Jesus Appalled by Capitalism? (part deux)

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 08:31
VIEWED: 4978
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:06 PM

In our last episode...
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27480&m=475130#475130

Geezer challenged Rue to find a technological non-monetary culture, Rue challenged Geezer to come up with a specific definition of capitalism, SignyM posted a number of examples of abusive capitalism, and 6ix would only accept an altnernative to capitalism under anarchy.

And in this episode....

Just to get the ball rolling...

6ix: Based on the articles that I posted of abusive capitalism (and those were just from the last three days of news!) do you really think "government" is the big problem?!?!?!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:13 PM

"technological non-monetary culture"

For their times, any culture that invented or harnessed language, fire, bowls, agriculture and husbandry etc was 'technological'. Some may see this as splitting hairs. However, if the claim is that one 'needs' capitalism for invention, I think the evidence is to the contrary.

Currently there are many 'open source' and 'free' (free as in freedom, not beer) initiatives that also invent and work without money or monetary incentive. That they happen to be imbedded in a surrounding money-based capitalist culture doesn't take away from the fact they work on a completely different model. And they are robust enough to be a significant threat to the current way of doing things.

Geezer - your turn to meet the challenge?

GEEZER

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Currently there are many 'open source' and 'free' (free as in freedom, not beer) initiatives that also invent and work without money or monetary incentive.

Examples, please. All you have to do is look out your window to see capitalist economy providing goods and services. Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existance? And while we're at it, one that's at more than the small village, subsistance level farming stage? That just won't work to support the population load we got, and doesn't sound like much fun anyway.

Quote:
That they happen to be imbedded in a surrounding money-based capitalist culture doesn't take away from the fact they work on a completely different model.

But would they be able to survive without the capitalist culture to provide things they can't make as individuals or small groups?

Quote:
And they are robust enough to be a significant threat to the current way of doing things.

And their names are? I keep asking for examples of a functional non-capitalist economy which offers adequate goods and services to maintain a lifestyle most people in capitalist countries enjoy, and I get Polish farming villages, Incans, and little-known civilizations that died 5 millenia ago.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:37 PM

I responded to the challenge. And you? When you start to answer the challenge we can go on to discuss mine.

But for now I need to dissect someone else's code and then go to a meeting. I hope to see your initial post to the challenge when I get back.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 5, 2007 8:48 PM

One of the problems with GDP... yes, I know it seems like I'm going off-track, but I'm not... is that it doesn't track goods or services that don't involve money. Seems like a minor exception until you realize that raising children involves an awful lot of work that is NEVER tracked by GDP. Laundry, housekeeping, staying up with a fevered child, going for walks, helping with homework, cooking, cleaning, coaching the soccer team... If you had to PAY for that stuff it'd be in the tens of billions.

Free software: same thing. It's added billions worth of goods and services to economies all over the world. About a third of internet servers are currently running free software.

I think I understand your point Geezer, but a "monetary" economy does not necessarily mean a "capitalist" one, and so I think what we need to do to progress in this discusison is to figure out what "capitalist" means.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Thursday, April 5, 2007 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I responded to the challenge. And you? When you start to answer the challenge we can go on to discuss mine.

Most definitions of capitalism seem to agree on a few points:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.
2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.
3. Idea is to make a profit.
4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.
5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

This seems like a good general definition to me. I would consider any country in which most production and distribution is owned by the private sector, with the intent to make a profit, and with prices generally set by market forces, to be capitalist.

So who are these successful non-capitalists?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 5, 2007 11:25 PM

I would quibble with "individuals or groups" because that really doesn't exclude anyone. Perhaps the definition should be "non-governmental groups". Of course, then we get into a discusison about "what is a government" but I guess that's another story.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 5, 2007 11:47 PM

Quote:
Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existance? And while we're at it, one that's at more than the small village, subsistance level farming stage?

Any major city.

Anyone who thinks different ain't never been poor enough to be involved in it, and if you don't believe me, read up on it.

Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor
by: Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh
ISBN-10: 0674023552
ISBN-13: 978-0674023550

You might also dig up the folklore "Story of the eleventh round" in order to understand why our current concept of capitalism is ruinous.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Thursday, April 5, 2007 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would quibble with "individuals or groups" because that really doesn't exclude anyone. Perhaps the definition should be "non-governmental groups". Of course, then we get into a discusison about "what is a government" but I guess that's another story.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

Sigh. Individuals or groups of individuals then. Excludes governments.

Please, let's not try to redefine 'capitalism', like you did 'charity', until it's completely outside most accepted definitions. I've given you my definition of capitalism, and I stick by it.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

CIA world fact book considers Taiwan a "...dynamic capitalist economy with gradually decreasing guidance of investment and foreign trade by government authorities. In keeping with this trend, some large, government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

They also consider Singapore "...a highly-developed and successful free-market economy, enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries."

In Singapore you can be jailed for pitching your chewing gum. In China you can't raise a family due to their "One Child" policy. Not the places for me, thanks.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existence?

Any major city.

Anyone who thinks different ain't never been poor enough to be involved in it, and if you don't believe me, read up on it.

OK, where is there a non-monetary economy in existence without a monetary, capitalist, economy running in parallel to provide the goods? I've made this point a few times, so it should be understood by now. I'll make sure to clarify in future.

Quote:
You might also dig up the folklore "Story of the eleventh round" in order to understand why our current concept of capitalism is ruinous.

This has nothing to do with capitalism, as I define it, and everything to do with the value of money, assuming that one 'round' is always worth one chicken, that the supply of chickens is stable, and that individuals cannot set the price of chickens simply by saying "I won't pay one round for one chicken, but maybe eleven rounds for ten chickens". If they do that, then you got a 'free-market economy'.

I'm still looking for a successful, stand-alone, non-capitalist economy which provides the goods and services that citizens in capitalist economies expect.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:36 AM

OK, where is there a non-monetary economy in existence without a monetary, capitalist, economy running in parallel to provide the goods? I've made this point a few times, so it should be understood by now. I'll make sure to clarify in future. I have seen many services and quite a number of goods provided non-monetarily. But what does this have to do with capitalism? Louis XVI had money but it certainly wasn't a capitalist economy.

I know you're going to beat on this point because Rue said "non-monetary" economies. But can we set that aside in our discussion of capitalism? Because the two have as much to do with each other as oceans and apples.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:39 AM

Geezer, I just supplied you three extant, technological non-capitalist economies but I'll repeat myself:

Taiwan.

Singapore.

China.

But if you care to look back in history, you'll see a plethora of non-capitalist economies that provided for their people with the greatest technology that was available at the time. AND they made significant advances: fire, argiculture, writing and the alphabet, mathematics, geography, geometry, metallurgy, animal husbandry, the printing press, chemistry, hydrology and irrigation, sanitation, art, architecture... why, we admire many of their products even today.

It seems dangerously self-referential to claim that because capitalism is the latest economic form (so far) and enjoys the fruits of previous advances that it is the BEST economic form. That's like looking at humans as the penultimate in evolution.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:40 AM

"without a monetary, capitalist, economy running in parallel to provide the goods"

Any remote tribe is non-monetary. The test - should the money economy disappear, they would be able to sustain themselves.

Large monetary economies may also be non-capitalist - like China. You may not LIKE the society, but it is a valid example. Not only are they non-capitalist, they are modern and inventive.

