Owfism

Philosophy

 * -| Metaphysics and Epistemology =

[[File:Camus.png]] Existentialism [[File:Camus.png]]
I believe that when it comes to the issue of the meaning of life, that there is really no meaning and it absolutely does not matter. This is in line with the philosophy of existentialism, believing that while there is no meaning to it, we should seek to make our own meaning to our own life, believing it to be a relative thing from person to person. I support the Camusian interpretation of existentialism, believing that there are 3 outcomes in the realization (or enlightenment) that there is no life. First, the easy, but more absurd way out: suicide. The person would leave life entirely if it doesn't have meaning. Second, make a leap of faith. The person would just continue to try and find a universal meaning of life and finally, and the ideal option of them all: embrace this absurd reality that life is really not meaningful, unless you give it meaning.

[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]] Zeitgeist [[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]
I believe that, like, G.W.F Hegel, history is defined by spirits of each given era, with there being example for a  populist spirit in the modern era, seeing the rise of  right-wing populist politicians like Trump, Bolsonaro, Le Pen etc. During the industrial revolution there was naturally an  industrial spirit during the Industrial Revolution and many other examples. I believe there is a force that could be allowing for these epoch spirits mentioned above to happen. I also believe that the age of the internet has allowed for there to many geists in a given era, due to the rapid distribution of information. I also believe that great men like Napoleon Bonaparte are part of what's called a weltgeist (world spirit), them being more than just a zeitgeist (spirit of the age), and being much more profound, seeing as how they remain famous even to this day. I believe that the Zeitgeist is the most sensical historical theory, at least compared to theories like  historical/dialectical materialism.

Economics

 * -| Economic Models =

[[File:WEF-Icon.png]] Stakeholder Capitalism [[File:WEF-Icon.png]]
(I am not a WEF fan, the WEF logo is just there as a joke. I hate those hypocritical elitists.)

I believe the current problem with the system of capitalism in the modern day is that it is in the form of  shareholder capitalism. This means that the current form of capitalism has a tendency to excessively prioritize  profit and shareholders over other stakeholders like  the environment and  workers. I seek to create that balances these three interests, through what I call  Stakeholder Capitalism. Through this system, we can balance the interests of shareholders, the environment and of the people themselves. We can create an harmonious system that works for all. There are many ways I seek to make capitalism more stakeholder-oriented, these include policies like sovereign wealth funds,  universal basic income,  anti-trust enforcement and many others, that will be mentioned in this page. I believe that companies need to focus not only on the interests of profit but also on the environment and the wellbeing of the people in general. I believe that through shareholder capitalism there has been a massive shareholder primacy that has developed in our political system and we need to undo it, slowly, but surely. I believe that a system like this in the modern world is best replicated through the Nordic Model, where there is a degree of  economic liberalization while the interests of the environment and workers are respected, with them having the  highest rates of unionization and also being in general the most eco-friendly countries overall. Take Denmark which has most of its energy coming from Renewables. In conclusion, I believe that capitalism, like any other economic system is imperfect, and the current system is definitely so, but with enough tweaks we can get it to be a better system that truly sees the benefits of innovation spill over to the 99%, not to a rich few.

[[File:Post-Industrialism.png]] Fourth Industrial Revolution [[File:Post-Industrialism.png]]
I believe that the first industrial revolution (1760-1830) was defined by mechanization, the second industrial revolution (1870-1940) was defined by mass production, the third industrial revolution (1960-2020) (the one we went through) is defined by automation and the fourth industrial revolution (2020-) will be defined by the  internet of things. I believe that through the fourth industrial revolution we shall have  rapidly accelerating technological development, this means the enhancement of 3D printing, next-gen renewable power, CRISPR gene editing, nanotechnologies, digital banking, more intelligent artificial intelligence (AI). This can basically allow for things to become cheaper than ever, and can solve many of our problems. Through this we can end the concept of poverty as we know it, and can basically achieve post-scarcity. Everyone will have equality of opportunity, I believe that such system is a eutopia. This means an ideal well-being, but achieved through practical means. This is in contrast to equality of outcome, which is an utopic idea, proposed by ideologies like communism. Which is why it only works on theory, and why it has led to  totalitarian dictatorships like in the Soviet Union. Through artificial intelligence, we can generally make better decisions on the economy, environment and other things. We can also create things like synthetic biology that will allow the Earth to re-heal itself. The Fourth Industrial Revolution will bring many good things to us and can make us live better than we ever have lived before. We can cure blindness and poor eyesight through cybernetic modifications and many other things.

