cut, but that is a lot better than not.

Mondragon in Spain is a worker cooperative that more closely resembles this arrangement. They have even been going into the US to train Steel mills to organize this way. They are a company that uses this philosophy of worker run, worker owned and has been able to grow under that model. More impressively they compete on the market with capitalist enterprises. This is a business that isnt focused on maximizing revenue each quarter, but one that is thinking about the health of the business in the long term, and its workers, and the communities it is in. Capitalism in america used to not have so many problems. They were for a long time under charter with the local governments and if they were breaking the law or caught using dirty sales tactics they were shut down. Now corporations make billions and they pay speeding tickets years later when regulators are able to catch up. Oh, and the regulators who do catch them? They all came through the revolving door. They worked for, and will work with again the same corporations they are supposed to be going after. Again this goes back to holding power in check.

The Reason Spain is important is because the height of Anarcho-syndicalism is probably during the Spanish Civil War in 1936-38. This idea of workers having the power was so dangerous, the US, the European Allies, the Nazis, and the Soviets ALL joined together to back Francisco Franco's fascist regime in Spain to stamp our the Anarchist revolution. Paul Goodman argues Anarcho-syndicalism is actually how many indigenous societies organized in the past and even today. Many of these societies dont use money at property rights are much less than what we have currently.

There is so much more, but I must go. I am sure this is enough to get some people interested in reading more, or some to rage at, so I will answer comments later.

I also believe in Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid over Social Darwinism, so I am not crazy about heirarchy and do view most people equally, but it is hard to deny that some people are better or smarter at things than others.

Thanks! I have a degree in economics but worked in the political science department at my uni so got a good mixture of theory and application/history. I, like most here, grew up always thinking that our system was completely backwards, and I could always make critiques but inevitably would be asked "so what is your solution." I always asked myself that too and did a lot of reading about political philosophy in order to come to the conclusion THIS is the answer. It blows my mind how little anarchism is taken serious in the US as at one time the US was at the forefront of Anarchist thought and practice (almost every gain workers have made since the industrial revolution is thanks to anarchist or anarchist sympathizers). I am just glad this sub is one of the few places it is OK to discuss these kinds of things.

Capitalism as we know it is destroying the planet and the profit motive leads to so many of the worst crimes of humanity.

Capitalism is what allows innovation to take place. No one would want to work for free or have their money stolen after they have earned it.

So what about the 10,000-100,000s of years of innovation before capitalism?

You are right, no one wants their money stolen after working hard, so why do those who do the least work (stock holders, owners) take the vast majority of profits while workers are paid so little?

why do those who do the least work (stock holders, owners) take the vast majority of profits while workers are paid so little?

The owners and stock holders are the ones who have decided to take a risk by investing money onto business. The workers didn't invest at all.

The owners pay the workers money to do their work. The workers aren't forced at all to work, it is voluntarily.

We live in a system where you HAVE to work. You dont have a choice or you are homeless and starve. Do you even know where our system of wages comes from? The idea you are arguing for is something Abraham Lincoln argued against. You are not a free worker if you are working for the owners of a business. In fact Abraham Lincoln called this wage slavery because it evolved from renting slaves.

You say that these investors take risks but we know that isnt true. Anytime there is an economic crisis the rich people who engineered it get off fine, even richer than before in most cases while the poor suffer all the real consequences. Look at 2008 those bankers who took all that risk you talk about got bailed out to the tune of $800b and then another $2t. If the system worked like you think it should they would all be bankrupt and out of business.

We live in a system where you HAVE to work. You dont have a choice or you are homeless and starve.

You of course do have to work because it is your responsibility to take care of yourself once you are able to. It is not someone else's responsibility to pay your bills.

In Capitalism, you would have a variety of options to work for someone.

You are not a free worker if you are working for the owners of a business.

You are free because you voluntary choose to work there.

The idea you are arguing for is something Abraham Lincoln argued against. You are not a free worker if you are working for the owners of a business. In fact Abraham Lincoln called this wage slavery because it evolved from renting slaves.

They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed".[30] Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans argued that the condition of wage workers was different from slavery as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment. Source

You say that these investors take risks but we know that isnt true.

That is true. They took a risk to start the business.

