That's not a rumour... it's why we had Gadaffi killed and burned Libya sent back to the stone age. It would've removed a lot of French and American influence over their own monetary policies, as a lot of their trade is done in US dollars and French francs. Gadaffi happened to be proposing a gold-based currency as Africa has a lot of gold, but a fiat currency probably would've had the same political consequence for him.

Pure conspiracy theory, there's TONS of countries without a Rothchilds owned central bank, and we aren't enemies with all of them.

[s]Afghanistan[/s]

[s]Iraq[/s]

[s]Sudan[/s]

[s]Libya[/s]

Cuba

North Korea

Iran

See? We've got great relations with Cuba now.

China and Japan have a Rothchilds owned central bank?

Now, before you accuse me of being "contra anything social", let's get this right. I'm perfectly OK with helping someone who is, without being responsible for it, poor, needy, in trouble. No question about that. You lose an arm and a leg and cannot work? I'll be happy to pay for your life (while being happy that I still have both arms and legs). You need to go to hospital because [some undeserved illness that I wouldn't want to have]? Same thing. I'm happy to pay.

But if you are in trouble solely because you didn't care to work (save, prevent, provide...), then well... go die, sucker. You deserve what you get.

Oh, come on. How prevalent is this, really? Nobody has yet posted any numbers that would prove that this is actually a real problem, and not just arm-waving intended to justify cutting away social safety nets.

This is indeed a really strange worldview, where one imagines *millions* of slackers living off his hard-earned tax dollars. Don't really know how widespread this worldview is, but it seems to be in the US, from what I'm seeing.

One would also wonder if, in such a moral view, the "go die, sucker", extends to the children of the "slacker", who haven't done anything, as children, to deserve any kind of fate, really, better or worse than any other child. Unless you subscribe to the view that children are literal appendages of the parents, and if the adult doesn't take care of his appendages...why should anyone.

There is good points on both sides, taking one extreme position is what I think is wrong.

The simple reason most sane governments are moving toward centrist positions is because its the only and real progressive state (in the long term) a government can have (it can stand the test of time, ---: others ideologies are short termist and eventually break down)

Extreme leftist -> socialism -> communism: Encourages loopholes that allow lazy people to ride on the back of the hardworking and skilled people. And this is evil

Extreme right -> brutal capitalism (example US): breeds severe exploitation (desperate poor people don't have a choice- accept the slavery terms and conditions or starve to death) and huge divide/gap between the rich and the poor. Example; NY, LA, Seattle... billionaires living side by side with homeless, destitute people. Results in 5% owning 95% of wealth: Also evil

Capitalist style competition is good and needed -> without competition there can be no development. A stale society will end being a depressed society (EX North Korea)

safety net welfare is good and needed, particularly because no government can prove it has a 100% employment capacity and capability

Means testing grants to the disadvantaged and poor is good and needed because it is a fact of life that many generations are trap in poverty cycle and only extreme good luck (happens but very rare) can break the cycle

Model of my Utopian society:

1. Children all over the world would be UN special citizens until they turn 18, then the special status is removed. As UN special citizens they are automatically entitled to free education, free health care, food, water, computer, internet, warm home to sleep at and with job or token business grant when they turn 18. This would ensure no one starts life with a disadvantage and no one is trapped in a poverty cycle

2. All signatory countries (under UN rule) would only be able to have tweaks democratically elected centrist governments-> centre, centre-right or centre-left : thus there would be continuity of the model and no government would be able to derail it overnight

3. Extreme religious practices banned

Flaws

-To enforce - would require some kind of dictatorship from the UN

-Defining the line where extreme religious practices begin is difficult

1. Children all over the world would be UN special citizens until they turn 18, then the special status is removed. As UN special citizens they are automatically entitled to free education, free health care, food, water, computer, internet, warm home to sleep at and with job or token business grant when they turn 18. This would ensure no one starts life with a disadvantage and no one is trapped in a poverty cycle

I think many would call this position very "leftist" and not centrist at all. Do you *see* any centrist parties proposing something even resembling this? It's not socialism per se, but a very strong global social welfare for children under 18(which would be very bad news for many people that do still employ them around the world, cough cough). Of course I would be very much in favour of a "Global Constitution" that dictates society has an *obligation* to feed all of its children and not leave them to their fate, according to their parents' talent of making money. But I would have to wonder how all of these basic needs you mention would be covered only for the children and not for the whole family, including the adult parents. How would you seperate them?

Does anyone know anything about Universal Basic Income? In an industrialized nation such as the UK, Canada, or Australia, would it help your economy or send inflation toward the stratosphere?

I'm gonna take that as a no, then....