Your turn. Devise for me a modern non-capitalist society.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I just supplied you three extant, technological non-capitalist economies but I'll repeat myself:

Taiwan.

Singapore.

China.

Why do you consider Taiwan and Singapore non-capitalist? The CIA, at least, considers them capitalist or free-market? Regardless of what their political systems are, their economy acts in a capitalist manner as described above. Prove me wrong.

Quote:
But if you care to look back in history, you'll see a plethora of non-capitalist economies that provided for their people with the greatest technology that was available at the time. AND they made significant advances: fire, argiculture, writing and the alphabet, mathematics, geography, geometry, metallurgy, animal husbandry, the printing press, chemistry, hydrology and irrigation, sanitation, art, architecture... why, we admire many of their products even today.

True. But could they sustain the world as it exists today? I'm not denegrating previous economic systems, but they aren't up to the task of providing, however inequally, for the 6 billion folks we got running around today. I'm not interested in a system that requires that 99% of the Earth's population die off to work.

Quote:
It seems dangerously self-referential to claim that because capitalism is the latest economic form (so far) and enjoys the fruits of previous advances that it is the BEST economic form.

Never said it was "The Best". Just said it's the best so far. If you can show me a better economic system that is applicable to the real world as it stands today, I'd be glad to see it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Any remote tribe is non-monetary. The test - should the money economy disappear, they would be able to sustain themselves.

You want to live in a subsistance society, knock yourself out. Say goodby to medicine, healthy food, education beyond survival skills, etc.

Quote:
Large monetary economies may also be non-capitalist - like China. You may not LIKE the society, but it is a valid example. Not only are they non-capitalist, they are modern and inventive.

Once again, you want China's lifestyle, go for it. State control of your every action, little or no individual rights, massive pollution, etc. Not for me, please.

Quote:
Your turn. Devise for me a modern non-capitalist society.

Why? I don't believe there can currently be such a thing. You're the one who thinks capitalism is bound to fail. You provide an alternative that maintains your standard of living. Answer a question for once, if you can.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:24 AM

Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy.

Anybody?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:31 AM

I do have an answer, but I'm curious why you think people living two paychecks away from being out on the street are comfortable and secure. Except for the very rich who can buy their way past any contingency, no one - no matter how careful - is immune from the gaping maw of poverty. No one, except the very rich, can be guaranteed to be able to pay their bills just by working and 'not being stupid'.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I do have an answer,

Let's hear it, then.

Quote:
but I'm curious why you think people living two paychecks away from being out on the street are comfortable and secure. Except for the very rich who can buy their way past any contingency, no one - no matter how careful - is immune from the gaping maw of poverty.

Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation, and I'll address it. Or else tell me why all the people in non-capitalist economies rub blue clay into their bellybuttons.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:45 AM

"Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation" of being two paychecks away from being out on the street. Prove to me they aren't. YOU made the claim capitalism provides security. Show me it does.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation" of being two paychecks away from being out on the street. Prove to me they aren't. YOU made the claim capitalism provides security. Show me it does.

Cool. Ask me to prove a negative. Come on, you made the statement, you should have some information to back it up. Otherwise, you're just spouting. BTW, prove that non-capitalists aren't rubbing blue mud in their navels.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:52 AM

"Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy."

Can't back it up, eh?

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:53 AM

BTW, as corporations go multi-national, also do unions. Seems fair.

Quote:
Amicus, a major union in the UK, is to discuss a possible merger with another union based in the US and Canada.
If agreed, it would bring another 1.2m members to Amicus, creating one of the biggest unions in the world with more than 3m members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6531749.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:54 AM

"Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy."

Can't back it up, eh?

Your topic - you take the helm on this one.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy."

Can't back it up, eh?

You obviously have access to a computer, or you wouldn't be posting. If you're in the USA, the EU, Australia, Canada, or any of the other countries with a capitalist economy, you most likely have clean water, good food, etc. as most people there do.

This is getting pretty lame. If you have a viable alternative to capitalism that will maintain the standard of living that the majority of people in capitalist countries currently have, let me know. I'm beginning to believe that you don't, and are just trolling for an argument.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:07 AM

Here's a troll remark for Rue:

Jesus was a carpenter. You think he did that shit for free?

Just trying to help you prove your case that I'm a troll Rue. How was that?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:26 AM

Let's go with the longer list:

"computers"
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf
35 percent of households with householders aged 65 and older, about 45 percent of households with Black or Hispanic householders, and 28 percent of households with householders who had less than a high school education had a computer.

"clean water"
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/water/a_wateruse.html
"by 2000 about 85 percent (of the United States population obtained drinking water from public suppliers)"

"good food"
http://millionsofmouths.com/blog/nfblog/?p=168
"Hunger and homelessness remain a critical issue. A report released by U.S. Department of Agriculture on Nov. 15, 2006 revealed that in the previous year 34.8 million Americans did not have enough money or other resources to buy food."

"reliable transportation"
Difficult to measure. The US has poor public transportation.

"911 a phone call away"
Does this mean police services? Cuba and China have them as well.

"entertainment"
Literally ALL cultures have entertainment.

"leisure"
Not as much as socialized economies.

"a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid"
Not really. Check out "negative savings rates" "united states" Also, "percentage in foreclosure", plus "bankruptcy" "medical bills"

Your list fails to prove your point in several different ways. Some things such as food and computers are poorly distributed so that many lack while others have excess. Some things like clean water (and in other countries transportation) are public services and not provided by 'capitalism'. Some things like entertainment are present in all cultures. And so on.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:32 AM

"Jesus was a carpenter. You think he did that shit for free?"

So far as anyone knows, Jesus never plied his trade as a carpenter. He lived off the largess of friends and followers, walking from home to home and city to city where he 'stayed' with friends. He never owned property either - all he had to call his own were his sandals and robes. I don't think you can make a case he was a capitalist. Unless you think he said "blessed are the cheesemakers."

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:35 AM

Quote:
your climate conditioned homes

Which we dare not use to more than reduce the misery cause heating and cooling costs are insane, controlled by government-sponsored monopolies that squeeze every dime of profit, ask us to 'conserve energy' and then when we do, cry that they're losing money and 'justify' rate increases.

Quote:
in front of your computers

Which was built on the cheap out of parts bartered for services.
Which ISP service is financed by sold recyclables.

Quote:
with clean water

Full of waste products from pharmaceutical companies, pollution from the power plants, and contaminated with flouride.

Quote:
good food

Full of MSG, Aspartame, and all kinds of horrific things a lotta folk would rather not dump into thier system, but the alternatives are too expensive to afford, and any standards to call many modern day foods "organic" are just plain laughable.

Quote:
reliable transportation

Bwahahaha *gasp-wheeze* hahahahah... let's just say it's a good day if no pieces fall off en route.

Quote:
911 a phone call away

please stay on the line, your call will be answered in the order it was recieved...

Quote:
entertainment

What most people qualify as entertainment, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and smart folk can entertain themselves for free, which has been goin on since before recorded history, mind you.

Quote:
leisure

HAHAHAHAHA, work, work, sleep, eat, work, work, work some more, and maybe have a little while to poke around on the net while semi-nodding off to sleep and then work work work... whatever you're smoking, pass left.

Quote:
a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid

You've GOT to be kidding me, I drive a cab, and pay for my own fuel costs, and then get completely fekkin raped on taxes cause I don't sell my very soul to some megacorp zaibatsu like everyone else - payin the bills requires throwing in side work and odd jobs just to get it done, because after uncle scumbag bends you over the sawhorse, you don't have enough LEFT to pay the bills.

