This conversation is closed.

Will stock markets exist in an evolved socialist economy?

Even though China is regarded as socialist, it isn't acting like one when it allows the laws of capitalism present in the globe apply on the way their industries perform. I want to know if a true socialist economy could have stock markets where shares of companies would be traded within the workers themselves who collectively own the means of production.

  • thumb
    May 1 2014: No. There can be no personal ownership in a true socialist economy.
    • May 8 2014: Even though there is no personal ownership, there still is a collective ownership by the workers themselves. What if two workers from different corporations want to trade places, wouldn't that involve a trading of shares giving them collective ownership of the new enterprise where they now will work?
      • thumb
        May 8 2014: Your original question invoked the words "true socialist economy," but what you're trying to suggest is a modified socialist economy with limited capitalism. It can't be both.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    May 12 2014: Different from you, my understanding of progression is, what functions in long terms and, even more importantly, is profitable to the majority of the people of a society and this in harmony with their environment, which we call sustainability.

    In order to get there, we need companies to get more capital which have this in mind and in their goals while running their business, yet all signs you can see right now is the opposite from that.

    Apple, to name one famous stock market marvel exemplary, is covering none of this. It produces its products in low cost countries, does not follow a 'cradle to cradle' product design, hires legions of lawyers to battle other companies over 'intellectual property claims', uses very durable materials for extraordinary short-lived products and is known to be very successful in tax evasion strategies.

    So what reason is left for any average US American citizen, not having Apple stocks on their own, to be proud of this company? It neither creates jobs in their country but a very specialized view, it does not pays nearly close the taxes it is supposed to, due to loop holes in the current system, and it does not collects their temporary products for any meaningful recycling of its resources. But as I said before, my understanding of progression differs from yours.

    If I take your 3th paragraph and its concept of the 'fittest companies' and would extrapolate from it into the future, the most disturbing factor in doing so would become the 'human capital' in it, and this very quickly, because on the expense side of any company, those 'human components' are a pain in the butt.

    But as long society hasn't evolved to a point in which 'work for a living' has become irrelevant due to free access to all basic necessities, the quantity as well as the quality of jobs remains relevant, to which the profit maximization alone remains incompatible.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    May 12 2014: 'Specifically about your 4th paragraph, I can provide a logical reason why an economy could allow stock markets to exist...'

    My logic differentiates from yours in many respects, as of which 'growth for its own sake' is not desirable in any economy.

    Better than any stock market, in which most people doesn't care anymore, leave alone know in what their hired specialists invest for them, crowd funding platforms re-connect the individual customer of a desired product with potential manufactures of those products. At the same time, crowd funding response indicates an quite realistic demand for future products and therefore helps the people who needs the funding to adjust their expectations as well as the scope of their products or services to actual demands rather than blurry hopes and/or expectations.

    Your conclusion in 2.1 is false, as stock markets only reward expectations in revenue and react hyper nervous and exclusively emotional, when they fear for their investments. This is why short-term gains have become the ruling force in our economies, which in its nature is neither sustainable nor consequent nor helpful to stabilize economies.

    Consequently only more profit gets rewarded, which is counterproductive to the general needs of any society.

    This is why the stock exchange value of a company rises when the company announces major layoffs of their workers by introducing 'efficiency' strategies or when they move production into low income countries. So whatever makes a company more attractive to investors, is counter productive to the societies those companies originally stem from.

    The global market therefore is not only the consequence of those games, but highly corrosive to each local economy and the stability of local societies.

    No company could expect to attract any investor today if they would announce to improve the environmental burden their production/service has on nature. So it is no surprise, why China is facing an environmental disaster right now.
  • May 10 2014: Only True Saints who does not have any wants can be called a socialist as he does not keep anything for himself. Other than this there can be no socialist or socialism.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    May 10 2014: You don't need stock markets anymore if you shape a monetary system which serves the people and not the other way around.
    • May 11 2014: Lejan

      Your though is laudable, but exactly how does that work. Can you be more specific?
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        May 11 2014: Sure.

        Our current monetary system is based on highly instable principles, mainly 'trust', which, as we all know is hard to earn yet easy to lose. It is also not backed anymore by any other yet materialistic value such as resources, for example. And on top of this instability comes, that the money we coin is exclusively dept based and always combined with interest and - even worse - compound interest.

        By this process, the given pool of existing money has neither any real value equivalent, nor is there ever enough in that pool to cover the 'interests' the pool itself demands.

        And as the whole system runs on exponential growth algorithms, it is no matter if it crashes, but only when it crashes.

        The stock market is a place where money is allowed to 'work' for itself, which, in my view is quite odd, because money in itself cant do a single thing on its own but to create even more dept by lending it and this only due to definition and 'trust' ...

        No solid foundation in my view at all.

        To create more stability in a monetary system and to make it work for and not against the people, we have to eliminate the dept component and its exponential growth.

        There are multiple ideas out there how such a system could be designed and some of them are already in use locally and quite successful so far. Yet the problem is not a lack of ideas or concepts, but the resistance for them to get widely applied by the given establishment for which the current systems woks just fine and in their favor. Unfortunately, the given concentration of money allows for sufficient enough 'power' to successfully undermine any change, at least so far and as far as I can see in the nearest future.

        But anyway, to give you some ideas what could be improved there was to re-connect the value of money to real resources and real labour, individual labour, of course, and to value abundance rather than scarcity. Money as a token of real exchange would not crave for more than is ...
        • May 11 2014: Lejan

          So to reconnect money to real resources; are you referring to agriculture, fossil fuels, and manufacturing? By real labor do you mean the assembly line worker, the fast food employee, or the college professor and doctor? Would there be a mean hourly wage for everyone. Or would a definition be applied as to skill level, which than becomes the determinant of value regardless of work quality and productivity?
          In trying to understand your thinking in terms of value to abundance rather than scarcity; You are saying that the more we have of something, the more it should cost and as reserves or the ability to develop, say oil, diminish than the prices should go down, so people will buy more and diminish the resource faster?
          If money is a token of 'real exchange' what than is the primary factor?
          You seem to admonish 'trust' as some sort of evil entity. If we do away with 'trust', what will it be replaced with? If I work for you should I not trust you to pay me? And if you pay me, what are my labors rewarded with and what trust should I place in the method of payment?
          People are not allowed to go into debt and cash payment is required for all purchases, to include a car, house etc.?
      • thumb
        May 11 2014: It seems I sparked many questions in you. Good! :o)

        Fossil fuels are scarce, so it wouldn't make sense to value them over agriculture and manufacturing.