[[File:Marketsoc.png]] Worker Co-Operatives [[File:Marketsoc.png]]
I am in favor of the wide-scale implementation of worker co-operatives as part of the  stakeholder economy. I believe that such worker co-operatives are to be a core of the future stakeholder economy, where public, private and co-op businesses co-operate to create an economy that balances the needs of the people, corporations and the environment. I believe this is the only good way to reform capitalism. And I believe that it is possible to do so. I believe that workers should be free to start a co-op if they want to have a business where they own the means of production, as such, I support small business tax credits and favor a co-op model similar to that pursued in  Italy, through things like the Marcora Law. I also believe in co-operative development funds.

[[File:Statesoc.png]] Core Industries [[File:Statesoc.png]]
I believe there are several industries that are to be under state control and the industries/sectors are as follows: I believe that energy and natural resources should be under state control because I believe that through this we can have a quicker transition to renewable power and as we seen through  fossil fuel companies, prefer to continue their ecologically destructive practices and bribery of politicians into making the Earth remain dependent on fossil fuels, even though they can just transition to renewables. I believe that private companies should not own energy and natural resources and the state shall get in and fix things up. A state-owned energy industry shall guide us towards the green transition and allow for the creation of green technologies that lead to sustainable development. I believe that under my system, banking sector should be nationalized during recessions, as I believe that when the market fails, the government should step in. This is in line with Keynesian economic thinking. This is also what  Sweden did in the 1990s, although, in a world where there are many banks, the only banks that would be nationalized during a recession would be those that have genuinely failed, not those that are healthy, as it could be costly and ineffective to nationalize all banks. I believe that this is the most effective way to deal with such market failure associated with banking. I believe that the transportation sector needs to be nationalized, believing that transit like trains, buses, metros, trams etc. are going to be put under  state control. I believe there needs to be one railway company for both passenger and freight rail travel. I also believe there needs to be one tram, metro company. Just look at the recent disaster in Ohio, which further shows the inefficiency of a rail system that has many companies. I also believe there should be no fares, which means that travelling on public transit (trains, buses, trams) will be completely free, enhancing freedom of movement. I believe that a state-owned transit system should provide service, not profit. I believe that telecommunications need to be nationalized, believing that current, private broadband does not really offer as good of service compared to its price. I believe that the state owning telecommunications will allow for better quality/service at a lower price. Through this, we can bring back net neutrality within our internet as telecommunication services charge equally and offer the same, good speeds on all platforms. I believe that pharmaceutical industry needs to be put under state hands. The reason why I believe is that big pharma is obviously jacking up prices (especially for insulin), like, what America? Insulin costs more than 100$? That can genuinely be deadly. Especially for poorer people with diabetes. I believe nationalizing big pharma is the right idea, as we can lower prices for life-saving medicine, like insulin down to levels similar to manufacturing costs of around 5$. I also support the legalization of marijuana used for medicinal purposes. I also believe that  vaccine distribution under state hands can lead to more equitable distribution, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with it, the pandemic could had ended earlier. Even if it meant that Western countries had only say 50-60% instead of 60-70% of their people vaccinated, it meant that Afro-Asian countries would have around 50% instead of 30%, for example. Through state ownership, we can make pandemic preparedness and responses be much more effective. This is a no-brainer basically. It is proven that private prisons have intentionally kept people behind jail (even if they clearly were ready to re-integrate back into society) in order for them to earn more extra bucks. Private prisons are essentially forced to have their prisons full so that they can earn more off of them. This means that people who have become good during their stay are still staying because of this strict system. I believe in nationalizing the prison industry, so that there isn't a strict profit motive to keep people and jail, and the state can put forward ideas like  rehabilitative justice into our prison system, say, similar to the  model employed in Norway. We see many times how unequal our privatized legal system is, as the wealthy can just hire a very great and expensive lawyer whenever they hit upon trouble (which is almost always), thus thwarting any opportunity of actual measures done to combat their power. Cuz that is what they want, power. We need to nationalize the legal system. Everyone, regardless of wealth, ideology, religion, sexuality etc. will get a decent, state lawyer, this will result in a much more fair case outcome, and there will be true accountability, and the wealthy will not just get away (at worst) or get a slap on the wrist (at best). By doing this, we can make our legal system fairer.
 * [[File:Sun.png]] Energy & Natural Resources
 * [[File:Bankocracy.png]] Banking (temporarily)
 * [[File:Merc.png]] Transportation
 * [[File:Techglobe.png]] Telecommunications
 * [[File:Vaccine.png]] Pharmaceutics
 * [[File:Klep.png]] Prisons
 * [[File:Krit.png]] Legal

