Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

It's pretty common knowledge that business owners normally believe/know that if they don't constantly expand, increase production, increase market share, and increase sales, the competition will catch up with them and eat them alive. You can see this all around you. ... -or you could. It used to be that McDonalds would open a new location across the street from Wendy's in order to do their best to put Wendy's out of business.

Also, with options being a big part of CEO compensation today, rising stock prices are seen as important, and stock prices rise when business grows more profitable. Have you ever heard or read a corporate annual financial report that says pridefully that sales were flat for the past year, market share remained level, and stock prices went sideways?

Increase, increase, increase.

In capitalism, inflation is managed in favor of the powerful businesses. In socialism, inflation can be managed in the interest of society.

Huh? I provided specific examples of incentivizing reforms that would be possible. This whole economy and legal structure is dedicated to capitalism. A few crumbs were tossed out to those who want to experiment with worker-owned businesses but nothing more. I specified examples and you say I provided no basis of supporting facts????

NO connection. You are proposing the ridiculous theory that some socialist-type reforms of capitalism made to save it from its own nature, are responsible for a huge debt. About $13 trillion of the debt is represented by Treasury securities. Then there is the big source, the defense budget. The right wants a big, expensive defense program but they don't like the cost so they blame the debt on welfare, social security, liberals' programs for the environment, etc.

"Debt has been a part of this country's operations since its founding. The U.S. government first found itself in debt in 1790, following the Revolutionary War. Since then, the debt has been fueled over the centuries by more war, economic recession and inflation. (Periods of deflation may nominally decrease the size of debt, but they increase the real value of debt. Since the money supply is tightened, money is valued more highly during deflationary periods; so even if debt payments remain unchanged, borrowers are actually paying more).

"In modern times, the government has struggled to spend less than it takes in for over 60 years, making balanced budgets nearly impossible. The level of national debt spiked significantly during President Ronald Reagan's tenure, and subsequent presidents have continued this upward trend. The treasurydirect.gov website indicates that over the last two decades, the U.S. national debt has consistently increased. Only briefly during the heyday of the economic markets and the Clinton administration in the late 1990s has the U.S. seen debt levels trend down in a material manner."
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/usa-national-debt/

 

Ironic!

 

Assumes alt right factoids not in evidence.

 

That's called competition, but you seem to ignore that while the Wendy's in your example also employs people, they are providing consumers with a choice which may result in requiring both Wendy's and McDonalds producing a better product/services in order to remain in business together.

Yes, I have, during a recession.

Who is managing inflation? Do you mean to imply that inflation is good?

Are you referring to a W-OSBA? Are not many small businesses began as worker-owned and operated businesses? Should such a business where the originators invested both time and money add employees as co-owners without investment of a proportionate share of the value of the business?

In the 60's mandatory government spending was about 33% of the total spending, in 2016 it was about 66%. Should not government provide an adequate defense of the country? As for Social Security, it is a funded program which by law requires that payouts be reduced should the incoming revenue become insufficient to fund it, not true of social programs which are funded from the general tax revenue/debt.

"In modern times, the government has struggled to spend less than it takes in for over 60 years, making balanced budgets nearly impossible. The level of national debt spiked significantly during President Ronald Reagan's tenure, and subsequent presidents have continued this upward trend. The treasurydirect.gov website indicates that over the last two decades, the U.S. national debt has consistently increased. Only briefly during the heyday of the economic markets and the Clinton administration in the late 1990s has the U.S. seen debt levels trend down in a material manner."
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/usa-national-debt/[/QUOTE]

The debt was completely repaid in 1835, increased greatly during the Civil war, but was decreasing rapidly until WW I but a fundamental change occurred in our government in 1913 with passage of the 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal Reserve Act which laid the groundwork for the problems which the Federal government has exacerbated every chance they could making debt the American way of life today.
Clinton has Newt Gingrich to thank for the deficit reduction in the latter years of his last term.
Is it likely the debt will ever be repaid? How do you feel inflation aids young Americans trying to begin a life and compete with those who are just as capable of producing the needs and wants of consumers who live in countries where inflation has not risen to match that of the U.S.?

Worker owned/operated businesses wouldn't/don't compete with each other?

 

Good OP!

The divine right to rule has been replaced with the divine right to make obscene profits at the expense of the general welfare of We the People.

