Jah Sun
  • Jah Sun
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • United States

CEO, Water Charity

This conversation is closed.

What alternatives are there to the current economic system? Should global capitalism fail, what would be the best model to replace it?

There are a ton of people who are dissatisfied with how our current system operates. Quite a few people are coming to the conclusion that this system is endemically flawed.

The Occupy movement is merely the most obvious and vocal outgrowth of a sentiment that many feel very strongly... namely that our Capitalist model of resource and labor management is unfair, environmentally unsound, inefficient, and unsustainable.

The fact that the people who profit the most in our system are often people who do little or no actual work is fairly self-evident. The hardest work, like toilet cleaning, often garners the most minimal of recompense, while investing in abstract economic instruments like the S&P Index can net one millions of dollars in a 10 second phone call placed from a poolside lounge chair in a 5-star resort.

Given that any system, no matter how well designed, can be improved... this debate is an attempt to spark a rational conversation on what we could do to make the exchange of goods and services more just, more effective, and more healthy for the biosphere.

There are scant few models out there that even propose any clear alternative. Most of the writing on the subject amounts to either pure critique of the current system, or pie-in-the-sky Utopian idealism with no clear path to get from here to there.

So, brilliant TED lovers... anyone got any good ideas?

We can discuss the pros and cons of such extant alternative models as The Venus Project, the "Basic Income" (ala B.I.E.N.), some of the ideas presented in Pinchbeck's latest Evolver essay compendium "What Comes After Money?" or any other relevant topic that tickles your fancy. Feel free to defend global capitalism if that is how you feel.

Let's keep it civil and worthy of this esteemed venue. Logic, clarity, rationality, and respect are paramount.

It is worth pointing out that what is better or best, in this case, will be considered in light of all people and the biosphere we share.

Closing Statement from Jah Sun

It has been quite an interesting exploration.

Inspiring , frustrating, informative... but most of all, it has brought certain things into sharp focus.

The basic question of "what alternatives to the global economic system are there?" has been only cursorily addressed, because the answer is that there really AREN'T any that are ready for prime time. We've seen plenty of good fixes, adjustments & modifications... some quite striking & comprehensive... but nobody has been able to put forth a clear model of what we could actually do INSTEAD of the current status quo, should this model fail.

And, fail it could... make no mistake about that.

Also, I don't think the focus should be on what is best for US Citizens (or any single nation state or group of nations). The problem is already trans-national. National solutions to trans-national problems tend to prove disastrous. Unilateral actions & heavy handed moves in one nation's interest should become a thing of the past as people wake up & realize that we all share this one Earth, that national boundaries are imaginary lines drawn by people who often never even visited the place in question, and that humanity is going to have to work together if we want to solve the major issues of our time.

As far as short term fixes go, fractional reserve banking & debt based currency need to go. Lara posted this link: http://issuu.com/margritkennedy/docs/bue_eng_interest to an e-book which does a good job showing how this monetary system is crippling us.

The data that Richard Wilkinson put forth in his TED talk (linked in the intro) argues for us to recognize that economic inequality hurts everyone... even the ones at the top. The most equal societies are clearly the healthiest & most successful.

I think the Basic Income Guarantee is a good place to start in addressing the remorseless & uncivilized blight of abject poverty.

It is clear that we need to redress our priorities as a society.

Another conversation will follow.

:-)

  • thumb
    Nov 28 2011: Krisztian - I'm going to try to explain this simple concept one last time.

    Each time a loan is taken out there is an increased demand for money in circulation to repay the interest on the loan. Before the loan was taken out this interest was not due, after the loan is taken out the interest is then due. Thus there is must be an increase in the supply of money now required to repay interest.

    This means that someone else somewhere else in the system must take out another loan if this demand for money to repay interest is to be met.

    Thus more debt = more interest = more demand for money = more debt.

    Interest is repaid at a % rate this is why our economic system requires growth at a % rate. The amount of money in supply and our economic activity must grow at a % rate.

    As our economy grows at a % rate the amount of resources we use also grows at a % rate. Take a look at Al Bartlett's talk on exponential growth which I have linked to earlier. The amount of oil we are using has been growing at an exponential rate.

    Our population also has been growing at an exponential rate. Our demand for food and water is growing at an exponential rate, because of population growth.

    Earth is finite and our resources are finite. Even renewable resources have a limit to how much we can use at any one time, they require time for renewal. There is a limit to growth.

    This is not an opinion, it is a mathematical fact. You can disagree with maths all you like, it doesn't make the math wrong.
    • thumb
      Nov 28 2011: basically you reiterated your earlier claims. but i've addressed these points already.

      you got it backwards. if everyone were taking a loan from the bank, it would require increasing the amount of money. but this is like saying if everyone took double amount of chocolate, the chocolate stocks would have to be doubled. in fact, it just means that it is not possible for everyone to double chocolate consumption right away. similarly, interest makes it impossible to finance everything with loans, or at least some of them will default. that is unless something increases the money supply. so as you can see, debt is not the cause of the increase. as i have illustrated, interest existed back then, when money was gold and silver. and those things don't increase as we desire.

      and second, i also explained how technology can reduce the ecological footprint of an individual. exponential growth in gdp or in any other measure of wellbeing does not imply exponential growth of any material parameters. for example it does not have to increase fossil usage if we manage develop solar, wind, nuclear or any other kind of energy source. granted, one day exponential function outgrows even the sun's energy production. but i don't think that we need to worry about it now. i'm much more worried about children not getting enough food in some parts of the world.

      this time i'm going to ignore your rude remarks. but it is not wise to take such an arrogant position. especially if you don't do better than tell fall back to something i refuted already.
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2011: Hey Krisztian, I applaud you ignoring rude remarks... but being the last to reply to a comment does not mean to refute an argument ;-)
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2011: Krisztián, Disagreeing in not the same thing as refuting. And the fact you believe in a particular economic model does not confer infallibility upon it (this does seem to be the foundation of much of your argument - If you believe it; it is true. If others do not; they are wrong.)

        Your model seems rather simplistic: essentiality remove all regulation and let the market sort out the wheat from the chaff.

        Your model might work - if everyone was "like you."

        I honestly cannot think of a model that would work globally and trying to come up with a system that works universally ignores the fact that we, as a group, do not lend ourselves to conformity - it does not matter if we are talking about religion, politics, or economics.

        So your idea your model will work ignores one of the fundamental principles of any functional model - it must work in conditions as they exist. That is, a model - yours or anyone else's - would have to not only be "logical" to Mr Pintér, it would also have to be logical to Mr Sun, Mr Zhang, and Mr Gebbedi.

        It isn't.

        No model can achieve universal acceptance - not in the foreseeable future - so a heterogeneous approach seems to be the only viable option.

        That you assume your model is "true" whether others understand it or not, smacks of a dogmatic, almost religious adherence to a utopian worldview that is, qualitatively, not much different than a Muslim saying, "Islam is true, whether you agree with me or not, and the world will be a better place when we are all good Muslims" (or anarcho-capitalists, vegans or whatever.)

        That you have such "faith in the markets" is not something that most economists would even agree on (and I assume they are more knowledgable than you.)

        For example, Charles Wheelan makes a point invoking Friedman when he says, "Even Milton Friedman, a nobel laureate in economics and the most articulate spokesman for free markets, would concede that unfettered markets can lead to deeply flawed outcomes."
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2011: it is not my idea. i'm not that smart to come up with such concepts. the idea of free market capitalism, and how does it work, is a complete field of study. it is more than a hundred years old, and it is discussed and explained by dozens of geniuses. it is in no means a faith or an empty claim. it is a system of arguments that can be understood and evaluated.

          i don't want anyone to believe me. i want people to follow my reasoning. and if they want to understand this point of view in greater detail, they can look it up. as a starter, i recommend henry hazlitt's book, economy in one lesson.
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2011: Hi Krisztián,

        Yes, Hazlitt's book is a good one. I have read it. Another good one is "Naked Economics / Undressing The Dismal Science" by Charles Wheelan (whom I quoted earlier.)

        You say you are not smart enough to come up with these ideas ... that may be true. But here's what I've noticed about "geniuses" - they are not as smart as we think they are. So while you may be enamoured of the thinking of a few really bright guys, there are a bunch of other, equally bright guys, who disagree with you and with them.

        If you are not smart enough to come up with these ideas you are also not smart enough to evaluate them. I would recommend that you give "the other side" just as must latitude as you give your "favourites."

        And in keeping with your wish: I do not agree with you when you say you do not want people to agree with you.

        It seems that is very much what you do want. You really, really like the internal coherence of the free market capitalistic model (as presented by "dozens of geniuses.")

        You do not like any of the other models that other "geniuses" have come up with.

        And you want us to agree with you. When we do not you get, to quote another, "bellicose."

        As I said, those "geniuses" might not have been as smart as we think they were (they probably weren't.) For one thing, their models only work if the rest of us "obey the rules" of the model.

        For the models to "work," it is expected that reality (that would be us and what we do) have to bend to conform to a model of reality.

        It will not work.

        So assume, for a minute, your favourite - "anarcho-capitalism" - is off the menu (and it is) - what do you think might work as a second choice?

        As I have said, I do not know what will work. But I assume, whatever we come up with, it will evolve through a process of trial and error.

        Now, if you do not think there is a viable alternative to anarcho-capitalism, you have made your point and likely have nothing more to contribute.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2011: this is getting nowhere. my last advice: stop counting how many people believes this or that. stop pretending that because people have differing opinions, all opinions are equally valid. i pointed out numerous times that good theories can be separated from wrong theories with reasoning and testing. you don't have a right to be correct. whether you are correct or not is a factual question. it is unknown in the beginning, and can be found out by logical reasoning. i put forward a lot of logical reasoning. but alas, i rarely get replies addressing those. many times the reply is just a reiteration of the opposing opinion. it is not interesting. conversation and voting are two different things. and now you tell me that since i have casted my vote, i need to shut up already. i'm not here to vote, or listen to other people's votes.
    • thumb
      Nov 30 2011: Krisztián,

      Your view seems a little skewed. You seem to think your opinion constitutes reasoning and proof whereas other people's opinions are simply opinions.

      By your own admission there is no evidence that, for example, anarcho-capitalism will work because it has never been practiced. So any assertion you make regarding it (or even regarding capitalism) is simply an opinion.

      That you choose to read into what others say such negative intent probably explains why you do get so bellicose at times. I did not tell you to shut up - I said if your position is that the only viable alternative is anarcho-capitalism then you likely have nothing more to contribute to this discussion. If that is your point - you have made it. We have the option of agreeing with you, or not, (most of us don't) so unless you have more to add that's about it.

      I think we get it: You assert anarcho-capitalism works or would work; it is the only viable economic system. We need to get governments out of the picture, let the market sort things out, and all will be well in the world. And any other system will yield sub-optimal utility.

      The whole "vote" thing rests on the assumption that what you say is quite simply "right" - not a matter of opinion.

      You apparently operate out of a "right/wrong" paradigm. This is not the most conducive stance to take for fruitful conversation.

      So if you think you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, again, you have made your point.

      You are not going to "convince us" by becoming belligerent.

      I'm pretty sure we all know we are not going to convince you that there might be some flaws in your worldview.

      However, if you think there might be something to this whole collaboration idea, and want to contribute, it is a public forum and the invitation has been extended to think of a model to replace capitalism.

      You might be smarter than you think ... you might actually be able to think of something better than Adam Smith or Frederic Bastiat did.
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2011: I think I have a simple elegant solution to the global debt crisis and the gap between rich and poor. They have the same cause.

    The cause is structural, and it requires a structural solution.

    Most people think that money lent by banks is depositors money and the bank's profits are in the difference between the loan interest rates it receives and the savings interest rate it pays out. This is not so.

    Banks operate on a fractional reserve system. They loan out 9 times more than they have. This means that when you go to the bank to take out a loan 90% of that money is new money. It is created by private banks as interest bearing debt.

    If new money is created in the system it requires interest to be paid to the bank on it. The borrower must work to earn this interest. This means that there is a demand for more money in the system. The only way our system creates new money is as interest bearing debt. Thus more debt = more interest to be repaid = more debt needs to be created. It is a vicious circle.

    When the population is saturated with debt, just like a sponge soaked with water it cannot take on anymore, then we have defaults and bankruptcies. The system crashes. This is why we have a debt crisis.

    If all the debt owed were paid off tomorrow (never mind that this is mathematically impossible) there would not be enough money in circulation for the needs of business.

    Interest is the cause of the wealth gap. Those who have more get more, those who must borrow get less.

    We need to change to an interest free money system with demurrage. We need to allow only the peoples banks, publicly owned government banks, the ability to create new money for productive purposes, not as debt.

    Demurrage is a fee for holding onto money. This brings money back to the means not the end, encourages circulation, encourages economic activity, controls inflation and reinstates the incentive to loan.

    http://issuu.com/margritkennedy/docs/bue_eng_interest

    This eBook outlines the solution.
    • thumb
      Nov 25 2011: Excellent comment Lara!

      I have tried earlier on in this thread to explain and provoke some discussion of fractional reserve banking and debt-based currency, but your post and excellent link have really done a bang up job of it.

      As I said previously, if people understood this system, there is no way they would stand for it. It makes ponzi schemes look quaint and socially productive.

      Clearly any rational society would not operate this way.

      So, people... let's give this concept some serious discussion now. I feel that of all the alternatives and modifications to the current global economic system we have discussed, this ranks at or near the top, because it is doable in relatively short order, and doesn't presuppose a drastic change in the way people live. We may get around to building a resource based economy, but we could eliminate debt based money and fractional reserve banking nearly overnight.

      Huzzah Lara! Thanks for participating and keenly elevating the discourse on this conversation.
      • Nov 27 2011: I do not see how this proposition takes care off unequal opportunities. It may in 1000 years as did it take in creating banking system.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: I don't think anyone imagines that doing away with fractional reserve and the basic debt behind money would be a complete solution in and of itself.

          What it would do is defuse the notion that we have to grow the economy at all costs in order to keep from collapsing under mountains of illusory debt... as we see in many countries at this very moment.

          The innate irrationality of the monetary system is a key factor in causing global capitalism to be so rapacious, and contributes equally to the rat-race, hamster wheel existence of those without capital.

          Even more than the move from gold backed money to fiat currency, this element has caused a devaluing of basic monetary value. In some countries this factor alone has caused devaluations of 1,000,000 to 1... as well as the complete abandonment of various currencies that were worth less than the paper they were printed on.

          This idea may not correct the playing field or address other serious concerns, but it does defang some troubling aspects of the current global economy.

          There is no reason we couldn't go on to adopt other measures as well. Have you had a chance to check out Mordechay's 3 part proposal?
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2011: i still haven't seen a single argument why inequality is a problem. everyone just takes it for granted, and does not try to prove that large income differences cause harm how?

      also, i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere.

      i agree though that lot of the largest incomes today are stolen public money, and this should of course be stopped..
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2011: Global capitalism will indeed fail if it drives a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. It will fail if it cannot figure out how to distribute the wealth in a way that satisfies the masses and their basic wants and needs. Not equal disribution - fair and balanced distribution

        The purpose of regulating capitalism is to prevent those things from happening. Without regulation capitalism is just another form of dictatorship.
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2011: define your terms. what is fair distribution? what is balanced distribution? how do you define the haves and the havenots? 10000 dollar per year is have not or have? what is a basic need? air conditioning is a basic need? a car? a cellphone?
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2011: Hi Krisztian,

        Here is my argument: Poverty and income inequality are intrinsically linked. If you think laissez-faire capitalism can sustain increasing income inequality while at the same time reducing poverty I would love to hear your ideas. If poverty could be reduced regardless of inequality, i could care less about how much money the top earners make.

        But so far I've never found data that supports these two as separate (Rahman Khan has researched the topic extensively over decades) So yes if income inequality is intrinsically linked to poverty, then i think income inequality is a problem.

        You seem to like to play with ambiguities. When people talk about a gap between the rich and the poor, i doubt they mean that the income distribution curve has gaps. It is easy to take the top 10% earners and the lowest 10% earners and use those slices to compare the difference. This is closer to what i mean when i use the term income gap.

        Lastly, I could not agree more. A lot of public money is stolen and this is something that should be stopped. A lot of public money is also re-distributed back to top earners (i.e. TARP) and that is something that should be stopped too.
        • thumb
          Nov 28 2011: that is not really and argument, rather, a claim that needs backup. the data is clear: the life standard of the bottom percentages in any advanced society goes up. it went up very fast during the industrial revolution. the very age that produced the rockefellers. the logic behind it is also clear. salaries are confined from both sides. the maximum is set by profitability (productivity of a certain worker). the minimum is set by competition between employers. as technology advances, both goes up. the productivity of a worker goes up because capital accumulation (machines, tools, know-how). the competition goes up because there is more money to pay.

          i believe you are using ambiguities. if you mean difference, say difference. gap means ... well gap. some deeper, more profound difference. something that separates the two groups. the term is used to separate the "rich" from the "poor". but people rarely think about we are all rich in the eyes of a rice farmer in nepal, or in the eyes of an average guy in 1800. any line drawn to separate income groups into we and them is simply false.
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2011: Krisztian, you said:

        "i still haven't seen a single argument why inequality is a problem. everyone just takes it for granted, and does not try to prove that large income differences cause harm how?

        also, i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere."

        before I comment I really do want to ask something? do you really not see a problem? If you really do not I will gladly like to point it out to you being that I have first hand experience with seeing such a problem (as perhaps everyone else) but I do not want to comment on that unless you are being serious about such a statement because most of the time I discuss with you, I have mentioned such an issue.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2011: it is not a good policy to question the seriousness of your opponents. i understand why it is easier to call me a troll, but sorry, i'm serious.

          and yes, i have heard many arguments, but they were false. i don't count false arguments.
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2011: Lara - Good points!

      Kirsztian - "i don't think there is a gap between the rich and the poor. i believe there is a continuum from below one dollar per day up to tens of thousands with no gap anywhere."

      This statement is meaningless. It's also profoundly erroneous.

      You go on to say, "i agree though that lot of the largest incomes today are stolen public money, and this should of course be stopped.."

      Give us some ideas as to how we might stop this from happening, whether or not greed has anything to do with it, and whether putting regulations on the "free market" would help.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2011: jim, meaningless and erroneous is self contradiction. but you didn't really show any of these. can you please show me the gap? can you please define the position of the gap in income terms?
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2011: Meaningless because it contributes nothing to this conversation and erroneous because it's not true.

          Now before firing back at me with questions of your own, answer the question I asked:

          Give us some ideas as to how we might stop this from happening, whether or not greed has anything to do with it, and whether putting regulations on the "free market" would help.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2011: it is funny that you people keep asking me that. i explain that two times a day. the best way to stop people stealing public money is not to give the state that money in the first place.
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2011: That answer is useless. It really has I worth in this conversation. Think harder.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2011: wut?
        • thumb
          Nov 26 2011: That answer ("the best way to stop people stealing public money is not to give the state that money in the first place.") is useless. It really adds no value to this conversation. Think harder.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2011: jim, either you account is stolen, or it is some joke i don't get. which one?
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: Neither.