[[File:SyndieSam.png]] Worker Unions [[File:SyndieSam.png]]
I am supportive of worker unions, recognizing the role they have played in increasing worker wages and also their role towards the 8 hour work week (that we have today) and they build economic equality and worker power. Although, they do have some problems, like in the case of worker strikes, which can suffocate an economic sector or more. I seek to fix this through Board Level Employee Representation (BLER), believing that workers should make up approximately a 1/3 of board membership, aka 33%. So, if the board directors is of 10 people, then the workers would have 3 of those 10 people and the other 7 will belong to  shareholders. I believe that every business should have BLER,  as it can prevent strikes and allow workers and shareholders to come to compromises that prevent strikes from even happening.

[[File:Statecap.png]] Sovereign Wealth Funds [[File:Statecap.png]]
I believe in the implementation of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), similar to the  Norwegian model, with it having trillions of dollars in assets, around 50% of global GDP (50T$). This can help generate the government revenue as an alternative to overall taxation, so that the abolishment of income tax does not mean massive revenue losses. A sovereign wealth fund can be a hedge against economic risks and also provide benefits for many generations to come. Allowing for the creation of a strong social market economy.

[[File:ClassDistr.png]] Employee Stock Ownership Plans [[File:ClassDistr.png]]
I believe in the implementation of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), which are employee benefits that allows the employees themselves to own a part of their company through shares of stock, allowing them to have more power overall and can prevent things like  worker strikes, which can, as said previously, chokehold an entire economy or economic sector. Through this, we can enhance worker power and make employees more represented in their companies.
 * -| Taxation and Spending =

[[File:Keynes.png]] Keynesianism [[File:Keynes.png]]
I subscribe to Keynesian economic theory, believing that when there are market failures, the government should intervene to ensure there is still economic growth through stimulus policies and quantitative easing, believing that spending increases are necessary during an economic crisis. I subscribe to the theory of New Keynesianism, where the main goal of monetary and fiscal policy is to ensure high economic growth and low unemployment. Along with this, I also support the Rehn-Meidner Model that prioritizes the same things as New Keynesianism but also wants to address income/wealth inequality itself, with it also subscribing to Keynesian theory.

[[File:Chilib.png]] Private Charities [[File:Chilib.png]]
I believe that we should encourage and spread private charities, as they can be helpful in a wide range of things. I believe however that private charities should not be used as a tool for the rich to improve their own image and dodge taxes, instead, I believe that private charities should serve as a tax deduction for the lower and middle classes, with people earning less than 300,000$/year in income and people having a net worth less than 10,000,000$/year are to be eligible to tax credits for private charity. I believe that private charities should be promoted as a way to create an altruistic society, with charity seen as something to help others, that all of should do not for our own image but for the genuine betterment of society.

[[File:Welf.png]] Welfare [[File:Welf.png]]
I believe that our current welfare system needs to be reformed, for example, I believe that Social Security is gonna become unsustainable because of our  demographic crisis, as there will be double the amount of people over the age of 65 in the next 3 decades, which may mean we have to raise retirement ages even up to the 70s and 80s, something unimaginable, even if people live to 100 by then, that would mean only 20-30 years of free time, compare that to today, where you retire in your 60s and say live to 100, that would be 40 years of free time for our elderly. I believe that social security needs to be indexed to inflation until 2025/2030, and then indexed to 80% of inflation to prevent its unsustainability.