Quote:
describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy.

Benefits ?
BENEFITS ?

I fail to see where an all encompassin voracious beast of a government locked in an incestuous embrace with sociopathic protected monopoly corporations is a BENEFIT to me in any logical or reasonable way.

Especially when it comes to my door and consumes MY resources to pay for things I don't want which neither benefit me, or in many cases directly or indirectly impact me in a NEGATIVE fashion.

I notice you weren't fool enough to throw the words 'health care' into that deluded dream of prosperity that does not in ANY WAY occur under the $75,000.00USD/Year mark...

Quote:
Or else tell me why all the people in non-capitalist economies rub blue clay into their bellybuttons.

Cause maybe they LIKE to do that, maybe it's what they wanna do, and maybe, just maybe, there's not no pissant government official lording over them telling them what they can and cannot do... who knows, maybe it makes em happy, and if so, more power to em.

We don't actually HAVE a capitalism, we have a corporate-governmental totalarianist oligarchy, and to believe anything else is just silly.

So you're just blowing smoke rings, when it comes right down to it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:40 AM

Once again, you want China's lifestyle, go for it. State control of your every action, little or no individual rights, massive pollution, etc. Not for me, please.

Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.

JEEZ!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:00 AM

Why do you consider Taiwan and Singapore non-capitalist? The CIA, at least, considers them capitalist or free-market? Regardless of what their political systems are, their economy acts in a capitalist manner as described above. Prove me wrong.

I don't know if you remember, but I SPECIFICALLY said that you won't find the CIA calling these nations anything other than "free market capitalist" But about 50% of Taiwan's industry is government-owned. The CIA provides back-handed evidence for this when they say

gradually decreasing guidance of investment and foreign trade by government authorities. In keeping with this trend, some large, government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized.
ALSO Large government-owned corporations were set up to develop strategic industries such as steel, petrochemicals, shipbuilding, and energy. New airports, highways, railways, seaports, and communications systems were built (by the government)
www.bsicorp.net/countries/taiwan.shtml

Just google Taiwan government owned industry

AFA Singapore is concerned, the government has a complicated relationship with the economy but Government-linked corporations (GLCs) are majority government-owned but operate commercially, unlike traditional parastatals. GLCs account for more than 60% of Singapore's GDP. Industrial GLCs include Singapore Technologies (aerospace and electronics manufacturer); Keppel Corporation (oil drilling and related equipment manufacturer); Sembawang Corporation (construction and environmental engineering); Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, Singapore Telecom Petrochemical Corp. of Singapore, and Singapore Refining Corp.
www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Singapore-INDUSTRY.html

Geezer, I hope you learned something from this discussion because you sure as hell didn't know much before.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:14 AM

I think part of the problem is actually defining what Capitalism is. I've yet to find a good description. It isn't trade, trade has existed as long as there have been human societies, it isn't currency, that's been about for a very long time as well.

I've come to an opinion, kind of my own line in the sand, that says that most societies that existed prior to the mid 1700's are not truely capitalist societies. They produced things, had money, the concept of property and they traded but to my mind the big change was the one Adam Smith was describing in Wealth of Nations the existance of the concept of the industrial investor.

Manufactories have existed since at least the middle ages, in fact it was common for tradesmen to employ several apprentices that worked for them, but in the 1700's people started to establish larger and larger workshops employing workmen as employees, rather than as independent craftsmen or apprentices. The owners of these workshops where business men rather than just craftsmen they were hiring people to make things for them rather than hiring people to make things with them.

This was the dawn of the industrial revolution, these men where the industrialists, and the system that they were applying was early capitalism. The big difference to my mind is that these where people for whom manufacturing was a way to use money to make money more than an exercise in it's own right.

What we have today is even more abstract. Modern capitalism is really about the commoditization of money, it's use as a raw material to be bought sold and traded like any other industrial product. Thus almost every human endevor has been removed from the equation. Investors are only interested in getting a higher return for their investment and not how that return was made. It doesn't matter to them (and sometimes they dont even know) if the return comes from making life saving drugs or cigarettes, or by making movies or making wars.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Unless you think he said "blessed are the cheesemakers."

HA! Cheesemakers.....

And I was beginning to think nobody had a sense of humore in RWED.

Better keep listening. There might be a bit about "Blessed are the Bignoses"

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:30 AM

I have a fwend in Wome. And his name is Biggus Dickus.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:54 AM

When in Wome, do like a Woman

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's go with the longer list:

Let's not. First, I was talking about capitalist countries in general, not just the US, so you need to provide some more examples. Second, I never said that capitalism, as it exists today, doesn't have problems. Third, you still haven't shown any hint that you have a better system in mind to replace it.

I met my part of the challenge by defining what I consider capitalism. You can't meet yours, so you're starting to change the subject again.

What economic system do you want to replace the capitalism you hate so much?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:03 PM

OK Fremd, maybe you can offer a better economic system than the evil capitalism?

edited to add: "Which was built on the cheap out of parts bartered for services." Ah, but who built those parts? A blacksmith?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.

What I've been asking for is a description of the economic system that you, Rue, and now Fred think could replace the existing capitalist system you hate so much. So far I've got nada.

I'm actually getting more convinced that capitalism, with all its problems, is the best system so far. I know that I got at least three people here who seem to absolutely hate it, but who can't come up with a viable alternative to replace it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think part of the problem is actually defining what Capitalism is. I've yet to find a good description. It isn't trade, trade has existed as long as there have been human societies, it isn't currency, that's been about for a very long time as well.

I'm still sticking with this

1. Capitalism is an economic system.
2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.
3. Idea is to make a profit.
4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.
5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

Type 'capitalism' into a search engine and these traits are common among almost all definitions.

Capitalism is an economic system in the same way that English Common Law is a legal system or Socialism is a system of government. How it plays in the real world depends on how individuals and groups use it.

Remember, capitalism isn't just Bill Gates and Wal-Mart, it's also the guys who got together to open the burger stand down the street, pooling and risking their capital in hopes of making a profit.

Quote:
Investors are only interested in getting a higher return for their investment and not how that return was made. It doesn't matter to them (and sometimes they dont even know) if the return comes from making life saving drugs or cigarettes, or by making movies or making wars.

Some investors. There has been quite a move to investments and funds made up of eco-friendly companies or those which do not produce weapons.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:30 PM

Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.-Signy

What I've been asking for is a description of the economic system that you, Rue, and now Fred think could replace the existing capitalist system you hate so much. So far I've got nada.-Geezer

No, you've gotten THREE examples of systems which are not capitalism which could replace it. The fact that your don't like the proposed system based on your prejudices and upbringing is neither here not there.

I'm actually getting more convinced that capitalism, with all its problems, is the best system so far. I know that I got at least three people here who seem to absolutely hate it, but who can't come up with a viable alternative to replace it.

Please don't confuse your lack of imagination with a lack of alternatives. I actually have four altneratives in mind: one in a tweak on capitalism, one is non-capitalist and already exists, and two are is theoretical. But if you keep moving the goalposts because you want to reject alternatives, I'm not going to discuss them in detail because it's just a waste of my time. Take the fingers out of your ears and stop chanting "I can't hear you" amd then we can talk.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...SignyM posted a number of examples of abusive capitalism...