        Real labour in my understanding is what people add to the good for themselves and their society.

        As a believer in humanity, the value of each human life is equal, therefore each hour spend by humans in real labour is equal in value.

        The value of many things is highly individual, yet on certain basics, such as food, water, shelter, etc. we would form similar values the moment we would be in need for those. Cost is not value, but if I would translate my understanding of it in todays terms, that what is of highest value to people's basics should be of lowest cost to them to be able to obtain them or to have access to.

        The primary factor of 'real exchange' is human life-time. Technology is the means to reduce the labour necessary for us to obtain our basic and other values and to have more time for us and others.

        Trust is not an evil entity, misuse is.

        Why would you work for me if we could work together? Your trust, I got to earn and from there constantly keep.

        Back in the days, people helped each other building their homes and also to gather the resources necessary. The concept of 'give & take' does allow to have 'now' and to return 'later' but because this form of 'time dept' didn't come with 'interest', you don't have to give more than you received.

        This idea is transformable into a debt-free monetary exchange system.
        • May 12 2014: Lejan

          I wish to thank you for your patience and, I believe, sincerity. After reading the thinking behind your statement I cannot say that I would agree. We have a different understanding of the human character. I am more cynical, perhaps that comes with age.
          I find it interesting that you would equalize the talent, dedication and educational training of a surgeon to that of one who is uneducated, lacking in self discipline and works at menial labor. Do you think that the high degree of responsibility that is shoulder by the surgeon equals that of the laborer?
          This is a quote from a piece I wrote some 40 years ago. Is this what you have in mind. "A true equality of mind, body, of spirit, of purpose and of existence advances the true essence of humanity, equality so true that no single talent rises above another, no mind smarter than another, no ambition greater than another, no one worthy of more or less than another.
          The discordant concept of competitive behavior and individual achievement blends into the defined purpose of non-achievement, where one lives for the Mother (earth), without distinction and full anonymity in absolute harmony and joy of being one of many."
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +2
        May 12 2014: Actually, it was my growing cynicism about the dominating paradigm of capitalism which left me no other choice but to question our current 'value' system, because in my experience it is highly misguiding and, even more disturbing, not sustainable at all.

        Yet as 'misguidance' is only a matter of my personal preference, and therefore a matter of debate, sustainability isn't, as there any open mind will be able to find the only valid conditions, which, in fact are not debatable but 'happily' and repeatedly ignored since the industrial revolution.

        If you take a look at the current 'High-frequency trading' at the stock market, you could not be further away to value the 'talent, dedication and/or educational training' a single individual may own or acquired over the years, because the only factor in this gamble is speed, which no human was able to compete against.

        I don't see any logical reason why any healthy economy would allow a stock trading company to make millions within nanoseconds with their specialized software and high-speed Internet connections while at the same time they add NOTHING substantial, nothing of value to the society they drain the monetary value from.

        The problem is, that this drainage of monetary value from 'the system' self perpetuates, as growing 'revenue' itself allows those who have it to let it 'work' for them instead.

        Yet as money can't do a single thing on its own, it is others which have to do the labour for those who made a fortune within the fraction of a second.

        A system which allows for this to happen, is a flawed system and detached from the true process of value creation in society. In medical terms we would call this anomaly 'aggressive cancer' and its diagnose would be lethal.

        What I am suggesting as a cure is to return to the core of the 'value creation process', which in fact is the process of 'making', and to part from the perversions of trading and loaning.

        ...
        • May 12 2014: Specificly about your 4th paragraph, I can provide a logical reason why an economy could allow stock markets to exist- the complexity of the functioning of stock market makes the principle of it confusing but if you break it down to individuals, you will derive it-
          1. People invest in companies they think will prosper so they can get a sizeable cut.
          2.1 As a result companies which are more progressive than others will have more capital.
          2.2 The companies are growing faster as they are selling goods faster due to either low cost production or high quality production which is good for the consumers either way.
          3. The result of people investing in and trading stocks constantly reevaluates and relocates capital investment such that only the fittest companies will have larger capitals.

          Conclusively, the beauty of this is that companies are revaluated in Nanoseconds in real time with the help of softwares these days and investments are directed at lightning speeds towards any company that can deliver aka service the consumers with efficiency and any company that fails to deliver plumets in stock price within nanoseconds.
        • May 13 2014: I think you and I share the same ideas. I'd like your opinion on a replacement monetary system I've come up with.
          http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Paquetp
      • thumb
        May 12 2014: The urge of 'continuous growth' which is rooted in the current monetary system is destructive to our environment and enslaving to the majority of the people which actually form society as a group.

        Money has never been a media to express respect yet is was and still is often used to claim for it.

        I also do not value certain 'professional groups' over others just because. I only value the 'talent, dedication and educational training' and true motivations of individuals and those in THEIR field of expertise.

        I wish for good farmers and good farm helpers for my healthy food. And I also wish for a good surgeon in case I need one. Yet if for all, the only motivation they do their job was to maximize their monetary profit, it is likely that I meet less talent in average. Which, as I see it, we do today.

        The best and most talented surgeon, however, would not be able to do wonders on me, if the cleaning lady did a lousy job on disinfection in the operating room, or the laundress on his/hers white coat.

        It is this interwoveness which makes it very difficult to distinguish what kind of labour or service should rank higher than others, that's why I came to make up my mind differently on this.

        When I became a professional mechanical engineer, I didn't have to pay for the education I was allowed to receive, as Universities in Germany are free of charge to the people. So in fact, I profited from the help of others during my training, so why would my work rank over theirs once I finished my degree?

        The fact that our life-time is equal in value, as I propose, does not negate nor diminish the beautiful multitude in our individual talents, on the contrary, as I am afraid that todays economy only allows a lucky few to truly work on their talents, whereas a dull majority has no other choice but to work for the money.

        To me, this is not only a waste of talents, but also a waste of life quality.

