Moneyless Sharing: A Solution to the Problems of Capitalism?

[edward]

#4 doesn't make any sense. Could you explain it to me? What I mean is this "by the year 2000" thing. Starting when? And how?

In any case, those stats are a snapshot in time. They don't tell you how things are changing. Or why...

I found that a bit confusing also, but it appears the article first came out in the late 90's so 2000 would sound reasonable. Since 2000 the big thing that has changed is what we have spent on weapons. Even the snapshot in time looked terrible for a highly technological modern world.

I did find that the previous quote came from here.

http://www.newint.org/issue287/keynote.html

For example, it would cost six billion dollars a year, on top of what is already spent, to put every child in school by the year 2000. That is an enormous sum. Yet it is less than one per cent of what the world spends every year on weapons.

Anyway you look at it global education over time would cost a small fraction of global weapons purchases over time.

 

[russ_watters]

That doesn't seem right to me (the $6 billion). It seems impossibly low.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I think about it, the more I think that beyond being a pointless/meaningless hippie statistic, it actually misses it's own point. It is an irony that I missed at first. Oprah Winfrey built a school in Afghanistan (and seriously, good for her), but in order for that to even be possible, we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it! So the stat is trying to highlight a disparity between two things that are, in reality, directly related.

Everyone knows that if you could solve a problem like global education with what in reality is a paltry sum of money (the US already spends vastly more than $6 billion a year on education - near a hundred times that) we already would have done it. The money isn't what is standing in the way, but their number is rediculously low anyway.

 

[edward]

That doesn't seem right to me (the $6 billion). It seems impossibly low.

That is $6 billion per year in addition to what is already spent. In many countries they don't need schools with ceramic tiled bathrooms and grounds with football fields, swimming pools, and tennis courts.

 

[edward]

The more I think about it, the more I think that beyond being a pointless/meaningless hippie statistic, it actually misses it's own point. It is an irony that I missed at first. Oprah Winfrey built a school in Afghanistan (and seriously, good for her), but in order for that to even be possible, we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it! So the stat is trying to highlight a disparity between two things that are, in reality, directly related.

Everyone knows that if you could solve a problem like global education with what in reality is a paltry sum of money (the US already spends vastly more than $6 billion a year on education - near a hundred times that) we already would have done it. The money isn't what is standing in the way, but their number is rediculously low anyway.

I see your point Russ, I just look at the overall situation and see that weapons are never going to be the answer to global problems either. We have had the last ten thousand years to become civilized and we haven't gained much. Sorry for the off topic ramble.

 

[ShawnD]

we first had to spend probably $100 billion on weapons to make the country stable enough to build it!

True enough. Stability is needed before anything can be done. Nobody will build a factory if there's a possibility of a rival warlord stealing it, and this is a very real problem in many African countries as well as Afghanistan. Schools will not be built either because education is more of a luxury than a need when your life is in danger on a daily basis due to lawlessness (Iraq has a major problem with this).

We have had the last ten thousand years to become civilized and we haven't gained much. Sorry for the off topic ramble.

You're right about the same political games being played as in the past... thousands of years, but people of today are much less eager to go to war, and life is more valuable than it has ever been. Wars over the past hundred years have started to have a much darker look to them even when the stats get better and better.
For example, WW1 and WW2 had millions of soldiers die, but they were somewhat supported by the countries involved. Canadians would volunteer in the thousands to go fight in WW1 because there was this sort of romantic view of war and soldiers in general. It wasn't until the numbers started coming in that people stopped and said "wait a minute, war sucks", and as a result Canada became more separate from Britain in that we no longer had to join wars they were part of; this is an example of a shift from pro-war to anti-war. This anti-war sentiment stayed fairly strong up until WW2, and people like Chamberlain tried to prevent war with the Germans at all cost. Looking back it was rather foolish to let Germany get that out of control, but it does show how devoted to peace Europe was at the time.
From a more American perspective, wars have become less popular over the last 50 years. Korea was 3 years long and something like 30,000 Americans died, but that war was not publicized as being overly bad in any way. Vietnam lasted something like 16 years (1959-1975?) and 50,000 Americans died. Even though the yearly death rate of Vietnam was peanuts compared to Korea, there was a lot of protest against that war, though it was exactly the same principle as Korea (preventing communism in Asia). Then after that you see things like the first and second Gulf wars. You may not remember, but a lot of Americans were against the first gulf war because they thought it would be like Vietnam. Then the second gulf war came and the same sentiments popped up: why are we fighting? What is this really about? When will this end?