Abusive Capitalism. Interesting phrase. From the same people who brought you "Gun Crime" no doubt.

"Why yes, Sir, that old Abusive Capitalism just jumped out of the drawer and shot Jimmy dead."

What you really posted were examples of companies and individuals abusing the system. You could find examples of the same things in the world of non-profits.

Quote:
Area United Way's Ex-Chief Admits $500,000 Fraud

By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2004; Page B01

The former chief executive of the local United Way, who touched off a devastating financial scandal at the organization, yesterday pleaded guilty to defrauding the charity of almost $500,000.

Prosecutors said Oral Suer, who ran the United Way of the National Capital Area for 27 years until his retirement in February 2001, charged the organization for personal expenses such as bowling equipment and trips to Las Vegas, paid himself $333,000 for annual leave he had taken and took $94,000 more than his share from the charity's pension plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3
1702-2004Mar4¬Found=true

Capitalism isn't a monolith, it's multiples of companies and people all doing things in their on ways. Some are ethical and some are not, just like there are ethical and non-ethical in government, the law, medicine, sports, and pretty much everything else. If you want to be mad with unethical people, I'm right with you. But to ditch the whole system, with no replacement in sight, is that baby/bathwater thing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:39 PM

.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:41 PM

1) Capitalism is an economic system.

Okay. I think we may need to define "economic system" in the future but so far so good.

2) Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.

MOSTLY by individuals or groups? Let's see, who does the definition leave out? If you're not an individual you're a ... group! A government. An NGO. A group of investors. Huh. This part of the definition doesn't seem to say much.

3) Idea is to make a profit.

But if you're a non-profit NGO or a government (see "groups", above) then the idea may not necessarily be to make a profit.

4) Pricing is determined largely by a free market.

Whatever that means. See below.

5) Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

There are many types of corporations, you need to specify the stock-holding kind of corporation.

Also, you left out a major feature of capitalism, which is the presence of competition. That might be considered to be alluded to in in "free markets" but it might not, depending on your definition of "free". If you mean by "free" simply non-interference by government that does not necessarily include competition.

So I find the definition rather weak and needing modification.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:48 PM

Capitalism isn't a monolith, it's multiples of companies and people all doing things in their on ways. Some are ethical and some are not, just like there are ethical and non-ethical in government, the law, medicine, sports, and pretty much everything else. If you want to be mad with unethical people, I'm right with you. But to ditch the whole system, with no replacement in sight, is that baby/bathwater thing.

Geezer- Your defense of capitalism is rather like a church member's defense of religion: It would be perfect, if it weren't for the people practicing it! The problem with capitalism is that it is flawed at its very base. There is no inherent check or balance inherent within capitalism from becoming monopolist or abusive. Checks needs to be applied from the outside.

BTW- I DO have alternatives. I posted about several variations on government-owned production as one. You didn't "like" it, but once viably democratic elections are introduced along with free speech, then those systems have a shot at becoming even better than what we've got. I also have a couple of other ideas which I'm not going to introduce until you take your fingers out of your ears!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 6, 2007 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I'm still sticking with this

1. Capitalism is an economic system.

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

Quote:

2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.

That's not exclusive to Capitalism. That's been the situation since craftsmen and peddlers made things to trade rather than hunt/grow things themselves.

Quote:

3. Idea is to make a profit.

Still not exclusive here... nobody is in business to make a loss.

Quote:

4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.

So America before NAFTA and the WTO was not a capitalist society? Capitalism works better with a free market but Imperialist closed market economies where still Capitalist.

Quote:

5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

I have read the various definitions and they all do what you do they look at what capitalism is and then present a checklist. the problem is that the same checklist applies to an awfull lot of preindustrial, pre capitalist societies as well. This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.

Go back a few hundred years and we have everything in your list, craftsmen owning and running manufaturies of apprentices and workers, markets to sell in, in fact the whole deal. However back then it was the guy that ran the business that was the important one, you wouldn't dream of openning a silversmiths business or a harness makers unless you were a craftsman in that industry.

What happened, at least in the UK is that changes in agriculture produced wealth that could not be turned easily into more land for more farming. This excess of capital needed to go somewhere and so you had something new, investors whose principle interest in any enterprise was return on their money rather than any connection to the business they were investing in. That is the principle difference. It is the use of capital to make capital using industry a a mechanism, the end product for the investor being money not the product of the factory itself.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, you've gotten THREE examples of systems which are not capitalism which could replace it. The fact that your don't like the proposed system based on your prejudices and upbringing is neither here not there.

Taiwan is currently privatizing its government-held businesses for all it's worth, moving towards capitalism, so that's not much of a viable replacement.

Singapore is also privatizing and is aiming for a free market system. Two down. http://www.aseansec.org/12389.htm

As to China, I don't think that a country with a $1,262.59 GDP per capita provides a valid alternative to capitalist countries with average GDP per capita of, say, $30,000.00 or so. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-p
er-capita

So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by your examples.

Quote:
I actually have four altneratives in mind: one in a tweak on capitalism, one is non-capitalist and already exists, and two are is theoretical. But if you keep moving the goalposts because you want to reject alternatives, I'm not going to discuss them in detail because it's just a waste of my time.

Cute, you get to criticize capitalism all you want, but I can't see your alternatives because I might find problems with them. Apparently they are so weak thay can't stand scrutiny.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So I find the definition rather weak and needing modification.

Talk to all the economists who wrote the definitions I paraphrased above.

I just love this. The standard definition which is used almost universally to describe something doesn't fit your prejudices, so want it to mean something else. Who does that remind me of?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

...This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

Apparently not redundant, since you go on to call capitalism a societial system.

And, yes, there were individual capitalists back in the Dark Ages, but for there to be a capitalist economic system, they need to be the main driver of the economy.

Quote:
Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.

So Bill Gates isn't a capitalist?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:25 PM

Quote:
Taiwan is currently privatizing its government-held businesses for all it's worth, moving towards capitalism, so that's not much of a viable replacement.

WHOA THERE Geezer! All of Taiwan's "economic miracle" came from their mixed economic system. Just because they may be changing their economy NOW doesn't negate the fact that their rapid development came from an alternate economy! How do you justify ignoring such an obvious and significant fact?

Quote:
Singapore is also privatizing and is aiming for a free market system.

Ditto. Singapore has been rightly called a "socialist miracle". ALL of their economic progress was based on a not-fully-capitalist system. It's not reasonable or intellectually honest to ignore facts of history just because you don't like the lesson that they teach.

And what happens if their economies go down the drain after changing to a "capitalist" system? Would you then accept that they had a "viable alternative" because the introduction of capitalism caused a decrease in GDP and/or living standards? Or would you find some sort of excuse for the failure of capitalism to provide a "viable alternative"? (The changeover was clumsy... What they implemented wasn't "really" capitalism... But they gained "freedom" or some other intangible....The timing was bad because it's a down part of the business cycle....They're not culturally or politically attuned to free market economies...The pain is only temporary.... )

Quote:
As to China, I don't think that a country with a $1,262.59 GDP per capita provides a valid alternative to capitalist countries with average GDP per capita of, say, $30,000.00 or so.

