Potential Alternatives to the Capitalist System

I'd have to see something more concrete than your say-so to agree with that. Many advances in technology and in the fields you mentioned came from private enterprise.

Ok, I'll work on that. I think it's important to see how different systems nourishes potential.

Who picks "floor managers" or "team leaders". Who chooses "top managers"?

In capitalism, the owners pick management and have ultimate power over them.

In alternative systems there are owners too. For example, instead of private owned banks or companies, there are member-owned banks and companies. Example: people who have account(s) with the bank have automatic shares and people who work at certain companies have automatic shares. So instead of private owners making decisions for the company, the members would. Members may agree to have majority votes or they may decide on different decision-making policies altogether. Operations can be comparable to any other system. It all depends on the caliber of the structure, the incentives, the vision, the mission, the members, etc.


That is radically different from capitalism.

If the workers choose top management, why wouldn't they simply choose the guy who is going to be easiest on them for the work schedule?

Vote me for manager and you'll only have to work 20 hours a week for your normal pay!

That would be a winner.

It actually isn't so radical. There are already companies, banks, educational, child - care services that aren't private-owned already. Instead of the owners having the final say, it's the members. Besides, in the private industry, the owners/partners/shareholders are likely to hire people of certain skill sets to fill managerial positions and allow them to make some decisions. Co-ops aren't much different. It's just instead of private owners and corporations sharing profits, it's the members getting it. And instead of private owners and corporations having final input in decisions, the members have representation or direct input into final decisions.

Since members have stake in ownership, the incentive to keep the company, bank, etc. operational and somewhat profitable is increased. Under capitalism, more incentives and punishment have to be dished out for desired output/productivity and efficiency.


Of course. But if you can do the same job down the street for 20% more pay, mostly likely you're gone.

Yes, same as now. Except under capitalism, it is in the interest of the owner to drive pay down to maximize profits. Under alternative systems, it is in the interest of the owners to serve the community/public, attract more members, and make a profit.

 

It might be that the capitalist system functions much better under some conditions than others. If that it the case, we really should be thinking about what those conditions are and trying to make sure that those conditions exist. Every policy decision has consequences. It might be that bad decision-making will eventually get the country into a quandary where the previous economic system no longer works so well. And this does NOT mean that the new economic system will function as well as the old system did under the old conditions.

 

There are a shed load of very real alternatives to capitalism.

Socialism.
Charity.
Donorship.
Workers co-operatives.
Family businesses.

Any number of entirely workable economic systems in use everyday all over the world.
There is no shortage whatsoever of fully functional alternatives to capitalism.

Which one bests suits you, your ideology, your environment and your circumstances may differ.
It is not the case that one is better than the other.
One maybe better than another for you, for your circumstances. But not are intrinsically superior or inferior. All of them work and many of them are more widely used than others.

Capitalism is about the most popularly used one and most widely understood one.
As such it of course attracts itself to reactionary thought. But I think we can pretty much dismiss such people out of hand. Capitalism works many millions of people successful and beneficially use these principles of mutual co-operation to fund their businesses.

In Capitalism, savers combine their money together and lend it to workers to build a factory or plant a farm or whatever. The workers in turn now become savers in order to fund their retirements and in turn they lend their own combined saving on to the next generation of entrepreneurs.

There is nothing inherently dishonest or manipulative or exploitative in the system per se. It's widely used through most cultures in the human race. You can use it or not use it as you prefer.

A family business is a very common alternative. Dad builds a shop. He runs the shop. He owns the shop.
As he gets old, he seeks to retire. He keeps ownership of the shop and takes a share in the proceeds, but his son takes over the running of the shop. Dad dies and the son takes ownership and later on his son takes of the running and so on.

Workers co-operative.
A load of hippies say "we have no boss". Not a good way to get started this one. initial investment from a load of hippies is going to be a tough ask. But it can be done.

The best examples of workers co-operatives started as something else.
For example a nationalised industry or a family business that has been donated to the workforce on the owners death.
This one is great if you are a hippy commune. Despite that human dynamics basically means an alpha will really be running the commune, this is great for ideological projects. My cousins anarchist bookshop is a co-operative. Capitalist systems would just by the name alone scare his workforce away.