I think many would call this position very "leftist" and not centrist at all. Do you *see* any centrist parties proposing something even resembling this? It's not socialism per se, but a very strong global social welfare for children under 18

The objective here is to ensure no one 's fate is fixed to the (lack of) wealth of their family - in other words every one starts at a level-playing-field, ie no poverty trap. Why should a potentially hard working, talented young person's life be stifled because (s)he is born in to a circumstance they have no control over? I know the perception seems leftist, but people need to be educated that this is rather centrist

A leftist (or an extreme leftist) objective takes this (or a form of it) all the way to adulthood

A right-wing (or extreme right-wing) doesn't give a damn what poverty you born into , its always the person's fault. "Take responsibility for your life and stop depending on the government" they often shout. True to some extent, but when you are a child growing up in extreme poverty, you can't take any responsibility - you only go where the wind blows you. And this defines the rest of your life. That can't be right

But I would have to wonder how all of these basic needs you mention would be covered only for the children and not for the whole family, including the adult parents. How would you seperate them?

Technology: Registration of children at birth and specific vouchers issued to them throughout their youth

But I would have to wonder how all of these basic needs you mention would be covered only for the children and not for the whole family, including the adult parents. How would you seperate them?

Technology: Registration of children at birth and specific vouchers issued to them throughout their youth

But how would you ensure some quality of housing/water/heat/internet for the children and not for the whole family? The children wouldn't live with their parents? You would put the children of poor parents in institutions, akin to orphanages, where they would get the housing/water/heat/internet there?

But how would you ensure some quality of housing/water/heat/internet for the children and not for the whole family? The children wouldn't live with their parents? You would put the children of poor parents in institutions, akin to orphanages, where they would get the housing/water/heat/internet there?

Agreed it would very difficult separating a child use of certain facilities from the rest of the adult family particularly if the home country has inadequate/poor housing, poor infrastructure, then providing basic needs for the children means providing basic need for the adults. Perhaps another minor flaw in this model but can be fixed

On the other hand this can still partially work: Vouchers are restricted to specific purchases so that ensure (to some extent) that the voucher are spent mainly for the needs of the children. And if the model of child benefits (as it is in the uk and most western countries) is adhered to then this would fulfilled up to 70% of its original objectives

Now, before you accuse me of being "contra anything social", let's get this right. I'm perfectly OK with helping someone who is, without being responsible for it, poor, needy, in trouble. No question about that. You lose an arm and a leg and cannot work? I'll be happy to pay for your life (while being happy that I still have both arms and legs). You need to go to hospital because [some undeserved illness that I wouldn't want to have]? Same thing. I'm happy to pay.

But if you are in trouble solely because you didn't care to work (save, prevent, provide...), then well... go die, sucker. You deserve what you get.

Oh, come on. How prevalent is this, really? Nobody has yet posted any numbers that would prove that this is actually a real problem, and not just arm-waving intended to justify cutting away social safety nets.

I think people are being pretty narrow on this point.

John decides at 16 he doesn't like studying, it is boring for him but hes a pretty handy guy and decides on a whim to apply to several entry level government position including the role of London underground tube driver which he gets.

The average salary for this is £50,000.

John works this job for 25 years and in this time doesn't learn any other commercial skills because, primarily, he couldn't be arsed.

Now the day comes along that the tubes are being automated and he is made redundant (q several years of strike action)

John has no other skills that can earn the same money and can no longer afford the repayments on his mortgage.

John was in a very fortunate position for many years but didnt plan/save/capitalise on his fortune, he took the path of least resistance, he is lazy.

This is a pretty common example of the kinds of people who end up on large benefits / welfare.

When i was at university in northern ireland (about 10 years ago now) there was a general consensus that when you finished university you were more or less entitled to welfare for the following year because you have "earned it" or at the least could piss about at their parents house until they could bothered to utilise their degree. Even people with a degree in physics. Because of this lazy streak they found it hard to find a job because they couldn't account to their potential employers why they hadn't been working.

So, while there are very few people who don't want to work at all there are many many people who make stupid lazy decisions which affects them down the road. Rather than facing their problems head on and accepting responsibility they blame the government and claim they want to work but are struggling to find a suitable job (possibly degree holding and thus feel entitled to something meaningful).

People drink, gamble and slob their way into unemployment without taking responsibility along the way. It isn't a 1 dimensional "I don't want to work" case but its just as bad imo. Some people work their ass off for decades to drag their ass out of poverty.

.

I guess my point is that simply saying "I want to work" doesn't cut it anymore, anyone can say that at any moment, you have to demonstrate continuously your desire to contribute meaningfully. Not just in a single instant when pushed to the wall.

Currently i'm ploughing through Khan Academy calculus because my maths isn't good enough even though i already have a well paid job as a software engineer.