So, what WERE your criteria for accepting an alternate economic structure? I thought it was to be able to be technological. Then you added political considerations. Now you're adding GDP. How about if I add RATE OF GROWTH? Looking at China, Taiwan, and Singapore, that seems to be the outstanding feature of mixed economies... their RATE OF GROWTH is phenomenal. Wouldn't you say?

heh heh heh

Quote:
So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by your examples

Ah, so we have the Geezer standard of economic viablity. It needs to be... oh, just like what you're used to in order to be considered "viable". heh.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:32 PM

Quote:
Talk to all the economists who wrote the definitions I paraphrased above. I just love this. The standard definition which is used almost universally to describe something doesn't fit your prejudices, so want it to mean something else. Who does that remind me of?

Parts of the definition on their face don't make sense ("individuals or groups" for example) and other parts need clarification. Economists have spent books trying to define and clarify what "capitalism" means. I cite Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for the critical component of competition, which is one of the fundamental underlying assumptions of the "free market"(which also requires that exchanges be made without "force or fraud").

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:38 PM

"could replace the existing capitalist system"

Originally the question was:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27480

Provide me with any example of a working technological society with a relatively high standard of living which does not have some form of capitalism as its economic base.

-----------------

Different question. AND it was answered - China, Taiwan, Singapore.

"Taiwan is currently privatizing its government-held businesses for all it's worth, moving towards capitalism, so that's not much of a viable replacement.

Singapore is also privatizing and is aiming for a free market system. Two down."

Not really. They STARTED and THRIVED as government-controlled economies. They are not even > 50% privatized now. AND they have no intention of privatizing major industries. Finally, as usual, you have no cites so AFAIK you're just blowing this out of your ass.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:45 PM

Thanks Rue. I kept answering the question and Geezer kept changing it.

Geezer, the reason why I will not put forth any ideas is because you have so far not accepted even demonstrated historical fact. Your question has been answered. Viable alternatives- even wildly successful ones- exist. No, they're not middle-class suburban Virginia (or wherever it is you live) but they meet the definition of
1) being non-capitalist
2) capable of technological advance
3) providing for a reasonable standard of living (even in densely populated situations)
4) being viable (thriving for decades)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:48 PM

And that's why I called him Slick. He'll do ANYTHING to avoid honest debate, even in his other personas.
I went round and round with him a few years ago about US history in South and Central America. He wouldn't even admit there was such a thing as 'gunboat diplomacy', 'banana republics' and 70's CIA meddling. Well, that's Slick for you.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:54 PM

Maybe so, but I refuse to name-call. There is a bit of the troll in all of us. The best response to trollish behavior is to keep the debate focused on the issues, not to engage in similar response. Be Super Nanny. This is the last post from me on this point in this thread.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:01 PM

yeah - but notice I haven't been addressing him as Slick ! Just explaining where the name came from and why it fits. And you may (or may not) have noticed his seriously trollish snarking in other threads under his "geezer" persona. (He must be slipping and forgetting which name he's using at the moment.)

But anyway, PM me with some of your ideas. It's a topic you've obviously thought a lot about, and you probably have some great things to say. I'd hate to miss out just because of a troll doing what trolls do best and disrupting a discussion.

And I too have things to do. So, catch you later.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:17 PM

Oaky, I won't post them for Geezer but I will for you. AFA Geezer is concerned, unless he chooses to debate reasonably I simply won't respond to his comments.

The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above)

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

I have a personal preference for Door #3 but I'm willing to discuss the benefits, perils and pitfalls of all of them.

Gotta go.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

...This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

Apparently not redundant, since you go on to call capitalism a societial system.

I did not. If I describe Israel as a principly Jewish society do I infer that the Jewish religion is a societal system? You would do better to address the points in hand.

Quote:

Quote:
Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.
So Bill Gates isn't a capitalist?

Bill Gates does not own Microsoft, he has just a little under 11 percent of the company. If the owners of the other 89% decided to close shop and turn Redmond into a parking lot they could. As I said it is the investor that is the owner of the company not nescessarily the guy that runs it.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
All of Taiwan's "economic miracle" came from their mixed economic system. Just because they may be changing their economy NOW doesn't negate the fact that their rapid development came from an alternate economy! How do you justify ignoring such an obvious and significant fact?

Because they are dumping the mixed economic system themselves to move toward more privitization and free market economy. If it works so great, why get rid of it? Same for Singapore. The end state of their planned development is a capitalist economy. Doesn't seem too hard to figure out that they consider capitalism the way to go.

Quote:
So, what WERE your criteria for accepting an alternate economic structure?

An alternative economic structure should provide similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development to those provided by the current capitalist system. Actually, to be viable, it should be able to provide these things at a higher level, else there's no reason to implement it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:17 PM

Are you SURE the end state is capitalist? Or even mostly capitalist? I haven't seen anything to that effect. I mean, I'd hate spend much time discussing non-facts when there are so many better things to discuss.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

This does exist to a certain extent now. I have no problem with government acting as a check to capitalists who might want to game the system. It's still a capitalist economy, though.

Quote:
The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above)

The government-controlled economies have pretty much been set up by totalitarian regimes, and worked because they didn't have to deal with the "checks and balances" of a democracy. When the all-powerful government owns companies and that same government regulates companies, guess whose companies get the breaks. As noted above, Taiwan and Singapore are moving away from the mixed economy and towards privitization, free markets, and capitalism. They must have compelling reasons to do so. China's most successful industries function on a capitalist model.

Quote:
The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development

There are quite a few businesses which operate on this model now. I expect that there will be more eventually, as this fits in with a lot of people's ethos. I don't think that it will replace capitalism as the dominant economic force. Situations where large amounts of capital ar needed for startup or infrastructure will require outside investment. There will probably also be people who just want to draw a salary, and not risk their money by investing it in their workplace.

Quote:
The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

I find it hard to believe that you would use the words "government" and "smarter" in the same sentence.

Quote:
I have a personal preference for Door #3 but I'm willing to discuss the benefits, perils and pitfalls of all of them.

Gotta go.

I'd prefer #1, as it's probably the least disruptive and most likely to get accomplished.

I gotta go too.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:47 PM

Quote:
Because they are dumping the mixed economic system themselves to move toward more privitization and free market economy.

Not entirely. You're misrepresenting.

Quote:
If it works so great, why get rid of it?

Could just be plain old corruption.

And I addressed this already. I will repeat myself one more time. That does not take away from the fact that they spent the last 40-50 years developing under a different and very successful model. It does not mean that the end state WILL be capitalism. (It may be "more" capitalist but not fully so.) And it does not guarantee that privatization will provide a better standard of living. In fact, I can name you several nations that privatized and tanked badly. Seems to indicate that capitalism is not a viable alterantive either.

Quote:
An alternative economic structure should provide similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development to those provided by the current capitalist system. Actually, to be viable, it should be able to provide these things at a higher level, else there's no reason to implement it.

Ah, so the Geezer standard of viability comes out! I refer again to Singapore, Taiwan, and PRC. They meet all of your requirements and they are not capitalist.

AFA raising capital is concerned.. you know, there are ways to raise money besides selling stocks. Whatever happened to loans, bonds, and government-guaranteed loans?

Geezer, you're such a millstone in this discussion! Always looking backwards and dragging your feet. No fun at all! Don't you realize that you're dealing with a MASTERMIND?

The Meyers-Briggs Test www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=27992

Quote:
INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, April 6, 2007 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I addressed this already. I will repeat myself one more time. That does not take away from the fact that they spent the last 40-50 years developing under a different and very successful model.

A model that's only viable with a totalitarian government to create it. Thanks, but no thanks.