        Why is the 'national gross happiness' Bhutan came up with still a side issue today?
        • May 12 2014: Lejan

          As one who has used the Stock market to lose and to make money I, quite frankly, no longer trust the system. Better yet, I do not trust the technology that runs the system, The small investor has been essentially pushed out. Needless to say however, I believe that capitalism is the only measure of a free society and what we have now is an aborted system of economics, which is not capitalism. The American Federal Reserve has and continues to pump $70 billion dollars per month into the system, most of which is funneled to the large banks, domestically and internationally. Essentially the same process was used in the 1920's resulting in the Great Depression. I won't go into the mechanics as it is easily researched.
          You are obviously a socialist, but of what brand? You seem to possess a Utopian or altruistic philosophy. Do you promote a Marxist point of view?
          We do have some agreement, in terms, of human value. but I see it from the point of view of an individual and you see it in terms of a collective. For me the individual, individual achievement, is everything and the collective is, as a flock of sheep being herded.
          Capitalism, individual freedom, has a great many faults, but as America falls into a socialism. an increasing number people are becoming increasingly dependent of government, not only for subsistence, but for a direction and purpose in their lives. Quality of being, of attitude and a sense of accomplishment seem to be a quirk of a past generation.
          To your point on the surgeon, the surgeon could disinfect the operating if he had to, but the cleaning lady could not perform surgery on you. That, I believe, is the difference.
          Human life is precious and each life has a unique value, but, I think to force a devaluation of talent to it lowest common denominator, defined by the State, is to remove incentive and destroy ambition, which in itself is a disaster waiting to happen.
      • thumb
        May 12 2014: Am I a Marxist, a socialist, an Utopian or an altruist? That's a good question, Charles, and I leave it to you to brand me, as to me it is not of importance to which stable people sort me in. :o)

        Coming from the 'fast lane' myself, the only thing I did was to make one step back to take a look at the current whole picture and had no other choice but to conclude, that the path we are heading isn't leading to anything good for all of us.

        I am a strong believer in individual freedom, yet this under realistic and pragmatic terms, as I see humans as inherently social animals which makes them form in groups of all sizes ever since which can only result in alignment and reductions of individual freedom.

        Only the solitary trapper in the depth of the Canadian woods, fighting bears and hunting its own food, deserves to me the title of being 'individually free'. From there its been a scale in gray. perception and, apparently, political believe.

        In the latest election in Germany, I didn't vote. Not because I didn't want to, but because I didn't find any party representing my current views. Next election for the UN parliament is up in a view days, and again I have no clue whom to trust in that matter...

        So at the moment I see things are going horribly wrong almost anywhere on this planet, yet as if in collective paralysis, I don't know what to do against it.

        This is not a preferred position for me to be in, as I rather act than moan, yet I simply doesn't know anymore where to start from and which direction to head for ...

        Personal gridlock, I suppose, yet I keep pressing on it for me to find my niche an to start the next social evolution from there ... lol

        ;o)
        • May 12 2014: Lejan

          I, and a great many people share your angst. The world is upside down. Lines and definitions are being blurred, right is not right and left is not left. Confusion and instability, lack of purpose and conviction seem to be the guiding principles. The world will change drastically in the next few years. The idea of capitalism is the first causality, as America, I fear, has died. With capitalism individual freedom will succumb, as a collectivist mind set overtakes the Western World. This is not a new thing, it has been working for quite some time.
          As the Canadian trapper chose his life style he is confined to simply survive, while others choose to expand their talents past a mere survival stage. I do not think the trapper adds to a society, but, perhaps, and selfishly hides from it.
          It is important to take a stand on something you have great conviction for. If one refuses to identify with that conviction or truth, as one sees it, others will define you and you have lost that, which makes you, you. You become defined not by your conviction but by the convictions of others.
          The path we are taking is one outlined in the UN Charter and the UN Dec on Human Rights. The problem however, is that it is a path and not the desired end result.
          For the democratic process, which you seem to have lost faith in and reasonably so, it has no value in terms of a free society. The Founders of America understood this, thus The Bill of Rights. To no avail however as the people have become to dependent on government and government to entwined in the personal lives of the people. This to was anticipated and articulated by Marx in this quote. "Democracy is the only road to socialism." Following that is, "Socialism is the only road to Marxism."
          I cannot define you. I cannot accept you by my definition, as you would have no value. If I am boxed in by my own definition, it is my box, by my definition. That is principle.
      • thumb
        May 12 2014: 'To your point on the surgeon, the surgeon could disinfect the operating if he had to, but the cleaning lady could not perform surgery on you. That, I believe, is the difference.'

        This is called division of labour, I suppose, yet could the surgeon forge its own scalpel to perform his/her task? Is he/she knowledgeable enough to choose the right steel, the correct forging temperature to shape it and the right grinder to get the perfect cutting edge?

        I suppose most surgeons can't and rightly so, as they should focus on what they do best, and so I expect anyone to have this luxury while knowing, most of them have not.

        But I am not proposing that anyone should get the same, I am just against disproportionate salaries, thats all.
        • May 13 2014: Excellent reply Lejan,
          I, on the other hand, am a software specialist. Yes, there are vulnerabilities in software. The problem can be solved if you reward those who find those vulnerabilities and publish them. I think the resource based economy is quite the dream as well, and as mentioned, it is defined when the efficiency of the registry is so high that there are no utilities scarce enough to merit it's existence, which I think is impossible, simply due to popularity (going to see someone you want to see live, for example). Thank you for reading my post.
        • May 13 2014: Lejan

          Yes, it is called the division of labor. It is also called a division and respect for talent, intelligence, perseverance and .ambition. You may not be aware of it, but surgeons have designed their own equipment, from shape, size to metal or chemical make up and if it were necessary to save a life they could figure out what grinding wheel to use. That is not brain surgery.
          You say that you are not proposing that people should all be paid the same, but not too much different. In that difference are you not discriminating and are you not saying that this job is more highly valued and dividing labor and talent? As you place yourself in a position to control the wage and lives of others, define their happiness, their ambition and their talents; how is this a greater freedom than what is defined in, lets say, the American Bill of Rights.
          Under your system, which sounds as if it comes from Marx and Lenin, ambition is defined by the State for the purposes of the State. It would seem that you are proposing a totalitarian rule where the individual does not exist, nor does his intellect or happiness unless it confines itself to the political correctness of the State, as we are now seeing.
      • May 13 2014: Chris,
        I was following your thread and think you might like to read this idea i've had
        http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Paquetp
        It is an implementation of what Leja is talking about.
        • thumb
          May 13 2014: Hi Chris,

          thank you for the link to your ideas and since you have written quite an impressive amount of those, I hope, that you can find sleep at night again. :o)

          On 'direct democracy' and 'resource based economy' we are absolutely on the same page, except that the latter to me is more of a beautiful thought, than an achievable principle, at least in its whole and consequent meaning.