And then we have not for profit companies. A lot of the schools I teach at are either not for profit organisations or charitable institutions. The charitable institutions have typically been donated to society by rich benefactors. And the not for profit schools are typically low budget schools with moderately better wages. Charitable institutions are run by a board of trustee's and not for profits are run by whoever sets them up. A boss.

Socialism. State operated businesses. A nationalised industry. A workplace funded out of taxation.
Definitely the most complicated system and by a long way. Also my least favourite since it is the most susceptible to monopolisation and is the only one you can't choose not to use if you don't prefer it or ideologically disagree with.

And finally the daddy of them all.
Private funding. Pay for it yourself. Use all your own money. Do not co-operate with others at all.

 

That's a blast from the past, I haven't thought of Worgl in a long time. Thanks for mentioning it, I had a couple of professors in college who loved to talk about Worgl.

The experiment there had it's good points and it's bad points, it was shut down by their central bank after about a year and appeared to have good results but I don't think they could have sustained them. One of the main reasons it seemed to work right away is because there was a lot of debt to service in Worgl so when people got certificates in their hands they paid their debts right away and they had to, if they had held on to the certificates they would have lost value. I'm a big believer in rapid circulation of money. But, Worgl drew the bank's ire because they were hoarding shillings so while Worgl enjoyed the benefits of velocity the rest of the country didn't and the region ended up defaulting on some of it's tax debt anyway. It's a story everyone should know about because of the possible benefits but also some of the drawbacks.

 

Actually, no it's not.
It's almost identical to it.

The only difference in this example is that some investors who receive a return on the banks profits are called shareholders as well as depositors.
Building societies (mutuals) have no trouble converting into banks. They do so often. To all intents and purposes it's the same business model. For a person using a bank or a mutual, It's the same service.
All the stock market does is provide another place to find lenders than just the high street or interbank lending. Widens the net.

We are just splitting hairs. A mutual and a bank are to all intents and purposes the same.
Not radically different. Completely interchangeable.

You can make a big to do about ownership, but when a mutual saver walks into a mutual, he doesn't own it any more than when a shareholder walks into a bank he holds stock in owns that either. He lends the bank money and it pays him a return for it.

 

Your post was misquoting. I don't believe that they are radically different and that was the point I was making with some of my posts.

 

Is this thread supposed to be about an economic system or a system of government?

 

I'm going to repost my post as it was conveniently overlooked.

 

Just from what I've found, it appears that even if you pay for someone who uses welfare under another system, the costs would be far cheaper and the overall health of the country would be better than what the U.S. has now.

I can offer what I found on some of these systems regarding healthcare. Some of these ideas are a bit new* so there isn't much information on some of these as there is on the older models. Feel free to let me know if this post does not address what you were looking for.

[TABLE="width: 661"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 232, bgcolor: #9BC2E6"]Model
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #9BC2E6"]How the Model Handles Healthcare
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Capitalism
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Under a capitalist system, healthcare costs are for the individual to bear. Individuals may obtain insurance through their employer or directly with health insurance provider. Under some capitalist models, government may subsidize costs for seniors and poor citizens.

