Aaron! I've got it!

[My Final Heaven]

This is based somewhat on my 9-11 justified thread, and others are free to pipe in.

But I know how someone could engineer the peaceful change of the U.S. It's so simple in the concept, though pulling it off peacfully would be a feat and no mistake.

How do you control america? By controlling it's top 1% most rich and powerful. And what is the power base of that top 1%? Why the foriegn investment market of course, and primarilly the raw materials sectors, energy, base metals and the like. Why are they controlled by the U.S? Because in many different countries the government is a puppet to the U.S. and as such U.S. companies are in total control.

What needs to happen is to make those markets non-viable, and for it to happen all at once, like in the space of one month.

Here's the blueprint to make it happen.

First, you'd need to set up a financial organization which would act as a welfare system for striking workers. There would have to be enough to feed everybody as they persued means of peacful non co-operations, like strikes at refineries demanding that the government be changed and put into the hands of the people, because the choice of freedom vs eating isn't a choice a lot of people can be conviinced to make, but if you can feed them and thier famillies while they strike, then you could do it. You set one of these funds up in south america and one in africa and one in asia.

Next, one would need to convince comunity leaders that having taken the first step, it was now up to them to take the second, and to co-ordinate resistance movements around the world. The reason that Europe changed is because thier colonies in africa revolted and couldn't be maintained because it was unprofitable. That doesn't work in the U.S. because they have so many, but if they all went at once, the combined leverage would beat out the U.S.'s ecconomic leverage, especially if with the funding it could be maintained for some time.

Once it was obvious that foriegn investors would be unable to recup thier losses, they would be forced to reinvest elsewhere to cut what losses they had. This would leave the foriegn markets to be taken over by the populations of thier own countries again and the U.S. would loose it's monopolistic control, which means that the top 1% would loose thier dominance over the U.S. policies and THAT would be returned to the middle class.

Sure, it's an idealistic solution and it depends on lots of things all comming together at once, but something similar happened in Ukraine, why couldn't it work globaly? Now arguably not a lot changed radically in Ukraine, but it set the stage for change to happen in the future as the people by the simple act of striking managed to take control of thier fates because they kept it going for months. And they kept it going because people had planned it and were ready to take care of the striking people as they undertook civil disobediance.

[The Man]

Hmm, I could definitely see that working. To a certain extent, something somewhat similar to that is already happening in South America; a bunch of different companies are banding together and building socialist economies, which is why the extremely growth trend of 1980-2005 has begun to reverse itself. However, it's nowhere near as much as I'd like.

I suppose this is more incentive for me to acquire a large amount of money - at least I can trust that I will apply it ethically.

[My Final Heaven]

I think the main thing to really make it effective is that it would all have to happen suddenly and all at once. The problem with it happening gradually is the whole thing with Chavez right? If it's only one guy, then you U.S. can target him with negative campaigns, and with enough apathetic oppinion, they can put sanctions on those countries to reverse those socialist reforms.

But all at once and sactions won't do jack, plus there will be so much happening all at once that the U.S. elite won't be able to keep up with it and the top will be knocked off the piramid.

[The Man]

Chávez isn't the only socialist leader in Latin America, though, he's just the most prominent. Da Silva in Brazil and others have done likewise.

Regardless, you have a fair point about the sanctions.

[My Final Heaven]

Yeah, that's the thing is that giving people to starve is no freedom at all. Though I do know for a fact that Chavez (For one) is as popular as he is in large part because he does something radical and... (Gasp) Makes food affordable for the poor. Doubtless his initiatives are impeded by U.S. ecconomic warfare against venezuala however. Hence my suggestion of setting up the trust fund to feed the people during a prolonged period of synchronized work stopages. Ghandi proved you could hurt an empire that way, and if it could be synchronized on a massive scale, the effect would be enormous and far reaching.

[The Man]

Yeah, I suppose that's quite accurate. I always suspected I'd end up wanting to have a large amount of money for political purposes.

[Larsa]

Originally Posted by The Man

Hmm, I could definitely see that working. To a certain extent, something somewhat similar to that is already happening in South America; a bunch of different companies are banding together and building socialist economies, which is why the extremely growth trend of 1980-2005 has begun to reverse itself. However, it's nowhere near as much as I'd like.

I suppose this is more incentive for me to acquire a large amount of money - at least I can trust that I will apply it ethically.

I agree with words of wisdom.

[The Dude]

Could work. America loves capitalism and why not? The freer the economy, the freer the people, but the only problem with the theory for one thing is, not too many other things do like capitalism. So what would be accomplished really with gaining that sum of fortune which if Aaron wanted to do, (considering Warren Buffet's fortune was in the billions) he would have to start busting his ass about two weeks ago.

As for the territories revolting. It could work but highly doubtful. It really doesn't take into account at what the oppurtunity cost is for them to revolt and if they do. Would they be able to withstand it longer than us? Somewhat doubtful in that department. Most of them would probably only be hurting themselves in the long run.