          What I found myself instinctively rejecting in your concept was the 'Registry' and this for the reason, that this sort of data processing would have to be inherently based on computers, just because of the sheer volume of it.

          Now, about computers and software I learned a lot from the German Chaos Computer Club, the CCC, which is a registered hacker community in my country, and which is warning ever since about the dangers of manipulation in software based political or economical tools.

          The CCC managed to reverse the use of voting computers in Germany by a simple demonstration - they hacked the 'un-hackable', documented their results, compared it to the official 'guaranteed security' and went public with it. To me, those people are the real specialists, and there are many organizations worldwide, which truly wish them to 'shut up' and to leave the 'normal' users of computers and IT technology happily 'uneducated'.

          Liquid Democracy, for instance, is such a beautiful idea to me, yet since it exclusively runs on software, its open and always will be to manipulation. A software based 'Registry' would be open to manipulation too, and even if you would run it as open source platform, it would remain to complex to understand for the majority of people who had no other choice but to trust a bunch of unknown specialists. I am no programmer, so I will never be able to find out if the Firefox I am using is actually spying on me and my system.

          Since Stuxnet we know, that highly professional hackers work for governments, and I don't want any of them to infiltrate the 'Registry' of my economy.
        • thumb
          May 13 2014: Kathleen Wynn - 26th Chaos Communication Congress (26C3) - Voting Computers:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT_ayJ1jqM
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: Yes, Charles, I noticed that I am not alone yet I also noticed a certain collective paralysis most the fellow people have in this situation.

        On capitalism, however, we seem to come from different sides. To you it is the guarantor for individual freedom, whereas to me, it is to high degrees the opposite. Maybe our understanding of freedom differs, yet when I look at our western capitalistic societies, I do not see many free people at all.

        Even one of the most basic capitalistic ideas, the right of property, is highly disturbing to the basic freedom of others. Just take the possession of land on this our finite planet. The moment one individual claims to own a piece of it, and stakes it, and his/her claims get backed by supporting laws, I can not even walk this place anymore, even if I wanted to, when this person decides to not let me. This isn't freedom at all, especially, as there is no logical reason why anyone would have any right to claim land for just themselves. They didn't build this planet, nor the land themselves, so on what basis do they claim their right on to posses this piece of common heritage? Because they payed money for it? Well than they didn't get that they were fooled in the first place by those who sold it, because also those didn't have any logical right to own it in the first place.

        Then there is the concept of heritage, which not only blocks me from walking this 'possessed' land, but also my children, grandchildren, etc. This can't be any form of freedom in my understating, yet capitalism thrives on it, in fact it urges possession and claims possession as the only functioning and working incentive for people to improve their lives. Which in my understanding is plain nonsense as well.

        In old capitalistic days it was even allowed to possess people, which actually is quite understandable and more of a logical consequence to me rather than a perversion if I follow this line of thought to its very end.
        • May 13 2014: Lejan

          To your point of slavery under capitalism, it happened and it was wrong. Slavery was not invented by capitalism. It was invented when one person realized that he was stronger than another and could make him do his bidding by force. It is a similar structure to a totalitarian state, as history shows us.
          As you oppose the private ownership of anything and all things belong to the State, to include the individual, which is where this has to go, how than is freedom defined?
          To understand your point of a totalitarian state. Lets install some markers so we do not play on a merry-go-round. The State becomes omnipotent? Full equality, in terms of job, housing, education and so on exists for all people, to include the ruling elite? The State defines what is and is not acceptable conduct, in terms of morality, decorum, family, speech, press and other forms of media? Science and the arts are defined by the State? All land is controlled by the State, as is travel and forms of transportation. Careers are defined by the State and chosen for the people by the State to accommodate the needs of the State? Is a democratic process still at play or is it deemed necessary and only facade? Does this become a form of secular theism, as in the USSR?
        • May 13 2014: Do you have children Lejan? I ask because it was my children who made me realize what possession means to me. Its all about whos turn it is to use a scarce resource. Who decides whos turn it is, when there is contention? Parents or "me first" doesn't work in the real world, but stealing or pushing sure does, but thats evil. Abundance solves all of this but there is only so much beach property. So how about giving a turn to those that are providing towards the society we all want to live in? Those who are contriburing towards providing a high abundance of quality goods for everyone without destroying the planet in the process.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: Property provokes force, in fact it is a latent promise to it, that if anyone decides to not play by those artificial rules, they are going to face it. If you will, its just a bit more civilized and bit less obvious form of the dominance of violence. In terms of social evolution, we hereby haven't come far since we got off our trees and those with the biggest muscles made their rules.

        Freedom to me looks different.

        Already as a child I learned, that it isn't possession what I wanted for toys, I wanted access to them. This wish usually started with 'unlimited access', changed from there gradually to 'access' and vanished very often into total lack of interest. I don't know if this is still common today among kids, yet with some of my friends I exchanged toys on a regular basis and off-sync with current 'urges' for certain toys. This multiplied my access to a variety of toys, enriched my experience and joy-factor and saved my parents and others a lot of monetary resources.

        So up to this day, I don't understand why people don't manage to organize their lives better in a way, that all of them benefit from it.

        Take electricity for example. We all need it, every day, but it gets produced my privately owned companies, which will only sell it to make a profit. So in order to get it, I have to pay more than what is needed to actually produce it. And this principle goes on anything I need to have a decent and modern life. I always have to pay more than what is needed to make what I need. So when we would remove this principle of profit, all of us would either need to work less to keep the same standard, or would gain a higher standard while working the same.

        And as there is no alternative in capitalistic economies, there is no freedom at all being a customer in it.

        I also always wondered, why there is more money to make in trading, than there is the making, it doesn't seem logical to me, especially as the times are over where it was highly dangerous to transport things.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: I also noticed, that a capitalistic economy isn't evolving much with the technology it produces. To me, as a mechanical engineer, the idea of technology is to make life more easy and convenient to as many people as possible and this with and not against nature on which all rely on.

        Yet a capitalist economy uses technology to either produce more with less people or to substitute people completely in the process of production, which in return exclude those people from the labour market, which therefore constantly and consequently shrinks. But exclusion to resources, food, shelter, education, etc. can't be the idea of a society, can it?

        But when rising and riping technologies become dangerous to people, those technologies are actually missing their purpose!