Quote:
I refer again to Singapore, Taiwan, and PRC. They meet all of your requirements and they are not capitalist.

The PRC "provide{s} similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development..." to, say, Germany? What you smokin', SignyM?

Quote:
AFA raising capital is concerned.. you know, there are ways to raise money besides selling stocks. Whatever happened to loans, bonds, and government-guaranteed loans?

And where do you think that money for loans, bonds, and government guaranteed bonds comes from? Investors. Capitalism at one remove.

Quote:
Geezer, you're such a millstone in this discusison. Always looking backwards and dragging your feet. No fun at all!

I'm having fun.

I recognize that economics isn't a monoculture. There are varieties of ways for things to work. At this time, capitalism seems to be a vital part of the mix. Some day something else may arise and supercede it as top dog, but parts of it will still be around, just as barter is still around now. You seem to want that "One Simple Solution" system, but one size does not fit all when you're dealing with individual humans. Everybody's not going to want to own part of the company they work for. Everybody's not going to want to work for the State. There has to be variety, or your "simple" solution just won't work because everybody's not going to do what you think they should.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 6:43 PM

Quote:
The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

At first I thought this was about separating the power of money form government - breaking the "$1 = 1 vote" equation as you formulated a while ago. However, wealth distribution under control of government is just as liable to cascade the other way (FROM wealth and power to people TO wealth and power to corps) should corporate money gain the edge. It looks like a bi-stable system. So I'd like a bit more explanation on this.

Quote:
The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above).

I think government needs to stand between ANY economic interests and social ones. The ownership of business interests - whether corporate, public or cooperative - will always look after narrow business decisions rather than broad social ones.
However, we have seen how easily government can 'game' a democratic system by controlling the media.
So there needs to be some sort of media protection, both from government and business agendas.

Quote:
The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development.

I think this goes a ways to avoid concentration of money and power into VERY few hands. But it doesn't keep businesses from despoiling the environment, from becoming monopolies, from becoming powerful enough in their own right to do the same thing current businesses do, nor does it require them to consider broad social issues. So there still needs to be government restriction.

Quote:
The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 6:47 PM

SignyM, you'll never be able to have a bona fide discussion with him.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:04 PM

Quote:
A model that's only viable with a totalitarian government to create it. Thanks, but no thanks.

I don't see any reason why a partly government-owned economy has to be totalitarian. I can perfectly envision some sort of democracy where the government owns the banks, power generation, transporation, electrical power, water supplies, telephonics like... oh, say.... Germany? If that's the case, why cannot that be extended to the extractives, steel, cement, refining and industrial chemicals? Not that it needs to go that way, but I don't see any reason why not. Do you?

Quote:
The PRC "provide{s} similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development..." to, say, Germany? What you smokin', SignyM

In the cities, definitely. But excluding the PRC, that still leaves Taiwan and Singapore, which meets the OTHER critical part of your "requirements" (capable of supporting current population densities.)

Quote:
And where do you think that money for loans, bonds, and government guaranteed bonds comes from? Investors. Capitalism at one remove.

Huh? What YOU smokin', Geezer? There isn't a single "capitalist" in the scenario. A lender is not an "owner" in the sense that they do not exercise day-to-day control. In addition, they do not share in future growth. Your definitions, like your requirements, are a little bendy.

Quote:
I'm having fun.

Wish I could say the same. You lack vision.

Quote:
You seem to want that "One Simple Solution" system, but one size does not fit all when you're dealing with individual humans.

Hey, you're the one who wants everything to look, sound, smell and perform like suburban Virginia! You sound like Goldilocks... this one's too big. This one's too small. And this one smells funny.

But seeing as you have conceded that not one size fits all, have you figured out which nations tanked under capitalism?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:08 PM

Hey Rue, I'll be happy to explicate later. You're right- talking with Geezer is a waste of time.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:15 PM

Well, I guess this is "later"!

Quote:
At first I thought this was about separating the power of money form government - breaking the "$1 = 1 vote" equation as you formulated a while ago. However, wealth distribution under control of government is just as liable to cascade the other way (FROM wealth and power to people TO wealth and power to corps) should corporate money gain the edge. It looks like a bi-stable system. So I'd like a bit more explanation on this.

It is about separating money from politics. But in order to do that, you also have to separate communication from money, because money has it's entree into politics through the necessity of advertising. Also, an information stream controlled by corporations is likely to be pretty quiet about how you're getting fucked over by corporations.

So the first requirement is that content is free. I don't mean just free as in Freedom, I mean FREE as in "beer".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, April 6, 2007 7:25 PM

SignyM

"You sound like Goldilocks... this one's too big. This one's too small. And this one smells funny."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .... OMG LMAOROTF

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:01 AM

Sw'anyways ... I'm going to talk about door #3 (cooperatives) because it interests me the most.

In a cooperative economic system as I have envisioned, the only allowable busniess forms are either single member cooperatives (sole owner/ employee) or multi-person Cooperatives. Every worker "owns" a portion of the business (whatever it is) in proportion to the number of hours they work. Each cooperative pays a certain percent in taxes from their gross revenues, then pays expenses and creditors. The remainder is reinvested and divvied up according to the goals of the cooperative.

The problem with current cooperatives (as practiced in North America) is that they require every member to vote on every issue- from how much beans they should buy next month to who's sweeping the floor tonight. There should be several forms of co-ops, just as today there are several forms of business (DBA, LLC, Inc. etc.) One form would be direct democracy, but other forms would include voting in a board of directors or hiring a management team. However it works, "the management" should always be at the behest of "the managed". And there are some things that the co-op always gets to vote on:

1)What to do with the leftover money. Distribute to the folks, or re-invest for higher productivity and greater return later?
2) The form of the cooperative.

AFA salary ranges, I wonder how it would work out if you paid everyone the same? I know that sounds like a "radical" idea, but look at it this way.... If you get paid the same no matter what you do, then you get to do what you like (and presumably what you're best at). High-paying jobs wouldn't attract hacks just because they pay well. Trainers would train, managers would manage, designers would design, and floor sweepers would sweep because that's what they WANT to do.

There are pitfalls with this too. The same tendency towards "monopolism" is present in this arrangement. Theoretically, you could have a particularly efficient co-op take over other co-ops like some sort of amoeba until only "super co-op" was left. The co-ops are also not inherently eco-friendly, warm and fuzzy, or any of the other things that we think of a "co-operative". They could have the same corrupting influence on government that business currently has: there would have to be a strong wall of separation between co-ops and government.

In some end state, when cooperatives are 100% efficient and don't need any employees... or in the march towards that end state... you could theoretically generate significant unemployment.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 12:37 AM

"So the first requirement is that content is free. I don't mean just free as in Freedom, I mean FREE as in 'beer'."

It would be kind of interesting to apply this to 'free speech' ideas. In order to count as 'free speech' it literally HAS to be free. However, sadly, I can see ways around that too, even in current every-day life. Corporations for example do 'issue' publishing. And this is not to make money (directly) it's to influence thought. Monied interests may make a small sacrifice to put out 'free' (as in beer) speech to influence public thought. So simply requiring political speech or other speech to be free$$ doesn't necessarily remove the influence of money.

Either that or I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean. ????