Anytime there is an economic crisis the rich people who engineered it get off fine, even richer than before in most cases while the poor suffer all the real consequences. Look at 2008 those bankers who took all that risk you talk about got bailed out to the tune of $800b and then another $2t. If the system worked like you think it should they would all be bankrupt and out of business

That's part of central banking. Banks shouldn't be the ones that can only print the money and continue to print more and keep it for themselves.

The bankers shouldn't have that much power in the first place to control us financially.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 203585}

lots if innovation has taken place under capitalism, lots of innovation hasn't. Innovation has taken place under capitalism but credit goes to someone or entity that took it. We can still have innovation without capitalism/competition, capitalism at this point has gone past being free market as entities conglomerate.

We can still have innovation without capitalism/competition,

No one wants to innovate if they won't earn back the money and time they have invested.

capitalism at this point has gone past being free market as entities conglomerate.

Don't confuse crony capitalism/corporatism with capitalism. 1 2

Incorrect, lots of people innovate for different reasons. Newton, Shannon, Oppenheimer (who was a socialist) weren't driven by making money and came up with advancements that we hugely benefit from. It's not a direct correlation to say innovation only happens under capitalism. Regarding your 2 images you posted, yes, ideally capitalism would run like that, but it doesn't because the predatory nature of the corporations systematically will exploit the labor of the poor. Capitalism doesn't come with a set of morals to fend against this, humanities and other forms of government do.

Did you really just say Government has morals?

Newton, Shannon, Oppenheimer (who was a socialist) weren't driven by making money and came up with advancements that we hugely benefit from.

That's okay. In a Capitalist society people can work for free if they want. No one else however should be forced to become a Socialist. You can still voluntary give things in Capitalism

it doesn't because the predatory nature of the corporations systematically will exploit the labor of the poor.

Employment and voluntary choosing to work long hours is not exploitation. The laborers can choose to work for someone else or work for themselves and open up their own business.

Capitalism doesn't come with a set of morals to fend against this, humanities and other forms of government do.

Capitalism would be the natural consequences of liberty.

I don't see how it's right for government, a monopoly to steal other people's money and give it to the poor. If the government has morals, then why do they think it's right for rich people (the people that control the government) to steal from other rich people and give it to the poor?

Yea there’s definitely a lot of good things about capitalism, but it needs to be updated. Corruption is a problem and we shouldn’t do away with the whole concept but there’s got to be a limit to a person almost becoming a trillionnaire and factory workers Makena by 10 bucks an hour (Amazon).

yea and thats why i support socialism because the state takes measures to make the capitol distributed fairly.

It would be a great idea, but not everyone can grow everything themselves, so someone else can get it done.

We can use gold or cryptocurrency or goods as money.

Ugh.... i hate to break it to you but there are a lot of different types of governments, economies, corporations and cultures destroying the planet right now. I have not seen a perfect system to date.

> Personally I am an anarcho-syndicalist

Question: How do you plan on dealing with us An-Caps?

Stop voting for Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are compromised. Not gonna happen in my life tho.

There are other issues to combat as well, such as peak-elements (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to name the main ones) - rare earth depletion - water pollution (physical, chemical and radiological (thanks Fukushima)), air pollution, faunal and floral retreat/extinction.

Oil dependency (even if we had a water powered car - what do you make roads from? Or plastics?)

Economic serfdom (2 jobs still isn't enough)

The education system is just... wrong. The healthcare system and the pharmacological industry are just... wrong.

Politics is a farce. The social aid system rewards weakness...

The disease burden on the next generation from all the illness that will present in those alive currently will probably lead to legalized euthanasia (perhaps even without consent of the euthanized).

Money itself is flawed, religion has become corrupted, atheism has been hijacked by eugenics minded scientific fundamentalists.

What else...

Good reply, thanks!

Solutions thinking is how we get out of this mess.

I reckon the solutions start with better collective effort. I'm gov agnostic - it's just another provider of services, albeit one that stupidly wants a monopoly. For those out there who think collective effort and gov are the same thing - whoopty doo. We know humans achieve more collectively. We all know this. Call it whatever you want. How we work collectively so that we are optimizing our potential and minimizing our coercion is the first challenge.

So if we're gonna work together we'll need is record keeping that's robust against tampering and destruction. That means it has to be distributed. That means it has to have some sort of validation built in. Blockchain or a similar kind of tech that self-validates upon each mutation works here.