 

Nothing will change because the Wall Street Casino Bosses and the Banksters have used disinformation and misdirection to ensure that the blame was placed upon the poor rather than themselves. If the poor had not been so "greedy" and wanted to "buy" homes that they "couldn't afford" none of it would have happened. Meanwhile the reality was the Wall Street funded and deregulated "banks" were pushing predatory loans onto anyone with a pulse so that they could sell them off as "prime mortgage backed securities" knowing full well that they were utterly worthless. Interesting to note that not a single one of those who profited out of the Mortgage Ponzi scam has even been indicted, let alone prosecuted and convicted.

 

Yes, very well put.

The Great Recession was indeed the consequence of a ginormous Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi went to jail btw, but to my knowledge Wall Street just paid some fines. Insufficient to stop their zeal for interfering in the market place.

And since Donald Dork knows these banksters well - he's dealt with them to finance is real-estate projects all his life - he is not about to change their ways either ...

 

OFF THE FIELDS

Let's do a fast-forward on that historical fact. That is, have we-humans changed all that much since?

Well, we are supposedly all much better educated, so - at the very least - we should have a rather good idea of what we want out of life. But, what is that "ideal" in America and is it different from Europe?

And, in that last respect, this Yank who has lived a long, long time in both places can say, "Yes, the difference in attitude is ginormous. In as Social Democracy the respect for the individual is decided by his/her "class" - that is, the range of "Income Parity" or its lack thereof "Income Disparity".

Unlike the US, where the pecking-order is defined by predominantly "Wealth" - despite the fact that upon death many of the wealthy give a few tiny-slices of their Wealth Pie to "good works". (Knock, knock, God, it's me .... ! ;^)

A usage example of the phrase Income Parity (as found in an English newspaper): "The income gap between rural and urban areas continued to widen and this country recognized that concerted efforts, including an emphasis on agricultural development, were needed to achieve income parity".

This example is classic, one of the prevalent reasons for the demise of the Agricultural Age was the manner in which the advent of the Industrial Age attracted workers off the fields and into the factories. Towns in both New England and Old England attest to the fact that droves of people were attracted into towns that grew exponentially around the factories.

I come from one in New England, and I remember the plastics factories where my parents worked. They are all closed today, the production long since having relocated to the Far East.

No doubt, this transition from the Agricultural to the Industrial Age was a benefit for the bottom whilst it made immense riches also for the top of the scale. But, this is where a solid notion of Income Fairness comes into play. Here is an example of Income Unfairness:


In the above infographic, note that the $100K level of household income is simply a family were both parents are earning the "average American wage" (which is $52K à year). If we take the upper three Income Levels (from the average wage level of $50K to beyond $100K), then that percentage amounts to 45% of all families. Or 54% for all families below the average national wage.

But, see what happens when we look at household "Weath", as shown here:


There are only 0.1% of families that own a bit more of Total Wealth than 90% of the remaining families. That Wealth Unfairness is continued parenterally by inheritance to other members of the family who may (or may not) have ever worked a day in their lives to help earn it.

But, those 0.1Percenters have most certainly come to own it.

It is simply far too much to be transferred so lightly taxed, and it sits in interest-bearing accounts in banks on Wall or Main Street. It does not go back into the economy directly, but may serve to be reinjected (only partially) into financing hi-tech ventures. (Which are blown way out of proportion to reality by journalistic pretense.)

So, why should it be allowed to simply collect-at-the-top-of-the-ladder ... ?

 

Economy is, unfortunately, today a complicated and knotted tangle of things, influences and circumstances ... which also constantly changed by new things.
The old basic rule of the business management theory with regard to "market is a combination of supply and demand" has long been no longer valid by globalization.
One point of the negative effects of globalization is labor costs as a competition point.
Of course, there have always been drastic differences in the salaries in the world, but the important circumstances have drastically changed.
For a long time, many of these countries were only recipients of the goods produced in the US and Europe, while they were mainly supplying raw materials to us. How much salary a miner, a farmer, etc. in these countries earned in the production of the raw materials could not care us, it had at most influence on the price for these raw materials ... if at all.