Now for foreign investors. Would it be worth it aswell for them? Like I said. The freer the economy, the freer the people. Why would they want to jeopardize their businesses and would it be worth it for those countries out there where we do have businesses and factories we have in other nations to just stop? Not many can afford to just go on strike so probably not.

It's a nice idea. So is the idea of giving food to Africa, the only problem is that when you look at it and examine it. It's actually hurting more than it helps. Sure giving makes you feel all good inside but because we give them food. Their farmers can't sell the food in their own markets. They can't compete with free food which means the farmers have no need to grow crops which means not only does their economy suffer but so does their food. After all, giving is nice, but we can't give forever.

The real solution to Africa would be to open up trade barriers. You're idea stops trade and in the end, that hurts everyone. Somewhat of your idea happened during the great depression or atleast help start it. Isolationism or isolating one country from others and that also just hurts everyone. So I doubt people would be willing to go through that again for kicks.

Again nice idea but unforunately the problem with idealism is that it usually tends to be a bit naïve and with things like this, the devil is in the details.

[The Man]

Africa isn't hurting because of lack of trade, it's hurting because the conditions imposed by the IMF disallow it from subsidizing its own industries, and therefore it can't possibly compete with American goods which are subsidized. Also the fact that corporations come in, get the governments to kick people off their land and pay people $.50 a day for working who were formerly self-sufficient.

This isn't at all the same as giving money to Africa's governments, which are often the most corrupt things in the region. That's what most of the charities do, and they have absolutely the wrong idea; what needs to be done instead is to build up self-sufficient industries in the area so they can hope to trade on the same level as everyone else.

Paying workers as they strike can't really be compared with the "charity" towards Africa either. Most of that has all other kinds of strings attached as well. Which wouldn't be the case here.

[The Dude]

that's part of opening up trade barriers though. Instead of supplying them with it, help them learn how to do it themselves so that their farmers can go into domestic and possibly foreign markets. In essence, do what happened with China. Once we opened up trade, money started flowing in and though China is still communist in name and social aspects, economically, it's very reudementary free market. Once we started trading with China, they started giving land to the villagers and allowed them to do with it what they will so they can help make a profit and now people in far off areas are running their own lands and deciding how to run the land. There's still a class gap but people who were once poverty stricken are now making profits and running agricultural businesses. Granted in about a decade, 30,000,000 males will be ****ed over because there will be 30,000,000 more males than females in the country but economically, they're much better off. That's probably one of the best hopeful solutions for Africa.

As for paying off workers, it's an iffy thing at best. First where's the money coming from, and really you're paying for something that isn't assured on the return and you don't know how many you'll have to pay, how much you'll pay and for how long. Also with paying workers to not work, it's only a matter of time till someone's money dries out. I'm not hedging bets but if someone doesn't work, more than likely the business will find someone to do their job for them. I'll admit I'm not a fan of scabbing either but that's part of economic competition and capitalism. As for paying unions. Not sure if there is a contractual law that independent contributors. Probably not but I wouldn't be too sure they would call for a strike for things outside of workplace safety, and wage issues.

[The Man]

Yeah, you'd need a ****load of money to pull this off properly. That's the one big problem with it.

As for what you said in your first paragraph, if I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much what I said as well.

[My Final Heaven]

It doesn't take all that much money to pay for food, and what's more, you'd buy locally and distribute locally. The money buying the food would go into said countries ecconomy and further more, if you knew you were going to do this then you'd know which sectors of the american market would be hit hard, and which ones would sky rocket. Which means with crafty investing, you wouldn't even loose on the deal, and you'd be helping people to fight for thier own freedom while at the same time making the money to keep it going as long as it would need to.

And yes, the whole idea is that it would create a gap in the market that would have to be filled by local people working at fair rates. That was the whole point in the first place was to force change domestically by effecting changes globaly. Of course america will do what's right for it financially, which is why control of foreign markets needs to be wrenched from american control, so that they'll look back within themselves to fulfill thier own needs instead of bullying the rest of the world for it.

[Larsa]

Well one way that America seems to ontrol its welthy people is by having that secret policy of The Rich get Richer the poor get poorer and the average stay average or go to hell.

First, you'd need to set up a financial organization which would act as a welfare system for striking workers. There would have to be enough to feed everybody as they persued means of peacful non co-operations

Ya but what about overpopulation

Now is that good enough or do you want more? What do you think I was getting tired.

[My Final Heaven]

I can eat well on 70 dollars a week. I can eat bread cheese and fruit/vegetables on 30 dollars a week, and I can eat boiled rice and broth on 10 dollars a week. And that's at food prices in Canada which while not exorbanent are not any where near as cheap as buying food in other countries.

So budget 50 dollars a week per striking worker (You'd have to feed thier dependants too) and lets say a quarter of a million striking workers. If the strike goes for a whole year, you're still not even looking at the advertising budget of a presidential campaign. The money is there, it just has to be fund raised effectively, and seeing as this is a charity there's no legal problems.