The transition looks positive. In 1900 it was "sir, yes sir". In 2000 it was "why are we fighting?"

 

[Art]

True enough. Stability is needed before anything can be done. Nobody will build a factory if there's a possibility of a rival warlord stealing it, and this is a very real problem in many African countries as well as Afghanistan. Schools will not be built either because education is more of a luxury than a need when your life is in danger on a daily basis due to lawlessness (Iraq has a major problem with this).

Citing Iraq whilst promoting the idea of stability through force of arms is an oxymoron.

 

[ShawnD]

Citing Iraq whilst promoting the idea of stability through force of arms is an oxymoron.

Not really. Iraq is unstable because there was a sudden shift towards lowering the amount of armed forces. Insurgency in Iraq wasn't even a problem until the retard in charge decided it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi army. Yeah that's a great idea. Now there are literally thousands of armed and trained ex-soldiers who are unemployed and hold a grudge, fantastic!

This article explains a bit of it
http://english.people.com.cn/200311/27/eng20031127_129183.shtml
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002420.html

 

[Art]

Not really. Iraq is unstable because there was a sudden shift towards lowering the amount of armed forces. Insurgency in Iraq wasn't even a problem until the retard in charge decided it was a good idea to disband the Iraqi army. Yeah that's a great idea. Now there are literally thousands of armed and trained ex-soldiers who are unemployed and hold a grudge, fantastic!

This article explains a bit of it
http://english.people.com.cn/200311/27/eng20031127_129183.shtml
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002420.html

Iraq is unstable because first it was hit with sanctions and then it was invaded.

 

[Art]

There was one question in my grade 9 economics class that stuck with me. Why are Canada and America wealthy?
[snip]
Maybe India is just meant to be poor. Who knows

.

Here's a clue. Have a look at when America gained it's independence and then look at when the other countries you are drawing comparisons with gained theirs.

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

It takes time for a country to develop it's own structures and to industrialise, even longer for those countries whose debt has forced them to allow the World Bank and the IMF to adopt the mantle of colonial Governer.

It also doesn't help when advanced countries initiate arms races in developing regions such as selling fighter aircraft to Pakistan and then offering to sell fighter aircraft to their arch rivals India. This is the wealthy west looking to siphon off developing countries wealth as fast as it can be accumulated.

 

[ShawnD]

Here's a clue. Have a look at when America gained it's independence and then look at when the other countries you are drawing comparisons with gained theirs.

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

And that is different from Japan and South Korea how? Almost every city in Japan was completely destroyed in WW2 and rebuilt from scratch; their form of government was changed from the Japanese way to the American way practically overnight. Japan and South Korea were both torn apart by major wars, rebuilt with a US-style government, and are now top notch countries. Germany was also completely destroyed in WW2 but it was rebuilt and is once again a somewhat wealthy nation.

It also doesn't help when advanced countries initiate arms races in developing regions such as selling fighter aircraft to Pakistan and then offering to sell fighter aircraft to their arch rivals India. This is the wealthy west looking to siphon off developing countries wealth as fast as it can be accumulated.

This is entirely true. The same thing was done to Iran and Iraq during their ~10 year war and it left both sides economically crippled.

 

[Art]

And that is different from Japan and South Korea how? Almost every city in Japan was completely destroyed in WW2 and rebuilt from scratch; their form of government was changed from the Japanese way to the American way practically overnight. Japan and South Korea were both torn apart by major wars, rebuilt with a US-style government, and are now top notch countries. Germany was also completely destroyed in WW2 but it was rebuilt and is once again a somewhat wealthy nation.

Japan Korea and Germany were not former colonies. Their populations had very advanced industrial knowledge which losing wars doesn't affect and so there is no learning curve. Former colonies never acquired industrial knowledge whilst under foreign rule and so have to start from scratch at the beginning of a huge learning curve made more difficult by countries that will sell them finished goods but will not license the technology itself.