        The latest perversion of this trend I was recently told by a friend of mine, whose company, based in Austria, invested millions into a brand new factory in China which was fully automated. A fully automated factory in a low labour cost country - how idiotic can this be? But those decision makers in this company aren't stupid. They did run their numbers, as otherwise they would not have invested that much. So something seems to have gotten totally out of sync with our economy, as it fails to include the people who now depend on it.

        This is why I choose the Canadian trapper, as to be one takes the skills for basic survival, which most of us never learned.

        Also interesting is, that an capitalistic economy isn't actually compatible with any democratic organized society. Democracy, however, is actually quite an 'socialistic' idea to organize the coexistence within a group of people, as it lets the people decide what they want and not a single dictator, king, or whoever.

        The average corporate structure within an capitalistic economy, however, is everything BUT an democratic system, by which a small group of non-elected people come to decide how the company is run in THEIR interest and not that of the majority.
        • May 13 2014: Lejan,
          Rules of business
          Rule 1 - make money
          Rule 2 - look at rule 1. 8>))

          Seriously, putting a modern low labor plant in China makes sense. If they put it in Europe, the cost of the environmental issues would cost a lot. When NAFTA was 1st approved, many plants moved to Mexico, cheap labor was one thing but the major reason was the savings in environmental costs, like disposal of waste. If that plant is a semiconductor or board plant, the costs are huge.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: I don't know about your experiences, but mine, as being employed, is, that within my company I am not free in my decisions and this REGARDLESS of better arguments.

        Now one could say that I should quit then and find a better place - and often I did, yet it doesn't change my freedom, only the faces of those who tell you what to do and what not.

        This isn't freedom at all.

        Now again one could say, well, then start your own company if you want to lead the course. But then it takes certain skills and talent to do so successfully in the given setup, which I for now assume, I don't possess. Which brings me back to the point, that my understanding of freedom is not related to possession at all.

        Of course we could easily tell any moaning slave that they could become a slave owner themselves, yet it wouldn't change the overall quantity of freedom, just the number of slaves needed would rise.

        So far, the most compatible corporate structure for democracies in my understanding would be COOP's or 'workers cooperations', in which decisions are based on democratic principles. In those structures it was less likely, that the majority of the workers of a company would vote to close production in their country to re-open it in China, for instance, to save some bucks on labour cost. So just by introducing a democratic principle, local economies would become way more stable for their citizens, but only then, when no other company would be allowed to produce in China but sell locally, as this would deliberately undermine the stabilizing factor.

        This is why to me the 'global market' is not a blessing to any western society and will only act highly corrosive to what we came to name the 'middle class', which should form a stable and solid backbone within any economy.

        Capitalism on this doesn't care, its not in its DNA, so to say, which is one of many reasons why it can not provide stability and social evolution in positive directions, and therefore will fail on any democratic idea.
        • May 13 2014: Lejan

          I did not like being employed by a company. I don't like taking orders. I started my own companies. I than gave the orders. That is freedom.
          I posted some questions on a previous response. Lets take it from there otherwise we are talking into a fan.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: As I said before, respect can only be earned, not claimed, and the simple fact that someone has become a surgeon isn't enough to me to fall on my knees in awe, nor does this job title tells anything about his/her talents. The same goes for any profession I know.

        Intelligence per se doesn't tell anything either. What's done with it, counts to me. Perseverance and ambition are nice, yet as none of those guarantee anyones career, what shall they indicate?

        My country ranks last in Europe when it comes to equal opportunity towards education and, consequently, for who gets the 'best payed jobs'.

        Talent, ambition and all this nice features you mention have never been sharp criteria to get our best people in our key-positions. It would be nice if it was this way, but in fact, it isn't.

        My experience in the corporate world is the complete opposite. In order to make a career it counts to network with highly influential people and most importantly, keep you mouth shut! Don't argue! Never question anything, because if you do, people tend not to like opposing or challenging or criticizing voices, so they silence them.

        It is also known, that highly talented people are often not choose by superiors, because they fear them as competitors to their very job position. This is why you find so much mediocrity in so many departments.

        I have personally witnessed deliberately mobbing of one of the most talented and intelligent scientists I've ever met by his superior with the consequence that this brilliant mind had to leave the company. So no, talent and intelligence is no necessity to make a career, I would even go so far to say, that ruthlessness is more successful in many corporate structures.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: 'You say that you are not proposing that people should all be paid the same, but not too much different. In that difference are you not discriminating and are you not saying that this job is more highly valued and dividing labor and talent?'

        I am not happy with this concept to limit the maximal income, because it does discriminate and reduces the individual freedom of the people. Nevertheless if this was based on a democratic decision, I would vote for it unless we would have a better and effective solution to prevent the totalitarian rule of money.

        If you have a better solution, please let me know, but I am getting sick about the fact, that tax money of European citizen is taken away from them to bundle bail out programs for Greece and other financially unstable EU countries and to deliver this money to private cooperations, such as the Deutsche Bank, because those are considered 'to big to fail' when they obviously made mistakes in running their business.

        At the same time, people in Greece are driven into poverty in large numbers, whole young generations have no perspective in their future anymore and this, only because we allowed private corporation to grow that influential, that with them failing, our whole economy in Europe, even worldwide, would collapse, because we've reached that level of financial interconnectivity already, that wildfires run global today.

        I don't want any privately owned corporation anywhere on this planet to be powerful enough to undermine the economical stability of my country.

        Isn't it stupid, that Germany's economy plunged down, because of the US American house crisis?
        What on earth have I to do with the fact, that some US citizens couldn't pay back their loans anymore?
        I don't even know these people, yet 'they' caused the company I was working for in 2008 to lay off many of their workers, because we lost millions in sales of our products.

        The individual freedom of anyone is limited by the individual freedom of others.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: So where is my freedom not to pay for bailout programs for privately owned mega companies? I don't have any, because if I refuse, the police will sooner or later knock on my door.

        So the only solution I can think of at the moment, is to limit the financial power a single individual or privately owned company was allowed to acquire, so that never again, the freedom of whole nations could be endangered by just a view.

        So again, if you have better ideas how to prevent this imbalance which is related to financial power in our current economy, then please let me know. Until then I see my proposal as a valid protective mechanism when it was democratically decided.

        But I am in doubt, that this democratic principle is still working in Europe, because to me since the installation of the ESM, Europe has become a totalitarian dictatorship in the interest of plain capitalism.
      • thumb

        Lejan .

        • +1
        May 13 2014: I probably scared you with my general philosophy about property, but you can relax again, as this isn't what I see practical at the given point in humans social evolution.