While yes, social security can be abolished, it would be pretty unpopular politically and could put many elderly in poverty. I also believe that welfare has one key problem: It fails to truly address poverty and get people into the middle class: Take welfare leeches. I believe that welfare should only be given to working people, following ideals of  worker welfarism, preventing "welfare queens" from developing. I also believe that the main sources of welfare (besides welfare for lower-class workers) should come from universal basic income,  negative income tax and  child tax credits. These have proven to be much more effective than general welfare at combatting poverty, these are ideas proposed by  Milton Friedman and  Andrew Yang, with me also supporting the  Great Society Programs proposed by LBJ, but in a different, modern form.

[[File:Regulationism.png]] Taxation [[File:Regulationism.png]]
I believe that while sovereign wealth funds are effective in generating revenue in a way that doesn't directly take money from the people, I still believe it cannot be the only way the state can generate revenue. Besides that, taxes can help achieve equality of opportunity.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land Value Tax

I believe that a land value tax, set at the rate of 70-90% based on the unimproved value of land is a great way to generate revenue as it, besides generating revenue, can prevent land speculation and land hoarding, and can also promote better land use overall. The more land you own, the more you get taxed. We shall say goodbye to landlords, and they will no longer suck out the economic gains of the lower and middle class. The land will also be under public ownership, through things like tenant unions. A land value tax can also be considered to be an  ecological tax, as the air we breathe is also considered and harming it (through pollution) will also be taxed. Revenues coming from this tax would be around 260T$, as the current value of land is 326.5T$ (this is in the entire world)


 * [[File:Envi.png]] Ecological Taxes

I believe that the implementation of ecological taxes are a key step in fixing the problem of climate change, as this tax incentivizes polluters to make technologies that make them pollute less, reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere. Which, as we know, has led to global warming. I believe that we need a  carbon tax of 60$/ton that will be progressively increased over time, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. Such carbon tax, if applied globally, could generate around 2.3T$ in revenue, and that is in the initial 60$/ton figure. But this isn't the only ecological tax I seek to implement, with there being others as well.

I also believe we need to implement a methane tax of 900$/ton that will also be progressively increased over time, the reason why I chose 900$/ton as the starting point for the methane tax is because methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, and as such, we must reduce the emissions of it very fast. Currently, there is 350 million tons of methane in the atmosphere, and it is harder to reduce, so taxation is a good way to do just that. We will earn 315B$ in revenue from such methane tax.

I also believe we need a plastic tax of 200$/ton on plastic packaging that has less than 55% recycled plastic, believing that we need a war on plastic, "the less than 55%" figure will be increased over time in order to fully phase out single-use plastics. We can earn (initially, at least) 49B$ in revenue just from a plastic tax in a year. I support a wide range of ecological taxes, but these are all I am gonna list.


 * [[File:Soccap.png]] Value Added Tax

I support the implementation of a value added tax set at a progressive rate, based on the product in question. I believe that products like cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, plastics and other non-eco-friendly products are to have a VAT of 25%, meanwhile, products which are eco-friendly (compost) and healthy (fruits and vegetables) are to have a  VAT of just 5%. Products that are not too eco-friendly (but not to the same level as say plastics) and not too healthy (but not to the same level of unhealthiness as alcohol) will be levied at 15%. I believe that the VAT can, through higher pricing of less eco-friendly and less healthy goods and lower pricing of eco-friendly and healthy goods can bring about an economic incentive for people to buy healthy products. This would earn in revenue 2T$ per year, it being a VAT in the form of progressive taxation.

[[File:Univhealth.png]] Healthcare [[File:Univhealth.png]]
I believe in the implementation of a public healthcare system (PHS) as a public option to privatized healthcare, with there being a low-priced stated provided service competing with privatized healthcare, allowing for there to be universal and in general low-cost healthcare, with there no longer being  obscene healthcare prices like in the United States. I also believe that a public healthcare system should also cover dental, mental and long-term care. As such, I believe in a mixed healthcare system where there are both private and public health systems, both at good quality and low price, essentially competing with each other.