          Your answer (don't give the state money in the first place) is useless. I won't even give you the pleasure of explaining why it's useless because if you want to argue that it is a viable solution then you're out of the conversation. Anarchy is not an option.

          You've asked earlier in the conversation, "I still haven't heard a single argument why inequality is a problem".

          The answer is being demonstrated around the globe for a variety of reasons. Whether it be Syria or Yemen or Libya or Egypt or USA or Europe. When the masses realize that their lives are being dramatically, adversely affected by those in power they then begin the process of change to bring things more into balance/fairness/equality - call it whatever you'd like. Don't waste time trying to define it for the sake of argument. Inequality breeds discontent. The answer is not anarchy. The answer is democratic change. That is in essence what is happening in so many ways around the world.

          And people say Obama was wrong when he ran on a platform of "hope and change". The fact is, since his election I see nothing but hope (it's dim and far away but it's there) and change. Change is in the air.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2011: now, that's a useless reply. "because it is true" is not an argument. quite usual, though, because we, humans, don't like doubt. it is emotionally more luring not to have another option. if we simply don't have to think about something, since it is "not an option", it makes our lives easier. not better though, because we might exclude viable options. however, in fact i was not talk about anarchy. i am an anarchist, though they were reject me as capitalist. but this time i was talking about state interventions in the economy. if we would have had a free market economy with no bailouts and no special laws to protect friends, all this financial mess would not have happened. ending other state functions like law enforcement is another question.

        i didn't understand a word from that rant about inequality. do you mean that it is wrong because people don't like it? and people don't like it because it is wrong?

        it is rather funny that you believe democracy is the solution for a problem that originated in the oldest democracies, the USA and europe. it seems to me that democracy could not prevent it from happening. and now, people being disappointed in democracy, they declare it as "not true" democracy, and demand "true" democracy. yes, good luck with it. you can tweak it all day long, central planning or "fixing" the economy will lead to further demise of our civilization. the more "good" people come together to decide for us and pave the road to welfare, the faster the decline will be. the more regulations you put forward, the bigger the purses of some men will become. and at the end, our lives will be controlled and we will be shepherded by our wise leaders into total destruction.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: Virtually all of your response ignores what the masses are reacting to and instead makes a twisted and simplistic case for....... for.......... what????? Your scenario of what will happen if we attempt to address the problems of greed, inequality and unbridaled capitalism is almost biblical in proportion and smacks of financial Armageddon. It's anarchy. That makes it irrelevant.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +2
        Nov 27 2011: Re: The whole "what is wrong with income inequality" debate...

        It would be useful if everyone took a few minutes to watch Richard Wilkinson's talk "How income inequality harms society" here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html The link is also in the intro.

        Rather than try and explain the points he makes, it is easier to just give him a listen. He makes a number of very pertinent arguments with a decent statistical back-up. There are plenty of other issues, some have been raised here, some not, which also speak to this issue... but the stats speak for themselves. Societies with more equal wealth distribution do better on basically EVERY benchmark regardless of the actual amounts involved.

        Comments or thoughts on this subject?
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: i have comments, and i have posted in the discussion section below that talk. it was longer, so i include only two parts here:

          "if we know a causal relationship, it is superior to statistical analysis. if they do have the actual link, why do we need to watch a 17 minute talk about the correlation?? show us the link!"

          "the body of the talk does not support the conclusion. if inequality has a negative effect, does it mean we need to reduce it? if we can show correlation between wearing a mini skirt and rape, it is wise to discourage women wearing mini skirts? if displaying wealth causes increase shoplifting, should we penalize displaying wealth?"

          full comment here: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html?c=344129
        • thumb
          Nov 28 2011: Thanks Jah - I haven't watched Wilkinson's talk, so I'll do that and re-join the conversation.
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2011: Hey there Lara,

      Finally managed to read through that e-book you put up. It reminded me basically of the "Freigeld" (free money in German) concept. I believe it was a part of the Freiwirtschaft concept from Silvio Gesell.

      I think such monetary policies have been attempted to greater or lesser effect on limited, local scale in various communities. I think we should continue to explore these ideas on a small scale until they are perfected, and then see what would happen if we took it to a national level. There are plenty of countries with such poor performing currencies, so perhaps one of them might feel they have nothing to lose in trying something new.

      I don't really have any criticisms, and agree basically with all of what you have said on this conversation. The jury (for me at least) has been in on the whole debt-based money scheme for a loooong time now. People who defend it astound me. It is basically indefensible as far as I am concerned. Fractional reserve has to go, and money must be returned to its original function of simplifying the exchange of goods and services.

      Thanks for participating.
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2011: First off, as many comments here allude to, we need to differentiate between capitalism and free markets, since capitalism, big time capitalism is associated with who owns the capital, or means or production. It is possible to maintain free markets without big time capitalism. A farmers market is a free market, but it isn't big time capitalism.

    That being said it isn't necessary to destroy capitalism as it will fall of its own weight. The reason that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few is that there is a glut of labor in the world, labor has no bargaining position when it is in surplus, and so no ability to demand a greater share of corporate profits, thus wealth concentrates at the top. The reason that there is a labor glut isn't because of globalization it is because of the productivity levels which are achievable by modern production techniques, opening new markets masks this problem by creating new demand, and so growth, but the amount of jobs created for the amount of growth created continues to lag.

    So the big problem with modern capitalism is that in its pursuit of profits it has relied on methods which continually reduce labor inputs, this means fewer jobs at lower wages, and we are reaching the point where the wages paid aren't sufficient to fuel demand for the products it is possible to produce.

    The answer to this is to de-centralize production. This may already have to occur as increased fuel costs make the shipping of goods more expensive. By de-centralizing production one can increase the need for labor and so reduce the surplus of labor, having a beneficial impact on wages. There may also be associated inflation, but we shouldn't be scared by this since by both reducing transportation costs and spreading profits we do have room to increase wages without increasing prices.

    There also needs to be a greater focus on community initiatives outside the normal work paradigm, to increase quality of life, and maintain meaning in peoples lives.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: Your argument makes sense in theory Eric. Do you think markets should not be regulated?
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: Joanne,

        I think free markets do some things extraordinarily well, the typical economic virtues, indicate shortages, set prices, allocate resources, etc. But they can perform these jobs too well, accomplishing their goals at the expense of environmental concerns, the ethical treatment of labor, or other areas that cause cost without monetary gain. So yes I do believe they should be regulated. Free markets are a very usefull beast that need to kept on a short leash.

        There are also things that every society needs which free markets will not do at all, this is especially true of things which offer little or no profit motive, let's take supplying municipal water as an example. Even if there is a potential profit motive in supplying municipal water the profit potential is likely to be so small that the 'good' money, the best resources labor or otherwise, are likely to move to more profitable areas of the economy, and this certainly isn't the kind of process one wishes to encourage when dealing with things that have a major impact on the wellfare of a society.

        It is very easy to see these issues in a very black and white manner, but free markets benefit from sound regulation, and the government benefits from adopting some aspects how free markets work.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: Thanks Eric. I do agree the terms 'socialism', 'capitalism', 'free market' are over-used and sometimes misinterpreted. Civilisation itself has been a highly complex experiment with many failures over the human timeline. We are in a position today where we can look to the past and evaluate with the wisdom of hindsight, which systems work well and which do not. I agree that the best path is one that strikes a balance between the forces of enterprise and the general needs of societies. I myself speak against, not capitalism per se, but against too much deregulation and the wide poverty gap that produces. I agree with your comment regarding the 'short leash' . Capitalism as like a bullock. A big and powerful animal if left unrestrained, but highly useful with a ring through its nose. I enjoyed reading your clear analysis. Thanks.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: ah, so we are now inventing new terms? big time capitalism, not bad.

      in fact, freedom and capitalism are the same thing. you cannot get rid of capitalism but by limiting freedom.

      and what you call big time capitalism, and use capitalism as a short version, is actually called corporatism and interventionism.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: You are very correct as regards the issue of freedom, in planned economies it is still very common to have active black markets, which are essentially free markets. If one wants to construct an economic model which people will follow easily one should use their most natural impulses, and free markets represent one of those impulses.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: yes we do have black markets. Look at what capacity they operate, underwhat conditions and moderate to limit them or eradicate them depending on the damage they do to the collective. A drug trade for example is a black market economy. So is the illegal immigrant labour force. One is viewed with slightly more hostility/police suppression than the other because of who benefits from it. My point is these are only variables in a system which is beneficial or not beneficial to the people using it, depending on the regulations it has been designed with. We must, in my opinion, measure the success of the system by the success of each individual within it. I guess Kristian might disagree with me there. That is the crux of why we are having this talk and the reason why it always comes down to the same knarly point. 'Why should I' says the capitalist 'Because you are part of the human community' replies the socialist.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +2
        Nov 9 2011: Uhmm...

        Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing?

        In what Universe?

        I suppose that Yanamamo Indians in the Amazon are in slavery, or some kind of bar-less prison? Indigenous people the world over didn't even have a concept of private property or land ownership, and yet were far freer than we are today in our pseudo-free markets.

        Capitalism, in case you forgot, is the same system that gave us company towns, union busters, mercenary armies enforcing US drug laws on people who never voted for them... and sweatshops.

        Perhaps you have a different definition of freedom.

        Even if you did, your statement still makes no sense in purely in logical terms. It is a direct violation of at least 10 logical fallacies. It is something that might pass in a Keynesian or Austrian model economics workshop... but in a Logic 101 class it would garner you a fail.

        It is totally conceivable (regardless of being rather unlikely) to get rid of Capitalism while increasing Freedom. You might have to stretch your mind a bit.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: i'm pretty sure that you can't judge capitalism based on history. why? because we never had pure capitalism. and if we have a mixed system, the question naturally arises: capitalism or something else is responsible for the troubles.

          what is capitalism? capitalism is a system with the means of production in private hands. obviously, private ownership implies free use of those means, otherwise what is the purpose of owning things?

          it is very clear from the definition that government is not part of capitalism. government limits the use of property, thus limits capitalism. bear in mind, i didn't say here that it is good or bad. i just said that government is a limit to capitalism. government is a non-capitalist element in a given system.

          with that in mind, can you give me, say, three of those ten logical fallacies i have made?
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: In terms of indigenous peoples, or small tribes, you really need to look at their interactions with the tribes which they border as opposed to the dynamics of the tribe itself. The dynamics of small close groups does not translate to interaction of larger groups, otherwise one could build an economic systme on how ones family interacts. At some point the trust people invest in each other changes, and so the rules by which they exchange.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: Jah Sun wrote "Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing?

          In what Universe?"


          Excellent point! Capitalists who talk so elegantly of freedom never consider “freedom for whom?” One of the essential problems with capitalism is that it reinforces and promotes the freedom of owners at the expense of others.

          The pronouncement “Don’t tread on me” needs an addendum which states “and I won’t tread on you.”
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: What is wrong with inventing new terms? Anyway that is not my point, perhaps it is someone elses. I agree with Jah Sun 'Freedom & Capitalism are the same thing? In what Universe?'. Now who is inventing?
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: I think this delusion comes from juxtaposing capitalism against past systems like communism or something similar.
          Ergo, "look at our capitalist society and how much freedom we have - compared to Stallins soviet block or some other similar dictatorship". Where the other part of the sentence is left out.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: As far as the freedom equates to capitalism, or free markets idea goes the question really breaks down to what degree does one feel free operating to achieve the goals of a group? This may be simply a case of to what degree do the goals of the group coincide with the goals of the individual.

          Yet no matter what system one lives in one will have to submit ones life to certain rules which have been found by the group to be acceptable, capitalism imposes certain retsrictions on how one may pursue ones life, the degree to which it may enslave people is controllable through policy, (that leash again). Still capitalism or free markets may offer more raw choices, or freedom, for how one chooses to spend ones time. It is certainly more user friendly for those less interested in group dynamics while at the same time allowing room for people to operate within groups.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: I agree, it is a delusion. We can talk about free market capitalism all we want but there is no freedom in capitalism (I looked in vain looking for any notion of freedom from many sources. As a matter of fact, capitalism is not predicated on freedom. But instead of talking about theories and concepts I am going to go on a more practical level.

          Ask the millions of individuals in the working class how free their lives are within a capitalistic society? Many peoples lives are really determined given that they constantly have to go to work everyday just to put food on the table for their families. They are going to school because they are told that they'll make more money later in life. There is nothing free about their lives if they are constantly in shackles. This is what I like to call wage slavery and to be truly free one must not be restrained by external forces. I'm going to borrow a passage from a quote from Emma Goldman and state that to be free (in the conversation we are talking about) one must "[liberate] the human body from the dominion of property" and have "Liberation from the shackles and restraint of government" (for those interested this quote relates to what she believed anarchism stood for but since we are not talking about anarchism I thought I'd leave those parts out and I just wanted to show what really constituted as economic and political freedom in which I capitalism fails to do)

          Here is are definitions of freedom: (Dictionary.com)
          1.
          the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
          2.
          exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
          3.
          the power to determine action without restraint.
          4.
          political or national independence.
          5.
          personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery (can't say this for those who work)

          Most may not be servants to a single individual but we certainly are to corporations (which in the U.S. are now defined as individuals) and money.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +3
        Nov 10 2011: You have softened your statement now to avoid the most egregious of the fallacies.

        The idea that government limits Capitalism is not in debate. When it ceases to do so, or shirks this duty, we have major problems. There is a reason no major populations have had pure Capitalism for any length of time... it is a horrible mess.

        Examples of pure Capitalism include drug cartels, slavery rings, prostitution networks, and various mafias.

        When you were still saying that "in fact, freedom and capitalism are the same thing." the fallacies THERE run the gamut. How about:

        Reification
        Both the Sweeping & Hasty Generalization fallacies.
        The Fallacy Of Misplaced Concreteness
        The Fallacy Of Composition
        The Etymological Fallacy
        The Association Fallacy

        etc. etc.

        Your logic seems to be that:
        Private Ownership = Free Use
        Capitalism = Private Ownership
        Capitalism = Free Use = Freedom

        Need I demonstrate the fallacies?

        I will merely state that free use of means of production by a private owner is not Freedom. In fact, the very act of private ownership implies the lack of freedom for everyone else but the owner to use those means. If a man owns the local saw mill, the community is not free to use the saw mill as they please.

        Freedom is a much broader concept and is not limited to the scope of economics (see Orlando's post above). The idea that they could be the same thing is simply not conceivable.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: let me start with this question:

          "Need I demonstrate the fallacies?"

          yes. that was your task. that is the only thing you had to do. indeed, you have listed a number of fallacies, but without the slightest attempt to show how do they apply. but instead, you did a whole array of other things instead. for example you threw in a bunch of logical fallacies and false statements.

          no, i didn't "soften" my statement, i explained it. what i said earlier, holds. whether government causes the problem or capitalism, is the subject of our debate. simply stating that capitalism is the problem does not help. argue! no, freedom does not work that way. i don't have the right to kill someone for fun, but it is not a limitation for freedom. let's say, it is a natural limitation on freedom that exists outside our decisions, unless we develop a method to kill someone, yet that person lives unharmed. same for the sawmill, as long as one object can be used by one person at a time, there is a natural limit on its ownership, and we have to comply. the free answer is of course: whoever built the sawmill, has it. there was no sawmill earlier, now i hired workers, bought materials, and built a sawmill. it is mine. nobody is worse off, as their situation is not changed, they still don't have a mill. that is the unregulated, natural way. that is freedom. no, in real life you can not separate the economy and life in general. in a free society, capitalism is the economic system. without capitalism, there is no freedom. without freedom, there can be no capitalism.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 10 2011: Again, the limits of this 3 deep replying model here are getting tedious. Conversations must get broken up, and the flow is lost.

        Anyway, as far as your most recent reply...

        It is NOT my job to do anything vis a vis your fairly obvious logical faux pas. If you can not see how by saying something so inherently impossible in the absolute (Capitalism = Freedom), a number of well known fallacies are violated, it is not my job to give a class on logic. You are not the arbiter of "tasks."

        Besides, you ONLY asked me to give you 3 fallacies not explain.

        You DID soften your statement by explaining it.

        I do not even disagree with your more fully explicated statement... at least not entirely. But, you certainly did back away from your original simile. It is not worth debating that point further though, as these posts are editable & history is capable of being retroactively written here.

        Regardless, the intent of this debate, which is clearly stated in its title... is to come up with alternatives to Capitalism (specifically the global, corporatist, debt-based system that is strangling the life out of dozens of national economies as we speak). Where you got the idea that this debate was about government's role in the problem is beyond me.

        Many people would rather make this about apologizing for the current system. That is considerably easier than imagining new alternatives. After all, there is a good reason why the number of economic systems that have been tried in the modern era are so few. This conversation I instigated is an attempt to spur some creative thought... to discuss what we could do better. And, everything that can be done, can be done better.

        I will not deny that I opened up the debate to defenses of Capitalism. Perhaps I should change that, as it is a tired and somewhat passé endeavor. But it is clear that this was not the goal or thrust of the debate.

        As for your sawmill, who owned the river to start with? How did the first private owner pay for it
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: not willing to reiterate points that were already discussed, here are my three observations:

          1. you didn't just ask for alternatives, but gave a rationale why do we need alternatives. you can not escape from discussing that rationale.

          2. how governments came up: you blame many things on capitalism that are done by the state. that's how.

          3. theories on original appropriation are numerous, but not anymore relevant, since there is no more things on earth to appropriate. you can buy though. in theory, we can trace back every piece of property to unowned natural resources ... some thousand years ago.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +2
        Nov 10 2011: Exactly.

        Every piece of land started out as stolen property. Possession of stolen property is a crime no matter how many times it has changed hands since, even if you are unaware of the larceny. If this is true of an automobile, how much more so an entire continent?

        For crimes that are heinous or international, there is no statute of limitations. Thus, for instance, the genocide of the Native Americans for purpose of stealing their land renders nearly all of the New World felonious possession. No one likes to hear this, and I am not suggesting that it can be rectified in a legal manner. However, it is another point that shows the inherent injustice of our economic system whereby the descendants of criminals (mass murderers, slave traders, pirates and practitioners of genocide) get to profit in an uneven playing field with the descendants of those they wronged.

        People inherit wealth, and have advantages for starting businesses and buying property, means of production and whatnot. This is something that needs to be considered despite the reluctance of the privileged to even contemplate it.

        Back to your points.

        1) I never tried to escape this, and admitted that I opened this door. I just find it less interesting than the innovation implied in the two questions asked. My introduction does not strike me as being unclear in the actual thrust of this debate.

        2) I don't blame anyone or anything, but merely state that many people are unhappy and unsatisfied with the current model. This is a matter of record.

        3) See above.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: that much about fallacies. stealing implies ownership. one can not steal something that is unowned. so please forgive me for not reading the rest of your comment.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 11 2011: I forgive you.

        No one is required to participate here. Reading is not mandatory. There are no demerits or marks for cooperation or whatever.

        But being the thorough SOB that I am, I will just add that:

        People can steal from public trusts, communities, and even entire societies. Thievery does not necessarily imply personal ownership.