 

[ShawnD]

Japan Korea and Germany were not former colonies. Their populations had very advanced industrial knowledge which losing wars doesn't affect and so there is no learning curve. Former colonies never acquired industrial knowledge whilst under foreign rule and so have to start from scratch at the beginning of a huge learning curve made more difficult by countries that will sell them finished goods but will not license the technology itself.

There is truth to what you are saying, but India currently does have a lot of industry. It's not like India is shipping out primary resources then buying finished products made from their own resources. India's chemical and drug industries in particular are booming. That means India has a lot of resources, a fair amount of industry, and an overwhelming amount of brain power that isn't being put to good use. Even with all of these things, India is not a rich country. Why? I'm thinking small business is a factor. It seems like many of these factories in India were not started in India. Some guy in Europe decides he wants cheap labour, so he builds a huge factory in India. What about small business in India? They play a big part of American and Canadian economies, so they're probably a critical factor in a country's prosperity.
Alright so let's start a business, but wait, there's paperwork to fill out. I remember watching an ABC news special about business in India and Hong Kong. To start a business in Hong Kong the reporter needed to get a few sheets of paper signed, and within the same day he had a fully legal business running in Hong Kong; he was selling stuff with the ABC logo (this was when it was under British control, not Chinese). In India he needed to fill out a bunch of paperwork and it was expected to take literally weeks to process all of it. It's awfully hard to get an economy going when the government is actively trying to stop all business and trade from happening.

Starting a Business
America: 5 days
Canada: 3 days
Australia: 2 days
Hong Kong (chinese): 11 days
Japan: 23 days
South Korea (listed as "Korea"): 22 days
India: 35 days

Levels of taxation are another part of prosperity, but I'll need to find some stats on how the countries compare.

 

[russ_watters]

America took around 150 years post-independence to become a major power, India after only 60 years of self rule is already well on it's way whilst carrying the additional burden of having to contend with feeding 4x the population of the US on a land area 1/3 the size.

It depends on who you ask/how you measure it, but the absolute latest you could say the US emerged as a superpower was in 1907 when Roosevelt sent his Great White Fleet on a world cruise as a demonstration of our Naval power.

By other measures, the US was a superpower almost immediately, turning back an invasion by Britain in 1812.

The regardless of where you set the date of emergence, though, the US was well set-up to become a superpower by it's mixture of open land and government. India has a long way to go, but among the late losses for the British Empire, India was one of the best set up for a prosperous transition. Other countries (many in Africa, for example), were just flat-out abandoned.

 

[Art]

Like I said it takes time to develop the structures but as you have stated yourself India is already growing their own solid industrial base, their economic growth is one of the highest in the world and that's after only 60 years of independence, think where they are likely to be in another 90 years.

 

[Art]

It depends on who you ask/how you measure it, but the absolute latest you could say the US emerged as a superpower was in 1907 when Roosevelt sent his Great White Fleet on a world cruise as a demonstration of our Naval power.

They weren't a super power during WW1. As I pointed out in another thread the US had to be equipped with weaponry by the French. Even at the end of WW1 2/3 of all American aircraft were supplied by the French along with all of their tanks and artillary pieces and and most of their shells as the US simply didn't have them.

As for naval power, Britain remained the world's major sea power until after the first world war.

By other measures, the US was a superpower almost immediately, turning back an invasion by Britain in 1812.

:rofl: The US took advantage of the Napoleonic wars and declared war on Britain and unsucessfully invaded Canada but found they had bitten off more than they could chew when the Canadians repelled them and the european war ended releasing hundreds of thousands of experienced soldiers and ships of the line. America's only major military success came at the Battle of New Orleans which actually took place after the war was officially over which itself was followed by the last military action of the war the battle of Fort Bowyer, which was won by the British.

America's only success during the war was when it sent out privateers to attack British civilian vessels. I think they call that terrorism these days :tongue: .

 

[X-43D]

Communism has been tried and it was found that people lost the motivation to work because the reward and compensation was taken away from them. And since no one will work for someone else, without the reward, people will not invest hard work.