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 1:22 AM

The only really "free speech" is the internet. If supported by the goverment everyone gets their say, and more $$$ does not necessarily mean more presence (Altho I can see that being abused too.) If radio, TV, and newspapers are suported by the government you risk hearing only government viewpoints. But if you have to PAY to communciate something, it seems to me that it should be regulated as "advertising". The concept of making communication free really needs more work!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 1:28 AM

I was just curious. Though an internet where everyone gets ONE site might be useful for 'free speech'. ??

GEEZER

Saturday, April 7, 2007 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In a cooperative economic system as I have envisioned, the only allowable busniess forms are either single member cooperatives (sole owner/ employee) or multi-person Cooperatives.

Ah, totalitarianism. Do what we say or die. Wonderful.

I envisige an economic system where faerie creatures of fire and light descend from above and grant every person an imperishable wishing flower made of purple crystal. As new people are born, their faerie friends provide them with a new flower. Everyone can have everything they want, at any time, at no cost to themselves. About as likely to occur as your options 2 through 4. Since this is the "Real World Event Discussions" forum and you're obviously way outside practical real world solutions, I leave the fantasizing to you. Ta.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:05 AM

I envision a world of space travel and dispersed peoples, of core systems and far flung frontiers, where ships might have quixotic names like 'Firefly' ... nah, no point in discussing something like that.

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:06 AM

try again ...
I envision a world where heat and light are automatic, where people get around in machines not drawn by animals, where people can fly ... nah, no point in discussing something like that.

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 2:08 AM

try again ...
I envision a world where kings don't rule, and people can decide their governments, where there is no taxation without representation, where trials are fair and open ... nah, no point in discussing something like that. (well, especially not now )

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 3:13 AM

Conducting this thought experiment has made me wonder about the ultimate causes of unemployment. In today's situation I'd say its lack of wealth redistribution: capitalists will only produce what they can sell, and if people who NEED medicine (for example) can't pay for it, or there is no constituency for it (such as reforestation) then it simply won't be done. Money travels in tighter and tighter circles.

A more distant cause of unemployment is increasing productivity. As long as jobs and wealth are distributed more or less evenly, then what the general population sees is a gradual decrease in work and an increased standard of living. But if increased productivity rewards only a few, then a large number of people are out in the cold. Looking at the boundary conditions of capitalasm we see that happening. But it could also happen under cooperatives... more slowly perhaps but it could still wind up that way.

Handling productivity requires other feeback systems aside from "more" equitable distribution of wealth.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, April 7, 2007 3:31 AM

"But it could also happen under cooperatives".

But what would be the downside? In cooperatives I imagine the work gets equally proportioned up or down as efficiency increases or demand changes. If they are producing more with less work hours then the benefits of those sales accrue to the people who 'own' the cooperative, no matter how many or few hours they work. More money AND more lesiure time. YUM !

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 6:48 AM

The issue that I have is that a cooperative might have such an advantage productivity-wise that it .... oh, right. Nevermind!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 7, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If they are producing more with less work hours then the benefits of those sales accrue to the people who 'own' the cooperative, no matter how many or few hours they work. More money AND more lesiure time. YUM !

This assumes they are making an adequate return on their investment. What if they can't sell enough of their product at a high enough price to pay the bills?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 5:25 PM

Then they raise their prices or go belly up. Same as under capitalsim.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Saturday, April 7, 2007 6:13 PM

Produce more ... prices drop. Econ 101.
Several possible results.
As prices drop inefficient producers are wiped out, pushing people into the gutter.
Luckily prices drop, but not enough to put anyone out of business; society benefits at the reduced costs of things overall; profits/leisure time of the producers somewhat improved.
Prices drop; inefficient producers go out of business; resulting in decreased product supplies; prices return to original level and original producers make a killing.

Ripples on a pond.

====
Please vote for Firefly:
http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

GEEZER

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Then they raise their prices or go belly up. Same as under capitalsim.

And then everybody in the cooperative's out of a job. And this is better than capitalism how?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BROOKLYNBROWNCOAT

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:24 PM

just call Buffy the Christ killer- she'll take care of it

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 7:33 PM

Distributing wealth thru work not ownership. Keeping the money circulating w/o welfare, so it doesn't clump up in one spot and stop flowing while still retaining the positive aspects of competition, free markets, and increasing productivity.

I think that YOU think I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

I'm not. Hence my avoidance of "charity". I want to FIX the system, not bandage it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:37 PM

*fires up the rock-ola in the corner*

So much bobbin and weavin goin on here, might as well put some music to this little dance.

-F

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 7, 2007 10:52 PM

I'm not bobbing and weaving. Do YOU think I am? I think I'm being straightforward.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 7, 2007 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Distributing wealth thru work not ownership.

But in your cooperative, everybody is forced to be the owner. They are required to risk their capital - be it money, physical labor, or special skill - on the success of the cooperative. If the cooperative fails they are all responsible to creditors, fellow members, people who have ordered product, etc. As noted before, some folks are up for this, and this model has worked in many cases. However, a lot of people would not want to be in this position, and would rather just work for wages, then you got capitalism again.

Quote:
Keeping the money circulating w/o welfare, so it doesn't clump up in one spot and stop flowing while still retaining the positive aspects of competition, free markets, and increasing productivity.

There are always going to be people who can not or will not work and will need some sort of welfare. There are also people who's jobs go away and savings are wiped out for a while due to business failure (Probably more if everyone involved in the business has to pay off its debts). There still has to be some sort of social safety net.

Quote:
I think that YOU think I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

Based on your ideas here, I think you have totalitarian leanings. Everyone MUST structure their lives to suit your economic theories. Not good.

Quote:
I'm not. Hence my avoidance of "charity". I want to FIX the system, not bandage it.

Then you need better arguments. The fact that you can convice folks who already agree with you is fun, but doesn't do much good. When you can convince the guy who puts in his 40 hours a week at the widget plant, goes fishing on the weekend, watches sports, and is pretty happy with his life that your idea is better, then you might get somewhere.

Then you need to figure out how to get the means of production out of the hands of owners and investors and into the hands of the workers without lots of folks getting screwed over, lots of economic disruption, and lots of folks out of work until things get sorted out.

Or else the faeries need to bring you a magic crystal wish-granting flower.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, April 8, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
I'm not bobbing and weaving. Do YOU think I am? I think I'm being straightforward.

Nah, i'm busting Geeze's chops for moving the goalposts every time you blow his argument to hell.

Reminds me of two folks I knew, both pretty hard right conservatives, and I didn't expect it of em, mind..

So they started comin to me with whatever bash of the week it was on TV talkshowland, which, imop, is a place pretty damn far removed from the real world, and I would systematically demolish the entire argument/theory/talking piece, end to end, and I can be awfully mean and downright thorough about it if I wanna be, which I was.

Couple hours later, they come back WITH THE EXACT SAME THING, couched in slightly different words and phrasing, as if I hadn't just blown it apart less than 24hrs ago!?

Round and round, again and again, and they start getting pissed about it, angry and physically threatening, so I threw em outta my house and was done with em.

Past a point, you just *can't* argue with these people, it's pointless, so I just state my piece once and then snark at them a little when they start sounding like a broken record... like now.

If people wanna take offense at reality being held up to their little dreams, that's up to them, but don't expect me to ignore the realities of my life to support what amounts to plain fiction, yanno ?