        The best model for the most free society I can think of at the moment is Direct Democracy, to which Switzerland comes closest as much as I know about it.

        From there I actually cant foresee much how this form of democracy would develop, as it is supposed to be a self-propelled dynamic system to govern itself in its very interest.

        It is likely, that much from what I personally think would be useful for society, may not even be worth to be considered within this form of democracy, yet I think, that's part of the decision making process.

        I am not content anymore to only have a vote once in four years. Given the pace of this time, this is ridiculous. I also want to have the right to vote directly on and for a specific topic and not just vote a representative who may or may not share my personal view.

        In this form of direct governance of the people for the people I don't see much risk for this to become a totalitarian state, yet as the system is dynamic, there is NO guarantee ,like in any other form of governance, that this couldn't happen one day. The likelihood, however, I would assume to be on the lower side of the risk-scale.

        As I don't perceive Switzerland to be anywhere near where the USSR was at their heydays, I am pretty confident that we would not have to fear much to end up like the Russians did.

        So does this concept sound socialistic or communistic to you? To me, it doesn't, on the contrary, as it would allow each citizen to partake in their interests at any time and whenever they want to. Totalitarianism to me, would be its opposite.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: On: 'I did not like being employed by a company. I don't like taking orders. I started my own companies. I than gave the orders. That is freedom.'

        And what if you would have failed to run your company?

        You confuse freedom with opportunity for freedom. Those are NOT equal! Which is, as I see it, why the 'American Dream' has produced more looser than winners ever since.

        If I have to start my own company to be 'free' something in the system went terribly wrong then!

        This concept actually represents exclusively the 'homo oeconomicus' view on life, yet ignores anything else regardless.

        You yourself mentioned to value talent. But why would we only allow those to be 'free' who's talent and interest it is to start a company?

        Does this mean, that this prodigy child in music is doomed to slavery because it is not interested at all to start a business with it? That is ridiculous and reason enough to me to hope for more democratically run business to substitute this private dictatorships.

        You elegantly underline your freedom by not taking orders from others, yet you willingly expect others to follow yours, as otherwise, you would fire or not hire them.

        This is what I meant that this sort of private dictatorship only allows for subservience, which is nothing else but the destruction of freedom of others. That system is totalitarianism, obey or leave, and closer to the Soviet suppression than westerners like leave alone do think about it.

        The problem of capitalism is, that it doesn't promote freedom, it actually destroys it, which got to change fundamentally, if our believe in freedom should be more than just a false label of a foul agenda.
        • May 13 2014: Lejan

          Actually I failed in three, lost a great deal of money and several years of my life. The only people to profit from these companies were the employees who until the companies folded had good jobs. The last two did quite well. I invented products that benefited many. I created jobs that benefited many and spurred two others to open their own companies. What have you added to society?
          The American dream was a freedom to achieve. This freedom came by way of The Bill of Rights and it arguably created the greatest country the world has ever seen. It was where the individual, who possessed the ability and the drive could create something for himself and in the process enhance the living standards of all people, which is what happened, here and around the world.
          You are right however, not all people are achievers and some achievers are corrupt. This does not negate the greatest of the overall achievement.
          Where in America is the prodigy in slavery?
          One is free not to work at a company. One may not be free of totalitarian rule.
          I don't think that you are looking for freedom as your definitions and qualifications keep changing. It appears to me that you are looking for something for nothing. A something that carries no risk, no responsibility, no investment of labor, intellect or time. It would seem that you want, as do most Marxist to control the lives of others, to take what you have not earned or deserve under the flag of equality.
          I think our conversations have run their course, unless you can come up with specifics, in terms of a government better suited to a free society.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: What have I added to society so far? Well, quite a lot actually, because with whatever I consume, whatever I buy for food, cloth, etc, I enable people to keep their jobs and I also enable entrepreneurs to start and maintain their businesses. On this and wherever possible I try to buy locally produced products and avoid to buy cheap products from low income countries. I reduce my CO2 footprint continuously, and so my consumption of water in drink quality. I buy exclusively 'green electricity', which is a bit more expensive than conventional one. I recycle almost anything which goes into my household by the products I consume. I managed now to life without a refrigerator and my next but more difficult task is to free myself from my car, which I like very much, but could perfectly do without it.

        I help people to reduce their overall energy consumption if they are interested or try to make them interested if they aren't already.

        In my professional career I developed several new materials for a variety of applications, ranging from energy absorbing materials in crash-elements for the automotive industry, over metal composite materials for cookware, up to high temperature resistant materials for for the aerospace industry.

        In your country, I worked on light weight structures for passenger trains, fail-save gas cylinders, energy absorbing materials for mine protection in vehicles, warp-free composite structures for satellite casings and did some basic research on metal foam injection methods. I trained many of your countrymen, students as well as workers, how to produce those materials, what effects them, how they behave and tried to encourage them to be creative with it, to improve them, to dig deeper in understanding them to make them even better. I finally left your country and didn't extend my working visa because the only project left at that time was a DARPA financed research project on weapon systems, which to me is nothing I put my mind into, for any nation.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: As a student I gave private lessons to children, free of charge when their parents didn't have much money and with some of them it became one of the most rewarding experiences I have made so far.

        Besides my environmental awareness and my consumption behavior, I can not say if any other of my deeds added any substantial or true value to society, as I think this is up to others to decide. Yet as matter of fact, the average consumer is never getting to know who designed the material of their frying pan, which, if the product doesn't keep up with what the advertising department came up with, might not be a bad thing after all ... :o)

        But what I do know is the most useless application I ever designed a material for. Aluminum clad titanium, designed to withstand high temperatures in highly corrosive environments in the Bugatti Veyron sport-car exhaust system. In terms of German automotive engineering excellence, it can hardly get more decadent than that! From an engineering standpoint alone, it was quite challenging and fun, to society however, this work effected not even the whole of the very ONE percent ... ;o) Hopefully there will be a better use for this material in the future and when the patent turns into public domain.
      • thumb
        May 13 2014: You are right in saying, that it is arguably to claim that the 'American dream', the 'Bill of Rights' created the greatest country the world has ever seen. If this 'freedom' would not have caused the repression of the native Americans, which inherited 'your' land from their forefathers long before Europeans set food on that continent, and if this 'freedom' would not have allowed racism to thrive that deeply, I might have agreed with you for a certain, quite narrow time window, which to me ended with the full scale testing of nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. But this is just my personal view and, of course, arguably as well.

