I come off as a capitalist or a socialist, depending on how the day is going and what the thread is. I guess I would call myself a short-term capitalist, long-term socialist, which as I understand is what Marxism should be.
I do think that there will be a point when economic growth reaches a peak and the masses will be stuck in a lesser spot. I think that at some point the number of jobs based on current projections of what a work-week should be will be far less than the number of suitable candidates. In fact, I think that a great majority of the jobs in this country are unnecessary. A lot of jobs are based completely on marketing and sales, which in and of themselves are an inefficiency and a break-down in capitalism. They involve wasting resources to convince people that a product is better, in many cases taking up resources that should be used to increase the quality or lower the price of the product. The fact that people have largely bought into advertising enough that companies are willing to invest so much into it is a tribute to the stupidity of it. Business has become politics. I also figure that at some point there will be a limit to overconsumption.
My belief is pretty simple then. We will continue to have a capitalist system, adapting as necessary by adjusting the work-week, adjusting social programs, watching the numbers and types of companies and industries shift, and generally rolling with the punches. We'll do it until either by slow evolution or by lack of further potential growth and threat of revolution, we will resemble something similar to socialism (but not the artificial enforced socialism as we know it- in fact, we will probably not even realize that we're socialist when it happens). Rather than being fearful of this future and trying in a deconstructive manner to preserve capitalism for all time, I will embrace it. I think it's for the better. But I don't believe we should be jumping the gun toward socialism either. It will come about best by rolling with the punches. As the economy changes, more services will be necessary and the work laws will shift.
But I also don't think protectionism is a good idea. It is not helpful to capitalism or socialism to preserve obsolete industry or jobs that are not useful or at least entertaining. If a company dies, it's due to its obsoletion or inefficiency. It is not helpful to anyone to preserve it.
So, yeah, the tests label me a capitalist. But I still think of myself as a Marxist. So sue me. It's just strange that I often see socialists and communists as a threat to the future socialism and capitalists as its greatest friends. It's all about social evolution and the theory you pick. Some believe that capitalism will go on inevitably. That includes those who try to end it prematurely, those that call themselves socialists. They think the exploitation will go on forever. I personally think that eventually when capitalism is no longer a useful force, it will come to an end- but we'll probably have a lot of pitfalls that keep this from happening in my lifetime.
Oh well.

Either respond to this in this thread or post your own unconventional economic philosophy.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

This may happen when all countries in the world reach 1st world nation stutus, but thats gonna happen a really far time from now, if ever.

Then again, if you take the US - We were an isolatonist country that really didnt trade much for more than 100 years and did fine all alone, so...

On the other hand, I see capitalism evolving in this way. As technology replaces human labor, I think there will be widespread unemployment. There will come a point at which the majority of workers are unnecessary to the machinery of capitalism. Meanwhile, under the pretenses of protecting "national security" and "American industries", both government power and corporate welfare will increase to the point at which there is one giant de facto monopoly, consisting of a true merger of state and corporate power, to use Mussolini's words. The government will share in the profits of corporations while delegating its political power to those companies until the government and massive technology-based businesses are in reality one. Wealth inequality will become greater and greater as this giant government monopoly redefines laws to rake in more and more money. The only people who profit will be the technological elite and those who can organize them. The government/corporate monopoly on violence, as Rothbard called it, will become so great that the poor, though they will be in the majority, will have no chance of successfully rebelling against it. Military technology will be so automated by this time that few human soldiers will be necessary. There might be a few attempts at revolt, but they will be crushed and the masses will soon realize that they have no chance of winning. Democracy will gradually disappear, though there will still be a pretense of it on our government's part in international circles. The result will be combination of technocracy, rule by the technological elite, and plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, with entrance into the ruling class being determined by a combination of intelligence and ruthlessness. Something like 10% of the people will have total control of society. The rest of the people will live in slums or emigrate. I expect all of this to happen gradually over the next 100 to 200 years. This post is rather depressing, isn't it? I'm sorry about that.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

...I'm mean jeez, what are you, a hippie? Life isn't all sunshine and lollipops ya know.


My future prediction is the same for all subjects. (It also happens to be my response to most of the questions asked of me in my German class, minus the naughty word of course).


'I haven't got a f***ing clue.'

