Which theory(ies) do you think should be given another shot?

Whether it's political, or economic, which theory do you think was not been given a fair shake by history and should be given a second chance?

:popcorn:

and electing idiot coke fiend alcoholic cheerleaders to be president of the New eye ted States.

The captialists of the world had it strangled in the cradle because it threatened to redistribute wealth downwards. The whole Chicago School is in a sense a reaction against the ideas of old John Maynard Keynes, one of the great geniuses of the 20th Century.

It was the first thought I had, but I wasn't as quick on the draw as you. :)

sw

My mother dropped me on my head. What's your excuse?

:smoke:

sw

But I'm not sure.

And, you are spot on in your conclusions. I know lots of the ChiSchool folks. It's unbelievable how much clout they've got given that most of the theories that have eminated from them have become provably wrong.
The Professor

:thumbsup:

It's been proven several times over to be a great way to transition from either a colonial or aristocratic oligarchy through a party oligarchy and finally to a mixed economy, usually with some sort of a democratically chosen government.

It's just not a valid system for the long haul. No pure system is. However, within a couple of generations, it generally manages to destroy the old oligarchy while allowing enough democracy to give people a feel for it.

But the idea had crossed my mind. I just never knew it had crossed anybody else's mind.

It would be interesting to see in a modern setting.

That'd come in real handy about now.

employee ownership of corporations, and a flat-tax rate that exempts the first $35,000 of income.

if the exemption is $35,000 per taxpayer, the closer your income is to 35K, the less of a percentage of your income ends up being taxed. it may also be that 35K is too low a number, and it should be closer to 50K.

say the flat tax is 20% of all income over 40K (just to use round numbers- the actual numbers may be very different)

if someone make 50K, they pay 20% of 10K, or $2000, or a 4% overall tax rate, if you look at total income.
someone making 100K, pays 20% of 60K or $12,000 for an overall tax rate of 12%
someone making 200K pays 20% of 160K, or $32,000 for an overall tax rate of 16%

and as i said- these numbers are only for demonstration sake- the actual exemption amount and flat rate might be very different.

Just decency towards all humans and the planet. If nothing else, non-participation in cruelty.

has it ever really existed for any period of time?

The theory that gravity will only no effect on those who have just run off a cliff until the realization sets in.

We've yet to give that a real chance. The rich white guy beta test was well received.

Who says Democracy is the best way to go? Look at how the U.S. Gov't. has managed to fuck everything up. Wouldn't you rather have just one person making the decisions?

I've been saying for almost a decade now that the American people have reached a level of collective ignorance that invalidates our Democracy.

I don't know about a benevolent dictator, but rule by an elite class perhaps. Something other than wealthy land-owners for a change.

:shrug:

The difficulty there, of course, is picking the correct "elite class."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

"In biology, the term epigenetics refers to heritable changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence (hence the name epi - "in addition to" - genetics). These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations."


>>Dutch "Hunger Winter"

The Dutch famine of 1944 (known as hongerwinter ("Hunger winter") in Dutch) was a famine that took place in the Netherlands during the winter of 1944-1945.

The well documented experience has allowed scientists to measure the effects of famine on human health.

The Dutch Famine Birth Cohort Study...found that the children of pregnant women exposed to famine were also more susceptible to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, microalbuminuria and other health problems...the children of the women who were pregnant during the famine were smaller, as expected.

However, surprisingly, when these children grew up and had children those children were also smaller than average.

This data suggested that the famine experienced by the mothers caused some kind of epigenetic changes that were passed down to the next generation.<<


To me, this is one of the most interesting areas of current research, & it may upend our current thinking in a lot of different areas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944

Fascinating.

Thank you for posting.

with lots of implications.

yet i've never seen anything in the popular media about it.

i first heard of it in grad school in the 90s, followed the research lit since.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

or google.

if you like to browse. i just found this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

from last year.

so i guess it's hit pbs's radar, should be coming into the msm soon, then.

Lots to look through. Thank you.

Would it be more helpful for the planet if we stopped growing taller and larger? Smaller and shorter people consume less, on average.

:shrug:

Not making a judgment on tall or large people, here, folks - just musing about consumption.

even though it is fundamentally opposed to Darwinist evolutionary theory (selection).

With our increasingly complicated picture of genes -- and how they can be "turned off" and "turned on" and passed to subsequent generations -- selection as the only means of evolution is now in question.

Peak Oil phenomenon, which was accurately predicted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory">Hubbert's peak theory has been borne out and proven time and time again yet most people who are told about it blow it off as bullshit. But, if it turns out to not be bullshit, you life, my life, the life of your children and grandchildren, will change in profound ways. And, some will die. It deserves serious, SERIOUS, consideration.

Countries past their peak in oil production:




Timeline:




Comic commentary:






Other:

... not to sound like an ass or anything, but are there any universities teaching this? Doing any research on this?

other parts of the world. Production profiles for countries already past peak demonstrate the premise over and over. As for university studies, I'll have to get back to you on that. In the meantime, there have been several studies by orgs and governments. A very careful study of the issue is necessary for one to see the entire picture, including understanding the many factors that effect production like investment and EROEI and skilled workers, etc. Most people take peak oil to mean that we are running out of oil. Not so. Peak oil is complicated but essentially it is the point at which the world produces as much oil as it ever will, followed by a decline in production. Every oil field that is depleted or in decline the world over has experienced its "peak". When extrapolated to include all oil fields present and future, the world itself will find a peak in oil production. The question is, when? That's why we need to have a more serious look at it. As far as anyone knows, oil is a finite resource and will eventually reach an EROEI of 1:1, at which point it will no longer be profitable to extract it. Right now estimates of current EROEI range from 4:1 to 8:1. 30:1 is considered good.

At any rate, this is an important issue to every last man, woman, and child alive today if it turns out to be a valid concern. That is why we must take it seriously and if it is found that we have no worries, we're none the worse for knowing. But if we don't act and find that it is an concern, BILLIONS will die. It's as simple as that.

I will look for study references from academic institutions. For now, check this out:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf

http://www.appgopo.org.uk/

http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/2006/12/peak-oil-and-hawaii.php

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/peakoil.html

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf">Hirsch Report

(in other words, socialism)

always sounded like a good idea to me. I always wished someone would try it somewhere.

It's not really a theory, but doing away with them may have been one of the greatest American mistakes.

In economics, bimetallism is a monetary standard in which the value of the monetary unit can be expressed as a certain amount of gold or as a certain amount of silver; the ratio between the two metals is fixed by law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallism

It's the only thing that can save us.

The best use of silver ever, was when the Manhattan project appropriated 15,000 tons of silver bullion for use in uranium enrichment.

Precious metals have far to many important applications to be wasted sitting in vaults. Wouldn't you rather have the the world's platinum cracking hydrocarbons as a catalyst than used for money or bling?

Of course metals have intrinsic value. You just proved it yourself.

The problem comes with HOARDING valuable metals and speculating on their price.

There's ALWAYS a market for silver and gold.

Government backed pieces of paper come and go. Just ask those who got rich in the Civil War with Confederate Money.

:spank:

Just in case you have an accident.

All that sex, intrigue, cheating, vanity, smiting. Now those were Gods!

They used to be in the periodic table before evil corporate scientists removed them.