usmbguest5318
Gold Member
I improved my theories,I really want everyone read it slowly,give me your advice,it is w
slowlyRepost for folks who need some semblance of formatting and paragraphs if they are going to read that much.
I haven't read it yet, so I'm hoping my effort is worth it.....
I had got two conclusions about wealth. I think they are very useful.
Generally, the social wealth contains: money, materials, knowledge, skill and the capacity for innovation. The ability of one person is no match to a society, so the majority wealth of a society must be created by the majority people in the long run. Many stories have told the power of money ,the power is so great that it can build our home beautiful, it also can bring countless sin and make our home become a hell. The minorities occupying the majority wealth is illegal, there must be some wrong law.The illegal wealth must be used to illegal things, so the society will go back.
- ,If the wealth of the society belongs to the minorities, The society will regress. The speed of regression is about to the degrees of wealth concentration. If the wealth belong to the majorities, the society will go forward.
- The wealth of the society will increase exponentially when the society have fairness and justness, the exponent is decided by the level of social justice and social fairness. It means the whole wealth today will be nothing comparing to the whole wealth tomorrow in a society with fairness and justness.
We can see a society as a tower, the height that a tower can reach is determined the foundation, and the direction is vertical or not. For a society, its height is determined by its fairness and justice. You also can see a society as a boat, whether its structure is strong enough, or its direction is right or not, determines the destination. Actually our earth is a boat.
These two conclusions mean many things. They can explain almost all country's problems, not only for a single country ,but for the global problems, such as the problems of globalization, and it's probably to analyze current policy and predict the results.
Today the world affairs are disorder; There are any anxious caused by the uncertain of tomorrow. I think this phenomenon does not exist only for today, but for a long time. Can we solve these problems? If we have a method. the method must needs everyone participate and everyone's contribution.
I believe it's time to design the future, design the people's relationships, design the country's relationships, design the future life. and figure out when it is better to compete, and when it is better to cooperate. These things can be doing well if everyone participate.
Human actions should not only obey to ourselves ,but also obey to God. The Buddha tell us how to escape from the Hell, God tell us how to get to the Heaven. God guide us.
The future should be decided by majorities not by minorities. So the future policy should be voted, and I think it's fifty percent of voting rights should belong to God. Think about if everyone want a clone slave, can we agree to that, No ,God would not agree. I believe God is right.
We could build three website: one for politics and voting it; one to predict the future life and technology; one just vote concepts and whether take action. the name could be "designforfuture", "predictforfuture", "voteforfuture"。Maybe someone can do it.
I have no vision about politics and policy.I want to talk about future technology and life.My ideal career is to be a electronic engineer,I am a Chinese.There is a big problem with china's education,and I was trapped by it.Just like one president's father said if you can't success,you will be crash down,but things should not be like that.
Steve Jobs is my favorite people.Before knowing Steve Jobs I know Apple.Its name is so particular,apple is very delicious,and there are many apple trees in my home.
Some times I want to be a person like Jobs.I think there are many people just like me in the world,can we create a Apple.Now I have a plan:"One thousand Apples". A plan just for a country with fairness and justice.
Can we create one thousand companies like Apple. Even one is impossible, how it is possible for one thousand Apples. No matter what ,now it's our purpose.
First: we don't know who will do the efforts. so we should invite everyone participate. everyone is our employees.
Second: if we success, The companies should belong to everyone. The whole country owned these companies. the profit should be used to public service.
Third: The key to success must be innovation, what is about to the innovation? China have countless money ,but there is no innovation. I think the key is to combine our intelligence together. Only fairness and justice can combine our intelligence together. Why money does not work this time, One explanation is today's whole wealth comparing to tomorrow's is nothing. it proves the second conclusion about wealth.
Fourth: What is the tactic .When I was young I saw some phrases:"Productivity decides relations of production", "state-owned company can't compare to private company". I was confused, I thought there was something wrong, but I did not know what it is. Now I want to express my view:
Think about, everyone want a UFO flying machine. If one company can realize it. The manufacturer will make big money. But How much time it will take? hundreds of years later? and if one day one company realize it, I think the most efforts come from others. Because the project is so big, it needs thousands of thousands innovations. Any single private company has no ability to do it, No matter how many private companies there are, if they do not combined together, they will never make the concept to completion. actually they are doing what they can't. no private company can finish such a huge project. No matter how many snakes there are, they can't swallow a elephant.
If you put your future life on several private companies, perhaps you will be disappointed, and there is a horrible theory in china: Some financial oligarchs and consortium are going to control the world by control the whole world wealth. If it is true. they must push the most prominent technology company's stock price up and control the companies, so they can control the future technology. Someone said it is a conspiracy theory. I don't know, my window is too small. My point is that if you are anxious about your future, it means you fate is not decided by yourself and your friends, probably controlled by others who are not you friends, so you can think the theory is right.
I think only the real state-owned company can bring us the future ,and no company can match to the real state-company. One example is the Apollo Moon-landing Project. There is no company can beat Russia's space plan except the Apollo Moon-landing Project, it is a combined of all companies and all engineers. I think it is a real state-owned company, and it is undefeatable, even though it exists very little time. I believe Russian's state-owned company is not real state-owned company.