A distributed system implies the necessity of a communication network. Ideally something adhoc where the local nodes can be easily spun up, and the burden of creating a grid could be pushed on to the people to do.

So right from the start a robust solution would need some sort of ad-hoc communication system and record keeping. Efforts to do the ad-hoc networking stuff have been stymied if you follow the space. The tech exists but it's had adoption issues and the projects all seem to have short lifespans. Read into that how you will. Areas to look into are byzantium, or similar ad-hoc networking solutions.

Once we solve the record keeping problem (and its spin off, the communications grid), the next thing we're gonna need is a framework for creating rules that we all agree on. The system of governance. These rules can be stored in our aforementioned record keeping system. The "rules management system" would have to be done in a way that's amenable to managing system mutation. Every time a rule is added, it would need corresponding tests/metrics to ensure it's doing what it's supposed to be doing. It would need to be something that could be modelled and projected in some predictable way. Rules would need to be able to be rolled-back if they suck at doing what they're designed to. Ideally the design of this would, like the record keeping system, be append only, as this facilitates better testing/versioning as the system rules change over time. Pardon me if I'm drilling down too much.

The other thing about the rules system is that people need to wake up to the reality that they're not all going to agree on what rules they'd want. There are a spectrum of systems that people would want. So we should design for that because it will remove one of the biggest complaints about gov - that it is coercive. If people could self-select to the gov they wanted, they couldn't really use the coercion argument, as they would have self-selected. So anyway, we'd need a spectrum of systems each with their own rules. And when you added new rules, you'd want to include the ability of the people managed under those rules to fork their gov. Gov would be something you'd vote for with your feet, so to speak, if you enabled a spectrum of it. This is the same ratchet for improvement as the market ratchet.

To ensure that you're not going overboard with the spectrum of govs, you'd want to view gov as a provider of services. A contract for a specific service between the provider and the consumer would be created. That would be self-selective too. If you don't want this service on your government burger, don't opt in to it. And it would be a two-way contract with responsibilities on both sides. If the service provider decided you weren't meeting your side of things, they could bounce you. This is a better model, and a more responsive one to fraud,abuse,etc. than a single one-size-fits-all design that people tend to currently stupidly argue about with each other all the time, to no useful end. Fuck all that noise. Move to a gov burger model and that shit all goes away.

These are some of my ideas on how to move forward.

Is it wrong of me to think we could self govern within communities?

Not at all. Just know that this doesn't really solve the how things develop problem. It's easy to spin up version 1 of anything. Version 2, the same. You have no problems when the domain is simple, either because you've got consensus, or because you have small scale. As you grow this gets all fucked up.

Communities work but they don't scale their gov that well. This always seems to progress towards fascism/conformity. There are predictable reasons for this, and it doesn't always have to be this way, but it seems to be our general pattern. To avoid making this mistake the general public would have to be educated on how the machine of rules evolves over time if its done a certain way, such as hierarchically/hero-driven.

All of this shit is predictable, but people are fucking ignorant and the media perpetuates "bad language" (ie. bad models) to keep us all in constant disagreement. So we're stuck here unable to work together while these asshole parasites distract and push endless war. An effort to educate people on design patterns and systems design in general would help loads.

If money was traceable, that would seem to help a lot.

If there was only bartering we wouldn't have fancy money schemes perpetrated against us to keep us poor.

Collapse of the current economic system globally..

We need justice. Our justice system is corrupt. Everyone knows these things are wrong and people blatantly do them out in the open with no repercussion. Those at the top or those who are enforcing or creating the law are given a golden pass to do whatever they want. Our jails are half way filled with substance abusers. The majority of our institution that maintains law and order are comprised of people that were getting high. We don’t need violence, or a revolution or a coup. We need to fix our justice system so that there are consequences for people that break the law.

Micro nations!

I am serious! Have you ever heard of Liberland?

Definitely look into it. If enough of us do this on a large scale and ally with each other then we can legitimize ourselves under international law. A big middle finger to the big countries.

Yeah! They have a website that lays it all out. It's https://liberland.org/en/main/. I think we are only going to start seeing more and more of these popping up. People are waking up to their slavery.