        Perhaps you are just being willful. Most people recognize that what happened to the indigenous populations of the world was a crime. Colonization, despite being a church-sanctioned activity, was certainly not ethical, moral, or any kind of free-market transaction.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2011: Well, there are a number of ways you could phrase it.

        How about we put it like this:

        "Manifest Destiny" type colonialization and appropriation is stealing from the ecosystem and its native stewards.

        It might be possible to look at genocide and appropriation of land and resources as a kind of parasitic infection.
        • thumb
          Nov 11 2011: the ecosystem can not own things, so we cannot steal from it. the "native stewards of the ecosystem" is a nonexistent thing. genocide of the land and resources is also a nonexistent thing. if you base your world view on such "theories", you are in trouble.
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2011: Hi Krisztian, I think, when an argument descends into syntax, someone might be grasping at straws, anyway lets try this:

          Definition of ownership: the legal right to possession of a thing, the right to tansfer possession to another.

          Definition of theft; The act of DISHONEST appropriation.

          Given that in the cases of appropriation of something between two parties who have different definitions of the concepts of what is 'legal' and what is 'possession' it would be a given that some 'dishonesty' would be an inevitable component of the transaction and therefore would constitute a theft as Jah Sun has determined.
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2011: Krisztian,

          you stated "the ecosystem can not own things, so we cannot steal from it. the "native stewards of the ecosystem" is a nonexistent thing. genocide of the land and resources is also a nonexistent thing. if you base your world view on such "theories", you are in trouble."

          Please tell me your not being serious? The ecosystem is something that cannot own or be owned. It simply "Is" and with the continued destruction of it, your precious capitalism will no longer be, being that capitalistic societies are dependent on such resources. As a matter of fact humanity may no longer be depending on how long things continue the way they are.

          How is genocide of the land and resources a non existing thing? The fact that the depletion of natural resources have many devastating effects on the world. The fact that the biosphere, the ecosystem, populations, different organism, chemical cycling, poverty, etc are all influenced by unsustainable resource use, goes to show how false your claim about "genocide of the land and resources are also non existing".

          You also mentioned that "if [we] base our worldview on such 'theories', [we] are in trouble". It is the fact that peoples worldviews are based on such theories that humanity is more environmentally conscious than it was 50 years ago. If it was not for such worldviews, things would be much worse in terms of the environment.

          From talking to you other times, I understand your position about capitalism. But sometimes ethics and morals are much more important than profit over people.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 15 2011: Orlando, I think you are wasting your time trying to reason with Krisztian. He is obviously enamored with the current system & unwilling to even entertain any criticism of it, regardless of how rational.

        His statements that those things are not real... excuse me, "nonexistent"... are clearly delusional.

        He quotes me as saying "the genocide of land and resources" when I said genocide AND the APPROPRIATION of land and resources. This is a common ploy in debate, & yet another logical fallacy. Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)... as well as a "straw man" ploy. There is no point in arguing with someone who refuses to honor logic and reality.

        If he doesn't think that crimes against humanity are real... he can take it up with the world court in Den Haag. (The Hague in the Kingdom of the Netherlands)

        Anyway, these things are all matters of perception & phrasing. If you view the Earth & its biospheres as a living thing (which science increasingly recognizes) ala the Gaia Theory or other variants... then these concepts are a no-brainer. Even if you can only go as far as recognizing the complex systems that form a holistic balance, then you can still recognize that certain behaviors will knock these systems out of balance.

        However small minded you want to be, though, you can understand that the policy of purposefully killing all the buffalo, not even for meat or skins, but simply to destroy the plains Indians who relied on them... for instance... was a crime against both humanity and biodiversity. The Indians may not have thought about the buffalo as their property, but robbing them of the resource was still a heinous & immoral act.

        Trust fund managers don't own the wealth they steward, but stealing from them is a crime.

        Ownership of life might be called a "nonexistent thing" by the closed minded... but stealing someone's life is still a crime everywhere on earth.

        People like Krisztian are apologists & shills for the status quo. Ignore them.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: it is marvelous that you try to discredit me as "enamored" and "apologist for the status quo", while i tirelessly advocate a completely *different* approach than we have today. in fact, i argue for a radical change here, and you together with orlando, advocate a complete trust of todays systems with a little tweak to them. how could you possible get that reversed? it is beyond me.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: Lets hear it Krisztian. I am interested in your radical change, and I mean it. So long as it doesn't involve the mythological 'invisible hand'.
        • thumb
          Nov 17 2011: I agree,

          He states "i argue for a radical change here, and you together with orlando, advocate a complete trust of todays systems with a little tweak to them"

          From my understanding there is nothing that we have stated that would imply that we have a complete trust in today's system. My conversations w/you and Joanne talks of how we can come up with different ways of creating change. If anything I think the three of us have consistently been the most critical of the current global economic system in regards to this particular thread

          A few months back I created a post asking why people do not seek to understand anarcho-syndicalism and how this can be an alternative way of living as opposed to living in a capitalistic democracy,. Our good pal Krisztian asserted that not only is there a false dichotomy between anarchism and capitalism but that there is nothing wrong with capitalism. He also did not hesitate to try to point out my ignorance in political economies as well as history.

          I do not think the burden is on us to have to say anything in response to Krisztian's claims. If Krisztian or anyone doubts what I just said they can go over and read the post for themselves.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: I'm glad you find it marvelous Krisztián. While I am able to marvel at your ability to continue arguing long after you have stopped actually saying anything... as well as your incredible debate technique of willfully not even reading what the other person has written, yet continuing to engage in tit-for-tat absent any semblance of referencing the question or theme up for being discussed... I would stop well short of calling it marvelous.

        I don't begrudge you your fun. Perhaps you are bored.

        It is serious revisionism, though for you to say you are advocating a different approach when you have done no such thing on this thread. A thread, mind you, that is all about exploring ALTERNATIVES to the current system, and which you responded to by asserting that Capitalism and Freedom are the same thing... mind boggling.

        Unless you resort to going back and editing your posts here, you have no leg to stand on.

        If you are seriously touting yourself as a champion of an alternate... "completely *different* approach than we have today," then please, by all means, lay it on us. Please start a new thread, though, as this one is ridiculously long and I tire of having to reply to a post from a week ago.

        If you do not post such a different approach, then I must respectfully bow out of this tête-à-tête.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: i would not react to all your baseless claims and non-sequiturs.

          i would like to point out a little thing though. this conversation is NOT only about how to change the current system. this conversation is about how to change capitalism. it is in the title. it is in the opening statement. so it is very much on topic to point out that our system is NOT capitalistic. our system is at most 50% capitalistic, but probably much less.

          thus i can not express my view otherwise in that conversation, as it is ambiguous and self contradictory. instead, i'm trying to battle all the misconceptions. i find that a good thing to do, although somewhat hopeless, as it seems.

          i have no idea where you get that "editing post" thing from. i have never edited any of my posts except typos and grammar. are you implying something here?
      • thumb
        Nov 17 2011: The title of this conversation asks 2 questions. One is alternatives to the current economic system... the other is what would be the best model to replace global capitalism should it fail.

        As I can tell, you have not attempted to answer either.

        Misconceptions, baseless-ness and such judgments are subjective. Expressing your opinions is your right, but you are not the final arbiter of these things. Plenty of other posters here seem to get what we are discussing.

        Your idea that pure capitalism has never been tried is also merely an opinion. We have already given you enough examples of it and how wretchedly it tends to turn out. If you are still in doubt, you can go to Africa and witness blood diamond trade, arms dealers, human trafficking and the rest in the lawless, government-less encampments of warlords from Sierra Leone to Somalia.

        While I don't find such diversions to be completely off-topic, or even unentertaining to a degree... it certainly falls to do what you have claimed. Namely, laying out your "completely different alternative to the current system."

        Most people agree that the global economic system is capitalist. Whether you believe in global capitalism or not, you can still post your alternative. We would all love to hear it.

        Please refrain from replying again and post a new comment, though. This is rather difficult to follow, and the system of only allowing 3 deep replies makes this thread an arduous read.

        As for editing posts, I said that only by editing your posts could you can not claim to have put forth any sort of completely different approach than we have today. Pointing out that we are not practicing purely unadulterated capitalism is not the same thing as proffering an alternative.
        • thumb
          Nov 18 2011: as i said before, this is not the right topic to discuss my views, since we need to first clear up the confusion presented in the title and the opening statement.

          but if you want to hear more about my take on how we should organize our societies, you can find a good quality debate in my old conversation here:

          http://www.ted.com/conversations/697/the_role_of_government.html

          it is now closed, so you can't comment. but as i read it now, it is even more shocking to see what ted forums have become since. a billboard of half cooked anti-capitalist propaganda.
      • thumb
        Nov 20 2011: Sorry freedom and capitalism are not the same thing Nazi germany was capitalist without freedom!
        • thumb
          Nov 20 2011: nazi germany was not capitalist. the term for what it was is corporatism, and later, pure dictatorship. where did you get that information from?
  • thumb

    Jah Sun

    • +3
    Dec 4 2011: To conclude my thoughts on this debate...

    Capitalism in its basic ideal is not inherently bad, and as it serves to simplify the exchange of goods & services, or encourage progress, it is rather elegant at times.

    However, what we have is not this. There is no such thing as real "free market."

    What we have is a dangerous amalgamation of corporatism, resource domination & appropriation, closed-door collusion, subversion of democracy, and assault on our ecosystems. It is irrational, unsustainable, unfair, and the fact that so many people who are victims of it step up to defend it... shows just how effective the propaganda and control of popular perception actually is.

    If anyone had any doubts about the corrupt and irredeemable nature of the beast... the recent revelation that the Federal Reserve (basically a privately owned central bank) gave 7.77 TRILLION dollars in 0.01% interest loans to the banks (their board members), and lied about it, hid the fact, and even withheld this info from the US Senate... should erase them. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/fed-gave-banks-trillions-in-bailout-bloomberg-reports/

    The fact that we have no clear alternative to compare this current system to, makes it seem as basic & unalterable as the weather for most, but I guarantee you that humans will NOT be doing this in 500 years... if we want to survive on this planet.

    I feel, even more than ever, that it behooves us as thoughtful & concerned human beings, to think long & hard on what we can really do to improve the quality of our lives, safeguard & improve our environment, and ensure that future generations are not handed a giant train wreck or some nightmarish post-apocalypse.

    As a tease to the next conversation (and the title to the essay I have written about all of this)... WE CAN DO BETTER!

    I want to extend a sincere gratitude and respect to everyone who participated here... even those I disagreed with. (You know who you are. ;-)

    With abundant love,
    JahSun
  • Nov 27 2011: Part3.
    Update the progressive Tax system.
    Differentiated and increase VAT taxation and updated scheme of direct taxation.
    --
    1: Introduce a progressive VAT tax system.
    Divide products and services in 5 groups.
    --
    Examples:
    1:1Group 1 will pay 0% VAT.
    Basic living products, babies and school utilities, materials and services, public transportation, bicycles.
    1.2-Group 2 will pay 2-6% VAT.
    A group of defined products and services and Electricity, Gas, Water per cap allocation. apartments up 3 living rooms, low fuel consumption cars.
    1.3-Group 3 will pay 7-12%VAT
    A group of defined products and Electricity, Gas, Water over per cap allocation, apartments up 5 living rooms, medium fuel consumption cars/
    1.4-Group 4 will pay 17-22%
    Luxury products and services ,Energy consuming cars-air conditioning systems, Luxury houses and cars, 5 star hotels, Yachts.
    ** 1.5: Addition 5% VAT if within 3 years the car, apartment owner and other commodities defined in this category will either buy or change his commodity to another product within the same or higher VAT group.
    ---
    2: Update the scheme of direct taxation.
    Young people are played less however they have initial high expenses to build a family.
    Combine the progressive tax system with an age depending tax system.
    ---
    2.1; A married couple will be entitled to 20 to 50% salary tax reduction for 5 years after marriage, pending income.
    2.2: A tax reduction of 5 to 10% per child for 13 years pending income.
    2.3: Change the progressive income tax system.
    For incomes up 7 times the average income use the current system.
    Increase the incoming tax by 5 to 20% per income increase step.
    Example: average income*7=x tax
    Income above average income of 7 to 8= x+5% tax.
    Income above average income of 8 to 9 = X+10% tax.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2011: Thank you Mordechay for you well thought out, specific & detailed contribution to this conversation. In 3 parts no less.

      I am hoping some of our other contributors will give your proposals some serious thought and discuss the minutia and fine points here. I myself have a number of comments and questions that I will get around to posting when I am not quite so busy with other demands on my time.

      I really appreciate your emphasis on social justice and opportunity for all. There are some elements that I might quibble with once I clarify exactly how you imagine this to be carried out, but I applaud you for your ability to do what many progressives and idealists forget to... namely lay out a clear alternative.

      Kudos.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2011: For purposes of this conversation, I would take a different tact in outlining a strategy for the harnessing of capitalism/free market economy. (Yes, I am pro-capitalism/free market - but not the brand I see here in the USA. I call that brand "Lethal" capitalism).

      I have learned a lot from the ideas shared here by Jah, Mordechay, Thomas, Lara, Orlando, Frans, Christophe and others. Although "detailed" thoughts such as Mordechay's are useful, I think the first step is to broadly outline principles and objectives for creating an economic system that is fair(er) and provides a better pathway for all people to gain personal happiness. If we can agree on those things broadly and philosophically, then we can dive into the details. In other words, collectively author a "declaration" of sorts. (Personally that's what I think the Occupy moverment is missing - along with leadership)

      Like Jah, I, too have a day job I must get back to, but will make every effort in the next day or so to continue with my thoughts on constructing a platform/declaration that we can all stand on/behind :)
      • thumb
        Dec 3 2011: Well Jim... it appears that what started with a bang is going out with a whimper.

        The conversation ends in a bit over a day, and everyone has kind of jumped ship. I am still quite curious as to what you were going to say, though. So feel free to come back and post whatever you want.

        I will go through this forum and assimilate all of the good ideas and comments for the future. It is likely I will start a similarly themed conversation in the coming weeks to start where this one left off, and discuss the various ideas that got tossed around here and on a few other forums as well.
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2011: Your updated tax system.

      Obviously, the tax system could use an update and an overhaul. However, I don't think that VAT and consumption taxes are the way to go. The problem with this is that is shifts the burden to those with the least amount of money to afford it. Such taxes are inherently anti-progressive and amount to wealth redistribution upward. They always seem to reduce the amount of taxes paid by the wealthy, and make the cost of living for the poor higher. (see another discussion on this subject here in this very debate)

      Your system is more compassionate than most. I like the idea of a 0% bracket for basic living expenses. And the idea of rather steep taxes on luxury goods is probably appropriate... At first glance, this might even seem to be a way around the anti-progressive assumptions of consumption taxes.

      However, in practice, if you are not talking about shrinking government and expect to keep revenues the same, the new system must be able to raise the same amount of money as the old. The question then becomes only, who will pay more and who will pay less (assuming you change the demographic division of burden).

      When looked at objectively, consumption taxes (no matter how high or weighted) always favor the rich. This is because rich people only spend a tiny portion of their wealth in any given year. The bulk of their money is invested, saved, or otherwise taken out of liquid circulation. Whereas, poor people spend every last cent they have every single month, and are often in the red. Therefore, even if the only expenditures that poor people make are in the 0% and the 2-6% brackets, all of their wealth will be subject to one or the other and ANY taxation of the poor will be paid for by the state in the form of welfare in the long run.
      • Dec 3 2011: Ms Jah Sun
        Following my comments to some of your points related to VAT-Tax
        You said:
        1:'If you are not talking about shrinking government and expect to keep revenues the same, the new system must be able to raise the same amount of money as the old"
        2:" consumption taxes (no matter how high or weighted) always favor the rich. This is because rich people only spend a tiny portion of their wealth in any given year"
        --
        I agree that government activity should be balanced. The money raised should support government activities. The proposal is independent of government's efficiency.

        The proposed change of Tax is a combination of both the total direct income from all types of incomes and not only salaries (including deposit interests, share gains, house rentals and so on) and the VAT indirect taxation.
        I believe that this proposal will contribute to decrease the income inequality.

        The rich will pay more, the middle class less.
        People consuming more resources (Example energy) will pay more for their usage.

        Overall taxation should:
        From one hands the keep inequality to a point acceptable by the middle class.
        From second hand it should encourage and reward people for initiatives, good performances, risk taking
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Dec 1 2011: The portion of the wealth that profits the most from the stability of any state, and is the least needed for actual living expenses... is also paradoxically the area subject to the lowest taxes currently

      I am speaking, of course, of Capital Gains. (US capital gains tax stands at a record low of 15%)

      I linked earlier to a Forbes article showing that 0.1% of the population makes 50% of the capital gains. If anyone thinks this is fair or justified in a supposed democracy... please explain this to me.

      All the best Mordechay. Thanks for your contribution.
  • thumb
    Nov 12 2011: From where I am standing there are 2 sides to this problem, the financial sector and the common consumer

    The first is the large institutional issues. The financial system is stretched thin, and precariously intertwined. There is too much centralization within most parts of the private sector. Richard Wilkinsons talk about the consequences of inequality is very relevant to this thread. The other problem with centralization is the people who are making key decisions are becoming more and more detached from the reality of the consequences of their decisions.

    Unfortunately, it is very hard to force the hand of a billionaire. Banks may be rich, but often they are stuck between a rock and a hard place when trying to make decisions.

    The other side of the problem is the consumer. People are addicted to credit. This is a serious problem. Most people don't even make moderate purchases without credit. We build up credit ratings so we can have more borrowing power and feel "rich" when we are in fact more able to be in debt. Our dependence on credit empowers and enriches the financial sector.

    We have to rediscover how to accomplish what we need without credit. Obviously there are limitations to reducing our need of credit (mortgages for example), but the amount of everyday lending going on is not healthy.

    There are strong community efforts to build local economies that aren't so strongly tied to the financial sector. The local food movement is key to at least surviving and adequately coping with a decline in the global economy. People can connect with each other through the internet to trade services, barter or just work together cope with hard times. There are many websites that facilitate this. Thats where the seeds of a better system can grow. We have to sidestep the financial sector. If you step out of bounds, ask for forgiveness instead of permission.
    • thumb
      Nov 13 2011: Hi Scott, your comments regarding credit and billionaires; credit is nothing more than a type of enslavement to a bank. So is a mortgage, but by advancing credit through a wider range of systems, banks have secured a greater stranglehold over the economy. I would suggest that it is the same story with the extremely wealthy. In otherwords a small minority control the economy and have spread their networks of control through government. The last time in European history things got that top heavy, there was a bloody revolution.

      I do not mean to sound melodramatic but I wish to point out the current situation is untenable and likely to become increasingly so. I do not thing some protests are going to make the barons of the Oligarchy unwind their power structures to return to an earlier period of greater equity.

      Unfortunately history teaches us again and again, that it usually takes a massive catastrophe to redress any balance of power, for the better or for the worst.

      Of course in our epoch we have the internet, and warp speed information exchange. I cling to the hope that this will make some difference and encourage us to actively seek change through whatever channels remain open to us.
      • thumb
        Nov 14 2011: I like this comment Joanne, very well said.