So dance, dance, dance, cause as a fencing match, this is goin nowhere.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 8, 2007 5:27 AM

Quote:
So they started comin to me with whatever bash of the week it was on TV talkshowland, which, imop, is a place pretty damn far removed from the real world, and I would systematically demolish the entire argument/theory/talking piece, end to end, and I can be awfully mean and downright thorough about it if I wanna be, which I was.

Too bad I wasn't sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn and enjoying the show!

AFA Geezer is concerned, I'm just here to talk. It helps to discuss with someone who is in serious opposition. I'll tell you how I interpret Geezer's behavior later.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 8, 2007 5:55 AM

Quote:
But in your cooperative, everybody is forced to be the owner. They are required to risk their capital - be it money, physical labor, or special skill - on the success of the cooperative. If the cooperative fails they are all responsible to creditors, fellow members, people who have ordered product, etc. As noted before, some folks are up for this, and this model has worked in many cases. However, a lot of people would not want to be in this position, and would rather just work for wages, then you got capitalism again.

Well, this being a thought experiment, the laws governing cooperatives: how they're formed, how they dissolve, their liabilites and so forth.... are strictly up to however we choose to design the system. Maybe the cooperative members have limited liability for this contingency.

Also, you don't necessarily have to START a cooperative in order to work for one. What would prevent anyone from quitting one cooperative and joining another?

Quote:
There are always going to be people who can not or will not work and will need some sort of welfare. There are also people who's jobs go away and savings are wiped out for a while due to business failure (Probably more if everyone involved in the business has to pay off its debts). There still has to be some sort of social safety net.

That's partly what the taxes are for. I'm assuming that the government assumes SOME functions that market-forces don't respond to, for example, the elderly, disabled, the very young, those not yet born... in other words, those who may not have a strong presence in "the market" but nonethless need attention.

Quote:
Based on your ideas here, I think you have totalitarian leanings. Everyone MUST structure their lives to suit your economic theories. Not good.

Do you think that the laws governing our current economic system are any less artificial? Businesses- and I don't care which kind- are all regulated. Their forms, liabilities, structures, and responsibilities are all set forth by law. As it stands, individuals are at a SERIOUS legal disadvantage when it comes to business (especially corporations) starting with tax law, laws governing theft, privacy etc. That's not even taking into account the practical disadvantges of facing a multimillion-dollar entity.

Quote:
Then you need better arguments. The fact that you can convice folks who already agree with you is fun, but doesn't do much good. When you can convince the guy who puts in his 40 hours a week at the widget plant, goes fishing on the weekend, watches sports, and is pretty happy with his life that your idea is better, then you might get somewhere.

I think my idea is pretty sound. But since there is no LEGAL basis for what I'm proposing, I guess it would take some sharp-penned lawyer to write up a mutual contract along the ideas of what I'm proposing. I suspect it would work best (at first) for enterprises that don't need a lot of capital to start with: programming, system management, technical services and such.

Hmmm... but you made me think of the whole idea of a minimum wage. I suppose that would be a necessary part of the system.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 8, 2007 12:16 PM

What I've set up then is an ecology of (limited liability) worker-owned businesses which raise caoital thru loans and bonds. Some will be large and some small, some will be more efficent and some less so. These cooperatives (as currently devised) pay their taxes and creditors, set aside capital for future investment or contingency, and then pay their owners by divvying up the remainder.

The more efficient cooperatives will be able to pay their members more, the less efficient cooperatives will pay their members less. Do you suppose there should be some sort of minimum-wage law? OR is the basis for a minimum wage (protection of workers from "the bosses") simply not existant/ applicable, and will market forces efficiently handle these differences?

Don't forget that in this system there is still competition: for capital, market share, jobs, workers, etc. In the ideal world these forces will keep the economy near equilibrium, but in the REAL world power concentrates. Does this system need further legal constraints?

(Maybe I should write a program and iterate the process several million times and see what happens. If I can simulate the real capitalist world and then .... oh yeah, I have a job and a family. The chances of me doing this are about as good as developing the Unified Field Theory. Still.... hmmm....)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 9, 2007 9:02 AM

SO hey Geezer- any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Monday, April 9, 2007 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SO hey Geezer- any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Easter is a busy day for me, stealing all those Easter eggs while the Christians are at church.

Let me look back up the thread and make sure of what I think you are proposing and I'll get back to you. Also, remember that I don't think that cooperatives are bad, just that they won't be the only solution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, April 9, 2007 2:26 PM

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hope yours was a good one.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've set up then is an ecology of (limited liability) worker-owned businesses which raise caoital thru loans and bonds. Some will be large and some small, some will be more efficent and some less so. These cooperatives (as currently devised) pay their taxes and creditors, set aside capital for future investment or contingency, and then pay their owners by divvying up the remainder.

The more efficient cooperatives will be able to pay their members more, the less efficient cooperatives will pay their members less. Do you suppose there should be some sort of minimum-wage law? OR is the basis for a minimum wage (protection of workers from "the bosses") simply not existant/ applicable, and will market forces efficiently handle these differences?

Don't forget that in this system there is still competition: for capital, market share, jobs, workers, etc. In the ideal world these forces will keep the economy near equilibrium, but in the REAL world power concentrates. Does this system need further legal constraints?

In your cooperative economy, the co-ops would need pretty much the same legal constraints as those currently in place in a capitalist system (anti-trust, price-fixing, collusion, etc.), since the co-ops will have the same roles as capitalist corporations (and the same temptation to bend the rules to make a profit). The only changes might be in the area of employer/employee relations. Owner/Employees will be more empowered(if they're careful), and have more say in compensation, working conditions, pensions/benefits, etc.

Government will have to get more involved in the lending business, probably with loan guarantees, since banking cooperatives are probably going to be less willing to risk their money that venture capitalists willing to gamble their investment for return. There will also have to be some regulations to prevent banks from becoming de-facto owners of co-ops to which they have loaned substantial sums. Not to mention ways to keep co-ops who have deposited large amounts in banks from becoming players in their operation.

Since pretty much everyone now has a direct financial stake in their employing business, there would probably have to develop a new legal specialty around how an individual changes jobs. How and when can he withdraw his equity from his current company and invest it in his new one. How to be sure that if a group of employees want to split off from a co-op that they won't unduly damage the remaining employees by draining resources. Lawyer co-ops will be big for a while.

So I'd say that there will pretty much have to be more legal constraints and more government involvement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:08 PM

I came to the same conclusion myself.

"I think government needs to stand between ANY economic interests and social ones. The ownership of business interests - whether corporate, public or cooperative - will always look after narrow business decisions rather than broad social ones.
However, we have seen how easily government can 'game' a democratic system by controlling the media.
So there needs to be some sort of media protection, both from government and business agendas.

I think this goes a ways to avoid concentration of money and power into VERY few hands. But it doesn't keep businesses from despoiling the environment, from becoming monopolies, from becoming powerful enough in their own right to do the same thing current businesses do, nor does it require them to consider broad social issues. So there still needs to be government restriction."

As proposed, this is strictly an economic system for distributing money in a different way. It's not a proposal for a broad social restructuring into a 'utopia'.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:54 PM

Hey, so what would it take to create a utopia? We have several Masterminds on this website (funny, that...). IS this something we can sink our teeth into?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, so what would it take to create a utopia? We have several Masterminds on this website (funny, that...). IS this something we can sink our teeth into?

First, define "Utopia".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:21 PM

Maximum non drug-induced oxytocin. heh heh heh

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:31 AM

That's probably the best, most succinct definition one can find.