 

[denverdoc]

really, when did this happen? People can be compelled to work very hard for a variety of reasons, often with little financial reward.

 

[Astronuc]

Communism has been tried and it was found that people lost the motivation to work because the reward and compensation was taken away from them. And since no one will work for someone else, without the reward, people will not invest hard work.

Not quite. I know personally a lot of hard working people from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Many of them work hard despite the system. And some of the technology, particularly in metallurgy, is well beyond that found in the US and W. Europe.

When I spent time in E. Europe, I was thoroughly impressed by the people and their resilience and tenacity. Rather than being 'godless commies', many people held to their religious traditions - a true testimony to the perseverance of the human spirit. Another amazing fact is the Christian relics, artifacts and structures that go back to 300 - 400 CE. You won't find that in the West, except around Rome and the Italian peninsula.

Certainly there were people who did the minimum to get by - that is true in any society including the US, W. Europe, the rest of the industrialized and developed world.

There was also tremendous corruption, which undermined the integrity of the system, let alone the nutty and despotic leaders.

However, one can find similar corruption in any socio-political system. The trend in some systems is toward an oligarchic system - as the Bush administration, or more aptly regime, is a case in point.

 

[russ_watters]

Not quite. I know personally a lot of hard working people from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Many of them work hard despite the system.

"Many" is not enough.

 

[loseyourname]

Communism has been tried and it was found that people lost the motivation to work because the reward and compensation was taken away from them. And since no one will work for someone else, without the reward, people will not invest hard work.

I'm not sure that's a problem with communism so much as it is a problem with wage labor in general. Even salaried employees have no financial incentive to work any harder than they need to in order to keep from being fired, unless they're on the track toward a managerial position.

I would think the more reasonable sounding problem with communism is the question of why someone would become a doctor rather than a fry cook when both make the same amount of money. I don't know that there was ever a study conducted on how many people with the potential to become doctors instead opted for fry cook, but there is something to be said for the prestige and satisfaction that come with doing a more difficult and rewarding job, even if you are not paid fairly. Otherwise, why would anyone in the US ever become a professor? And, in fact, we still have that problem under the American system, whereby certain jobs - fireman, schoolteacher, social worker - are essential and require a great deal of skill and hard work, but don't attract the brightest and most qualified among us because the pay is quite low.

So each system has its own respective motivation problems. Under communism, it could be said that one might opt for the easier job, while under capitalism, one might opt for the job that pays more. In neither case is one opting for the job more important or essential to the overall health of the society.

 

[Astronuc]

A Visit to the Other Congo, the Forgotten Congo
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9896339
by Tom Gjelten

Weekend Edition Saturday, April 28, 2007 · The Republic of Congo is not the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo — the former Zaire — but the other Congo. Never heard of it? You're not alone.

Since arriving at the bank, Wolfowitz has argued that the biggest barrier to development in many poor countries is a high level of government corruption.

"Corruption is often at the very root of why governments do not work," Wolfowitz argued in a speech in Indonesia in April 2006.
. . . .

The Republic of Congo, in West Central Africa, is among the countries where corruption allegations have prompted Wolfowitz to try to block international assistance. Nearly 70 percent of the population in the former French colony subsists on less than $1 per day.

The country, however, has 1.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and is currently the fifth-largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa. Anti-corruption activists in Congo say the government has failed to reveal how it's using its oil revenues, and they suspect that much of the country's wealth is being diverted by its ruling elite.

I certainly have to agree with Wolfowitz on the corruption problem. The World Bank and other development agencies cannot simply loan billions of $ to countries when a handful of well-connected individuals simply divert the money out of the country. It is a no-win situation.

Besides corruption, another major factor in world poverty is armed conflict, which apparently directly affects perhaps several hundred million people worldwide.

http://www.periclespress.com/hotspots.html

 

[denverdoc]

I'm not sure that's a problem with communism so much as it is a problem with wage labor in general. Even salaried employees have no financial incentive to work any harder than they need to in order to keep from being fired, unless they're on the track toward a managerial position.