Now, however, these countries also produce the same things like we and here it are also mostly the same companies which (before) produced with plants at us. The complete infrastructure in these countries, including education, telecommunications, etc., has changed and improved so drastically that this works ... but the salaries of the people in the factories there have not note able changed to before at the production of raw materials.
Every worker has to earn so much that the livelihood is secured, a fact that is undisputed. However, with this drastic change due to globalization, workers now face a dramatically different cost of living in a competition that we simply lose in the US and Europe. A worker in India, China or wherever he deserves it, we'll be looking at 8,000 USD a year. Can an American worker and his family live from it? Surely not ... the Indians, Chinese etc. can do that however!

In all companies and groups, the CEO is appointed by the Supervisory Board for a certain time. Goal: maximize profit!
Nobody with a healthy understanding of the human being condemns a general profit plan, but these temporary managers are only measured on one: EBIT = profit!
First method of increasing profit is reducing costs! The largest cost factor: workers and employees. Thus the first question is:
How many workers and employees do I need, how many can I throw out without jeopardizing the turnover?
And this cause due to globalization at least to second question: Is it maybe not cheaper to move all production from the US or Europe to India, China, etc.? The answer is unfortunately Yes and this cause the loss of jobs at us at least!

If the existence of a company is endangered, etc., I will say nothing. But there are more than enough examples as I could run amok! For example, a huge German insurance company and "Global Player" had long ago made the biggest profit in 150 years of company history ... generated by the employees! The thanks of the management: 7,000 people were dismissed to secure the optimization! Ridiculous!
And the corporations have all their great core values, which then in such examples look like naked irony!
I myself am now also affected ... I am working in the finance of a large global acting company which is part of global player corporation and the good results I really did (A + rating) thanks to the annual assessment is at least absolutely nothing worth! My job goes from Germany to Czech Republic where an employee earned only 1/3 of what I do and even the fact that there 3 people do my job does not interested! What I do cost is the only what interest, not how good I do my job. This is more as annoying and can I compare with the Czech wages and can I life from them in Germany? No … and it is not the case that I earn big money with my job or so!


Politics must intervene here, because it has to represent the people and the country, what they rule! Only our establishment is matted so that no one really cares about it ... only interesting is that we idiots elect them every 4 years!

I am not a fan of Trump, but I do not condemn his actions against this disease called outsourcing. However, they are not enough and so not right, especially can be a boomerang if you do it wrong like him!

Each country represents a sales market for the products and that gives the policy a weapon to exert pressure! The solution is ... to make it simple: you take the annual turnover and determine by how much jobs each of what wants to sell in my country also has to create jobs in my country.

Of course there is a strong counter-defense and hot discussion. Example: Why sales? Quite simply ... because the profit before taxes can always be reduced by tricks and the like.
Of course, the whole thing works only if many pull along ... so for example the whole EU as a unit occurs and here before the heavy internal differences have to be solved too as in my case of Germany vs Czech. This gives me even more power and show me any company that will say "no, I will not sell anything there then" ... in the US with 320 million inhabitants, Germany with 82 million or even the complete EU with 743 million people!

 

JOE SHMOE

Depends upon where you are looking.

There are numerous examples of Market Collusion. It happens this way:
*Without ever meeting one-another (which would make the collusion illegal), companies settle into a market sharing according to a common but non-formal agreement.
*Pricing will remain in tact because these companies have sufficient volume to maintain market coverage.
*Should a newcomer arrive and try to "bust the market", the three/four top-leaders will connive price-wise to exclude the newcomer often lowering their price for the period of time necessary to force the newcomer out.
*And it will be done without any of the competitors openly meeting one another. (Maybe a phone-call from time to time that is untraceable.)

Also, they could conspire simply by not entering certain markets physically - like eateries. Meaning, "You stay out of my market-share here and I'll stay out of yours over there. That way, we can maintain privileged pricing tacitly but non-collusively."

These agreements can be met without the two-parties ever meeting physically one another, which would be grounds for an indictment (according to most competition-laws today).

For all the talk about "real competition" in America, it remains just that. Talk - some companies are getting away with it and doing very well. Of course, clients are paying the higher price due to the practice.

In fact, the above collusion happens mostly in established markets where the top companies have "settled into over time" into non-collaborative an non mutually-competitive pricing agreement the market-share of which pleases them since it guaranties profit-margins.

It is in the markets for established products that the sort of market-condition maintains best. But, these markets are also the juiciest since buyers are accustomed to them - that is, buyers keep coming back. (In fact, the word "custom" in English-english means exactly that. A buyer's "custom" makes of them "repeat customers"...)