[[File:UBI.png]] Universal Basic Income [[File:UBI.png]]
I believe in the implementation of an universal basic income which is given to people earning less than 1M$ in income (aka the 99%, so like, mostly universal) at a rate of 1,500$/month (which translates to 18,000$/year). I believe that an universal basic income is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing income inequality, which as we all know is growing around the world. Such an universal basic income would cost (if implemented globally) 140T$ a year which in my opinion I believe we can pay for it through a land value tax (which as I said, could earn 260T$/year, at least initially, more than enough to pay for it) if not, we can pay for it through the  sovereign wealth fund.

[[File:Chilib.png]] Negative Income Tax [[File:Chilib.png]]
I believe in the implementation of a negative income tax on people earning less than 60,000$/year in income, with it being at a progressive rate from 80% of income to just 10% of income. If you earn less than 10,000$/year you will receive 8,000$/year if you earn 60,000$/year you will receive 6,000$/year. The reason why it is in this structure is to prevent it from being too expensive while helping the poorest members of society. Through a negative income tax we can help ease the cost of living on many people and allow people to raise not just one child but two children or more. I will mention this more in the next section.

[[File:Childism.png]] Child Tax Credit [[File:Childism.png]]
I also support the implementation of a child tax credit to allow parents to raise more than 2 children overall, believing that most people want to have 2 or more babies but terrible economic and cost of living conditions mean that people just won't be able to make babies. A minimum wage job will barely be enough to pay for things like rent, food/other essentials, let alone taking care of a child. I believe that we need to deal with the demographic crisis, as such, I support the  child tax credit as follows: 4,000$ for each child who has not reached the age of 10 and later 3,200$ for each child between the ages of 10-18.

So if a family has 4 children younger than 10, it would have 16,000$/year in tax credits, allowing for families to make more children. A similar policy was implemented in a country like Hungary (I hate Hungary in most other things, especially their regime) and fertility rates have slowly gone up from 1.23/births per woman in 2011 to 1.56/births per woman in 2020.
 * -| Regulations =

[[File:Orlib.png]] Anti-Trust Enforcement [[File:Orlib.png]]
I believe that there needs to be strict anti-trust enforcement. As such, I believe that we need to deal with the power of big corporations, believing them to go against the fundamental principles of capitalism. I believe, as part of economic liberalization, that we need to have a competitive market, and the best way to do so is through government means, anti-trust enforcement. I also believe in extensive small business tax credits to encourage the development of small to medium sized businesses, which will make up the bulk of the market economy.

I also believe that we need to implement an economic constitution, with one of the things it includes is  strict monopoly classifications, which are that it has a market share of 50% of its sector and/or others, stifles their own competition and limits available substitutes for consumers. 2 of the 3 conditions must be met in order for it to fall under the label monopoly (which in this case just means a company who acts against the interest of the consumer mostly) and be trust busted, to ensure a competitive market economy. Monopolies are market failures, and the government needs to step in to fix it.

Examples of companies that would fall under these 3 conditions would be Luxottica,  Kroger,  PayPal and many other companies, which bloat their value and have high market shares within their respective sectors. As a specification on the 3 rules, if a company has less than 50% market share but does the other 2 things (stifle competition and limit available substitutes) then it shall receive a very harsh fine rather than get trust-busted, only until it reaches 50% is when it will get trust-busted.

[[File:Urbanism.png]] Housing [[File:Urbanism.png]]
I believe that, when it comes to housing, that solving the housing crisis is paramount. I believe that we need to heavily de-regulate zoning, supporting the idea of Mixed-use zoning, which combines residential with commercial shops. I also believe we need to make height limits not so strict, so that affordable homes built by the government to say house the elderly doesn't just get squashed by that. The reason why the government isn't solving the housing crisis is because it has essentially become illegal for them to do that. I also believe in the implementation of a land value tax to deal with  landlords and landhoarders, which are there to buy up land and make it so that people rent those lands at extortionate prices, sucking up all their economic gains gained through work. It shall also allow for more effective land use, so yea, a random, abandoned skateboarding park can be sold and be turned into a house. I also believe that we need to increase the amount of homes being built to make sure they're cheaper (the higher the supply, the lower the price)