        Living in your country for a while, actually opened my eyes how much I took for granted before and how extreme inequality can form within one and the same nation. But as with most trends, they arrive in Europe usually just a view years later and some of those, already arrived.

        'Where in America is the prodigy in slavery?'

        On this I just followed your line of thinking, as you described to have reached your personal freedom by starting your own company to avoid to follow the orders of others. To start a business, however, takes a certain kind of personality, interest and skills to do it successfully. I don't know abut you, yet I met many highly talented people in different fields, even some geniuses among them in my eyes, yet none of them possessed what I would call 'entrepreneurial genes'. Consequently, a good scientist for example, does not need to be a good entrepreneur, nor does he need to have this ambition. So just by the inversion of your argument, those people would never be able to gain personal freedom as you understand it, which to me is the actual problem I was trying to make visible.

        The problem to me, however, is, that privately owned corporations has become the dominant model in capitalistic economies, that there are no sufficient alternatives in numbers for employees to actually partake in a corporation not as worker, ...
      • thumb
        May 14 2014: ... but as partner. Consequently to my logic, a lack of alternative choices is a lack of freedom.

        Let me give you another provocative thought, which may make clearer what my conceptional idea is.

        On slavery we both seem to agree that it is wrong to enslave people by force. But this is just one of many standpoints people can have on this topic, and the history of your nation shows, that took violence to make slavery illegal in all of your states.

        It doesn't need much imagination from my side to imagine a true believer in slavery, telling me, that I was nothing but trying to 'control the lives of others' by defining my views on slavery as the only valid rule anyone has to live by, and thereby invading their freedom to choose to enslave people whenever they wish for it. I am pretty certain to have been accused of this by, lets say, by a very successful owner of a cotton farm in the southern states of your country at a time before the civil war started.
        The historic dispute was finally settled, the USA evolved socially, and I would think most of the US citizens today would think, that this decision against slavery was the right thing to do.

        Now comes the provocative part. Imagine it was forbidden by law for any person to employ another person in their service.

        At this point I may let you breath a bit, before you name me a communist again, yet before doing so, try to find the analogy I am trying to sketch here.

        When instead of employing another person, it was demanded to partner with another person instead, the individual freedom of both would be set on equal terms. Now come the 'lazy beggars', or those who want to get all from others, yet aren't willing to do their equal share. In the smallest group possible to form, two, the hardworking one ends the partnership and seeks another and better partner. In larger groups of equal partner, lazy bones get kicked out by democratic voting, to prevent 'moochers' to feed on them.
      • thumb
        May 14 2014: And not even just 'moochers', but also those who, for whatever reason, doesn't fit the group. In terms of 'work climate' this would even have highly cleansing effects, of which I would assume from my personal experience, that this would be very beneficial to any department and corporation structure.

        Are you still with me? Probably not, at least not in agreement. :o)

        Who comes to decide, that I am not allowed to hire another person for money? Good question, how did we actually decide to declare slavery as illegal? In doing so, we did cut the individual freedom of those who agreed on, probably profited from slavery. And if my knowledge about the history of your nation isn't totally false, this invasion into other peoples freedom of choice did cost many lives on both sides of opposing beliefs.

        I don't see capitalism as we have it as the final solution to run an economy. I see it as an transitional stage in social evolution of which we should keep its positives and eliminate its flaws to move on to our next stage in trial and error.

        ' I think our conversations have run their course, unless you can come up with specifics, in terms of a government better suited to a free society.'

        I did, I proposed 'Direct Democracy' to you, yet what other specifics than its closest relative in applied usage than Switzerland can I offer?

        What this my proposal makes you connect me with Marxism repeatedly remains mysterious to me, as I thought that democracy is of high value in the heart of your nation. Or isn't it anymore?

        I also asked you to give me better ideas than to cut monetary influence to prevent corruption from corroding the core idea of democracy in the interest of just a very view. If you have any, please let me know, because as much individual freedom can be conserved while conserving democracy at the same time is key here and in the interest of anyone who believes in democracy.

        So I'll stay tuned and curious!
        • May 15 2014: Lejan

          Sorry for not responding sooner, but was out of town for a couple of days. I see that you have been quite active. I only glanced though your many posts, as they all seem to say the same thing.
          Trying to justify America's original position on Capitalism and Individual freedom would be an exercise in academia and one that you have great disdain for, That you would pick the political system of Switzerland is interesting, as it is predicated on America's system of States (Canton) Rights. Now, in America, being over run by the exploding and suffocating reach of Washington and the New World Order.
          Switzerland, although a beautiful and well managed country is one of the most competitive and capitalistic in the world. But, with a population of around 7 million and and immigration frowned upon it remains a very homogeneous State, with narrow values that are designed and upheld by the people. Such a value system, once held in America, will not survive, as the population gradually de-homogenizes and values, standards and expectations wane.
          Direct democracy, a great system, only works when the population is of a workable size, small and values remain constant.
          I do not believe that you would do well there. My experience in Switzerland, many years ago, was one of great expectations and demands on its citizens and visitors to conduct themselves in a manner in accord with the competitive excellence of the Swiss heritage and culture.
          I do believe you gave me the impression that private property should be outlawed, as it is the bane of freedom, perhaps that is why Karl Marx became an issue.
          I would hold to the quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch, liberty is a well armed lamb."
  • May 4 2014: They already do. The question should probably be; "how should stock markets be restructured in an enlightened, social economy?"
    • May 8 2014: That would be my intended question but I also want to understand if the political system of socialism would allow for the very existence of stock market.
      • May 8 2014: Time to define terms and intentions a bit. In pure "communism", I would think no stock markets. In "socialism", I think stock markets have a potentially logical and beneficial role. If you look at "crowd funding" as the replacement for the traditional, isolated and priviledged, IPO, then the stock market becomes the opportunity to support and participate, in more than than the one company for which you work. A purer socialism might actually evolve from requiring all corporations to be "public" , and thus on the market, where their activities are more open to scrutiny and social influence. Similarly an individual might have the right to designate where their tax moneys went. Government programs themselves might be "crowd funded". The stock market might become part of the structure, of the government.
        • May 9 2014: So the markets are possible in a socialist economy. That's what I wanted to know.
  • May 13 2014: It might be more clear if you read the section about wanting a utility that no one else wants - it talks about how you can register yourself in the registry to keep you alive. It's more expensive to contribute to unpopular utilities, but if society deems welfare important, your time you contribute towards yourself is worth more. And if it's enough to keep you happy, then you are at s point that you don't even need to work. When you want a high demand utility though, you probably won't be able to afford it without working. And, if you give up all your free time to keep yourself alive then your giving up your freedom to control where society goes from here, which might be ok for you.
    http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/User:Paquetp#What_about_utilities_that_no_one_else_actually_wants_except_for_one_or_a_few_consumers.3F
  • May 10 2014: You can see one true socialist here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramalinga_Swamigal

    In my opinion, Socialism should not be forced upon the public by a Nation.