Reduce the amount of power the state (government) has over the individual. Stop crony capitalism and allow free market.

Child abuse, I think, is the number one cause of trauma on the planet. The resulting addictions, violence, instability, broken families etc that stem from it are reach every person on the planet and rarely in a good way. Teaching young and old about appropriateness, being vigilant with adults in care of kids, a system that quickly and caringly address events, and identifying abusers soon and restricting their access. The church issues come to mind. Also having a more open dialogue for anyone affected to talk and heal.

I could go on.

Cheers. Always love to hear what good folks are actually doing. Tip of the hat to you.

I replied to the link below. May give more insight of me. The struggle is big. I loved you asking for solutions. Still resonating. I'm allonthesameteam. Send thoughts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/91e6xy/this_is_really_upsetting_me/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Wow. Tough situation. Are you managing? Safe?

The purpose and action part of this is what I have been missing. Follow your bliss/

Agreed. It was a grandparent in our family. I hope that the raised awareness will help everyone better see the signs or have dialogue around it. Many are in your corner.

There is a post recently about "How to deal with abuse on a local level" Thought you could check it out and share your thoughts. Could msg directly. It's a circle.

It was this aft. Scroll down. It's titled like I wrote.

Yes this is a big issue. As well, we need to wake up and realise many subtle practices like psychological abuse, over-vaccination, and circumcision are very harmful to children.

And we should treat all humans, adults and children alike, with respect. We seem to have forgotten this.

I agree with you up until the last line. "We seem to have forgotten this". I was listening to a speaker on the radio about University sexual assaults. One of the numbers she came up with was that 4% of the men are responsible for 91% of the issues around this. Women do have a role in this as well and it is a growing concern. My belief is that most of us, and if I run with her numbers around 94 or 95% of men conduct themselves in a way that is grounded in not being "that guy". The range of how much we "treat all humans, adults and children alike, with respect" varies from a high degree of concern, care and empathy to little of all three. When i see many of the actions taken, or given, around war, violence, theft (public and private), deceit, etc it's my perception that most of the egregious examples are done by a very small faction of society. A grand number of us are living in respect and care but the message we get over,and over, and over is that it's a big bad world out there. Most of this message is relayed by those 4%ers who want us living and fear and a false sense that we need them to protect us. they are causing, profiting and existing on this.

Just with what you wrote in a few short lines, tells me that you, as one, are not THEM. We are the majority. Keep faith that this mode of care, concern, and support will be what grows through this and us. We, together are on it.

Somehow i need 500 trillion, maybe a quadrillion, to set up a global network for info and recruitment, develop the isolated islands on the 3 oceans to creates bases and resources. Spend a good half of the budget on military equipments especially drones and use the remaining budget on research and development for the next tech.

America needs a Department of Digital Defense, devoted exclusively to cybersecurity. It should be located on the west coast and it should provide better-than-top-dollar salaries -- it should be the place that the best software engineers and computer experts in the northwest and the Silicon Valley aspire to work at. When it comes to computers, America already has the best and brightest minds in the world -- we should tap that resource to protect our way of life from external forces that are even now using technology against us.

I have an idea of a way to change things without voting or changing any laws.

I'll try and keep it short,

To me a monopoly of entry to access land is a key issue we face. If we are to be free and ever have a free market then we may want to rethink the way we hold and access land.

This idea of "ownership" of land is dissonant at best, you never truly own the land, perhaps quite the opposite. Therefore, why does the average person work a 9-5 for 30 years to own a piece of property only to retire by that time and spend less than 30 years enjoying this?

Here's the deal, we re-organize the way we hold and transfer land. Long term lease, from a local non-profit that holds the the titles in perpetuity. Each property and leasee would have a long term transferable lease at low cost. taxes, insurance and a small donation to the non-profit each month. Think 200-400 a month for any particular place.

These profit would be used to purchase more land and find productive stewards. As long as the potential steward can present a plan to utilize each property and provide something of benefit to the community. As time goes on, in each little area or town, eventually there wouldn't be much need for more land and the non-profit could then use the monthly donations to provide solar, fix road, actually pay the EMT's and firefighters. Basically making the local town council obsolete.

Yes, I know it would require a huge shift in the way we view land and property but I've looked at the numbers and if your costs are always low, you end up generating more savings that are additional productive capacity and in the end its a better deal.