        Your right about the internet being a valuable resource in terms of connecting everyone together. This is indeed going to be vital because as you mentioned, the U.S. is not the only country affected by its economic downfall but in fact the entire economic world.

        You mentioned one particular point that I wanted to touch on. You said "I do not thing some protests are going to make the barons of the Oligarchy unwind their power structures to return to an earlier period of greater equity". I think this is entirely true which is why I do not even protest as much anymore. Someone told me that I do not have faith in the power of numbers and that I"m being too pessimistic. If you honestly ask me, at least in the U.S., protesting is at times phantasmagorical. I'm not saying that all protest do not lead to any sort of modification but for the most part, if the protest is about economics the outcome is already determined (when people protest due to budget cuts they do not realize that despite their efforts, what it all comes down to is how much money is left in the piggy bank).

        Here is my question and perhaps you have a better alternative than I do. If our current methods of protest are not working or are not going to work, what can be done? Are we protesting just for the sake of protesting and if so should we protest to reform the entire system? The latter seems so but the only problem is getting people on the same page.
        • thumb
          Nov 14 2011: I am not sure protest is a waste of time, I just think it cannot accomplish anything on its own. It has to be part of a wider campaign of a focussed iniative. We do not even fully understand the depth and breadth of the enemy yet, so how can we formulate a way to struggle against it?

          I think the successful takeover of the business Oligarchs, has happened largely because of spin, in other words, covert actions. They say one thing openly and do another thing behind the scenes. That is what the doco 'What's Wrong with Kansas' was about.

          Could this go on unimpeded if we had some transparency? I think, freedom through internet media, wiki leaks, Youtube, TED, cannot be bought and controlled so easily (at least at the present time) by media conglomorates so remain an open conduit for information which must lead to change. Now all we need to do is add some organisation to the mix and we might have something.

          Paul Watson said in an interview a few days ago on a Radio Live broadcast in Auckland, that he owes the growth of his campaign to protect whales in the Ross sea whale sanctuary to the success of the reality series 'Whale Wars'. Again, information and awareness brought the issues into the open.

          I look at people like Paul Watson and Nelson Mandela for inspiration. Small, limited to zero resources yet, they struggled with conviction and focus and created change. when I think of the enormous tidal wave of culture that follows the belief that exponential economic growth can last forever, when in fact we have so little time left to change, it helps to remember that as Jah Sun said, the Berlin wall came down in only a few hours. Apartheid was gone in a matter of days, once the decision was made.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: I'm with Joanne on this. (big surprise)

          Protest alone can be like shouting into the wind. It often feels like banging your head against a wall. I know very well how futile it can seem, and how omnipotent the powers-that-be can appear.

          However, it is worth remembering that public perception, the current memes, and the common "consensus view" on a subject, in effect, create the circumstances of that subject to a very large degree. This is why the power brokers are obsessed with spin and propaganda.

          Protest, no matter how pathetically ineffective it may seem in the short term, can and does have a profound effect on the consciousness of the masses.

          At first, it can arouse the reactionary attempts to shut it down. If the protest movement can weather that, then people recognize that there are a significant amount of people with this supposedly "minority" opinion, and begin to accept it as an "alternative" view. If the ideas of the protest can disseminate far and wide enough, it can begin to challenge the mainstream view... and even replace it in time.

          Civil rights, the peace movement, perestroika, gay rights... you name it... they all took a LOT of courageous people making a lot of waves for a long time to break down their respective walls. But look... we don't have "white's only" water fountains anymore.

          One has to look at the long haul, and dig in for a trench war of ideas. It is not the physical reality on the streets that matters as much as the battle for the minds of the hoi polloi.
    • thumb
      Nov 14 2011: Scott,

      I like you analysis. It is very true, especially your comments about credit. Your statements sort of remind me of a conversation Joanne and I were having with another person from TED about how ones environment influences their behavior. I think certain ways of living becomes habituated to the point to where one thinks that they way they are action is just another product of human nature.

      You stated that the consumer is addicted to credit and that is very true. I think the problem is when we are growing up we see commercials that talk about ones credit score. We are told that we cannot buy a house without establishing credit and the only way of doing this is by consumption of materials. We start to develop the habit of spending and spending (or at least watch our parents do so). By the time we are old enough, we have credit cards flying our way and most of us, would gladly use these credit cards. Of course there are those individuals who are moderate and responsible with their spending but for the most part this is really not the case. As you mentioned before, this is disastrous in the long run.

      I guess my question is, if this reliance on credit is indeed an addiction, how do we break this habit?
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: Willpower.

        The same way we break all habits and addictions.

        Recognize that an activity is wrong and harmful. Stop doing that activity. Remain steadfast in your conviction long enough for the urge to restart said action to subside. Replace the negative behavior with a more positive activity.
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: Very true,

          easier said than done of course but that does not mean its impossible.

          I also agree with you about what you said about protesting and how we should think about the long term. I agree, I just think that too many protest that occur nowadays are really just for the short term (jobs, budget cuts to education, etc)...No on really talks about the long term (at least from my experience).
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 15 2011: People often neglect to recognize the basic facts of debt-based currency. When countries and their central banks print money, they immediately create debt. In some ludicrous scheme that miraculously few people even seem to notice, let alone complain about, in the US, the Federal Reserve (a private bank) prints money and then sells it to the government on credit... charging interest. Thus, by the time a freshly minted bill goes into circulation, the people already owe the Fed more than it is worth.

      If we turned around and gave every dollar printed right back to the Fed, we would still be in debt. And, the only way to pay the debt is with more debt-based currency.

      The situation is so ridiculous, that if people actually understood it... they would never stand for it.

      Personal lines of credit are indeed a type of indentured servitude, and weak people fall for it out of short-sighted covetousness. They are further lulled into the trap by the fact that everyone else is doing it, and the average person acts like a sheep. (no offense to anyone in debt... just calling it like I see it)

      However, personal debt is not as great an issue for the population as the basic debt inherent in the money itself. IMO. You can choose not to play the personal credit game... the debt-based currency is nearly unavoidable unless you live in a really progressive community specifically designed to avoid it.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: I am going to make it my business to study these things more. I start to see, how we are tricked and duped because most of us are very ignorant about how these systems actually work.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Nov 20 2011: I think the finance people like to cultivate the image that these things are far more complicated than they actually are. As long as people see financial instruments and the basics of monetary policy to be obtuse and unintelligible, then the financial sector can continue to loot, pillage and plunder willy nilly.

          The fact is, this stuff is not all that complicated. It is surely not Quantum Mechanics or O-Chem. It doesn't need a background in stochastics or differential equations... it is rather straightforward actually.

          They obfuscate and hide this reality with a lot of terminology and impressive looking charts, but the fact is that you could explain this stuff in simple terms to elementary school children without very many furrowed brows.

          The patronizing attitude of economists who love to imagine that they are practicing something truly occult and esoteric... as if they were Qabbalists and Alchemists who actually turned lead into gold... is shameful. What the financial industry is, by and large, is a nest of gamblers and usurers who make money without actually doing anything. People who prey upon the ignorance and stupidity of others and laugh about it over their 3 martini lunches. The very sort of people who JC threw out of the temple on their ear... and they manage to convince everyone that they are good Christian Americans who are as fundamental to our society as democracy. (while they do everything in their power to circumvent that instution)

          Leeches and parasites. Hypocrites, the lot of them.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Yes Jah Sun, the whole so called 'science' is a like the emporer's new clothes, in my opinion. As I said in one of my posts, it's designed and commissioned by the people who benefit by it. They theories which are expressly designed to baffle, (derivatives?) designed to justify, and designed to create fear. Its all a ruse, all of it, made to give those who commissioned the design, carte blanche. Economic 'theories' are often I find, a lot of words to explain very simple ideas.

        Still, they gave Friedman a Nobel Prize for goodness sake, so I feel it is important to understand the mechanism that has been used to harness entire economies to the will of a few. What has galvanised me to this view more recently? Driving in my car and listening to the BBC world service only three weeks after we saw the global 'house of cards' ecomomy tumble before our very eyes. In the midst of this terrible aftermath, an economist was interviewed who extolled the healing powers of the 'invisible hand'. It will save us, he said. Just wait. That interview in that particular context, brought home to me the level of delusion of some, and how much the rest of us, even the most educated, are truly ignorant of the machinations that effect our lives so dramatically. We have been blinkered and duped.

        You have no idea how much I loved to read your post (and I like almost everything you say) because this is something I have felt and believed for a long time, but do not know enough about the subject to feel I can speak with conviction.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: Amen sister.

          And, thanks for the ego boost! I'm not normally one who seeks or enjoys a lot of praise... but some days you get up, and can really use a little pat on the back.

          I have enjoyed your posts on many a thread as well. I find your earnest, caring, and well-intentioned contributions to be a breath of fresh air among a lot of skepticism, pessimism, heartlessness, and outright dickishness.

          Stay strong, and keep waking people up.
  • Nov 11 2011: I'm not sure that it is essential to solve the problem at this point; however, it is essential to recognize the problem of the terrible effect that economic inequality has on societies. Japan has better control of salaries, although I don't know how they achieve that, and Sweden uses taxes. The point is we have to do something because as the wealth get centralized, so does all the power, and then in our system those are the interests that get served. The goal should be to have the American people acknowledge the problem, and then work can begin.
    • thumb
      Nov 15 2011: True.

      Have you seen the Wilkinson TED talk? It basically expands upon what you are saying.

      (the link is in the intro)
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2011: I am not convinced that the problem is actually capitalism per se. I think that the problem lies in the fact that the natural system of checks and balances has been eliminated. I think unions and cooperatives of workers within the capitalistic system might be a natural check to the power of corporations that has been allowed to be enshrined in law. Since when in anyone's conceptualization of a corporation should they have the same rights as an individual person? That is just nuts in my worldview. Why should they not be held retroactively responsible for harm that they have done to our planet when it can be established? Why should corporations have the right to influence elections? Why is 'union' a dirty word in our lifetime when it was not in the past. The answer to this last question is that PR machines of corporations have influenced workers against their own best interests with the dangling promise that everyone has a shot at being management. When I was in my first business admin class many moons ago, one of the first tactics they taught was to assimulate the best union reps into company management.

    I like Gisela's point about unethical people breaking good things and organizations. This is where i am a believer in at least the potential of good government (yes, I acknowledge that corruption dwells there too). At least government has the potential to rebalance things for the common good. It is where I still harbour my hopes.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2011: I'm with you. Oversight is necessary.

      For me, the function of government would effectively be the Keepers of the Contracts, at least for services that make sense to be outsourced. Sort of a "government as Groupon" model, wherein there are enough of us (citizens) that economies of scale should factor in when outsourcing services - as opposed to pure privatization.

      (And contracts should never purely be about the price.)

      Privatizing does not allow for rescinding when what replaces the service at hand is sub-par. Companies should get a contract to provide services for no more than 2-3 years, less than the term of government. The only way to prevent corruption in the handling of these contracts is the threat of tossing the government out.

      It's also a good way of ensuring that the workers can influence their situation as well, even if it is indirect.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: Unfortunately, the services that have arisen from privatizing HAVE been sub-par, by and large.

        As someone who has spent a lot of time in Europe over the last 3 or 4 decades, I can tell you first hand that the privatization (even when only partial) of the national rail & transportation, telecommunication industries, postal services, and more, has been uniformly terrible for the people. Quality of service falls through the floor, prices go sky high, and the people never even profited from the sales to begin with.

        What you have is people's taxes paying for the creation of a costly infrastructure (microwave towers, rail lines, train stations, fiber optics, subways etc.) and then handing all this investment over to private companies who proceed to charge the people premium rates on everything while slashing service to a minimum.

        40c a minute to call a cell phone? A short train ride costing more than a plane ride across Europe? Slower mail delivery which costs 3x as much as it used to... and the postman no longer wants to deliver to out of the way locales.

        As for your first point, Oversight all the way... but it isn't enough.

        As long as things like Citizens United are allowed to stand, and the personhood of corporations in general... capitalists will continue to own the government, and do their best to strip every vestige of social welfare that they can. They only have one motivation... and it isn't the well-being of society.

        They want to pay for the deficit (including trillions in corporate welfare) by refusing heating oil and school lunches to poor families! Anyone who thinks they care about you or your children need only examine the publications of their think tanks over the last 25 years.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: Did I not just say privatization doesn't work? With pure privatization once they are in control, good effing luck at getting things fixed.

          If they have a temporary contract that they can LOSE, then they have motivation to provide better service.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 10 2011: Temporary contracts may be somewhat better, but I have seen a number of those that still are far worse than the government agencies they replaced.

        The problem is not just competition, but motivation and goals. Privatizing inevitably leads to these services being run like a business. This is NOT a good thing in the case of social services. Personally, I don't want the Post Office trying to make a profit.

        We pay taxes for these services, why should we have to pay again for them? Imagine if you had to hire some firemen to put out your house? Or the policeman handed you a bill after saving you from a mugger?

        I think mercenary armies like the former Blackwater shouldn't be allowed. Private prisons either. These things are too sensitive to let greed dictate how they are handled. Perhaps if no one made money on prisons, the US (at 5% of the world's population) wouldn't have 25% of the prisoners worldwide.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: I too do not want the Post Office to be profit driven, or the prisons or healthcare. In my country, New Zealand, a right wing govt privatised Tertiery education just after I got my degree. As an employer I have noticed a dramatic decline in the standard of graduates, even in basic literacy. Now that tertiary education has been privatised, institutions harvest prospects from anywhere, especially people who may only be interested in enrolling because they seek to immigrate. Numerous plagiarism and immigration scams have sprung up not to mention a general decline in funded research and the quality of graduate courses.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: I think you are so stuck on the concept of privatization that you cannot actually read what I have written. The whole point is that we have paid for the service out of our taxes, and as a large buying group should be getting preferential treatment.

          The service, whatever it is, is paid for via the exchequer/treasury. Bids are not solely selected on the cheapest rate offered, or obviously, crap will ensue. Gov't functions as project manager, but the citizens are the clients. Timed correctly, governments who display corruption in re-selecting inadequate companies to provide said services, get ousted in the election.

          And no, not all services warrant being handled in this manner. Education would not work this way, for instance, as there needs to be a longer-term vision in place. Then again, we already have issues with new governments overturning perfectly good plans as they are just coming to fruition, solely to "make their mark".
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: That is so True. If anything, these things are only enablers of greed.

          Jah Sun's comment about prisons is indeed true. There is a state prison in Chino, CA and what I found out is that GM (General Motors) actually has an investment with the prison there (I think they manufacture the beds there or something). For another reason it reminded me of how Regan built 9 Prisons in California between the years 1981-1984 and many companies had investments with these prisons as well (there are other reasons that have to do with drugs, C.I.A. and Compton but I'll leave that out).

          Your right, privatization is indeed worse if you do not draw a line
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2011: This system of 3 levels of reply makes it difficult to answer or keep conversations going, but I guess you will figure out what I am replying to.

        I am perfectly capable of reading what you have written. That kind of personal semi-insulting statement can be interpreted as snide or provocative. Forum posting is without any indication of tone, facial expression, or body language, so I am not sure how you mean these things when you have said them in a number of these threads. I choose to take you as playful and sarcastic for the nonce... as people tend to talk a lot of sh*t in jest where I am from.

        Anyway, I was making a tangential point that impacts on yours. It is basically that ALL privatization of social services winds up costing the taxpayer. Limiting it and applying standards for renewal of contracts might improve it... but the underlying reality is that business is NOT suited to do everything we need done. The motivation of corporations will never be making society a better place.

        I am not saying that your ideas wouldn't improve upon what is the case at the moment (read: Haliburton getting no-bid contracts for billions in profit while their former head was VP)... I just think we might want to more drastically overhaul the entire structure with a completely different benchmark.

        The small Buddhist nation of Bhutan, for example, uses the index Gross National Happiness. We could learn something from that kingdom.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: You know, when people answer things tangentially, they should identify that's what they are doing, otherwise it just looks like you've been taking lessons from Robert McNamara (you know, Mr. "Answer the Question You Want to Answer, Not the Question You Were Asked").

          There is a huge difference between "not suited to do everything" and "suited to do nothing". I did not suggest that business should replace every function of government. In fact, I out and out said precisely that it shouldn't.

          I have now grown thoroughly tired of people who cannot distinguish between what was said and what would enable them to rant about their own personal favourite issue, so you and Orlando can feel free to chatter among yourselves. I am off to participate in threads with people with better reading comprehension skills.

          And yes, that is disdain. It's a match for your own transparent and dogmatic need to funnel things off into your own area of interest. It's your thread and you can direct it any way you want. I, on the other hand, don't have to play along.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2011: Oh well. That's too bad...

        I am sure we could have found something interesting to discuss that tickled both our fancies.

        I can see that you haven't enjoyed your time on this conversation, and I sincerely apologize if it was due to something I said, didn't say, implied, didn't imply or whatever the case may be. Really.

        You certainly seem like a bright and interesting person.

        If speculations on the future of resource, labor, and service management isn't really your thing, maybe we will cross foils on another topic somewhere down the road.

        My regards.

        Adieu and be well Gisela.
    • thumb
      Nov 14 2011: Hi Debra,

      In regards to why corporations have the same rights as individuals I think the answer is simple: We live in a system in which we choose profit over people. Or shall I say profit over everything else (people, animals, nature, etc)..

      If the system was to change, this mindset would diminish (not cease to exist but at least decrease) and wont happen at such a scope and scale that would embarrass even the most ambitious individual who wants to create injustice.

      So many unjust/unethical acts and laws are broken by the U.S. government. The only difference is that these acts are "legally justified". Its all a language game
  • thumb
    Nov 8 2011: QUOTE: "Three Swiss experts on complex network analysis have recently examined the architecture of international ownership, analyzing a large database of transnational corporations. They concluded that a large portion of control resides with a relatively small core of financial institutions, with about 147 tightly knit companies controlling about 40 percent of the total wealth in the network."

    From:

    http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/Who-Rules-the-Global-nytimes-3711216697.html?x=0
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2011: Yeah, I saw that study.

      Funny how the numbers internationally are identical to the US numbers. 1% controlling 40% of the wealth.

      The Swiss study stopped short of calling this a conspiracy, but did say that the tightly knit nature of these 147 companies isn't likely to be accidental. It could be a function of the system rather than collusion.

      Whatever the case, the major owners of the world's wealth could fit into a mid sized venue like the House Of Blues comfortably.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2011: Thank you Thomas, This is an important piece of evidence and it clarifies something about the entire puzzle. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: Yes Thomas thanks

      That really validates what I've believe all along. I'll pass this around to others in hopes that they spread this knowledge as well.
  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: Like Communism that outlived its utilty some 30 years ago, capitalism is fading due to structural weaknesses of a concept that was designed 100 years ago. Things are radically different today due to the fact that 1) There are no real shortages for the humungous global population of 7 billion. Inequality remains but in a surplus world. 2) Technology has made everything easily accessable and easily distributable.
    Governance and a system that works today must be both transparent and accountable, and communism and capitalism fails on both counts. It is just that communism had far more shortcomings and took the hit earlier.
    The biggest problem that haunts the world of capitalism today is poor efficiency because global capitalism still preaches maximization not optimization.
    The solution is in creating a new world order that is based on high effeciency, better resource utilization, far reaching distribution, that spreads the global wealth and helps optimization of expenditure that is sustainable not merely for humans, but for animal and plant life too which share the planet earth.
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2011: I am very curious as to workable ideas for the solution you suggest.