Example
America has the most expensive healthcare system in the world (spending hit $3.8 Trillion). Compared to 10 other countries, the U.S. did best on provision and receipt of preventative and patient-centered care. People in the U.S. go without needed healthcare because of cost. Regarding efficiency and equity, America ranks last among the same countries. For the healthy lives indicator, the U.S. ranks last among comparable countries in mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at 60.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Collaborative Commons*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: transparent"]Health care costs under this model is low or near zero marginal cost.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Communism
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Cuba: There are compulsory annual health checks. The health services outperforms other low, medium income countries and some richer ones too. Cuba has lower infant mortality rate than US and similar life expectancy. Cost is free and universal. It is guaranteed by the state and the model is preventive care. There are 8 doctors per 1,000 people.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Economic Democracy*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: transparent"]Health care under this model is free. Depending on where it is implemented, the funding could look similar to that of the socialist model. Insurance may be mandatory and taxes may be high.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Mutualism*
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Unknown
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Participatory Economics*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: transparent"]Health care under this model is free. Under this model, every able adult is obligated to perform some socially useful work.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Reputation Economy*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Higher quality of health care services. Expenses and funding will depend on existing economic system. Reputation economy is just another gauge to judge people. A good reputation may get you more perks, but it is not a standalone system.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Slow Money*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: transparent"]Health care not addressed under this model.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Socialism
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #DDEBF7"]Some of the best run health care systems in the world are socialistic. Some are a mix of private and publicly provided healthcare. Under a social system, taxes can be high and participation mandatory. Many of the services are very low cost and others free depending on age, income, policy, etc. Longer wait times do exist under socialized medicine. However, the overall health of the nation is usually very good and often the best in the world.

Examples
In France, the majority of patients must pay upfront. The state then reimburses the costs. The money is put back within five days with a reimbursement rate between 70-100%. The poor and long-term sick are covered at 100%. A general visit costs about $26. Health insurance in France is mandatory. Its system consists of public and private hospitals.

In Spain, free healthcare for any resident, legal or illegal, and to tourists, and other visitors. Some prescription drugs have out of pocket costs. Patients do complain about long waits to see specialists and undergo certain procedures. Overall, Spain healthcare is ranked among the best in the world.

In Japan, all residents are required to take out public health insurance. Regular employees are required to pay 20% o their total medical costs upon delivery. Those not covered by an employer have their premiums based on salary, value of property and number or dependents. Members pay 30% of the costs and the government pays the rest. People over 70 pay 10% of the costs.

Medical fees have ceilings based on income and age. Costs above these ceilings are paid by the government. Fees are waived for uninsured people on low income who receive government assistance.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Spiritual Capitalism*
[/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: transparent"]Depends on the existing capitalist system. The 'spiritual' in Spiritual Capitalism simply means taking care of business is taking care of others. I could not find much more.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #1F4E78"][/TD]
[TD="width: 649, bgcolor: #1F4E78"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

References:

• Which country has the world's best healthcare system?
• World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems
• Prevention better than cure in Cuban healthcare system
• Economic Democracy: The Extended Model
• U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

- - - Updated - - -

It's supposed to be about alternative economic systems.

 

I'll keep an eye open to see when/if that happens.

 

Good info on the healthcare of different systems. It's a very tough topic and expensive. There has to be a balance of accessibility, cost, and quality and its not an easy thing to do in this field. Government only is not the answer and private only is not the answer, but mixing is extremely hard and inefficient. I think this is the issue with pretty much every economic situation we currently have.

 

I am in kind of a state of awe here.....

Yesterday afternoon I spoke with the local President of the Conservative Party Association of Central - Nova and I found out that ........ even with only six months as a member of the party...... I can begin to campaign to represent the Conservative Party here in Central Nova........ or even in some other riding that I am interested in.

I also..... could begin to campaign......... for the office of National Leader of Canada's Conservative Party?!

I am planning to do exactly that....... and..... I will be passing a similar challenge on to Canadian Conservative Party members that I put in front of the Liberal Party..... back in 2012!

http://www.politicalforum.com/canad...ar-liberal-party-volunteerism-hour-could.html

A Liberal Party Dollar or Liberal Party Volunteerism Hour could.......

 

I think you have gotten to the very heart and core of how a modern variation on the Worgl. Austria local money experiment could succeed in 2016 - 2050......

The key....... could be to deliberately link local currencies...... State coins....... Provincial currencies........ or even a micro-nation currency to............. the payment of taxes at the local, State or Provincial..... as well as at the Federal Level..........

I live in Canada.... but I know that I know that there are hundreds and thousands of companies in Israel.......
who are so desperate to grab a chunk of the Canada and NAFTA market........ that they would be willing to "dump" their products or services on us........ but.......
legally they can't do that so.............
IF.... Canada's Conservative Party was to print up....... a Conservative Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar or shekel...... or dinar...........
they would be in an excellent position to continue the close relationship that P. M. Stephen Harper enjoyed
with Israel's P. M. Netanyahu?!?!

