Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

I'm always wright.

 

That sounds pretty vague.

 

Thank you for the well-thought-out reply.

My comment on the above is that in a legislated system people act according to what the system allows. And if a rich and powerful person sees other rich and powerful people doing something that stands to make them richer and more powerful, he will do it too or be left behind and eaten up by the other rich and powerful people. So the problem is the system rather than individuals making stupid decisions. In both cases of the Great Depression and the recent Great Recession, the system allowed excesses because the system was bought and paid for by top rich and powerful people and designed to serve them. I just want to resist the temptation to get caught up in personalities and questions of individuals' roles.

More specifically, "class-made".

But who will take up the challenge to change mentalities, and for whom would mentalities be changed? The American people won't be doing it in our system. The American people know who benefits and who does not, but they also know it's those who benefit who will continue to be in control. In fact those who benefit have already "changed mentalities" to serve them to our detriment. They have shaped our thinking. They made "communism" a feared word which is not so feared in much of Europe. They discuss it objectively or at least openly without fear of being labelled "evil" for it. Those who benefit have shaped our thinking on capitalism as "the only sensible system for ever and ever". They've shaped it on the subject of consumption through advertising designed by advanced psychology. They've shaped it on the subject of "government is bad". They've shaped it on buzzwords like "freedom" and "choice". They've shaped it on the idea of "lazy poor people" and most everything else we could think of.

We-the-people need to take advantage of the things we can, with a full awareness of past lessons in trying such things, to begin to change the system itself. Moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic isn't the answer. We need to get off the Titanic and onto a safer, more beneficial ship designed for the people.

 

I'm trying to promote discussion. But since you want specifics, note that our current economic system consists in a relationship of those who work to produce to those who direct and control benefits from that production.... -a relationship of worker to those who exploit the worker for private gain.

 

Sigh, you could have just said communism in the first post. That would have at least made your intentions clear. I thought you had some original ideas in mind.

 

I didn't want to post a huge post due mostly to a repeated earlier post, so I cut yours down to the essentials for my comment.

And that comment is that it's time we took note of our "brainwashing". We have been conditioned by the powerful among us to only see "economics" as "economics" as though any economics course holds true for every sort of economic system and the rules are the same because "economics is economics". But in actuality we have "capitalist economics courses" that are designed to assume, and have us conclude, that "economics is economics". But it all applies to capitalism, yet "they" don't want us to think about that. What is wrong with recognizing that we have biased capitalist economics courses? And even after suggesting we think about this, some will continue to reject the idea that there is any difference because "facts are facts and truth is truth". But the facts and the truth is that economics courses don't dwell on distinctions between capitalist economics and socialist economics. They don't even teach the economics of socialist organization of labor and the financial models that support it. So anyone who takes economics courses in the U.S. is groomed to defend capitalist economics without knowing that is what they are doing.

 

No but your response is a very good example of the sort of "brainwashing" I've referred to. My description is not that of "communism". But that is the way you and we are trained ("brainwashed") to automatically leap. The idea is that anytime a worker-centered system is mentioned, we should immediately leap to characterizing it as "communism" and then quickly leap again to a conclusion that we have long ago examined it, considered it, debated it, and laid it to rest so that there is no longer any need to discuss it further, and then summarily dismiss it without further consideration.

But my remarks actually reference socialism, and if our brainwashing had not been so thorough and twisted you would know that communism has never existed and that socialism is in the experimental stage, much like capitalism was for about 100 years before we got to a settled, functioning, maintainable system.

 

So in other words I was right. There is nothing original going on here, merely the same old capitalism vs socialism.

 

The central principles of capitalism in its purest form are

1) free exchange of goods in an unregulated market;
2) limited taxes to pay for limited government, and
3) private ownership of property.

The central principles of socialism are

1) government control or regulation of the market;
2) high taxes to pay for expanded government services; and
3) government ownership of major industries (particularly large industries that are prone to monopoly control).

The central principles of Georgism are

1) free exchange of goods in markets, with limited regulation of commerce;
2) no taxes on labor; high taxes on certain kinds of property;
3) private ownership of property, but fully offset by taxes that virtually eliminate unearned wealth.