 

Irrelevant. You asked "what is it that drives the need for all the increases you mention above?" I answered. You are changing the subject. So it's irrelevant to the subject by definition.

"Pridefully"?? No you haven't.

The Fed manages inflation largely with interest rates. I mean to imply that inflation has consequences and in class society, it's a question of which class is served.

Most are started as sole proprietorships. Look at this list and see where you think a co-op worker-owned, worker-operated business would fall in. - http://bls.dor.wa.gov/ownershipstructures.aspx

It's not a matter of "should". It's a matter of structuring it properly from the beginning and having a plan to keep it that way. Since I am not an attorney or a business advisor I cannot answer many question about the "how" of it. But I can tell you it has been done in more than one country. So it's doable. It's just a matter of intention.

Why? What, exactly, was responsible for the increase?

That's a pretty silly question.

Yes. And your point?

OK

I believe I could find some counter arguments to that.

I'm not an economist, -not that it would make it possible to offer a reliable answer, but I doubt it.

Wow. Gosh. How do you feel about the likelihood of global warming affecting the supply of new drugs for cancer treatment?

Of course not! Such a question reveals the depth to which Americans are steeped in a capitalist mindset where competition is everything. In an economy where profit and riches take a back seat to service to community and people, competition would vanish mostly. There would still be some competition for improvements which would then be shared, but empire-building and domination would be gone under socialism or it isn't socialism.

 

You introduced 'competition' in your response, and tend to present the word 'increase' in a negative light ignoring any positive happenings that are also increases. Increasing competition provides consumers with increased choices, new employment sources, competition of pricing benefiting consumers and wages/benefits to attract employees, then there is increased spending which can produce more job creation and increased taxes which provides government Federal,State and local with increased revenues to provide increased services or increase the quality of services currently being provided.

When the market is crashing and businesses are suffering, are you claiming it would not be prideful to see that your business is NOT experiencing the same?

So you would agree that inflation can have both positive and negative effects? Do you actually believe the Fed manages interest rates with the intent to serve a class of society?

Basically, I would say the 'General Partnership' would be the most fitting. "A General Partnership is composed of 2 or more persons (usually not a married couple) who agree to contribute money, labor, or skill to a business. Each partner shares the profits, losses, and management of the business, and each partner is personally and equally liable for debts of the partnership. Formal terms of the partnership are usually contained in a written partnership agreement."
Do you disagree?

I asked "Should such a business where the originators invested both time and money add employees as co-owners without investment of a proportionate share of the value of the business?"
I didn't ask 'how' but only asked a rational response to 'should'.

Increased entitlement programs, social spending. Note that defense spending falls under discretionary spending, not mandatory.

Then you feel we are simply spending more than we need to defend the country?

Obviously, I would have thought, unlike many other so called entitlement social programs, Social Security spending does not add to the debt nor add to the budget deficit.

So we should view that as a historical mistake we should prevent from happening again?

None I not heard before though.

Therefore we should just keep increasing it?

You began this thread asking "Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?" and rather than provide a thoughtful response to a valid question you respond with a flippant question instead?
But to answer your question, I don't feel there's any likelihood of global warming or even global cooling having an effect on the 'supply' of new drugs for cancer treatment.

Are you proffering government should/could mandate a utopian society?
Is there one State who the citizens of might wish to become an experiment by eliminating capitalism, and without help or interference from any living beyond their borders govern themselves under a socialist form of government to prove that utopia is achievable?
Perhaps it should/needs be asked, are you a proponent of a one world government?

 

as if capitalism is a virtue

You nailed it. Somehow capitalism has become equated with democracy, morality and freedom. Likewise, socialism has become equated with Stalin, Mao and Adolf Hitler (of all things ), particularly in a country like the US that has little in the way of universal public services ( ie, very little visible socialism ) or an inefficient means of service delivery in countries a little luckier. Even in the lucky country, the "rational" free market is always thought to do it best. They call it "competition": amusing when you consider how concentrated capital ownership is, but there you are.

And we've been hearing for decades that the country is going broke, too. It was used to justify all kinds of public service, program and infrastructure cuts. In reality, we weren't going broke at all, of course: the money was redistributed to the big end of town.