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...s-p-m-brokering-jordan-israel-peace-deal.html

Please pray or meditate on Canada's P. M. brokering Jordan - Israel peace deal?
I know that many of you pray or meditate so please

pray that P. M. Stephen Harper initiate a peace deal between Jordan and Israel?

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

I am a member of a different Canadian political party but……… I have to admit that P. M. Stephen Harper is for good reason regarded as a rather "Davidic" figure by a high percentage of Israelis.

What he did for Israel back in 2011 at the G-8 was one of the most courageous and wise acts by a political leader that I have seen since I began to watch world events back in the '70's!

On Israel, Harper stands alone at G8 summit - The Globe and Mail


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...per-stands-alone-at-g8-summit/article4263322/

 

I have a number of theories on how this can also be financed.......
...... theoretically..... a Canadian Conservative Party Dollar or Volunteerism Hour.......
(or a similar Made in America variation on that theme)....
... could be linked to Canadian and American insurance companies......

A major star could focus attention on what is being proposed........
Dr. Ben Carson is one possibility......

http://www.politicalforum.com/health-care/453165-why-would-dr-ben-carson-make-such-claims.html
Why would Dr. Ben Carson make such claims?
I believe that he made these statement because he seriously considered that they were true!
..........................

The majority of voters in Canada, America and in Israel......
are interested in the topic of health plus longevity......
and would tend to be willing to participate in an experiment that
would answer the question of whether or not there exists several
relatively low cost nutritional supplements that could dramatically increase
the survival rate for cancer patients..... and even HIV sufferers........

http://www.thesanhedrin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1139&sid=44cbfdfdff2c4273d4b8926dc9646c0f

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:20 am Post subject: Longevity, will all Jews soon live healthy for a century?
Isaiah 65:20 ¶
Quote:
"There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed."



My wife is from Quito, Ecuador so I heard a lot of amazing things about this area of the world. The first time that I heard about amazing longevity was actually a documentary done back in the 1970's. This explanation may help you to know how Jewish baby boomers can live extremely healthy lives of well over one century.

.vilcabamba.org/article.html

 

I think this would make a small problem much larger, the national currency would destabilize to the point of worthlessness if this were to be done.

 

the only alternative to capitalism is socialism and socialism slowly starved 130 million human souls to death. Cuba has socialism and monthly income of $24 while 90 miles away in Florida monthly income is $3000. Is that hard to understand?

 

There are plenty of alternatives to capitalism aside from socialism. Please re-engage the topic of discussion using a different angle, especially since capitalism has far more bodies on it than does socialism.

 

wrong, there are only 2 ideas in economics: capitalism and socialism. If there are others you must name them.

 

Socialism slowly starved 120 million human souls to death while capitalism has made the earth a paradise. China, for example, just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of the entire planet's poverty. It has been the greatest economic miracle in human history.

 

This is false. There have been alternative ideas submitted throughout this thread including mutualism, collaborative commons, participatory economics, and economic democracy.

 

Capitalism has made the world a paradise? Sure material wealth has increased, but capitalism produces excess waste and is responsible for environmental degradation. Ok China may have benefited somewhat from it. However, it is problematic for them to breathe their air and over time less and less water is available for people due to heavy pollution.

 

Now artificial intelligence can simulate any social system. Finally we must find better social system for each of human.

 

In a way....... something of an alternative to capitalism was shown to
near death experiencer former Atheist Howard Storm.......


http://www.near-death.com/experiences/notable/howard-storm.html#a04

 

Most people benefit from it. It's why they choose to do it.
It's one of the most universally used methods of human co-operation. It wasn't imposed on us. We have willingly adopted it out of self interest.

My god man, if you think capitalism produces excess waste... just wait until you check out the public sector. Replication central.

 

Capitalism is forced upon people. As long as someone, some corporation, or some government entity owns something you need to survive, you are forced to participate in the system. People take jobs they hate all the time and many people are a paycheck or two away from losing everything they own because of this setup.