I also believe that the government should build homes at affordable prices, in competition with  private housing construction, in order to make sure that housing prices remain cheap while still providing good service and to make sure homes are built at a steady rate, in pace with population. This shall allow us to re-transform homes from a commodity to be bought and sold to a place to live. The model we used before the 1980s. The model used under the golden age of capitalism (which was called that for a reason). Now, with the rise of neoliberalism during the 1980s, government-constructed housing has essentially become extinct, this means that private housing constructors won't have a competitor that will constantly try to outdo them in low prices and quality, as such,  housing companies began building homes which weren't as good in quality, but were expensive, also following principles of planned obsolescence (which are seen throughout other things like clothing). This has led to housing bubbles and eventually the Great Recession in 2008. And we know how that turned out.

We can solve the demographic crisis like this, as people won't have over 50% of their monthly income dedicated to rent alone and instead use that income so that they can afford to not just barely raise 1 child, but to raise 2 children, 3 children and possibly even more children. This shall be done in combination with policies mentioned previously like child tax credits,  negative income tax and  universal basic income. This will act as a sort of financial incentive as new families will be able to have the right amount of money to make sure their child lives a comfortable life overall and does not have to deal with poverty (this also applies to the parents).

[[File:Plutocrat.png]] Wealth [[File:Plutocrat.png]]
I believe that while some people are going to become wealthier than others, believing that they would always be inequality of outcome, I believe that it is possible for there to be  equality of opportunity. Although, I realize that  wealth inequality is a very terrible thing and that it is growing across the world at record rates. To deal with this mass concentration of wealth in the top 1% (the top 26 own as much as the bottom 50% in wealth), I believe in the implementation of a land value tax, to deal with land monopolies and land hoarders that allow  wealthy people  to become even more wealthier, allowing for centi-billionaires to develop. I also believe in a maximum wage for CEOs that is set at most x15 more than the average worker. I also believe that there should be strict campaign finance regulation, to make sure that billionaires do not excessively donate to candidates to promote their own interests, recognizing money as a form of bargain and not that of speech.

[[File:Social-ism.png]] Employment [[File:Social-ism.png]]
I believe that unemployment overall needs to be as low as possible, supporting active labor market policies in order to lower unemployment, in line with the  Rehn-Meidner Model. I also believe in worker welfarism, it being the idea that welfare should only be given to working people. I also believe in the implementation of job guarantees, to allow for more people in the workforce. I believe the unemployment rate needs to be at 2% or below, potentially even achieving full employment (that is, until automation comes in)

Relations
Disclaimer: I am judging based on ideology itself not personality.

Friends
 - We're pretty similar politically, I can't really find anything that I could criticize you on, seriously I cannot find anything. You're a good example of me applied to the United States.

 - Pretty good ideology, we're both leftist ideologies and we supporting things like world federalism and space exploration. We don't really have areas of disagreement, outside of things like monarchism (me supporting a republic) and your socially conservative leanings, although you're not that bad. You belong in this category, ideologically.

 - Pretty good overall, I barely see any differences between my ideology and your ideology. We support pretty much the same things overall. If there's anything that is different between our ideologies is the fact that you do not really support a world federation, but its not too much of a difference. You belong here overall.

Frenemies
 - It's nice that you have libertarian tendencies overall, but I don't really like laissez-faire capitalism and your very religious tendencies (also objectivism is something I hate).

 - You're pretty authoritarian, which I don't really like, also I reject things like public-private partnerships and dirigisme, although, you have some redeeming things like your support for welfare and the recognition that the rise of fascism/bolshevism are a result of terrible economic conditions.

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Comment

 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Hey.
 * - Add me, pls.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- I would call the International Dollar the Humana or something like that
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I kind of hate the word Humana though, but I get where you're coming from.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- well i also came up with Terrina and Globa
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Terrina sounds pretty interesting
 * - Yo! Left-SocDem gang!!! :D
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - :D
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- Add me
 * - Add Me?
 * [[File:Iconfloofel.png]] Floofel's Thought - Added ya, may ya add me?