All of the above has allowed more than 30 years of income redistribution from the working classes to the plutocracy. It wasn't accidental, it's the result of political choices made by the politicians for the plutocracy at the expense of the people. Capitalism became more predatory, imprudent, criminally negligent, greedy and irresponsible ( think 2008 ), because the risk had been socialised. ie The public pay for the plutocracy's losses ( think the bank bailout).

I'd like to ask you a question, now. You used the analogy of a game of Monopoly to explain how a sovereign currency nation creates money to collect taxes. Does that mean it can run out of money, go broke, like the Monopoly banker? And if not, what might that mean for the future?

 

I totally get where you're coming from. I'm thinking a massive government investment in infrastructure and all those underutilised resources in the form of a Jobs Guarantee on minimum wage.

LafayetteBis has given us one way to fund it - increase revenues by taxing the wealthy and corporations more- and Econ4every1 has given us a hint of another- money doesn’t exist unless and until the US or Australian governments spend it. Public investment could finance start up co-ops too. I think you guys in the US need to sort out a liveable minimum wage.

Income support for any and all must go up so that money goes back into circulation to stimulate. Kick start the economy, go households and go hard.

Just one final note. None of us need to bring the jobs back from China and make everything ourselves. At best, you'd be paying much, much higher prices. At worst, you'd get bloody trade wars. We have the resources we need right here, right now, in the US and Australia, Canada and the UK: it's just a question of redistribution. Ultimately, it's a question of making it plain to the politicians that we're a wake up to them, now, and things must change.

 

I've never heard of georgism! A shiny new thing! Thank you.

 

The US is both capitalist and socialist. It has a mixed economy. Every nation does- even the communists ! The words describe who owns the means of production for any project, program, service or venture, that's all. In other words, who pays for it. It isn't the case that one is "good" and the other "bad", each have their uses, each is better than the other for delivering some things efficiently.

Take roads for example, both building and maintaining them. Roads are socialist services. The government builds them and maintains them. There is no profit whatsoever in building and maintaining roads, that's why only the government can supply you with them. The government doesn’t need to make a profit.

You seem to really want a "true free trade", but if you had it, you'd hate it! You wouldn't have any roads. Or bridges. Or sidewalks. Or national parks. Or money ( it wouldn't exist) or electricity - no roads, remember?

You wouldn't be reading this. Government investment all around the world financed the research and development that became the internet. The publicly funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia is the reason you have wifi. The entrepreneurs everyone admires so much just cashed in on technology you provided them, free of charge. Not giving much back to show their appreciation, are they? Government's can spend time and money on research that might lead nowhere because they're not profit driven.

You wouldn't have schools without socialism : I know you're thinking "But we have lots of private schools", but the government still funds them with the voucher system. By the way, the term for private education corporations running schools at a profit on the public purse is "crony capitalism", not "choice". Medical technology and vaccinations? Socialism. Clean water? Socialism. The police service? Socialism. Traffic lights? Fire brigades? All socialism. The free market wouldn't provide any of these things. There's no money in them.

Socialism isn't about hindering some mythical Great True Free Market, or Big Government destroying freedom and controlling the masses, it's about providing infrastructure, technology and services the citizens won't have any other way

But I'll let you in on a secret: convincing the people the government is destroying the market and the freedom of the people is a great way to justify not providing those roads and services anymore. You can give your wealthy mates a hand out excuse me tax cut with the money you just stole from the people.Spending cuts are theft, not taxes.

 

You think everything comes from the govt. That's BS.

Take the internet. If left to the govt, it would be a text and email network limited to US govt use only. What the internet is today is because of 1,000's of individuals outside of the govt.

The same with GPS. Initially, it was limited to the US govt. The US govt encrypted the GPS data, outside of the govt the accuracy was 100 m 1 standard deviation - almost useless for civilian use. If the US govt had its way, there would be no GPS on your wrist, in your car, in your phone, no navigation system in your car giving you directions. The US govt was forced by innovative people outside the govt to remove its restrictions on GPS.

And I have news for you, there were fire and police and roads long before the govt took over those functions. And in many places, roads and utilities are built and maintained by private co-ops, run and owned by the users and residents, not by the govt.

That's possibly the most asinine statement ever.

 

Where did I say EVERYTHING comes from the government?