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

JavaBlack,
I think we need to get rid of societies parasites e.g. lawyers. They feed off everything and contribute nothing. Let’s drive them out of healthcare system, and our government.
We need to unrig the tax system. Let’s fairly tax small businesses so they can at least have a fighting chance against big tax-exempt businesses. Worse yet, have chance against government-subsidized businesses.

that I am, I think the future looks potentially pretty grim. The country cannot afford to police the planet, pay for a huge military AND take care of the retirement obligations to the Baby Boomer generation. I expect that retirees and everyone else will spend more and more of their income on health care. I anticipate that the government will use accounting schemes worthy of Enron to get out of some of its' SocSec obligations. (O.K. already has used those accounting schemes according to Stekim) Mounting debt, higher interest rates, higher fuel costs, health care and college expenses, Boomers spending less - I don't know how the economy can be good. I expect a lot of Boomers will move to Mexico, Costa Rico, maybe India- any low wage country that has a decent healthcare system and a stable government. Spying on people will become so easy that we will all become consumers rather than citizens. All cars and clothing will have computer chips imbedded into them so that our whereabouts and our buying habits can be easily tracked. If another terrorist attack occurs, these chips will be imbedded into the arms of immigrants? or perhaps everyone? Most people will have jobs in marketing, sales and service. There will also be some manufacturing jobs because as the price of oil rises, and Americans wage expectations soften ,some expensive- to -ship items may be profitably built at home. Lots of these businesses will be owned by Japanese, or Korean or...

All the grim things are probably just setbacks, so long as they don't destroy us all. There are certain trends that seem constant, but occasionally fall back. Equal rights, peace, help for the poor and unfortunate, international perspective, freedom of expression, education... The very things we worry so much about are over the course of time changing in the way we want them to. It's just very slow and the curve looks a lot like the stock market. A few dips here and there, occasionally a big dip, but in the long run it keeps going up. Racism, poverty, war, nationalism, censorship, and ignorance all still exist, but to a lesser extent then at any other time so far.

One thing people forget when thinking about Marxism is that capitalism is itself the stage that leads to socialism and is also a step in the right direction from feudalism. The thing that always reminds me of this is the fact that every wealthy capitalist democracy provides welfare systems to aid the disabled and old. The so-called communist countries have a tendency to leave old people to their family's means or out on the street to die.
There seems to be a tendency of the human race to provide for all when it can. The problem of war right now is a misguided way to bring about the very changes necessary to lead us in the right direction faster. The problem is that the methods we use will shape our own society and those of the countries we are "helping" in a manner that emphasizes fear and the use of power to solve problems. In the long run, I think these social diseases can be vanquished, but I still see them as a setback.
To my way of thinking, we always need balance in liberal and conservative power. Liberals are there to lead us in the right (er... left) direction, but they want to move too fast, beyond the capacity of resources or the human psyche. Conservatives are there to slow liberals down and ensure that they compromise with the current flow of resources and thought- for stability and sustainability.
I'm not fond of liberal-conservative hybrids, because they are missing the conflict part of the dialectic that is necessary for a true consensus. While some individual moderates are an asset to thought, large-scale moderate movements, I see as stagnant.
In my thought though, the current administration is actually an unbridled liberal one. Conservatives, duped by the name-game of politics, support this liberal explosion and keep from doing their job as stabilizers. This puts other liberals in an awkward position of trying to be stabilizers, something their not accustomed to and something that becomes difficult when the ultimate goals of the "conservative" administration is similar to their own.
I think that is why the most effective commentary against the Bush Doctrine has come from right-wing mavericks.
Any time the balance is thrown, there is a setback. An example of liberal ways gone unchecked that we can all relate to: Roe vs. Wade. It was a quick jump without support to do something radical. The result: a massive culture war that threw the country off balance. And of course, when conservatives go unchecked we see some progress undone (though in certain cases, this can be just part of the balance in the long-run- conservatives destroy flawed liberal programs so that liberals can come back with better ones [something we probably won't see from our current Democratic Party]).
I think the neocons are something new. They believe what they say. They seem to me to be a product of one of the other forces that is on the upward in society, one that's more destructive (creative destruction?): marketing/lawyering. It seems as I deal with some of the young salespeople vs. the older people I know (I seem to be at a very in-between age), the young actually believe some of the sales culture they were brought up into. Some of them don't seem to have that constant need to look over contracts closely, question their slogans, whatever, that older people do.
Neocons really believe in what they stand for, making them more credible than the cynical old marketers. They also believe in whatever kind of "science" proves what they want. They remind me of upper management. I can't honestly say that I know whether at the very top of the management heirarchy, they are manipulative or naive. But the policies could easily be a product of both. Everything sounds good on paper. Everything looks win-win (so long as you accept their idea of what comprises a win for you). Indeed, I think the company I do sales for is a neocon invention- or more likely people like them invented neocons.
But as time goes by, I think it becomes clear that people don't approve of being marketed to if they don't like what they get out of the deal. Unfortunately they usually jump to competitors who are just as bad. Consumers really need to learn to take the upper hand. They have to stop relying on strong executives and salespeople and learn to do some thinking themselves. And I think that, despite recent setbacks in our culture, people ultimately will shed this ridiculous consumer-sales culture for something more meaningful. And then we will not see ideologies in politics that reflect it.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Bank Loan

