Message from @halfthink
Discord ID: 545678057982132239
There needs to be room for mistakes
there is, as I said we have failsafes
i figure you didn't, but the policies required to enact such a church-state equilibrium will inherently lead to corruption. just because you are a church leader, doesn't mean you are infallible.
gun rights, church collaboration preventing outrageous policy making by dictator, and volkish principle ensuring all policy is made for benefit of race
Ima keep watching the convo see where it goes but this is interesting
Well imo the way to temper corruption is to create a new aristocracy and status incentive system based on honor. So the money demand minimization aspect is a big part of this. We lower money demand to sufficient levels to ensure plutocrats have no power, then afterwards replace the current so called "nobility" with a real one based on intellectual, moral, and militaristic merit. People who actually sacrifice for their country, and who are loyal to God and morals.
After this we can work on corruption by creating system wide eugenics policies
which I believe would improve moral predisposition of the race in general in a few generations, so it would only take really one or two generations of rulers
~50 years according to experts in the field such as Richard Lynn
Well thats not how evolution works tho or humanity. Things change incredibly fast. Even japan isnt japan anymore.
We need chaos to strive
hence racial homogeneity projects
no, chaos is what leads to globo homo and nightmarish shitholes
It leads to an attempt to establish order
Also mutations within race happen
You cannot keep a race pure even in an ethnostate
not really, the absolute variation has a cap which can be measured
we don't need 100% purity
Enviroments change as well. Mutations will happen
And much like the japanese leaving the chinese youll have a similiar scenario
mutations wont be bred in in modern environments though, because we consciously also effect our own evolution via technology and society
i'm assuming when you say 'race', you are referring to what you previously mentioned as the members of 'country'.
Let's be clear. Rick people should not have NO power. In government, they should have just as much power as everyone else when it comes to enacting social policies. Rich people, at the same time, should not have to sacrifice their wealth simply because they make way more money than the average person.
Reducing money demand to a degree may be beneficial... maybe... but don't forget that the demand for people to become successful pushes the society as a whole up economically. Progress requires a bit of greed.
Is why mental illness is rampant?
I dont wanna dog pile. Ill step out and watch
@Aero which is why the economic constraints should be at the very upper echelons of top wealth
for example 1 billion, nobody needs more than that for luxuries, after that it just purchases power
99.99% wont get there anyways, so it wont have any effect on profit motive
How do you prevent the state and the church from becoming corrupt and colluding with the rich?
by lowering money demand to be almost nothing
In order to tax the super rich, who have already proven they know how to manage money at least relatively well, a ridiculously high tax, we'd need a way to ensure that the government would use this money in a better way than said rich person.
@Aero no taxation, we would simply impose wealth constraint
anything gained after a certain point is subject to nationalization, and the number is calculated relative to the economic conditions to scale
What do you mean by "lowering money demand"
While i may be inclined to agree with slightly lowering the demand for money, it still leaves the economic growth of the hypothetical country astray.
when you create deflation in an economy with a production based currency, the more you produce the more the living standards rise, because currency is valued at the rate at which we produce things in aggregate, therefore production will then lower money demand and create deflation (increase in purchasing power of money)
so the prices of goods become cheaper, and the barriers to luxury items and in general good living will be lower
@halfthink these are all hypotheticals. i think of it as basically just making people need money less to survive.
@Aero why do you say so?
So, do you mean reduce the quantity of money?
Also the biggest problem is that when you go the deflation route, your competing againts the whole world