 

Capitalism is about increases in its economics. It is true that increasing competition provides increased choices,...-as a means of out-performing competition and ending that competition. Capitalism's expansion provides "new employment sources" as long as demand also increases, and a decline in demand is a big problem in today's economy. Declining middle class real wages means demand cannot increase sufficiently any longer. So we have stagnation in "new employment sources". This is a failure of capitalism as it ages. Competition does benefit pricing but again, it is a means of undercutting competition to end that competition. So lower prices last only as long as it serves its purpose of eliminating competition. When that is accomplished we see prices reflecting greed, as in the case of so many prescription drugs today along with other things that reflect the effects of functional monopoly. Follow the money. Look for corporations with large increases in profits even while middle class real wages stagnate and research into how those profits are generated. That will reveal cases of greed that is "permitted" due to reduced competition.

So you may raise every real objection as you did, and I can explain them in real terms with real facts that show that capitalism is in the final stages wherein it begins to eat itself and drive society into the ditch. And the sooner we realize this and see there is no lasting solution, the sooner we can begin a serious conversation on what the next system should be.

In capitalism, business stagnation is nothing to be satisfied with. We are brainwashed to automatically perceive growth and expansion to mean strength and positive results giving us comfort and satisfaction. Not so with stagnation or "sustainability". This is one of the greatest problems with capitalism and it begins to show up as such more and more as capitalism enters its later stages and begins to fail.

Absolutely. But like anything else, it can be spun to make it seem to be all about benefitting the people. Yet in reality we know that in this economy the well-being of the economic system and the biggest businesses that contribute the largest portion to the GDP is seen to be much more important than improving the lives of the people. In fact, the history of better days gone by in which a good, robust economy did actually produce improvements in the lives of the people, is the left-over memory that produces hope and expectation that it will happen again. And this makes it possible for the Fed's explanation of anticipated effects from interest rate changes to be automatically seen as "good" and "beneficial", thereby putting the past foremost in people's minds to blot out the reality of future and more likely negative probabilities springing from the growing failure of capitalism.

Yes. My point was that worker co-ops of the type in which workers collectively own and operate the business including the establishment of the wage scale from bottom to top, and the decisions on what to produce, where to produce it, how to produce it, what to charge for it, where to sell it, and when to sell it, –do not enjoy any specific incentives. Surely there are existing structures under which such a business could be formed, the evidence being that some very few do exist. But there are no effective incentives like there are for traditional capitalist businesses.

Under capitalism the founders of any business 'should' manage this as they choose to. If a structure can be worked out to the satisfaction of the founders and labor laws and other laws are upheld, anything can be done. I don't personally know whether there are businesses as you describe or not. But I think your question is really "should there be a form of business where the originators invest both time and money but then are required to add employees as co-owners without investment of a proportionate share of the value of the business for the business model to be valid?"

I wouldn't suggest a ban on such a thing, but neither would I suggest forcing businesses to organize as such. It sounds unfair.

"Social spending" on "entitlement programs" usually refers to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. SNAP and other programs for the needy are in there but they are minor in comparison. On this subject I posted in the Social Security forum a statement for discussion. ( http://www.politicalforum.com/social-security/469637-well-social-security-has-warned-us-3.html post number 23). I will post it here, now, but I suggest any discussion of it be confined to the Social Security forum where it belongs. Discussed here I believe it would be "off topic". But here is the statement:
"Adding value to and accumulating value in the Social Security Trust Fund ("SS TF") has no impact on the national debt, and redeeming Treasuries from the SS TF to pay current obligations has no impact on the national debt." The same is true for the Medicare Trust Fund.
Therefore, I have an objection to including the value of these redemptions in the annual expenditures in the budget. The only real debt that is in any way related to the cost of these redemptions is actually of the general fund. Attributing them to S.S. and Medicare is wrong as it falsely makes these programs appear to be problems to overcome.

Most certainly, when we consider the waste, corruption, and redundancy involved. We may be able to do the same for 1/3 less but the expenses are so structured that the GAO has been unable to do any real audit for years.

Excellent! You also understand it.

Creating such a huge national debt? Sure. But I'm not sure it's possible under capitalism.

We can't (rationally). We need a new system that will make a growing debt virtually impossible. But I think a small fluctuating national debt is probably defensible for any form of economy. Meanwhile this capitalist system has created a huge national debt and this capitalist system needs to figure out how to deal with what it created.