Bank manager's office. Stephen sitting behind the desk.
Hugh enters, looking quite needlessly repellent, folders
and things tucked under his arm.


Stephen: (Rising) Mr Lully?

Hugh: That's right. Glad you could see me at such
short notice.

Stephen: Not at all, come in, sit down. Coffee?

Hugh: Thank you.

Stephen: How do you like it?

Hugh: Decaffeinated, jug method, low mineral content
filtered spring water, not quite brought to the boil
with semi-skimmed milk and one Nutrasweet.
Unstirred.

Stephen: Right. (Intercom) Mark?

Voice: (Intercom distort) Yes.

Stephen: Do we still have that chemistry set in the office?

Voice: (Intercom distort) 'Fraid not.

Stephen: Right, one coffee then please.

Voice: (Intercom distort) K.

Stephen: So, Mr Lully, you'd like a loan?

Hugh: That's pretty much the size of it.

Stephen: You mention in your letter that you're starting
up a business and that you're interested in taking
advantage of our new "Gredo" start-up package.

Hugh: That's correct.

Stephen: Yes, now first things first. What exactly is the
product you're hoping to market.

Hugh: Ah, yes. Brought some samples along as a
matter of fact.

Hugh gets out two small sachets.

Haven't actually settled on brand names yet. But
there's basically two products. The blue sachet is
cocaine and the red is heroin.

Stephen: I'm sorry?

Hugh: My own market research and some work
undertaken by the packaging and graphics team
has revealed that cocaine is thought of as a fresher,
brighter product, hence the blue, and heroin is
warmer and more passionate, therefore red. You
disagree? I'd value your input.

Stephen: You're planning to distribute and sell drugs?

Hugh: On the button. The market's there, I'm ready to
go, and let's face it - Europe's open for business.

Stephen: Ye-e-es.

Hugh: Problem?

Stephen: Possibly. Possibly.

Hugh: I know what you're going to say. It's a market
that up until now has been hedged about with a
lot of rules and regulations, and let me tell you
this. When I first began to look at this market,
I thought to myself, "hey, I'd be better off
manufacturing red tape". Hahaha!

Stephen: Red tape, yes.

Hugh: But thank God, times are changing. Whole
new markets are opening up, and I'm ready to
play them.

Stephen: Right.

Hugh: The demand is there, no question.

Stephen: Uh huh.

Hugh: The most exciting thing for me is that it's such a
young market.

Stephen: Really?

Hugh: Immensely young. Consumer profiling indicates
the twelve to fifteen-year-old segment. And if we
can instil in them product loyalty, that's got to be
good news.

Stephen: Aha. But ... but ...

Hugh: I know what you're going to say. "Do they have
the income?" right? Well, what I always say is, "if
the product's right, they'll find the income." Their
mother's handbags, car stereos, old age pensioners,
wherever.

Stephen: Mmm. I meant, well ... I hesitate to use a word
like this. I know it's old-fashioned. But do you
think it's strictly moral?

Hugh: I beg your pardon?

Stephen: Is it moral?

Hugh: Moral?

Stephen: Yes.

Hugh: I'm not sure if I've actually got any precise figures
on that ...

Stephen: Yes, I actually mean ... is it moral to do this at
all? You know ... children and so on.

Hugh: Well. Let me turn the question round and ask you
this. Would you rather we stood by and watched
the Germans, the Dutch, the South Americans
take our market share? Where's your precious
morality then?