      Recognizing problems and envisioning general improvements is a first step, I suppose... but the real heavy lifting is coming up with practical actions we can take.

      Thanks for you comment Sandip.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: Workable ideas for the solution I am suggesting can be put into practice only once the decisionmakers have the will to optimize not maximize.The key roadblocks that lie in implementing the changes is in the decisionmaking process. If you have the right people to take decisions, they will take the right actions. Unfortunately decisionmaking is increasingly done by the banks be it in issues related to energy, education or development. In a UN subcomittee on energy the principal advisor is a BOA executive. Why is it not a GE employee ? Supposedly because bankers are fund raisers and have access to funds.I am new to the TED format which I find extremely engaging and educative . I have raised a new topic for debate today that raises this basic question of change in decision making. About who must lead the economic decision making process . I hope you give valuable insights from your experience Who will dominate economic decision making? Bankers or the People: http://www.ted.com/conversations/edit/6948
  • thumb
    Nov 5 2011: Do you really think there is a system that cannot be crushed under the weight of corruption and self-interest?

    The problem is the people - and that is going to be the same problem with any system.
    • thumb
      Nov 5 2011: I can only hope.

      There are plenty of wonderful, intelligent progressive people in this world.

      It is possible that a truly egalitarian and holistic system might only work in a small local scale to start.

      However, people tend to recognize the successes of such small scale experiments and want the results they see.
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2011: Any locality has to deal with the rest of the world.

        We have two parties of the kind you have in mind. Most people don't understand it and don't vote for them. Parties that can put their ideas in a oneliner get most votes, if you have to explain your thoughts nobody listens.
        So politics and economics are linked. To change one you have to change the other as well.
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2011: True.

          But some small corners of the world are already doing better than others.

          Scandinavians, for example, have to deal with the rest of the world, but still manage to care for their people and institute progressive policies. And that even while being part of the relatively undemocratic EU.

          Imagine what could happen in a truly progressive city state...
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2011: But the wonderful progressive people were there all along and still the unethical ones broke things.

        Unless there is some way of ridding ourselves of them, they're going to do the same thing regardless of the environment they are in.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2011: Well, perhaps people could consider living in communities of like minded individuals.

          Why should people simply live wherever they happened to be born?

          It is conceivable that progressive people could choose to live together in an egalitarian society...
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2011: I agree 100% with that. We get caught up with the language behind things, though that is mostly superficial. Any institution, whether it is the Church, Company, or Government is comprised of people - who given time will inevitably manipulate those organizations and systems to their own end.

      What is the solution? Gosh, I'm not that smart, otherwise I'd probably be giving a TED talk. Sorry if I'm not adding to the discussion.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: In regards to capitalism, the solution, I think, does not have to be that complicated and intellectually designed. During the Spanish civil many parts of Spain were taken over by anarchist (some socialist were involved as well). This was not a violent movement. It actually generated more peace amongst everyone. There were many societies that were established (some societies did not even have monetary systems). This lasted for three years before the movement was destroyed by a violent massacre. What did all these people have in common? They were working class individuals who went through the same struggles, had something to fight for and knew what they wanted out of life. They were all on the same page in regards to how they wanted change to come about and they were so mentally attached to being liberated that no incremental, political process was going to destroy that. They did not even have to use violence to established their communities. They just had enough of government.

        In other words, as long as there are people on here that are willing to defend capitalism and as long as we are protesting from different perspectives and intentions and as long as we continue to have movements that is not going to galvanize the masses in which they can relate to, sad to say, things are going to stay this way.

        but like you, I'm not that smart and if I did know what I was talking about I would have my own TED talk as well.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Nov 8 2011: I think you both are selling yourselves short on the smarts department.

          And besides, you still have the rest of your lives to get your own TED talk. ;)
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2011: I do not think we can blame human for this:This really is an issue of how values and environment influences the physiology of the human brain. It really is disturbing when someone mentions people being the problem as if we are all born as savages. Just how we can be hateful and do bad things, we can also be loving and compassionate (for some odd reason this virtue is looked down upon). I do not think it is people but two factors: 1) the environment that people are in. 2) how the values, principles, norms,etc that people decide to adopt and believe in are influenced by the environment that one is in.

      A lot of people state that greed is a product of human nature. This is partly true being that humans have the capacity to be greedy. Now look at the values that capitalism embraces: greed, consumption, materialism, competition, individualism (just to name a few). What do all these have in common? excessive self-interest. Capitalism is the enabler of greed (or all of these things) in which it allows excessive self-indulgence to manifest itself in very destructive and damaging ways. It is no wonder why so many people that live in capitalistic systems would criticize the homeless individual down the street as oppose to helping him (I understand some people have gotten themselves into that situation and there is really no helping them). Besides, what is so brilliant about living in a system in which a few greedy people and many misinformed individuals can ruin the livelihood of millions? This is not a surprise being that capitalism embraces this sort of behavior.

      So once again I do not think people are bad. People are people who have emotions and there will always be human conflict but there is a difference between war and murder and talking to the individual human to human. There is a difference between a culture that embraces compassion and environmental sustainability and culture that embraces competition and excessive self interest.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: Notice, I didn't say ALL PEOPLE.

        Why doesn't everyone embezzle? Or, if the answer is they don't have the access, why doesn't everyone in a position of trust behave badly? Some people have a more developed sense of the bigger picture and their role in it, as opposed to just thinking about how they can personally benefit.

        This lack of ethics is not hardwired into humanity as a whole. Hell even in certain circumstances - Jérôme Kerviel for instance - the perpetrators aren't even personally benefiting from what they are doing.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: I wasn't refuting that individuals do bad things and of course everyone is not the same, I was simply pointing out that people are people and the circumstances they are put in will result in good or bad behaviors (which I do not think is a relative as people may suppose). You didnt have to mention that all people but it was still a general statement since it corresponds to human nature. I'm not offend or anything I'm just pointing out that its pretty much a matter of circumstance.

          I'll be honest, if most people had the chance they would embezzle and I'm sure it happens a lot behind close doors. The only difference is these individuals have not been caught but as with anything in a capitalistic democracy someone is going to find out. As I mentioned before, humans are humans and while you, I and perhaps everyone on TED would not engage in such actions, more often than not, people, if given the chance to make or obtain more money, will take that chance and for a variety of reasons (greed, family, new car, home, food, etc). I think such actions are motivated due to being used to living in a society that values money and consumption.

          There is much compelling evidence and theories to suggest that ethics have a biological construct as well as being influenced by society, family, culture, etc. (in laymans terms all this can be realized with the vicissitudes of the human brain). You are correct that not everyone who engaged in such greedy actions are benefiting from their actions(this is a small minority) but for the most part the real people that are suffering are the individuals who lost their jobs and homes and money. Not the billionaires who can still feed their families, although they have lost millions. Once again, I'm not surprised this happened being that the core values capitalism is built upon allows such things to happen.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: I think Orlando has a point; circumstance encourages a certain kind of behaviour and the people develop behaviour according to the social system they live under. In general terms, highly deregulated capitalist societes polarise the rich and poor, thereby creating an environment where some people may feel intense dissatisfaction, distrust for others, and disenfranchisement. More equal societies create an environment where people feel more safe and secure and therefore less driven to commit crime. I disagree though that 'most people..(given) the chance ...would embezzle' because again, I believe it is social circumstance that turns people into criminal opportunists. When people live in a dog-eat-dog world, they look for every chance to 'eat the dog' next to them in case they are next. This has been shown to be the case whether the person is rich or poor. On the other hand, in more equal societies, there is a higher degree of trust between people and so it follows that they are less likely to want to stiff the next guy.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: How many unethical people do you really think it takes (on a percentage basis) to screw things up?

        I'm not even sure you are arguing with me, actually. Nothing you say actually refutes the fact that regardless of the system, unethical people can - and will - screw it up unless we figure out how to solve that issue first.

        It's not like communist societies are corruption-free.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: If you have a bucket a quarter full of sewage and you fill the rest of the bucket up with pure spring water, would you drink it?

          [Can you see where this is going?]

          If you have a bucket of pure spring water and you put one drop of sewage in it, would you drink it?

          ---

          It doesn't take much to screw things up!
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: So far I think the number is around 1%?
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: Heheheh. Let's carry your analogy a step further Thomas...

          Most water supplies have more than a drop of sewage in them.

          We simply add chlorine (which has its own set of issues)... and do our best to filter out the microbes and pathogens.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: Actually my intent was not to argue but to get closer to the truth of things. I do not like to refute people but I like to discuss matters and formulate ideas because in doing so people can be on the same page and this brings us closer to creating social change. If you saw this as a polemic discourse my apologies.

          But to answer your question, in capitalism it does not take much at all to for people to screw things up. there may be a huge gap between the rich and the poor but somehow we are all interconnected and if the poor decided to not work anymore the rich will lose money (loss of production, resources, etc). If the rich decides to be greedy they can, as we have seen, disrupt or destroy the livelihood of the poor.

          So in capitalism it does not take much unethical individuals to disrupt an entire nation. If you can prove to me otherwise then I would gladly change my mind.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: Re: "circumstance encourages a certain kind of behaviour and the people develop behaviour according to the social system they live under."

        Bull. If that were the case, all poor people in one neighbourhood would act a specific way (let's pick drug dealing for the sake of drama) rather than just the percentage that do. It's much more complex than simply a formula of circumstance + influences/guidance.

        Make no mistake, I am not interested in being Hobbes to Orlando's Locke. I don't think that the life of man is by any stretch of the imagination necessarily "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." I don't think all people are inherently bad - or even that they would be if no one is looking.

        I am simply advocating not mistaking the outcome for the system. One system will not be superior to another as long as the same players are involved.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Nov 8 2011: Ahhh... the old nature vs. nurture debate.

          I could debate both sides of that issue, and believe myself both times. Yet, like most polemics, I am of the opinion that it is both, neither, and a host of things we are not even contemplating.

          Personally, I think that stress (especially the kind associated with self-preservation) is a major factor that overrides whatever innate morality or ingrained ethics we may have. When your back is against the wall, there is no telling how low you might stoop.

          This could be due to elevated stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Perhaps, in keeping with a currently popular TED talk on Oxytocin, these survival hormones might mitigate our "morality molecule." Testosterone has shown to do this.

          I don't believe in a purely chemical model of morality, and Oxytocin has been shown to be more of an "empathy" molecule anyway. But, still. It does seem like people are more apt to make selfish and uncaring choices when they are hopped up on hormones.

          There is little doubt that societies with more inherent stress are more dog eat dog. This may be due to lack of a safety net combined with urban environments... agrarian poor are usually less worried about food and shelter. But the fact that much of the amorality in the world comes from people who have more than they can use and are under no threat of starvation or homelessness, leans me towards the idea that it is performance stress and pace of life that are major factors.

          At any rate, my speculations aside, I imagine that it could be possible to create small scale systems that are exclusive and only allow people who are say empathetic and progressive to join. A truly elitist liberal haven. Hehehe... would love to hear what Faux News would make of that.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: This is the classic nature v.s. nurture debate, one in which I did not choose either/or.

          The funny thing is, I actually mentioned that it was both. I never once claimed that all unethical actions are purely environmental. I actually stated that "here is much compelling evidence and theories to suggest that ethics have a biological construct as well as being influenced by society, family, culture, etc. (in laymans terms all this can be realized with the vicissitudes of the human brain)". Those are my exact words.

          You have really misconstrued the point that Joanne and I were making. People are individuals. I'm really not sure what point your trying to make here. All we said is that people are influenced by their environment but I also stated that there are other factors (family, friends, school, work, etc). Your right, it is very intricate but it is also true that people are constantly influenced by their environment, even at the level of the brain (they found that children who were orphans did not have a normal amount of Oxytocin and Vasopressin, when they were in a environment with a adoptive parent). Also our emotions, social interactions, moral values all influence one another. Our cultures and societies only serve to cultivate our social, moral/values and emotional development. All these things lead back to the development of the human brain.

          I like your last point. That is true, if G.W. Bush has grown accustomed to having power and money and we placed him in Denmark, odds are he would do the same. All I asserted was if he was born in Denmark, his values would be much more different than those values he grew up with in America.

          Your mentioned something very interesting though about the same individuals in power: One of my favorite social activist Micheal Foucault said something similar to what you sai8. I'll give you this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kawGakdNoT0

          his point is at the end. Hope you enjoy
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: The key word here Gisela, is 'encourages'. For example we all have a moral compass and I think I am a very honest person. Yet there was a time in my life when I was travelling and due to circumstance I spent a few months going hungry. It surprised me how quickly my view of 'theft' and 'thieves' changed. I knew if I had a child to protect, it would have been different again. It showed me how circumstance, as Orlando has described, shapes us.

          Do you think you are not a product of your wonderful privilege? I have travelled a lot and I know I am extremely privileged. Shockingly so if you take the entire spectrum of human history into account. I do not feel guilty about this, instead I am grateful and wish to try to share. That is why I still tutor the kids in my neighbourhood.

          We need, and I say 'need' because it will soon become clear that it is absolutely necessary, so again I wish to emphasise the word 'need', to make more equal more sustainable societies. We need to use the north European economic models as a starting point. When these are in place, we will have lower crime, a higher standard of education, more even distribution of wealth and health across society. When we get to this place we MAY be in a position where we can tackle the big problems that are soon coming our way.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: I'm not "missing" the point. It's irrelevant to the premise, which was strictly that the system is not independent of the participants.

        I don't actually care why they are corrupt. Unless your premise is that somehow those same individuals would be better-behaved had they grown up in a Communist or Socialist society - AND that no others would have taken their place in gaming the system - then I am still left wondering "what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?"

        If you wanted to explore a tangent that doesn't actually impact the initial statement, maybe it should be posted as something other than a reply. "Reply" implies it has something to do with the topic at hand.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: I'm not sure of your prospective on political issues but if you had a deep understanding of it, you would realize that the conversation that we are having is indeed very important. Once again you do not need to be defensive, no one is criticizing you. What you, myself and Joanne are discussing are ethics and this is indeed very important when talking about politics (Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics is basically the ethical approach to establishing the best regime and in his "Politics" he tries to establish which regime would best maximize the virtues he has laid out for us). Understanding human nature, understanding ethics and understanding ones environment is very important to figuring out "Alternatives" to our current capitalistic, democratic issues

          Being apathetic to why individuals are corrupt is indeed frighting. I would also say that individuals are actually happier when they live in communist and socialist societies. This has been proven and is one of the reasons as to why Denmark is one of the best places to live. I also understand that some of these leaders do have power trips and can be corrupt and there are reasons for this. I would rather live in a communist or socialist society as opposed to a capitalistic one (too bad I do not have the money or resources to do so at the moment). The price of tea in china is actually vital to many world governments. On a geopolitical scale, it is important since most of these more developed countries trade with one another. Since they come up with policies that would influence other world powers. You can choose to ignore trivial matters in other countries but the truth of the matter is we are all interconnected one way or another. Instead of debating, we should try to come up with ways of how to establish the best sustainable system and I think Joanne had a great point when she referenced N. Europe.

          Joanne and my argument on not non-sequiturs. We just understand the correlation between politics, ethics and environment.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: I believe the answer to your question 'Unless your premise is that somehow those same individuals would be better-behaved had they grown up in a Communist or Socialist society - AND that no others would have taken their place in gaming the system', Gisela, is 'yes', (I cannot speak for Orlando, of course) I do agree with that. I suggest to you that in a system that encourages equality (and I do not use China as an example of such a system) people are less likely to feel the need to 'game the system' as you describe it. Not only is this true, but in such a system there are regulations and laws to prevent them from doing so.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: OK, Joanne. Name one.

        Seriously, if you think that somehow there is a system that would prevent corruption, name it.

        Also, feel free to explain white collar crime among those who have grown up in (extreme) privilege. Describe this magical set of circumstances in which NO ONE will grow up to breach the trust of others.

        Looking forward to hearing about how you are going to prevent the entire spectrum of sociopathy.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: Gisela,

          I do not think the burden of proof is on Joanne to prove anything. We are really going in circles here. We've stated our point many times and Joanne and I never stated that things are purely environmental. Your making it seem like we are stating that these other countries are paradise. They are not. Joanne has just told you that "there are regulations and laws preventing them from doing so". But since you asked for one in which a corrupted official gotten caught I'll give you one:

          Look up Yulia Tymoshenko from Ukraine and the incident with her embezzling money and abuse of power (I could be wrong about that but I know it had to do with money). I believe she received 7 years in prison).

          Once again the entire country of Ukraine was not affected by this greed and it did not take them long to crack down on actions. The fact that she is arrested proves that such actions are not valued. Although their economy is almost like that of the U.S. they still have rules to try to prevent such actions.

          Also, we all know that there are higher rates of crime in poor neighborhoods than rich ones, which goes to show the link between poverty and cirme (I'm not saying every poor person is "bad" or "evil' but that violent crimes happen a lot in places like Compton (I used to live there) than in Beverly Hills.

          the burden is not on us to really prove anything. We've said enough
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: Hi Gisela, I think there might be a misunderstanding here. I use the word 'more' and 'less' to qualify my statements. As you quite rightly point out, it should be technically impossible to generate a society that 'would prevent corruption' entirely.

          Yet the idea that the kind of society people live in affects the way they behave is undeniable. Richard Wilkinson shows in his TED talk 'How economic inequality harms societies' plenty of statistics that demonstrate that in MORE equal societies, crime is less (not non existant) and in MORE equal societies, people feel more safe and better cared for.

          I can confirm this from my own experience too. I have lived in both kinds of societies and can report to you the truth of it. People are kinder to each other, it is safer on the underground at 2am, the towns are cleaner and well run, in countries where wealth, healthcare, and good education are MORE evenly spread across society.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: Hi Gisela,

          Let me try to bring my two cents to this thread hoping not to cause more confusion. I think that your point is that we should not be so quick to blame the system, since what makes a system fail is the impossibility of getting rid of corrupt individuals. And from what I have read, Orlando and Joanne are trying to explain that individuals also pick up from the environment in which they grow, and their level of corruption might indeed be determined by the interactions with this environment. I don't think that they are trying to put all the blame on the system for producing corrupted individuals.

          I think we are all aware that both nature and nurture contribute to our behavior. Certain human traits (borrowing Carl Sagan's words: propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders) have their origin in our nature, while sometimes their outward expression can be clearly determined and shaped by nurture (as shown in studies like the Milgram experiment on "obedience to authority" or the Robber's cave experiment).