Source

 

Yes, but that idealism has been shown through history to be impossible, so capitalism has often been improved with socialistic reforms. They weren't applied because they were "socialistic", however. They were applied because they would and did logically correct some of capitalism's excesses.

That is not correct. By Marxist definition, socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and worker-control of industry. Government ownership of industry was hastily substituted in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea due to causes including newness of socialism, and particularly the urgency of gaining control of things in the context of violent revolutions. But all leading socialist thinkers of today specify "worker ownership and control of industry" as the proper formulation.

Whatever. Where has Georgism ever been actually tried? I see some flaws in it but.... whatever.

 

You were encouraging conversation, right? That's what this thread is about, or did I miss something?

If so, you might tray being a little less dismissive and a little more engaging.

-Cheers

 

I'm really not interested in discussing fantasies. And "discussion"? Your main feat was to copy and paste from a website. Do you have any discussion about it to offer?

 

If economists were to decide to write it down as a liability
of perhaps a hundred billion dollars
each time that a species of animal or plant or fish became extinct.....
then our situation would look even worse than it already
appears to be.

I really do like the Monopoly analogy......
a lot to think about there!


http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...national-wealth-must-occur-order-finance.html

A massive reevaluation of national wealth must occur in order to finance....



..... the shift over to a truly green and sustainable economy!

 

I provide an answer to your post and you respond twice being rude. Now either your 16 and you're trying to get a rise of other around or worse, your an adult with very little social graces.

I answered your request for a discussion in good faith and you've responded, twice with sarcasm and scorn.

I have better things to do with my time than engage people like you.

Should you decide to grow up and own up to your childish behavior, let me know. Till then...

-Cheers

 

Whose costs?

And they also use taxpayer money to make it possible for those needy people to consume for the profit of the capitalists.

That's a hard one to justify when we consider the current level of income disparity. We have seen significant increases in productivity but the gains have all gone to the top.

My hope was that this thread would get into a discussion of that. But my own idea is that the problem is that those who produce are not the ones making the decisions about what they produce. So we need a system in which those who produce do make those decisions.

The reality is that those in control make the decision as to whether such a change would be peaceful or violent. It is in their hands. Those making the changes (us) can be as diligent as possible that it is peaceful, but it will be as those in control choose to make it.

 

Well, Econ, I responded to your first two entries in my reply in post #35 and then questioned your "Georgism" entry and asked if it had actually been tried anywhere. If you're offended I wonder if you really intended to discuss it in the first place.

 

The costs of production, of course which are borne by the business/employer.

Yes, and people tend to complain less when they are getting back what or more than they are paying for.

When governments survival depends on inflation, income/wealth disparity will only grow. Yes, productivity has and probably will continue to increase, but not due to an increase in the labour demanded of humans/employees but as a result of technology which can perform labour once done by humans much more efficiently, accurately, and productively.

I'm still trying to get a handle on what you meant by "Capitalism must collapse and be replaced." By the term "those who produce" I presume you mean 'employees'? Most employees are not hired to produce a product from start to finish, but only a part of the final product. The employer and those who have invested in creating the business are the ones who have decided what they are going to produce before hiring any employees. Employees, with very few exceptions, are not usually hired to make decisions but instead to perform a necessary function in the process of creating the product to be sold. Employees in any business are free to make suggestions that they feel would benefit the business or they could just quit start their own business and compete with their previous employer instead.

What are we trying to change from/to?

 

You seem to be implying Right is wrong. Is that a fixation or simply sarcasm?

- - - Updated - - -

I think 'collectivism' would be a more appropriate term.

 

--And for about 30 years have not been shared with the workers.

When did that happen. Maybe I'm not following you.

But businesses are already having trouble selling what they produce. Manufacturing today, on average, can produce far more than we can consume. So I don't see so much upside for productivity. Demand must increase first and it can't due to low incomes and increasing wariness of personal debt.

Yes.

But that can't solve the problem. We continue to have problems of poverty, pollution, recessions, income disparity, loss of democracy, unemployment, degradation of education, crumbling infrastructure, dangerous products, unaffordable drugs and healthcare in general, and on and on and it is all due to the economic relationship we have in which those who produce are not those who make the business decisions. Yes, as you say, that is how it is, and my point is that is what needs to change because it is the cause of the problems.