Great. My "flippant answer" had a purpose, and that was to suggest that, similarly, your question cannot be answered here in this forum where we aren't likely to find anyone with the depth of expertise to give a reliable answer. And yet on rereading your question now, I suspect you meant to write "producing to fulfill the needs of..."
To that I would say that while many speculate on possible solutions of lower wages for Americans to match the competition (which is entirely unacceptable) or tariffs which are not a new and untried option, I think all we can do here is to argue over details we don't really have any expertise in.

You probably know that using the word "utopian" is a form of flamebait as there is no such thing. But to answer your question, I am suggesting a new form of economy in which these problems could actually be solved without playing on false hopes with notions of "returning to bygone better times" with a collection of deregulations that would actually lead to a resurgence of greater past problems and injustices. To that end I am suggesting a new national discussion among the public is needed to clarify that capitalism evolves and will eventually fail in a flurry of social and economic problems that defy resolution. I believe we have entered that stage.

Utopia. hmmm.
Due to the interdependence of states and necessary inter-reliance, I really don't think a state-by-state approach is possible. Remember that Vermont tried to develop a public option, Medicare-type, state healthcare system but found that due to federal laws, payroll taxation, interstate influences of various kinds, the creation of a single-state system of that type was impossible, so they scrapped the idea.

I think the way to approach the economic changes needed would be to first elect a Congress and president that would be favorable to worker-owned/operated co-ops, then install incentives, and get some "Mondragon-type" businesses started. If they are successful and fulfilling workers' lives and hopes and solve problems, the idea will spread. This of course has its pitfalls, mainly in the area of the need to continue to find and elect politicians who are supportive of such a thing.

No, I'm not.

 

“A monetary sovereign government can achieve and maintain full employment without seeking to run a trade surplus, and a trade surplus is never a valid policy objective for such a government: a monetary sovereign government cannot be frustrated in its pursuit of full employment by a trade deficit, and a trade deficit is never a constraint on the pursuit of equitable, sustainable full employment. This note explains that the current account balance of a country with a monetary sovereign government, like the fiscal balance of that government, is never an appropriate statistic to use as a policy target, and that the current account balance should be allowed to find its own level, depending on the behavior of the foreign and domestic private sectors of the economy.” http://moslereconomics.com/mandator...fraud-of-the-trade-deficit-whos-funding-whom/

 

Read your post. You claim that roads, bridges, sidewalks, parks, the internet, wifi, schools, medical technology, vaccinations, all come from the govt. You imply all the essentials and many of the benefits of life come from the govt.

Wifi was not developed or expanded by the AUS govt, CSRIO owns some patents on a particular algorithm, an algorithm which has been superseded many years ago. Medical technology is a private activity, not a govt activity. Vaccinations are largely the invention of private enterprises - for example how was the polio vaccine created?

In the USA, as I wrote previously, many communities maintain their own roads, common spaces, and utilities (power, water, sewage) on their own with no govt support or control. Many bridges are privately owned but publicly used (toll bridges).

The internet, cell phones, gps, are all what they are today because of private enterprise and in spite of the govt.

 

One last time, where did I say EVERYTHING comes from the government?

 

What I saw in Sushisnake's posts were examples of "socialist-type" reforms and structures that mostly serve the need much better than private industry would or could. I didn't see any implication that "everything comes from government". Maybe it would be productive to discuss the advantages and/or reasons supporting socialist-type reforms and agencies.

 

You're pretty much describing cancer.

I don’t think the incentive is the competition, not anymore. Capital is becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Corporations are consolidating, not competing. I think the object is to be too big to fail. Like the banks in 2008 (and now) a too big to fail corporation would take a big chunk of the economy down with it. Imagine if Walmart failed? The government would have little choice but to bail it out.

I was working in the non-profit disability services sector in the run up to the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in Australia. The NDIS meant the services had to compete for clients. They were no longer guaranteed funding. It was inevitable small services would go under. My employer was buying up small and medium sized services all over the country. We were a residential service - a non-profit corporation. By the time I left, we housed hundreds of thousands of Australians with disabilities all over Australia. We were too big to fail. If we collapsed, the residents were homeless. The government would have had no choice but to bail us out.

Of course when I say the government, I mean the public. Being too big to fail socialises the risk. The corporation can be as incompetent, reckless or dishonest as it likes because the public will cover its losses.

 

Here's your chance to list the things you believe do not come from the government. Lets see it -