          My own take on the matter is that understanding the specifics of what we mean by corrupt, both their origin in our nature and the phenomena that exacerbate it, is something we should pursue. Michou Kaku mentions something he calls the "caveman principle": our genetic baggage was shaped millions of years ago, and we cannot get rid of it in the near future. So changes in our nature are not going to come easily; understanding it is the best we can do to control it. On the other hand, our social interactions give us a space where we can actively promote changes that will reduce the expression of these "corrupt" behaviors. For example, by aligning people who used to consider each other enemies to act towards a common goal, they usually start lowering their initial barriers and begin to consider themselves part of a new common group that includes both.
      • thumb
        Nov 8 2011: And Orlando, you may be mistaking irritation with having my comment hijacked for your own agenda with defensiveness.

        I am a firm believer that you can choose to pay for social programs or you can choose to pay for police - either way you are going to pay, and one is certainly the more pleasant environment than the other.

        So Denmark (or New Zealand, or any other nation that has in the past decade been declared a contender for the least corrupt nation in the world - which, for the record, is on the Corruption PERCEPTIONS Index), would you expect that without corruption in the government would be weathering the financial storms well? Why don't we do a quick search!

        NO. They aren't. "Outlook for Danish banks 'negative'", "Danish Government Signals Banks Won’t See More Aid Packages". Problematic behaviour in the financial sector is not the same as "the people think our governing officials are reasonably honest".

        Two different topics.

        Feel free to go start a thread on your happy sunshine anarchist universe. I am going out now, and I don't know that I will be bothered with this when I return.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: Thank Zeus I was starting to get frustrated of saying the same thing

          You really did jump off the bridge on this one being that you went way off topic.

          You can say all you want about Denmark and nitpick at every little flaw about it but it still ranks up there with being the happiest place to stay so go right ahead and believe what you want to believe.

          and yes, I'll happily stay in touch with my anarchist thinking being that it keeps me informed and allows me to realize how far apart and how ignorant people are about political issues.
        • thumb
          Nov 8 2011: How weird, I feel like you are quarrelling with me and agreeing with me at the same time Gisela. Hmmmm. Lets remember that we are in a discussion, where we share our ideas. It is always enjoyable and informative, is it not, even when we disagree? Peace to you both and thank you.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: Replying to Gisela on her "show me the system without corruption" argument.

      The trick of it is that thats really not important. It should not even be attempted.

      What you really need to do is design a system that improves on and over the current ones - not some "perfect infallible system" at all.

      Just design a system where it would be much harder to "cheat".

      One example or suggestion i can give right now is designing a system where one of the core (constitutional laws) rules would be:

      1. That the financial records and state of every elected official (regardless of what kind of system it is otherwise) would be completely open to the public as long as that official is serving.
      (additional check ups after that time seem prudent too)

      2. That government spending is completely transparent and accessible to everyone all the time.
      (make a website with all the data updated as it changes, make it so that any citizen can request any of the relevant data at any time too)

      3. No immunities of any kind or any other privileges for any of the elected. (everyone literally equal under the law)
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: Yes. Perfection is ever elusive. Even if we could achieve it, we would soon enough realize that there are new changes we could make to improve on it.

        If something is improvable, it can not be perfect. Since every system is improvable, there can be no truly perfect system. At least not one designed by humans anyway.

        I like where you are going with this. Gisela's argument sounds defeatist to my ears. I'm sure that isn't what she means, but it certainly can be misread that she is saying if we can't get rid of graft, corruption and greed from human nature, why even bother trying to fix anything. (classic Nirvana Fallacy)

        I feel that if we can improve the economic & socio-political reality we live under by even 5%, we should do it. Besides, it is likely that after it improves, we will recognize ways to further improve it.

        Thanks for your input.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: Its actually quite a common response to any proposition about some kind of new system, be it political or economic.

          On the surface it seems as a strong argument but that only lasts until someone (namely me) shows you that your basic assumption has got nothing to do with anything :)

          Anyway, to be a bit more serious, there was never, ever a system built or suggested on the grounds of its supposed "perfection".

          All we do all the time is iterate and improve.
          We rebel because each system brings inequality and causes large numbers of people to suffer one way or the other.
          When we design a new system we try to get rid of the biggest negative features of the past one, keep whats working and improve on what we can.
          Thats it.
          Thats the whole shebang.

          And the next one will follow suit.
          And the next one after that.

          What we should do now, right now, is look at whats really wrong with the system we have and strive to change that.

          The two biggest and quite fundamental problems current system has are:

          1. it creates a caste that is factually above the law, enjoying special super legislative and economic circumstances the rest of the people do not have.
          (one thing that is in common with all the systems we ever had in all of our history)

          2. it creates a situation where profit is more important than human lives, family, love, or anything else we like to usually idealize.

          Furthermore I think that Jacques Fresco is very right in saying that a lot of very negative things we humans exhibit in this sense are the results of living in and environment like this.
          Not something that is really a monolithic part of our nature.

          After all, if i choose to become really, really nice and good guy right now and just go around helping and giving what would happen to me in this environment?

          Thats why i dont. Not because im an evil, selfish, greedy psychopath.
          Which of course many are, but i hope you all see my point anyway.
  • Nov 27 2011: Part2
    2:**** Create a new company's values evaluations standard and report****.
    It will replace the current method of quarter and a year companies reports based only on income and revenues..
    It will be used by investors.
    The values of companies with high scores on the followings will be higher and they will get priority on government and public bids.
    Include factors such as:
    * Equality level of employs salaries and bonus.
    *Percentage of employs with personal limited capabilities.
    *Bonuses played on 4 years delay- valued on the company achievement during this long period and not quarter income.
    3: Differentiation between the higher and lower Salary and bonus of government and public companies should be limited to the scale of 1 to 7.
    4: Create a new type of companies- social companies –that will be rewarded by governments and public sector.
    Creativity and investment on human being life improvement should be encouraged.
    Not only direct money making.
    Example:
    A company that find and implement a idea that reduced the crime rate in a area by 20% should get 50% of the governmental savings from the budget
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2011: #2

      I like this. It will be difficult to enforce, and will never voluntarily replace the current fiscal quarter bottom line. I don't see how shareholders can be convinced to accept such valuation over actual profits. They will simply move their money over to companies that don't bother with social conscience or other bleeding heart concerns.

      #3

      This seems like an arbitrary number. But I suppose it as good a place as any to start. It could simply cause an exodus of talent to private companies who will easily be able to out-pay the hamstrung public endeavors. The brain drain could be extreme and even more detrimental than it already is.

      Nice in theory, but it would have to be part of a much larger overhaul of the economic system to stand any chance of working.

      # 4

      Social companies already exist... we are called non-profits.

      Sadly, many of them are ineffective and inefficient. Such setups often attract unscrupulous sorts who want to take advantage of some loophole or another. We have seen too much abuse here, and whether Wyclef is personally responsible or not... this debacle with his Haiti charity is only the latest shameful example. (say it isn't so)

      My 501 c3 does amazing work, is 100% transparent, and has never paid anyone a single dime in salary or benefits, but we also are somewhat small and have troubles raising funds. Nearly 750 water projects under our belts and not one failed project in 70 nations.

      But I think you mean something a bit more business oriented than a purely charity organization?

      I dig the idea that we could reward businesses for their societal benefits... perhaps some extra incentives for environmental stewardship as well.

      Sadly, though, if a company can profit more from polluting and paying off any fees they accrue thereby, the chances of them behaving responsibly are slim.
      • Dec 3 2011: Ms Jah Sun
        Pls find my comments relative to your points.

        #2
        " It will be difficult to enforce, and will never voluntarily replace the current fiscal quarter bottom line. They will simply move their money over to companies that don't bother with social conscience or other bleeding heart concerns."
        ---
        It should be a governmental requirement enforced by law, applicable to all companies and not voluntarily.

        #3
        " It could simply cause an exodus of talent to private companies who will easily be able to out-pay the hamstrung public endeavors. The brain drain could be extreme and even more detrimental than it already is"
        ---
        The new combine progressive Tax scheme will be applicable to all citizens.
        The net income above a define point will be marginal.
        Imagine an exponential income line.

        # 4
        "Social companies already exist... we are called non-profits."
        --
        The proposed social companies are not non-profit.
        They are profit companies and their revenues will be based on the budged savings to the government and public sector.
        However their products will not be in creating new products or services.
        They will create money measurable social products.
        • thumb
          Dec 3 2011: My comments to a few of your points address the reality that corporations are trans-national and will not be bound by any single nation's laws.

          Even if you can get a lot of major nations to sign on to this model... there will still be many nations that won't adopt these ideas (however good they are). Thus, given a choice of conforming to these strictures, many corporations will simply choose to move their operations to looser climes.

          This is already the case, even when the countries are fairly well pro-business and anti-social justice as it is. This isn't so much a critique of your concept as it is a recognition that companies already prefer to set up shop in places like the Philipines where they can better exploit the workforce.

          Thanks again for participating Mordechay. Your input is very much appreciated.
  • Nov 27 2011: Part1
    Alternative economic system or alternative life style?
    The question of life philosophy is the leading question.
    Economy systems are a part of a life philosophy.
    Unfortunately I cannot question the proper life philosophy suitable for 21 century people in a comment>
    that for I limit myself to some points related to the Alternative Economy question>
    --
    From all the systems – Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Theocracy I favor Capitalism. is closed to human being nature and not an ideal that isforced on people against human nature
    However the classic Capitalism needs changes.
    ____
    1:** Compete by creating values on initiative, creativity, efficiency, quality but not labor without social rights***
    Globalization is a good idea however it is badly implemented.
    Competition and work transfer should be limited by international conventions to countries and enterprises providing the same social benefits to the works.
    It should be enforce by lows in the attending countries.
    ---
    Only few people benefit economically from the technological revolution.
    They get richer only because they are in the junctions of decision making without contributing to create real prosperity.
    (Banks and corporation managers,high level officials-unlike the few start up entrepreneurs.
    All the others are losing.
    The people in the free world have straggled for over 100 years for 8 working hours,illness insurance,vacation, retirement benefits,right of employed.
    The last 3 decades they are losing social rights.
    People on the developing world lucky to get jobs don’t get western social benefits.
    Worldwide competition has a huge potential of distributing wealth across the globe.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2011: interesting but I have a question. Is it human nature to indulge in more than we really need or could ones environment and how concepts influence and transform the human mind have a role in this as well?

      I tend to think things like consumption, imperialism, competition, materialism, affluenza, etc are social constructs as opposed to being part of our biology.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 29 2011: Orlando...

        You asked on another comment thread if we have gotten any real proposals going since you've been away, and I see you have found Mordechay's 3 part-er.

        I agree that we should focus the last 5 days on discussing this, Lara's idea (which mirrors my own admonishments against fractional reserve banking & debt based currency), and the other interesting proposals that have cropped up like reconomy.

        You will have noticed that since you left, a number of us have stopped responding to the poster in question. Sadly, though, he manages to suck others in to these endless and unproductive arguments while steadfastly refusing to even consider addressing the question of the conversation... even as a pure hypothetical. I suppose he feels it is his duty to correct the errors in everyone's thought processes ad nauseum.

        :-) Anyway, welcome back.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2011: No surprise, I agree Orlando, they are social contructs. Good to see you two again.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Dec 4 2011: Nice to see you too Joanne.

          Sadly this conversation is at an end... last thoughts time and all.

          But, I am sure we will see each other on another conversation relatively soon. I have a new one in mind to pick up where this one left off and be even more specific about what we can do.

          Be well...
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2011: Okay, I realize that the time left for this debate is rapidly ticking out, but here goes:

      "Alternative economic system or alternative life style?"

      Both. Obviously they are not completely independent.

      Life styles are not things that are dictated from above, though. While they may be socially engineered to some degree (lifestyle taxes and whatnot), they are not the starting point for any meaningful change on a societal level. They ARE the main starting point for any personal change, however.

      A change in economic system and policy will effect a change in lifestyle to some degree, and it will open the door for members of society to begin the contemplation of how they actually want to live on this blue orb. IMHO.

      "From all the systems – Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Theocracy I favor Capitalism."

      I don't believe that these 4 systems enumerate the sum total of possible ways that humans can organize their affairs. It is my conjecture that none of those systems will be in operation in 500 years. (You forgot Feudalism and Anarchy among others.)

      Basically, I am absolutely sure that the system of the future has yet to be invented. Thus, this conversation was an attempt to get people thinking about the alternatives. It may have been co-opted and derailed to a large degree, but in doing this exercise, I realized that this is actually not an efficient forum for such in depth discussions. Places like this, can only amount to sounding boards and allow for some superficial sharing of basic concepts and links, while being prone to divisive tangents and a lack of overall coherence.

      As for your changes to Capitalism, my comments will proceed in the next reply. (2000 character limit)
    • thumb
      Dec 1 2011: "Compete by creating values on initiative, creativity, efficiency, quality but not labor without social rights"

      I agree with this in principle. I'm curious as to how it would actually play out, but something along these lines should be factored into the economic system. Otherwise, there is no impetus for businesses to behave ethically. As it stands, there is no rational reason for them to care what happens to the citizens of any nation-state... or to the biosphere at large.

      "Globalization is a good idea however it is badly implemented."

      Absolutely.

      And whether it is a good idea or not, it is a reality and will never not be so. The cat will never go back into the bag so to speak. Nor should it IMO. Globalization is oft maligned, but the society of the future (should we be able to avoid destroying ourselves) will certainly be global. Nation states are already fairly well obsolete.

      The choice is not globalization or something else, but globalization as envisioned and manipulated by the current crop of multi national corporations, an even more totalitarian "New World Order," or something sane and somewhat democratic dreamed up and implemented by the people of the world, rather than imposed by the powerful.

      I think your idea of restricted trade to ethical nations is interesting, but somewhat unenforceable. It is like sanctions or prohibition... it just creates an incentive for Black Markets.

      Righteo... now on to pts. 2 & 3.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2011: I think the word 'globalisation' is a mis-nomer. We should express the term, 'global exploitation' to differenciate between trade systems which are sustainable and respectful of human and environmental needs and those that are not. Of course we would have to use the second term in most cases.

        I think this brings us to the heart of what we have been discussing. The very word 'capitalism', i.e. the accumulation of capital or labour, means exploitation. We must cease to glorify exploitation, to see it as a sign of 'success', 'progress' and 'development'. We must develop a way to continue to trade and work for survival , in a new way without exploitation. Similarily, we must also develop a new way to transact with the planet, if we are to stay within its natural limits and avoid our own exctinction.

        We are the 'god species' and we think we will continue forever. Our big fatty brain has led us to dominate and control nature for so long, that we think our clever inventions will beat all the planetry limits. We do not yet realise we can't drink Armani, we can't breathe an ipod.

        Like so many, I am good at pointing at the problem, but designing solutions is not so easy. Through this discussion, I have thought hard not only about solutions, but also what I can do personally to begin a process toward them. I have found your comments and links regarding the Anarchistic movement particularily helpful Orlando, likewise, Lara's and Jah Sun's contributions regarding alternative economic systems.

        I too have found many contributions inspiring, and the opportunity to link up with like-minded change seekers an enriching experience.
        • thumb
          Dec 4 2011: I agree wholeheartedly. Whoever designated what the trans-national capitalists are doing "globalization" should win an award for misleading branding. It is an awesome job of a reverse euphemism.

          Global Exploitation is accurate... but hard to sell.

          ;)
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2011: Thank you.

    I have been lightly involved in the Occupy movement here in New Zealand, trying to explain these concepts clearly and concisely enough to germinate the seed of the idea.

    If the Occupy movements were to protest clearly FOR a structural change to our monetary system we might have a positive change.

    They are protesting the gap between rich and poor and corporate greed but they have little to zero analysis of WHY these problems occur and are not offering a solution.

    Interest is the biggest reason for the gap between rich and poor. Those who have loads of capital gain more in interest payments than they pay out (as part of the cost of stuff they buy). This concept works also between businesses and corporations. The biggest corporates have investments which earn them more interest than they pay out. Small and medium sized businesses pay more in interest than they receive from investing. Thus the big get bigger while the small get less.

    Scandinavian countries with lower gaps between rich and poor reduce the gap by income redistribution via tax. However, even with this mechanism there is constant tension between interest pulling groups apart and tax trying to reduce the gap.

    Wouldn't it be better to just fix the structural problem?

    Furthermore, it is interest which creates the requirement for perpetual growth in a finite space.

    Anything which grows at any % is exponential. Even a very low %, still exponential. Earth is finite. Thus we must change our system eventually to one which can cope with zero growth, or nature will force our societies to collapse.

    This is an excellent talk from a Physics professor, Al Bartlett, on the exponential equation:

    http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html

    If you want to see a relatively easy to understand cartoon on how money works here is a link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

    If you are pressed for time check out this 4 minute video:

    http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2011: some problems with these arguments:

      exponential growth in any physical is not possible, that is true. but money or GDP or welfare or wealth is not material. you can live a much better quality life, use higher quality products, have higher quality services without actually using more physical materials. so economic growth is not limited by any physical factors. another question is how soon we "grow out" our box. energy usage can grow in the same pace for thousands of years.

      this "debt based money" concept does not really help understanding. it does not make too much sense, it is not a good explanation. the source of our money is not debt, but money multiplication via the fractional reserve system. interest rate is not a problem at all, and it does not create requirement for growth. the reason behind growth is that we simply want it. we want better stuff. we want to live better.

      what we actually want is freedom of money. stop the governments forcing their own money on us, and let people choose for themselves. we, the people, can find what works for us. let it be gold or bitcoin or bank issued notes or whatever. free competition solves the problem.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2011: Growth in economies involves growth in the amount of resources we use. This is not a difficult concept to understand! Yes, we can create an infinite amount of digital money because it does not use physical resources (much) but this money is circulated in an economy to purchases goods and services. More money = more goods = more resources used.

        You need to watch the excellent YouTube video "money as debt".

        The fractional reserve system means the banks only require a fraction of the total sum loaned out in reserve, the ratio is 9:1. Thus they loan 9 X more than they have. This 90% is created as debt.

        Interest is required to be paid on this debt creating a requirement for more money in the system. Thus someone else somewhere within the system must take on more debt because this is how new money is created in the fractional reserve system. More debt = more interest is required to be paid = more debt. It is a vicious circle.

        If interest is charged at a % rate then the growth of money in the system must grow at a % rate to keep up. This why we require constant growth and it is at a % rate, it is not linear. We want growth because we must keep trying to find the money to repay the interest due to banks on our debt.

        You have stated various "does not" or "is not"' in your comment. If you think that this is NOT how the fractional reserve system works than it would be more constructive if you could state how you think it works.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: our economy grows exponentially for thousands of years. yet, you can not name a whole lot of products that are produced in exponentially growing amount. the economy develops in a way that old products and services go out of use, and new ones come in. we don!t use more, we use different. you can not translate personal joy or a money unit to a certain amount of carbon or lithium. as an example, in the last 50 years, we have tripled the agricultural yield of one acre of land.

          be mindful that i didn!t say our money is not created out of nothing. i!m pointing out that its creation "as debt" is not really important. the important part is the multiplication. if new money creation happens with other methods, it is just as bad. also note that if zero interest was charged on the multiplicated money, it would have the same negative effect on the economy. again, the multiplication is the problem.

          also, you suggest that debt is inherently evil, as it adds more money to the system. no, it is not, and it is the fallacy of composition. if we have fixed amount of money, and people charge interest on loans, it means only very profitable businesses will get a loan, and they will pay it back using the money they get for their services. it is a perfectly reasonable scenario, and no new money is created. bear in mind that interest rate is an old concept, and money creation was not possible when it was specie. (for nitpickers: it is possible, but much harder and quite limited.)

          i also would like to call your attention to the fact that my comment contained buts and actually's as well as does nots. maybe you should read more carefully.
        • thumb
          Nov 27 2011: Thanks again for your insightful input Lara.