Private ownership of the means of production and the profit therefrom is the underlying problem, and the solution is to replace it with a new system that avoids and prevents this problem. To me that means the workers in a factory should own it, control it, decide what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits. Then the underlying cause of our endless problems would be absent and the problems could then be solved. This isn't pie-in-the-sky. It is how these problems I listed can be solved. And I'm trying to encourage discussion and investigation into this. I'm hoping for questions of how and what and why to be discussed.

- - - Updated - - -

But it would be very general and include some rather contrary systems.

 

Yes I saw your replies in the same post where you were dismissive and sarcastic.

But I'll take this as you've version of an apology....When I have some more time I will respond.

 

Employees are NOT share holders, they are hired to perform a function and paid a wage relative to the value of the function they perform.

It has ALWAYS happened. If something you consume regularly is suddenly priced at half what you have always paid would you complain? If the price was suddenly doubled would you be more or less likely to complain?

Essentially, our population is growing much more rapidly than our employment needs, and as inflation raises the cost of living for everyone is does not increase the value of labour equally.

Progress comes at a price.

Okay, I'll ask some questions. How would you begin to implement such a change? Would the currently about 95 million persons not in the labour force be assigned a portion of ownership in a now privately owned business from which they would then receive an income? Would the stockholders who currently own a proportionate share of the businesses be compensated for their loss and if so, how? If an employee owned and controlled business were to fail what would be done with the employees?

On a very small scale, where individual free choice is the means by which participation results, I fully support communism, socialism, collectivism, or any other community form of local governance which operates within the framework of a national/State Constitution. Government, in my opinion, is a perpetual experiment which will never result in a one size fits all answer and peaceful coexistence. We learn from not only our own failures and successes but from those of others as well.

If there are no jobs, how many more people do we need?

 

You are partially correct. In a true free market, prices are set by supply and demand without government intervention. But supply and demand is not limited to profit, it is not emotionless, and many factors influence the interactions. At the industry level, if people do not want gasoline powered cars because people believe global warming, then the demand for internal combustion engines will decrease. At the individual level, if people oppose a business which refuses to serve homosexuals, then people will stop patronizing that business.

That process can be enhanced by people imposing regulations through the government, but that is a dangerous process. It starts with the people making reasonable regulations which serve the common interest (that includes the interest of the business owner). It quickly crosses a line and moves to the government making regulations which serve the interest of a select few who can buy influence.

The US crossed that line in the 1930's, and its only gotten worse. US business is not free market, or capitalism, but it is not actual socialism either. It is in that third option in which there is technically private property, but the government controls the business environment so that a business can only operate under the strict control of the government. You have a piece of paper which says you own property, but you cannot actually do what you want with that property.

 

Can you explain why anyone ought, as a matter of principle, acquiese unreservedly in what you might wish to do with your property?

For my part I have never experienced any particular annoyance as a result of government 'interference' in how I enjoy my property.

 

First, your "property" is not just physical items such as your house and car, it is also your time, skills, labor, money.

A homeowner needs to cut down a tree which is leaning over his house, but he first has to get a permit from the government. A man wants to change his stock pond but has to get an environmental impact statement from the EPA. Another man builds a stock pond on his property and is sued by the EPA.

Do you pay property tax? How do you feel having to go to work, save your money, buy property, and then have to pay the government every year in order to keep and enjoy your property? Businesses have to pay tangible property tax every year on all property - chairs, tables, computers, machinery, phones. Its not enough to buy the chair and pay sales tax, the business owner has to pay every year in order to keep the chair.

Or the more controversial - a person works hard, saves their money, then uses her savings to start her own business but is required by the government to abandon her personal beliefs in order to sell to the public.

How about the entrepreneur? A man wants to use his own time and his car to make a little extra money as a driver for Uber but runs afoul of the state regulators which limit the number of taxi's and require large fees (in some places a taxi medallion costs over $1 Million).

 

So you seem to be saying that the 'correct' balanceof regulation is vital, to enable an ideal form of capitalism to function properly.

But the OP shows that current economic problems have proceded way beyond anything that mere timkering with regulation might achieve.

Un/underemployment, low wages etc, productive overcapacity, and lack of demand (through poverty or indebtedness) all call for more radical changes to address current economic problems..