Yea, totally. But structured in a bottom up manner, smaller regional individual non-profits that come together online to form a resource base of contracts and best practices.

The ownership structure would be a non-profit that is the beneficiary of a bunch of individual land trusts for each property. The lessee is the trustee. They can never monetize the actual property and thus helping to reduce the property bubbles and keep costs low over the long term.

DM me I have the non-profit setup. Had an issue with a family contract that I didn't feel the need to have signed. Well, as I was about to pay the property off and transfer it to the non-profit they took me to court and well I am still licking my wounds a bit. Be happy to shoot ya to the website. I think next year I will hire a couple grant writers and get back at it.

The grant money will be used to purchase property and then lease it back to individuals, businesses, coops.

Well the challenge is purchasing the first few properties and finding suitable people to be the front runners.

I feel that we need to know the whole, unedited situation before we can really fix what is broken. For that, we need information. We need to know what in the fuck is going on. And how do we do that? Peaceful march on DC. We'd need to invite just about every group that has some spoons in the game. We'd have to march there and sit until we get all of the info. We still have the ability to influence how things happen, but it feels like that's rapidly being taken away from us. And, when we do get the info we want, we need to be prepared for it to potentially be /very/ bad. We're going to hear about things we don't wanna hear about, but we need to; we need to be aware of what's what's broken before we fix it.

What are the most disarming, direct, and dismantling questions we can ask? What are the things that the government REALLY doesn't want to talk about; the stuff that gets us to the heart of the matter. Like, where are the missing 22 trillion dollars? Why have so many patents been suppressed or made classified? Why is there so much stuff flying around in the sky? I figure we need everything on the UFO file, and where all of this intense, deep 'national security' BS comes from.

I do. I don't believe that one big 'fix all' solution is going to happen or is even possible. It's going to take lots of people making individual change. And it's slowly happening, this whole cooked situation isn't going to be fixed over night. Arguably the issue is that people have given away their sense of personal responsibility, and waiting for a solution to all the issues is just continuing that.

Be the change you want to see. Stop consuming unnecessarily. Stop trying to live as large as you can. Be nicer to people. Don't not talk about the problems of the world cause you're afraid people are going to judge you or think you're crazy. It's not going to be an overnight change that someone else does for you. We've all gotta do it. And it's really simple. Just change how you act in society and towards people.

I think we should start by NOT electing people anymore into the government because all they do is fail us.

Small, sustainable, incremental improvements are the ones most likely to succeed, given our overall level of success.

Yes many things need improvement, but WAY more things are working well than we realise.

Our biggest challenge is actually a psychological one. How do people find and maintain a meaningful life in a complex modern society? Humans are not designed for the environment in which most of us currently live.

Transparency. That would fix most political issues anyway.

cheers mate.

"all" is a good way to start a username ;)

We live in a system where you HAVE to work. You dont have a choice or you are homeless and starve.

You of course do have to work because it is your responsibility to take care of yourself once you are able to. It is not someone else's responsibility to pay your bills.

In Capitalism, you would have a variety of options to work for someone.

You are not a free worker if you are working for the owners of a business.

You are free because you voluntary choose to work there.

The idea you are arguing for is something Abraham Lincoln argued against. You are not a free worker if you are working for the owners of a business. In fact Abraham Lincoln called this wage slavery because it evolved from renting slaves.

They believed that wage workers were "neither wronged nor oppressed".[30] Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans argued that the condition of wage workers was different from slavery as laborers were likely to have the opportunity to work for themselves in the future, achieving self-employment. Source

You say that these investors take risks but we know that isnt true.

That is true. They took a risk to start the business.

Anytime there is an economic crisis the rich people who engineered it get off fine, even richer than before in most cases while the poor suffer all the real consequences. Look at 2008 those bankers who took all that risk you talk about got bailed out to the tune of $800b and then another $2t. If the system worked like you think it should they would all be bankrupt and out of business

That's part of central banking. Banks shouldn't be the ones that can only print the money and continue to print more and keep it for themselves.

The bankers shouldn't have that much power in the first place to control us financially.

yea and thats why i support socialism because the state takes measures to make the capitol distributed fairly.

Let's keep politics out of politics.. What?