          For me, the problems lie primarily in the fractional-reserve method of money creation, which as you have said quite succinctly creates debt by its very nature.

          The second issue of fiat currencies is also troubling, but could conceivably be dealt with if the central banks like the Fed had full transparency and were truly governed by democratic means... rather than by a private cabal of secretive bankers (as is currently the case.).

          As for interest and usury, it is distasteful, and was forbidden for Christians and Muslims for centuries due to admonishments against it in the respective holy books... but, usury alone never crashed the world economy or caused the kind of ravenous, resource gobbling business practices we see today.

          The interest charged on money creation is simply criminal, but private credit and interest (minus the fractional reserve) would not be too big a deal IMHO. One does not need to borrow money from private lenders if one doesn't want to. It is the basic monetary system that saddles nations and people with inescapable debt and indentured servitude.

          I'd love to hear more alternatives and thoughts about debt-based currency. This is a lynch pin in the irrational and unstable economic kraftwerks as far as I can tell.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2011: Forgive the ignorance but are the occupy movements in New Zealand just as big as those in the U.S.? and Egpty. I did not even know one was in New Zealand but that is great to hear that these protest are going around across the globe. They just stopped the on in Los Angeles which is sad because I really had a chance to go this week. I had planned out to go for the last two weeks but it is no longer going on.

      Hopefully the one in N.Z. does not lose its passion
  • thumb
    Nov 18 2011: Thinking in terms of an ideal economic system opens up our thinking and leads us to evaluate the essential values and principles that we want to live by.

    An issue to consider that has far reaching implications in the development of an alternative economic system is the concept of stewardship versus ownership where one has responsibility for taking care of a resource and using it wisely rather than allowing the freedom to do whatever one wants with whatever one has enough money to purchase. Many of the problems of the current system result from the accumulation of wealth and resources at the expense of other people and the environment.

    Stewardship shifts the emphasis toward responsibility and would require new systems of cooperation and transparency. This concept would support an open-source economics where one is rewarded for sharing and improving ideas and innovations that serve the common good. Ownership rewards greed, ego, and exclusivity. Stewardship would reinforce responsibility, cooperation and communication.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 18 2011: My thoughts exactly.

      Native people the world over had already grokked this concept. And, perhaps it is the future of humanity to return to some of these more holistic models of resource stewardship.

      I have always loved the North American Indian concept of thinking and making decisions for the 7th generation. If we could insinuate such profound respect for the future humans into our discourses and visions for the potentiality of this lovely biosphere... we might actually be getting somewhere.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 20 2011: Perhaps we need to imagineer a new kind of stewardship model for the 3rd millennium.

      The idea that we are on the verge of over-fishing the oceans, continuing to clearcut the rainforests and old growth, fracking the earth for natural gas, and blasting off the tops of mountains to get at the coal underneath... these are symptomatic of a kind of global, self-destructive pathology.

      Do you have any thoughts on what we could do to propagate a stewardship model of resource management?
      • thumb
        Nov 21 2011: I wrote an essay on this a number of years ago and have been thinking about this issue for some time. I will try to put together an outline before this thread expires.
  • thumb
    Nov 17 2011: Thank you Jah Sun, for bringing up what I believe to be a question of critical importance.

    It might be helpful to think in terms of a process to develop and adapt a model rather than proposing something that has been developed from one perspective. I believe economics needs to be an inclusive, adaptive, evolving process rather than a fixed “science.”

    A good beginning for this process is to discern the basic values and principles that would underlie an economic system that promoted sustainable activity that served the common good.

    I facilitated an empowerment program run by people in poverty (Hard Times Café) from 1991 to 1999. They developed an alternative economy that worked quite well. Patrons approved four basic values to serve as a screen for all decisions and activities of the program. After much discussion, they came up with a set of 12 principles that served as guidelines for participation. Any problems that arose were effectively dealt with using the values and principles that were part of the discussion at each weekly meeting.

    I believe it would be fairly easy to get agreement on a set of basic values that would underlie an economic system that could work for everyone. The principles would take a lot more discussion (we spent 3 months on them at the Hard Times Café) but I believe people of good faith could come to agreement.

    Developing and adapting a process for intelligent and respectful discussion for the development of an economic system that works for the benefit of all could be applied to other systems that need reform (health care, politics, education...) We now have the technology to change the nature of the debate on a wide range of issues.
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2011: Excellent contribution Bob.

      I am of a like mind.

      I also think that establishing a methodology and some benchmarks that enshrine a sustainable and humanitarian value system into a workable pragmatic decision making formula is the most logical first step.

      It is apparent from perusing this thread alone that the amount of ready made alternatives to the current rapacious form of economics practiced in most lands hovers around 0. There are a number of good ideas, and some decent short term fixes as well. Plenty of agreement as far as recognizing the flaws in our current amoral corporatism.... but nothing amounting to a model that could be implemented as is.

      Scour the net for weeks and you are unlikely to find anything more workable either.

      (this is not to put down the brilliance of such things as the Basic Income Guarantee or the various elements of the Venus Project's concept)

      I have already been contemplating just such an adaptive and participatory model for quite some time. Perhaps as this conversation draws to a close, I will get around to proposing it directly. I am still quite curious as to what the wonderful TED membership comes up with, though, and do not want this particular conversation to devolve into a discussion of my concepts just yet. It is possible I will break out my model on another thread, or on my own blog, and keep this debate focused on the proposals of TED posters... as well as the models they have stumbled across thus far.

      Thanks for chiming in here Bob. I find your contribution very salient.
      • thumb
        Nov 17 2011: Thank you Jah Sun,

        Could you describe the values and principles that underlie your model?
        • thumb
          Nov 17 2011: I will get around to explaining it in better detail, but a taste of it is as follows:

          Sustainability
          Pragmatism
          Ecology
          Realism & Rationality
          Constructivism
          Health & Well-being
          Individual Liberty
          Enjoyment & Satisfaction
          Justice & Equality

          Personally, I like Nic Marks' Happy Planet Index idea (his TED Talk link is in the intro), as well as the Kingdom of Bhutan's Gross National Happiness.

          Robert F. Kennedy said "Gross National Product measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile."

          We should listen to him.

          The best parts are yet to come...
  • thumb
    Nov 12 2011: As long as the world's economic systems view our environment and subsequent ecosystem services as a subset of our economy and society, we will continue down the road toward human extinction.

    If by some remote chance we begin to understand that we got it wrong! Our economy and society is a subset of the environment, them perhaps we can turn the economic engines world wide around. However there is NO evidence that this will or can happen. Until we begin to understand the critical mistakes we have made, collectively, future generations will face increasing pressures toward extinction.

    What is instructive is that we call our economic growth, progress, when a strong case can be made to the contrary.
    • thumb
      Nov 14 2011: I had a friend of mines tell me that "the people who actually understand the principles of sustainability and the depletion of environmental resources are the C.E.O's and all the politicians that support them". The reason for this is because if a Corporation is using the environment for their own production, they will know exactly how much of it is left.

      Eventually these resources will no longer be and these corporate leaders and politicians realize that in order to continue to make their money they have to come up with new innovations or otherwise, as you were implying, we'll be in huge trouble.

      I guess where at the point where there is a fork in the road and one path will lead to pretty much the destruction of humanity and all the biotic communities in the eco-system and or new innovations will be created to help sustain the environment...either way both of these are imperatives (one that needs to be avoided and one that needs to be met).
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: Orlando, If you believe that CEO's and corporations really understand the implications of their greed, then perhaps you also believe that pigs can grow wings and fly.

        Given evidence that supports your misguided contention and I will refute it a thousand fold.

        And remember what the greatest poet of our generation once said, " If your not a part of the solution, your part of the Problem". Mr Zimmerman.

        Good day
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: First things first, your incorrect about the corporations and the knowledge they have about what they are doing to the ecosystem.

          If the corporations are reliant on these resources from the ecosystem then they would know that nonrenewable energy sources like petroleum, coal, natural gas, etc. would eventually run out. I'm not a scientist, politician or C.E.O. and I'm aware of this information. Its really obvious when you consider the term "nonrenewable".

          Here comes the facts(have fun refuting this): In regards to Coal (in which the U.S. has aprox 28% of the worlds coal reserves) a study done by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2007 states that coal would start to run out about 100 years or so. The first Estimate was 250 years but with the rapid use of coal, that number went down.

          So your telling me that a Corporate Juggernaut who is invested in coal business, is not aware that the resource he is using, such as coal, will eventually run out?

          Secondly, C.E.O.'s know the implications of their greed. The evidence? Lobbying:
          In 2008 former Goldman Sach's C.E.O. Henry Paulson lobbied to the House about getting bailout money for Goldman Sach's. After the senate listened to the protester and rejected the bailout, Paulson within hours went to the House of Rep and got the House to approve on the bailout plan (He use to be G.W. Bush's Secretary of Treasury).

          Also research Massey Industries. The C.E.O. of this corporation mentioned that "capitalism is the survival of the most productive" and he was well aware of the fact that his mining company caused many environmental and health factors but did not care.

          It becomes obvious: Profit over people. Profit over the environment, profit over everything. That is the mindset they have. Some C.E.O's may think they are doing a service for themselves, but for the most part you would have to be a fool to not understand the ramifications of your actions..
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: I think your comment; 'a Corporate Juggernaut who is invested in coal business, is not aware that the resource he is using, such as coal, will eventually run out?' is quite pertinent. It comes back to a point I am making re 'the invisible hand' the profit motive as a guiding light, in another conversation;
        http://www.ted.com/conversations/7118/does_capitalism_continue_to_se.html

        The cycles attributed to the (mythical) invisible hand, simply do not correlate to the lifespan of a single unit of profit motive, which it follows, would be about forty years or around the time a single human desires to make money. In other words, he or she has little or no incentive to concern themselves if their business remains profitable after they are finished with it.
        • thumb
          Nov 17 2011: I would love to respond to what you stated here but to be quite honest I am actually out of words on this one being that I agree with everything you just said.

          I will say, I like your connection in regards to the invisible hand. I honestly cannot see how some people fail to see such connections.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 15 2011: Right on.

      The underlying concepts of our current economic models are inherently immoral and anti-biosphere (read anti-life). The obsession with profits at any cost, and the conceiving of the fundamental systems and elements of our existence as mere resources and commodities, causes business-people to act like this is all a big game. High stakes Monopoly or something equally banal.

      As you have eloquently stated, if we don't change the root perception of our relationship to the ecosystem, we are acting like a cancer upon our host. We must stop caring about quarterly yields and the gross profit in a given fiscal year... and begin designing the future as rational and pragmatic realists.

      The hard core Capitalists like to paint futurists and progressives as "out of touch" or dreamers. However, it is very clearly THEY who are out to lunch and overtly psychotic.
      • thumb
        Nov 15 2011: couldn't agree with you more. I mentioned this as well, in regards to the environment and as I stated eventually these resources are going to run out and they will have to come up with new innovations or otherwise things will look very grim. I hope it does not come to this but I think learning the hard way is what things are going to come down to, unless we can change things within the next 50 yrs

        But you don't think that they are, as Craig proclaims, unaware of the ramifications of their actions?
        • thumb
          Nov 16 2011: I think that you make a good point, that people often are aware of exactly what they are doing and do it anyway. I have noticed though, an inordinate amount of delusional thinking, circular arguments, and a dominionist approach from some advocates of right economics. To me it all looks like shallow justification in order to condone the atrocities that result.

          If you look at the kinds of things white South Africans said about Apartheid before it fell, the types of justifications are strikingly similar ' Racial order is a Natural law' for example. 'Natural' can also mean divine if you believe in god, which many republicans and white south africans do. Many right economists try to suggest that 'the invisible hand' is a natural law too. 'Apartheid, has built a successful society', compared with 'The capitalist way has built roads, schools, an affluent society etc'. 'Without Apartheid, the world will fall apart' compared with 'Without Capitalism, the world would look like an Orwellian prison cell' "Without capitalism, we will have no technology, no innovation, no business. The world will stagnate." I think this type of talk represents a guilt/justification pattern, and is clearly defensive. It shows that people do understand very well that the system they advocate is horribly wrong, or they would feel the need to justify it.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +2
          Nov 16 2011: Oh no. They are surely aware.

          How on Earth could they not be?

          Either they don't care... they ARE, by and large, fairly old and won't live to see the worst of the byproducts of their greed... or perhaps they know some things WE DO NOT.

          The latter is often the case. Much information has been either classified, kept purposefully obscure, or held in reserve. There are many reasons for such secrecy. Fraternal organizations and mystic sects have been doing it forever. Sometimes, as in the case of national (or international) security, it may even be warranted. But as the Wiki Leaks debacle has shown us... often it is just to save face or cover their asses.

          People who allow ecosystems to fall apart, species to go extinct, and people to suffer in abject misery are dubious sorts of people... people who do those things needlessly, only to save their own skin from some jail time or public ridicule, have the lowest rung of hell reserved for them.

          Mabye they are compassion-less misanthropes who imagine a future where they bring their little clique into vast underground bunkers to continue living large while the rest of us die out or devolve into neo-neolithic, post-apocalyptic Mad Max hell.
      • thumb
        Nov 17 2011: Jonanne and Jah

        Now that I think about it, especially based on the post you two put, it really is all language game and they use a sort of language to generate fear or failure and would do anything to make sure that people continue to think that it is an imperative for them to maintain power. I like how Joanne mentioned how the world will be more "Orwellian without capitalism". I have heard such statements and to be quite honest its actually the other way around.

        And Jah has made a great point, especially in reference to the wiki leaks debacle. Another thing I would like to point out is how the law enforcement is geared up to the point where it looks like they are going to war and the weapons that they have. I have heard that ever since the Seattle, WA protest in 99 (I've only heard of that protest being that I was only about 9 or 10 when it occurred) the police have been "prepared to stop the protest from getting out of hand" in which we know is complete B.S.


        It really is a shame how money will make people behave.
  • Nov 11 2011: The question posed by this column is very interesting and relevant. However, before leaping to proposals, it is worth the effort to define what the required changes are. If a new system were established, what would need to be different and what would need to be the same? Without answering these questions in advance, it is very difficult to judge the merit of any proposal.

    I suggest, as a fundamental requirement: Economic growth should cede to economic sustainability as a measure of success. A new system should make it much more difficult for policy makers, companies and consumers to abuse the biosphere for short term gains.
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2011: Okay!

      Let's say that we take your requirement. Where would we start tweaking to institute your new benchmark?

      Or, are you proposing a complete overhaul?

      How would we measure sustainability?
  • thumb
    Nov 4 2011: i still haven't seen any logical relationship between the problems of our time and capitalism. though many seems to simply accept that as a fact. we have many distortions to capitalism today. it is just as logical to address problems to distortions. it is not enough to claim. we need analysis.

    the notion that cleaning toilets would be the hardest work is wrong. granted, it is a work with great discomfort. however, virtually every person on the globe can clean a toilet. however, writing computer programs, like i do, is a work that requires constant, brain tiring thinking, and needs 10+ years of learning. and to be a world class mathematician requires 20+ years of learning and exceptional talent. one can not judge the hardship of a work by the physical.

    not that this matters much. it is not the discomfort that determines what you get. rather, the value of your contribution. surely, a man who grows apples provide much less than a man who heals the sick. if you can provide something that is greatly demanded, you can ask for more in return. if you can offer something that is relatively abundant, you can not ask for too much. this is fair. why would you get more than you gave?

    another problem with your reasoning is too much abstraction. you want to find the value of investing in a financial derivative for 10 seconds. it is not your job to find that. it is not your money they took. they engaged in voluntary exchange with other people. what is the benefit for society? what is the benefit for society if you buy an apple in the store? it does not have to. it has benefit for you and the store owner. story ends. nobody else is involved. we can find social function though, apple is healthy, food is required, etc. but we can also find the social function of derivatives: they determine the value of firms, bonds, etc. the derivative market distributes capital, which is a very important role.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +4
      Nov 4 2011: Unfortunately, the value of one's contribution to society is completely unrelated to one's income. It is your value to a capitalist.

      Toilet washing may or may not be as valuable to society as computer programming, but it certainly requires more effort than e-trading. It also doesn't cause families to live under bridges when done unethically.

      Investing in commodities & stocks is a kind of gambling that can be justified perhaps in setting the value of actual things... namely corporate shares and physical items like gold and frozen concentrated orange juice. The farther away from this you get (futures, options on futures, options on the indexes of futures and so on) the more it becomes just gambling.

      And while nearly every state in the union sees fit to limit your right to play craps or bet on sports games, the betting of people's pension money and retirement funds on abstractions that can be easily manipulated is fairly well unregulated.

      I am not calling for regulation. Merely recognizing that derivatives & the poolside gambling of millionaires nearly collapsed our economic system. We are still reeling from the greed of the financial sector. Europe still teeters on the brink of collapse, and people are still living in tent cities.

      Capitalism started out as a reaction to the unfairness of the Feudal system. It provided upward mobility, and enabled people to simplify the trading of goods and services. Investment banking today, however, has very little to do with this. Many people in the financial sector make their money by siphoning it out of the economy, playing middlemen, and gambling with other people's money.

      If you see no logical relationship between the problems of our time and global capitalism, I urge you to visit an Asian sweatshop, one of the many sprawling tent cities, a metropolitan landfill in Guatemala, a factory town where the factory was moved south of the border, or a clearcut in the Amazon Rainforest and its displaced indigenous population
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2011: to be even more precise, one's income is not dependent on his contributions to "society", but to those who employ him. it is of course possible that they judge it incorrectly, but it is their fault and their loss. if a broker earns a million, it meas that someone considered it a worthy payment for some services of him. you don't have to worry though, it is not your million.

        the farther away you get in derivatives, the less you understand it, but it does not lose its reality. futures actually came from farmers, not money markets. futures were invented for seasonal products like wheat and corn. all these financial tools were invented to fulfill real needs, they serve real demands. they pave the road for capital to move around easier.

        capitalism did not start as a reaction to unfairness. capitalism is a stage in the constant struggle for freedom. also a step in technological progress.

        the notion that middleman is unnecessary is rather unfair to wholesalers. middlemen do work.

        suppose i visit such places, but still don't understand how capitalism caused it. can you tell me?
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +2
          Nov 5 2011: It is not your million? Are you serious?

          The economic catastrophe we are all suffering from was a direct result of the actions of bankers, investors, and trans-national corporations. Their negligence and greed has cost all of us huge sums of money. Debt based money & fractional reserve banking cost all of us.