    A best nation is formed when the government has capitalistic views and its people have socialistic views. The reverse will destroy the nation.
  • May 9 2014: Actually Lads. Lets take it to math and universal logic.
    We know that the shortest distance between 2 points is a direct line.
    The shortest route to Heaven on Earth is also a direct line.

    This can be applied to the social dilemma in which We find Ourselves as a Whole here on Earth with imperial, capitalist Worldwide oppression, suffering and death. This is especially important to the Struggles that seek to free Humankind from the evils of ‚man" that causes this massive and unnecessary hell. So if We are at the Present (Point 1 - Hell) and We wish to be at another point, a better point, in actuality the Future (Point 2 - Heaven), We should in effect just draw a direct line.

    The key lies in drawing a direct line which means just going there by simply manifesting the actions and reality of life at point two and We immediately create that seemingly impossible dream/goal of Utopi a - Heaven on Earth. This can be achieved only if We collectively realize it.

    The critical question is deciding what point 2 should be. The answer is simply Heaven or Utopia. If We are in Hell, We need to be in Heaven, so that should be Our only goal. Most importantly it should be an immediate goal, not one that will be accomplished one of these days, or more like one of these years or even centuries, if the current strategies of asking for crumbs from ‚corrupt governments and regimes‛ still persists.
    There is a Grandiose idea of HUMANDKIND RELINQUISHING THE USE OF MONEY. An idea that is surely firing through the Natural Mystic of the Spiritual Network of Conected Minds n Souls on Earth...

    Not only is it a good idea, it seems like the best idea, the simplest, the keenest, the most spiritual. What would Jesus Christ say? But as always the key is Unity. So TOTAL UNITY is key. World Wide at one time, We decide not to use money anymore and simply use our hearts and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us.

    So NO. Only virtual Stock Market Games will exist.
  • May 5 2014: Stock market will exist...yes. The socialism has made it a modern casino. The problem is the sub-brokers will perish.
  • May 4 2014: evolved socialist economy is an oxymoron in three different ways. The question makes no sense. Bradley Clark has it right. The question should probably be; "how should stock markets be restructured in an enlightened, social economy?"
  • May 4 2014: Economy based on stock markets is not right economic system. Extremes are always dangerous . During recession times 50 % of the recession is fake and 50 % of the recession is real.

    During recession it is the Liquour Industry that booms, Bars, Pubs boom in the time of recessions.

    To do socialism you still need capital . To do capitalism you need socialism . They are interdependent on each other on cannot exist in isolation .
  • thumb
    May 3 2014: Stock market is a glorified slot machine. It shall never be allowed to effect economy on any level. If someone wants to play money games they shall be separated from the main economic circulations. Let them play some brainless money arcades... It does not matter whether we deal with capitalistic or socialistic systems - healthy economy cannot tolarate or depend on brainless games.
  • May 3 2014: If this question interests you, you may be interested in an idea I've posted:http://www.ted.com/conversations/23062/direct_democracy_implementatio.html?c=833434
    I'd be interested in what you thought of the idea. In this system stocks would not exist, but infrastructure projects take their place.
    • May 9 2014: I read about your idea on the wiki page u mentioned and I found the idea quite intriguing and original. I never thought of a way to maintain a demand and supply system (which I find quite efficient due to its lack of human intervention and ability to attain equilibrium.
      I want to understand the following though-
      How are jobs and professions provided and who do the people work for- the govt, corporations or both?
      Does anyone own an enterprise and if so can't there be something like time-money shares?
      • May 12 2014: Ok, I updated the wiki to talk more about shares and equity/ownership. About jobs. It hasn't changed from today except government is an infrastructure project now. People would own an enterprise when they own a majority of the time equity compared to everyone else who does. Employing people is either a service which has no equity, or they are contributing their time towards the equity of a utility which will be published once complete.
    • May 12 2014: Also if you found the demand and supply concept something vital to efficiency why don't you try to maintain a concept like stock buying and selling in your kind of economy as it runs on very similar principles as S&D, such that people only invest in companies that deliver the best.
      • May 12 2014: Yes this is a piece that is missing, and you've motivated me to elaborate. Im in the process of updating the wiki. The concept of stock revolves entirely around the concept of ownership. I've written something so far but its not done.
        • May 13 2014: I read the concept of stocks in ur page today and it seems to coalesce perfectly with your system and continues to favour direct democracy. Glad to motivate :)
      • May 13 2014: Rohan - I added an interesting idea I thought of today and I'd like your opinion on it. The Efficiency Factor. Thanks.
        • May 13 2014: Didn't understand how this time contribution towards infrastructure works as welfare for YOURSELF. I had some notions about such a possibility, but I want to understand yours first. Specifically concerning your last line in the first para of efficiency factor- ''You can freely live off of the current efficiency of society without any contribution made by you.''
  • May 2 2014: Hi, I've been to Mumbai and it was a really fun place to visit. The people were very nice and the food was great!
    In my opinion there can never be a true socialist economy anywhere. The temptation of control and power over others will urge people to take advantage of others. In a kinder world what you are suggesting would maybe work.
    The stock market in the U.S. is controlled by a programmer who has embedded a software code in the boxes of the indexes, I won't say which one yet. This communication system is broadcast to insiders everyday. The direction of the market is known 4-5 days ahead. These numbers I'm talking about are found on a day-trader's platform. Most people will never see one of these. For example, the Flash Crash of May 6 ,2010 was not an accident. The programmer broadcast that play 2 days ahead. This code has in play for at least 6 years. Our market is rigged.
  • May 2 2014: The Chinese government still dictates the economy. Don't be fooled. They simply have parceled out bits of it to proxies. The biggest corporation in China is the army.
  • May 2 2014: ".. the Shanghai Stock Exchange is still not entirely open to foreign investors due to tight capital account controls.. "
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Stock_Exchange