I would think the more reasonable sounding problem with communism is the question of why someone would become a doctor rather than a fry cook when both make the same amount of money. I don't know that there was ever a study conducted on how many people with the potential to become doctors instead opted for fry cook, but there is something to be said for the prestige and satisfaction that come with doing a more difficult and rewarding job, even if you are not paid fairly. Otherwise, why would anyone in the US ever become a professor? And, in fact, we still have that problem under the American system, whereby certain jobs - fireman, schoolteacher, social worker - are essential and require a great deal of skill and hard work, but don't attract the brightest and most qualified among us because the pay is quite low.

So each system has its own respective motivation problems. Under communism, it could be said that one might opt for the easier job, while under capitalism, one might opt for the job that pays more. In neither case is one opting for the job more important or essential to the overall health of the society.

Very nice post IMO, as to the first question, there are many days when I wish I were a fry cook, flip some eggs, and be done with it all, til the next day, when I would flip some more eggs. Noticing that I was just flipping eggs and living in a studio, while the owner was making money hand over foot and was buying a very nice new house, had a Mercedes, and whose sole input into the enterprise seemed to be to rake over the coals any deriliction of duty, I wondered if this was fair. After all without my great egg flipping abilities, he'd be nowhere, just an average diner owner among many, breaking a bit above even. He says, "what imperinence--I provide you with the opportunity to make a decent wage, and this is the thanks I get."

Personally, I believe it is best to avoid either horn of this dilemma and recognize as in any biological situation that different strategies produce greatest rewards, including altruism, under different environmental pressures.

If for say the greatest exigency facing humankind today was runaway AGW, that would call upon a different style of cooperation than say, looking down the barrel at a huge asteriod. Socialism in education, health care, and other endeavors might be the most successful approach, esp if combined with no head starts. I bristle when I hear conservatives attack any program such as "head Start" or Affirmative Action, completely oblivious to the 1/4 mile head start given them by wealth, race, connectedness, etc. They scream bloody murder, completely oblivious to the fact that a Dan Quayle or GBW would have gone nowhere if hatched and raised under such circumstances.

At the same time, I can give you a concrete example involving a few friends and many acquaintences attempting to capture various NASA prizes in the deserts of New Mexico. The thinktank of NASA has finally realized that throwing huge amts of $$ at the usual players may not be the most efficient approach--even though the former might be considred a capatilistic venture, it becomes so corrupted by the political process and habit/safety concerns, it usually becomes some form of governmaental welfare where after the contract is given, the fire in the belly now sated with huge influx of $$, gets decreasingly productive.

I personally beieve that there is a myth that when large scale $$ are involved, a capatalistic system will be cheaper, more hungry, etc. And I might agree to the point until they wield sufficient political power, that they are no more efficient, arguably less so, as it requires the payment of taxes and full scale lobbying to achieve the same governmental efficiency.

This is much more complicated issue of whether I work better under under financial inducement, or have no choice but to flip eggs, or even whether I would be happier being a doctor who in a good day can help a few, and cause no harm.

 

[McGyver]

Three Primary Forms of Governance now in State of Flux

The three (3) traditional forms of governance and society today are in a state of FLUX. Neither Communism, Dictatorships, nor Free Society (Democracy) seems to offer viable answers to "mangement and governance" of its people. Perhaps the most intriguing is China's modified free market Communist regime - which the US has largely made possible thru free trade. It is important to analyze and compare "which" forms of leadership may find favor in the future, in view of the vast storehouse of knowledge, technological innovation and communications, and emerging capabilities of AI systems in decision-making and management.

Of the three current forms - Free Society or Democracy appears most in trouble, and where Dictatorships are rarely stable for long. Most troubling of Democracies I believe is the US, where government appears increasingly incapable of solving city, state, and federal issues - which in past years, were addressed in part by business, community, and individual effort/oversight. EU Democracies by comparison, with a more Liberal slant, appear only slightly better poised to address long term issues - though are plagued by slower GDP growth, and face huge costs disparity issues with China and emerging markets. Will gobal poverty improve with globalization of business? Most certainly - yes. But these regions will NOT be stable with current ltd. government and infrastructure. And if global business so chooses to exploit these regimes for short term profits - they may be worse in the long term as they will have wasted existing natural resources and infrastructure.