Stephen: Well ...

Hugh: Up a gum tree without a paddle, that's where it is.
The question is this. Either you believe in market
forces or you don't.

Stephen: Well actually, I'm afraid to say I don't.

Hugh: You don't?

Stephen: No. I used to of course, when I was a child, but
like everyone else, I discovered as I grew older that
it was all made up.

Hugh: Made up?

Stephen: Yes. I can still remember the exact moment. It
was Christmas Eve. I can't have been more
than about thirty years old. I couldn't sleep, so I
crept downstairs and heard my parents laughing
about market forces, and saying that they'd have
to break it to me sooner or later. Bit of a blow,
I can tell you. And then two years after that, I
discovered there was no such thing as Father
Christmas either.

Hugh: You're kidding?

Stephen: Oh sorry, did you ... ?

Hugh: Yes I did. Tscch.

Stephen: Oh dear.

Hugh: Growing up, eh?

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

This is a bit of my centrism. We have an economy that, in hindsight, has been poorly planned in so many ways that it might as well have been the result of a conspiracy against us. It wasn't, but it might as well have been. What can we do about it? For now, we can do almost nothing. Looking at economics issue by issue, one sees the futility of change. Let us consider the problem of rising medical costs. Okay, my first instinct is to provide national health insurance. That would cost $1.8 to $1.9 trillion dollars annually and so would bankrupt the country. Privatizing what is already run by the government is not an option because then the poor would get no health care instead of the poor health care they currently get. Regulating drug prices would decrease the incentive to make new drugs, while malpractice lawsuits, for all the publicity they get, constitute only a tiny fraction of the rising costs of medical care. Is there price gouging in medical care? I have no doubt that there is, but there is nothing the government can do about it.
Then there is Social Security. Cutting benefits is not an option. That beggar I knew was on disability and wouldn't have survived with much less than he got. Requiring the wealthy to pay more would just generate more opposition to the basic program. Privatization schemes involve either risking or cutting off the money of retirees. Therefore, raising the retirement age is all we can do. It will stave off a crisis, at any rate.
As for welfare, I'm not willing to cut it a cent. I'm not going to starve out single parents and their children, among others, because some wealthy people resent paying their taxes. On the other hand, increasing welfare payments would cause a disincentive to work, increase the frequency of welfare fraud and increase our national debt. The only option, therefore, is to keep the current system precisely as it is.
On the issue of taxation, if we raise taxes, economic confidence will decrease. If we lower them, the deficit will increase without any certain economic growth. The best thing to do, therefore, is to keep taxes exactly where they are. On trade policy, I support free trade in theory, but a sudden removal of protective tariffs would cause widespread unemployment, so movement towards free trade has to be incremental.
The minimum wage should be kept where it is as well. Any increase would cause unemployment, while any decrease would demoralize the working class and increase income inequality without increasing economic growth. Even something that I loathe as much as corporate welfare can't be abolished immediately. If it were, some corporations would move their headquarters overseas while others would lay off workers. I support moderate cuts in defense spending, but not anything that would put a large number of people out of work. In conclusion, therefore, as bad as our current economic system is, there is currently no major change that would not make it even worse.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

A publicly funded insurance program covering all citizens would not bankrupt the country and would certainly provide better health coverage for people who are not now receiving any health care coverage. Of the amount of money Americans currently spend on health care, 25% goes to wasteful administration. Plus, Phisicians spend more time with patients and less time filling out papers. People send a check to the health bureau instead of having it removed from their pay check or sending it to an Insurer. How does that bankrupt the country? Administrative spending is much lower in Canada, Britain, France and Scandinavia. "The poor would get no health care"?!- Where do you find evidence for that statement??

We have already argued the case for eliminating the F.D.A. and deregulating the oversight of Big Pharma. Force, I urge you to pick up the most recent (March) copy of "Harper's" magazine. There is a shocking piece of investigative journalism concerning the use of Africans as pharmaceutical guinea pigs and the sloppiness with which these studies are conducted. I had no idea that the movie, "the Constant Gardener", comes so close to the truth. The article also (*)(*)(*)(*)s the N.I.H. or rather its' excessively cozy relationship with big Pharma- The dangerous intersection between lots of $$$, political pressure and big business. The article is titled "Out of Control" by Celia Farber