Even now I heard Apple still have patent issues, it means the problem is difficult, if the patent issues will be more and more in future. How to settle it .Maybe the state-owned company can work it out.(I heard that America's Big companies is state-owned company, they must sell their stocks to people. I know little about this).Here is an another problem, many future technology are too powerful to be controlled by private company, state-owned company can solve this problem. Just like American new weapon research system, It should be controlled by the whole country. it's also a kind of state-owned company, Put this method to business may bring huge success! linux can be one example.
So I think the one thousand Apples should be state-owned company.
Certainly, the society should reward the contributor. the contributor can be a private company or a single person. the profit of state-owned company should be used to public service.
I have got many theories about future technology and life. But I think this part is most useful. I am glad if anyone can give me advice or spread it.
First -- Your essay was much easier to read once it was formatted.
Second -- Kudos to you for having the courage to share your thoughts and ask for input about them.
Third -- I wish my Mandarin (which is more accurately described as "poorly spoken pinyin that is good enough to go to order food in restaurants, have limited conversations in bars and clubs, and to shop in stores." To my chagrin, I understand no Hanzi other than 大 and 谢谢, and I can't write thank you. Would that my pinyin even were even half as good as your English, I would be most pleased. If my remarks at times send you to the dictionary, please accept my apology for that. I have tried to respond to you without using colloquialisms that are best understood if one is familiar with American English and culture. I've done that because I don't know whether you are.
Now to my thoughts about your ideas. At a high level, I see you have have a strong preference for command economies and for the social idealism of communism. I would like to keep the two concepts, along with socialism, separate for this discussion because:
Let me write first about my thoughts on communism. Overall, I see communism's objectives -- equity in equal measure according to one's self-asserted and uncontested need -- as a fine thing. What's not to like? If one expresses a need for "whatever," it shall be made available to one, whereas those who don't, for whatever reason, express the same need will not have that thing made available to them. Ironically, carrying that notion to its rational end seems in my mind to lead to democracy.
- Your ideas include elements of collaborativeness in both social and enterprising dimensions. Such ideas are inextricably consistent with the ideal communism aims to achieve, but they may or may not be found in conjunction with command economies.
- Your ideas include notions of governmental control and direct, overt participation in enterprise and innovation. These notions are necessarily a part of a command economy, but they are are wholly inconsistent with the final outcome communism seeks for 100% communism would exist without a formally organized government; there would be be no thing called "the state." That must be so because the mutually and equally beneficial to all collective communism aims to effect cannot exist in its end-state and also have a subset of the whole be the decision makers for the rest of the whole.
Although I find appealing communism's social objectives, I do not see existing, or able to exist, any implementable means of achieving it. The obstacle being human nature. We can via acculturation attenuate some, perhaps many, aspects of our animal nature; however, it cannot be removed entirely. Competitiveness and covetousness, are simply incompatible with communism, yet they are human traits that I know of no way to eliminate. Because those traits cannot be extinguished, communism, and the collective beneficence it seeks as its end, remains consigned to goal status, never becoming an achievement.
I see other practical and likely insurmountable obstacles to humanity's achieving a state of being whereby we all harmoniously coexist. One of those things is the notion that communism can exist as large scale system under which everyone lives. I should think as a Chinese you would see this. Consider, for example, the currently expressed needs of individuals, families, villages, cities and regions within China. Surely the needs of people Xinjiang, Tibet, Lan Zhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, for example, differ greatly and yet also have similarities. In some ways, the differences are of no matter and each group's differing needs can be met. On other matters, however, the needs of one group may be fully incompatible with those of another or several. Now, that dilemma can be addressed by the utilitarian model you identified at your post's outset; however, upon applying that model, egalitarian communism is lost.
While there are other aspects of communism of which I might share my discontent, I'd like to move briefly to the notion of a command economy. I don't often discuss command economics with Chinese people, largely because when I have tried, they profess to being apolitical and don't want to discuss it. So I don't. Are you comfortable discussing command economics?
For now I'll share that it makes sense to me why China would have a command economy, at least late 20th and early 21st century. From what I've been told about the general composition of the populace, it'd have been absurd to run things any other way. I share that only as prelude to any further discussion on the matter and so that you are aware that I applaud the wisdom of not implementing a parliamentary, republican or democratic system in the PRC. I think that would have led to domestic disaster, or at the very least stagnation. So, anyway, you at least have a sense of where my mind is with regard to China and its use of the command model.
I'm going to stop there for now because the topics under discussion are far reaching and need greater focus. It's your thread, so I shall let you provide the focus.
Please read my improved theories slowly ,it works perfect.it worth for everyone to read.and thank you.
I should hope you are not serious, yet I know you are. Let me be clear....I reformatted your original post so I could read it easily and then I read it, thought about it and commented on it. Now, you've revised your ideas and you want me to read your new propositions. I have to tell you that it'll be quite a while before I read your revised ideas as presented in your new thread. If you are willing to share how the views you expressed in this thread's OP have changed, I'll read that, but what I'm not going to do is start anew by reading and considering a completely different exposition that is on the same topic, but that differs somehow. So if that's what you insist on, and I bear you no malice if you do, I must respectfully withdraw from the conversation.