Perhaps the most disturbing element of the world economy - is the US's (and a few EU co's) new global business model. It renders businesses less interested in community and national concerns than in past years, as so many operations are abroad - and they show little interest in long term matters abroad. With vast new wealth, US corporations today can exert more influence in domestic policy than prior years, with less to loose, and when they so choose, they can relocate offshore to lower their tax burden. It would seem to be a recipe for eventual global economic and social chaos -where solutions fall entirely on government, fiscally incapable of solving. Corporations merely leave the failed societies, taking wealth and good will.

Factor in the new avenues of communication and influence brought about by technological innovation, and world medias and governments are now deluged by unsolved issues, information, and special interests - w/o the necessary fiscal resources and committments from business and society. It is as though media and governments are suffering from PTSD, and it is "every man for himself." This FLUX of suffering and instability then creates a vacuum for new leadership - which can allow "radical regimes" to emerge.

I suspect the future holds significant modification to Communinist, Democracy, and Dictator forms of leadership - where likely some new derivitive of the above will prove most advantageous to those in command, i.e. Clintons move to farther Left, Bush's move to farther Right. Of course, any resulting new forms must be able to mitigate the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Sure to be an interesting '08 election.

 

[Art]

At the same time, I can give you a concrete example involving a few friends and many acquaintences attempting to capture various NASA prizes in the deserts of New Mexico. The thinktank of NASA has finally realized that throwing huge amts of $$ at the usual players may not be the most efficient approach--even though the former might be considred a capatilistic venture, it becomes so corrupted by the political process and habit/safety concerns, it usually becomes some form of governmaental welfare where after the contract is given, the fire in the belly now sated with huge influx of $$, gets decreasingly productive.

I personally beieve that there is a myth that when large scale $$ are involved, a capatalistic system will be cheaper, more hungry, etc. And I might agree to the point until they wield sufficient political power, that they are no more efficient, arguably less so, as it requires the payment of taxes and full scale lobbying to achieve the same governmental efficiency.

This is much more complicated issue of whether I work better under under financial inducement, or have no choice but to flip eggs, or even whether I would be happier being a doctor who in a good day can help a few, and cause no harm.

I believe the key problem with communism is not the people but it's lack of competition in it's economy such as having 1 state producer of cars. This inhibits innovation and improvements because the consumers' choice is simply - 'buy this one or go without' and so there is no market force pushing for improvement.

People are by nature competitive and even within a communist country there is ample latitude to further personal ambition so I do not think it is communism's effect on people's attitudes at the individual level that is the problem; it is only at the macro level.

Taking science as an example, most scientists are not interested in competing with one another on the basis of what salary they earn, they are far more motivated by acclaim from their peers for their contribution in their field. As evidence of this one needs only look at the former USSR. Their economy was stagnant and inferior in most ways to the capitalist model but their scientific progress was as good as anybody's. Ultimately though a country needs a strong economy to fund such research and development and so it was because of this that the USSR ultimately failed.

In the unlikely event the economic issues could be sorted out then communism would have the potential to be more efficient than capitalism as done correctly there would be less dead wood to carry and so theoretically more resources could be concentrated on improving society.

In capitalist societies where the accumulation of wealth is the main goal resources are expended in areas of greatest potential financial gain and so many superior minds that could be employed in providing real products or other enhancements for society are instead diverted to services roles such as litigation lawyers which few would argue contribute little to society but happens to be where the money is.

 

[X-43D]

What i don't like about capitalism is the payment system which forces people to pay money for goods and services. Private sellers, workers and cashiers are like government by having the power to dictate prices and by coercing people to pay money for their goods and services.

A money system is a centrally controlled system, the few rich and their protection system, the state, have ultimate control of the system.
The people in the system have influence and power which is determined by how much money they have, and how well they play the cultural game.
The poor have no freedom at all, the rich decide what they are to do.

An alternative to a centrally controlled money system is a moneyless sharing voluntary system, where each individual decides for himself what to do. Such a system based on sharing and voluntarism is not a centrally controlled system.

Here is a simple and practical post-capitalist program everyone can donate to which can put an end to all the suffering the current system causes:

http://wikihost.org/wikis/program/wiki/start