          Our currency has dropped, our national credit rating has been lowered, the values of our houses have diminished, pension plans have been gutted, and now they want to strip away vital elements in the safety net to pay for the handouts and bailouts we already gave to these capitalists...

          I humbly suggest that your concept of Capitalism is somewhat short sighted. If you are unable to understand how our economic system is responsible for vast problems that the mass of the 7 billion human beings on the planet face, I suppose I could help you to see it... only I am guessing the 2000 characters per post rule here would not be sufficient.

          You say Capitalism did not start as a reaction to unfairness, and then you say it is a stage in the constant struggle for freedom... which is it? Capitalism is not a step in technological progress.

          Middlemen do work... for themselves.

          Personally, I understand derivatives just fine. I have even designed neural networks to trade them back in the 90's. What you fail to recognize is that the value of the currencies, commodities, and indexes have nothing to do with their actual worth anymore, but rather the emotional (and heavily manipulated) perception of their worth.

          Large money holders can create runs, manufacture bubbles, sell short and then tank the market on purpose... Futures are not necessarily bad, options on futures and indexes, either, But what we have is packaged debt, falsely valued and sold as if it was something real. We have people gambling with other people's future.

          I am sure there is a tent city near to where you live or work. Go check it out and think about what you are saying.
        • Nov 5 2011: That's not a good argument. The reason the economy at large suffered is because finance is the blood of the economic organs. The shock to the financial industry was like an economic heart attack, so the whole body went into shock and money immediately flowed to mainly the most 'vital' parts as determined by some ingrained idea that has evolved over time; in this case everyone kept their own money in their own pocket, because this Randian deregulation that allowed the crisis was driven by that value system in the first place.

          Additionally, the "tent cities" are, at least in the U.S., an entirely contrived media spectacle. Many people may have lost homes, but they are not the people showing up in the tent cities. Since OWS is predominantly anarchist, I'll use their term: those tent cities are a "simulacrum" of truth. They do not deserve the name given to the tent cities of the great depression, which were predominantly homeless people gathering together so they could be seen by society, because we are talking about ideological warriors masquerading as "the 99%". No matter how 'right' they might be, acting is still just acting.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +2
          Nov 5 2011: Danny...

          For the record, homelessness is not a contrived media spectacle. There are REAL people, really suffering in the streets, alleys, and out of the way places of most major metropolitan areas worldwide.

          It is rather cavalier of you to dismiss the undeniable reality of poverty and destitution that exists.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2011: Krisztian, if you visit a sweatshop in china and still do not understand how capitalism creates it, then it shows how little understanding you really have of real capitalism. The theoretical Austrian school 100% unregulated does not exist
      • thumb
        Nov 5 2011: there are many theories about the financial meltdown and its causes. if you start to dig it up, indeed, the first layer will be financial corporations, mainly american, trading derivatives. however, it is advisable to dig deeper, and ask, how could that happen? why nobody saw it? why now, and not decades earlier, or a hundred years earlier. so far, the only coherent and believable explanation i've found is the austrian business cycle theory. it nails misguided government policies as the cause.

        also please bear in mind that neither money nor the public debt is a capitalist thing. they are both managed by the state.

        freedom's opposite is control, slavery, dictatorship, etc. not unfairness. capitalists never wanted fair system. they wanted freedom to act on their own behalf, as they can, undisturbed.

        to maintain civility, clarity and logic, i would rather skip reflecting the rest of your reply.
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2011: I suppose I am most interested in hearing about ways to improve our situation.

          New ideas about how we could deal with resources, labor, goods, services etc.

          I am not anti-capitalist per se.

          It just seems prudent to imagine what OTHER ways we could organize our species, biosphere, and local solar system... given the fact that the current system is teetering on the edge of an abyss.

          Think of it as a brain teaser.
        • thumb
          Nov 6 2011: I've heard a lot of people blaming the government instead of the private sector for the recession, but I only agree in a limited fashion. Its true, certain mortgage lending practices and derivative practices should have been illegal under sound financial regulation. However, the government did not FORCE mortgage brokers to lend irresponsibly. The government did not FORCE financial institutions to bundle those debts into derivatives, raise their credit rating and sell them around the globe. The people that did those deeds are still responsible for those actions.

          Furthermore, it takes a certain degree of double think to say it is the governments fault the recession happened in one breath and call for deregulation in another. Calling for the government to take responsibility and prevent such things from happening is essentially a call for stronger regulation. The recession happened due to lack of sound regulation.

          In Canada, where I live, we had strong financial regulation. We have stricter requirements for mortgages, and the banks more are limited in how much they are allowed to lend compared to how much liquid assets they must keep on hand. It is our regulations that insulated us and resulted in not needing to bail out any Canadian banks.

          As was mentioned earlier, the 100% pure austrian school capitalism doesn't exist, and probably never will. Furthermore, if it did exist, it would most likely fail miserably. Regulations we have on capitalism exist out of necessity.

          The problem with the austrian school of economics is the rationalist approach. In reality, economics is too complicated to be understood by "arm chair reasoning". Only empirical observation of businesses in action and in history can develop a realistic understanding of economics.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2011: Jah Sun; responding to your comment; 'Unfortunately, the value of one's contribution to society is completely unrelated to one's income. It is your value to a capitalist.'. The teacher is a very good example of this. Traditionally teachers have been highly valued in human society, but since education is only useful within certain elite spheres of capitalist monopolistic structures and an educated workforce could even be considered detrimental to the capitalist greed machine, we see that teachers continue to fall behind other professions annually.

        Was not feudalism just another example of a monopolistic, aka capitalist, economic structure? Sure back then, people used the simple idea of birthright (which could be bought) to hold the reins of economic power, whereas today's free marketeer has to tap dance around democracy and a constitution in order to hold power. The outcome, polarisation of wealth, wide gaps between rich and poor, exploitation and devaluing or of human rights, seem to me, to be the same.
      • thumb
        Nov 6 2011: Hi Danny...were the bodies floating down the streets after Katrina also actors? Honestly. There comes a point where trying account for the financial collapse in the U.S. and the consequential human suffering with arguments like 'The reason the economy at large suffered is because finance is the blood of the economic organs. The shock to the financial industry was like an economic heart attack,' is delusional. Reuters did a story in September 2011 that 45000 people, one every twelve minutes, die each year due to not having access to healthcare in the U.S. How much further evidence would it take to convince you that free market capitalism is extraodinarily destructive, and inhumane?
  • Dec 4 2011: We should re-appreciate labor saving technology. Wasn't the idea, when I was a kid, 50 or so years ago, that technology was going to do the work so we wouldn't have to work as hard? But instead of laying people off the idea a was everyone would just work fewer hours? That was supposed to be the 'social good' accomplished by technology. Unfortunately its control has been totally usurped by finance - and they - an unelected, unaccountable elite has determined how it is applied and how it's benefits are distributed.

    The only solution is getting economic power into some system of gov't and the only gov't that is legitimate is that with the consent of the governed - i.e., democracy. A hint of what is needed is provided by companies that are owned and run exclusively by the employees. Some are quite successful - in many ways. Many, many ways.

    Humans evolved in hunter gather societies, essentially tribes, 150 +/- consisting mainly of family members (with some 'in-laws'). The operating principle was sharing. We all inherently understand concepts of fairness. We teach it to our children.

    Corporations and governments are human inventions to deal with larger societies. Many economic and government arrangements or sustainably have been tried in the 10,000 or so years since the "Ur Compromise". If what's in-place now is not working 'fairly' we have not only the right, obviously, but much more importantly the obligation to change it. If poverty and lack of health care are increasing year by year and there is significant evidence of long-term, if not irreversible, damage to the planet is piling up all around us - we have an obligation to improve things - or die trying.

    Who knows what is the best way to go? We have to practice the arts of self-government again. We need to have some direct face-to-face direct democracy. From that and only that can come the energy and the will to change. It will take time. Hopefully we have enough. But we must hang together!
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2011: My thoughts exactly.

      The next conversation I start will be based on this very concept. Keep an eye for it in the coming weeks.

      I too wonder how they managed to tell us all that we would work less and accomplish more as technology took us into a golden age of leisure and progress (ala the Jetsons) and then bait & switched us with this world where the middle class is disappearing faster than the glaciers.

      We went from a society where a single wage earner could support a family, buy a house and a car, send the kids to a good school, and still have plenty to retire on. Now, we have both parents working (often multiple jobs) just to barely get by.

      People think they are middle class because no one likes to admit they are poor... but if you are renting an apartment, in debt, have no hope of sending your kids to an ivy league school, and haven't been able to afford a real 2 week (or longer) vacation in recent memory... you are NOT middle class.
  • Dec 4 2011: Capitalism can be made to perform quite well provided that it is properly regulated and taxed. Corporate cultures must be made to evolve such that the welfare of employees, customers, and the planet as a whole is seen as essential for the corporation to survive and thrive. Wages, in the U.S. at least, need to be radically adjusted upward to make up for decades of stagnation. Corporate lobbying, a big part of the problem for the U.S., shouldn't be declared illegal, but only with the proviso that ALL lobbying efforts are recorded and made part of the public record. Americans should probably begin the process of forbidding Lawyers from holding elected positions in government where they are tasked with passing laws. It seems to me to be a glaring conflict of interest to have the Lawyers making the laws.
    There would need to be strengthening of many laws already on the books as well as many new laws and regulations that would, hopefully, serve to prevent another financial catastrophe caused by blatant greed. Another example of new law would be the rapid shift away from private health insurance to the single payer model. This alone would save many billions of dollars in wasted money paid out as insurance premiums. Some laws should be eliminated. The criminalization of cannabis has resulted in an unconscionable loss of life in Mexico and elsewhere, a shameful incarceration rate for non-violent crime, and a phenomenal waste of tax dollars. All this because the Republicans and other right wing extremists operate under the delusion that they are somehow morally superior to everyone else in the population to the point that they have the right to force their way of living upon us. Another requirement for capitalism to succeed is the existence of a large pool of well educated potential employees. We should therefore de-corporatize higher education and provide a college education free to all that seek it. In the K-12 grades classroom sizes need to be cut by 50% to 75%. And more.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2011: While I agree with most of what you say in principle, I think there are a few important things you are not factoring in to your analysis.

      1) Corporations are already jumping ship and setting up in China, Indonesia, India and anywhere they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar. Raising wages without a fundamental change in the corporatism that underlies our system will only result in even more jobs being sent overseas.

      Also, I don't think the focus should be on what is best for US Citizens (or any single nation state or group of nations). The problem is already trans-national. National solutions to trans-national problems tends to prove disastrous. Unilateral actions and heavy handed moves in one nation's interest should become a thing of the past as people wake up and realize that we all share this one Earth, that national boundaries are imaginary lines drawn by people who often never even visited the place in question, and that humanity is going to have to work together if we want to solve the major issues of our time.

      2) Corporate lobbying is more of a blight and causes more problems than simply letting people who have studied law become lawmakers. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a lawyer. Being a shill for a rapacious corporation results in incidents like the Deep Water Horizon poisoning the entire Gulf.

      3) Single payer is fine... as long as we get rid of the insurance companies, any system will be better. Middle men always raise prices, and the value they add is often negative. (watering down the commodity)

      4) Cannabis prohibition is a form of criminal insanity. We have spent more money and time fighting that plant than we have fighting terrorism, or even Communism. And, it is a blatant lie that it was illegalized to protect people from themselves or enforce some ridiculous morality. The reason it was made illegal in 1938 is the same reason they had to re-legalize it in WWII... its amazing industrial properties.

      cont.
    • thumb
      Dec 4 2011: Marijuana (Hemp) was gotten rid of by a consortium of interests in the corporate world. The timber (and nascent tree paper) industry as headed by the richest man in the world at the time, William Randolph Hearst, got together with the petro-chemical industry (typified by his drinking buddies Dow & DuPont), and managed to convince other interested parties in the cotton, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries to perpetrate what may be one of the greatest cons ever conceived.

      They used the racism and fear of black jazzmen and Mexicans who used reefer to push the law through, but they were all about getting rid of the single largest competition for their new wave of industrial products. Nylon was going to be the new linen (most linens at the time were hemp, as well as all waterproof canvas), hempseed oil (which was the hydrocarbon source of choice for the first plastics and the fuel for the first internal combustion engine) was going to be replaced by fossil fuels. Kimberly Clarke Co. had just patented the process of making paper from trees (owned by Hearst), and this new paper was being used for Hearst's epic newspaper empire because he had bought much of the forested land of the northwest.

      The only group to speak on behalf of cannabis in the hearings was the AMA, because no one told the doctors that the plant which comprised nearly 2/3ds of the patent medicines used at the time was going to be shanghaied. They made out like bandits in the end with the introduction of patented drugs and chemicals rather than the old patented formulas of natural plants and extracts.

      So you see, our modern corporate economic system (including many of the largest corporations in the world) built this current system (at great cost to the biosphere) on the back of cannabis prohibition.

      Personally, I think prohibition of any kind is foolhardy. It only creates a dangerous and uncontrollable black market. Alcohol prohibition should have taught us all we need to know about this.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: Okay, here is my recipe for an economic model: Do what works.

    Now, what "works" would have to be clearly defined: moderate wealth for all, sustainable growth, ecological responsibility, quality health care and education, no one going to sleep hungry for lack of available food, etc.

    How could we bring that about?

    I have no idea.

    But I suspect trial and error will have something to do with it.

    I also suspect that we will have to look at things that are distinctly "uneconomic" in their nature; things like the human brain - both neurologically and psychologically - human values and desires, "deeper truths" that most economists treat somewhat dismissively (not surprisingly given the state of "the dismal science") and who know what else.

    I do not think we can engineer a system that we can graft onto present day planet earth nor do I think we can "move towards" a preconceived economic system (a la Mr Pintér's anarco-capitalism or what you, Mr Sun, propose here - coming up with a model to replace capitalism.)

    First of all no one is actually practicing capitalism (or socialism) we are muddling along with hybrids of various kinds here and there. Adherents present that fact as confirmation of the efficacy of their models - if we actually "did" communism properly it would work (which is true.) And if we actually did capitalism right, it would work too (which is also true.)

    But we don't. We don't "do them right" for reasons that seem obvious.

    An idealized economic system no matter how perfect and pristine in its conception will not (can not) be flawlessly executed by humans who are less pristine than the model they are operating within.

    So what will work?

    Really, I do not know but I suspect it will come down to each one of us living up to our highest values regardless of the system we find ourselves in.

    And we can (eventually) evolve a system that reflects those values.
  • Nov 27 2011: The price forming mechanism should be the main concern here.

    The field of available politics is another sphere, a topic of it´s own.

    How can we promote growth in a controlled economy? Is the only answer through people´s own morality? Do we need an economy based on greed to achieve that? What would be the calculus for a better version?
  • Nov 27 2011: What about somehow trying to invent a better way to calculate prices than in market economy, just like venus project tried?

    Anyhow, Lara´s proposal is most agreeable, in the transition period between the current one and the next.

    Of course you all realise a revolution takes but one law. Not more, not less... and as you all have realized steps to any such law takes casualties.

    I would be most interested in any other mechanism proposed for handling the prices than market economy.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2011: Mordechay's 3 part proposal addresses some of what you are speaking of vis a vis the handling of prices and valuation.

      I think it would be worthwhile to spend a bit of time giving some feedback on what he has posted. I am interested in your thoughts on this as well as the reconomy concept linked to above by Kevin.

      As for Lara's proposal, I can't imagine that anyone who understands the current monetary system, and is not personally profiting from it, could mount a serious defense of fractional reserve or the basic debt of money.
  • thumb
    Nov 27 2011: Check out http://reconomy.net to learn about an open source network that pays people with the money of the future to build the communities of the future. The key is starting with creating community power stations that discount energy when purchased with that money, which creates a demand for the local currency that builds genuine local marketplaces that control all local resources. Consequently, the communities gain control of all the resources, which they are impelled to stewad , and control the energy and the money, and so reclaim control of their destinies as they enjoy sustainable prosperity.
    • thumb
      Nov 27 2011: Will check out the website and get back to you with some thoughts.

      There are a number of these local currency initiatives going around. Some of them have interested me for quite some time. I'm curious as to how this one stacks up.
      • thumb
        Nov 27 2011: Thanks Jah Sun. I see that you created this thread, so I'd like to let you know that I'll post link at OccupyCafe on Econ thread there. http://www.occupycafe.org/forum/topics/a-new-economy-exploring-the-heart-of-sustainability?id=6451976%3ATopic%3A2956&page=1#comments. #Occupy has intrinsic challenge of how to harmonize many voices shouting at once. Wikipedia does it by giving each contributor an equal part in a whole that is built out of unlimited number of people-sized parts, with a reward of being heard. Reconomy is taking much the same tack, with a reward of authority empowered by capital/stock in the creation and thus a voice. Occupy's voices are competing for control of the design of a new global system. Perhaps Reconomy or some other open-source collaboration is a timely solution, but it is not your father's global system but a decentralized model and ironically that is perhaps too unfamiliar for group concensus. We've designed pilots with one almost ready to launch, but are just now beginning to create the platform for an open-source collaboration. The greatest rewards will go to the earliest adopters. Please join us at http://groups.google.com/group/occupy-reconom
        • thumb
          Dec 1 2011: I checked out your website as well as the thread on OccupyCafe.

          Very interesting stuff.

          Since this thread is winding down, perhaps I will chime in over there when I have some free time.

          Thanks for your links Kevin.

          Be well.
  • thumb
    Nov 24 2011: Jah Sun,
    OK, there have been a few (very few) fronts of progress. Civil rights has come a long way since Mississippi Summer and the voting rights drives. Perhaps drug epidemics in our inner cities has retreated ( I have no direct knowledge here) perhaps income inequality has advanced for some groups ( women and minorities) however one has to look at the dominate trends across all groups to clear see what is happening here.

    Income disparity has never been greater across the globe. Those big banks and corporations have accepted their bailouts yet don't extent the same to us citizens. How many who have applied for mortgage notifications have actually gotten them opposed to those who have lost their homes? Lets get real about what is actually happening here. Are you a CEO of a corporation? Have you seen your wages and bonuses go up to where the difference between the rank and file and management can be a factor of hundreds of times difference?

    Or take education. Follow the increase costs of tuition and now with an imploded economy those graduating often can;'t find jobs to pay back their massive debts. Recently the University of Oregon's president gave huge increases to his top management when everyone else was asked to take reductions in pay. Finally the board of higher education found the courage to fire the President, and you should see those who benefited standing up for him while all the rest say, its past time.

    Regarding National or environmental security, it has gotten substantially worse over the last 30 years. Yes we use to hide under our desks, but now many rogue countries have nukes? Terrorism was very infrequent back then, and now is off the charts. Who knows what lurks inside that shipping container or what illegal or legal chemicals have been laced through our food?

    This is not a time to be complacent in any way. Yes, often the darkest hour is just before the dawn. However on balance, things are far worse today than 30 years ago. I wish it wasn't
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 24 2011: I do not dispute your positions Craig... I am with you all down the line.

      I am just of the opinion that we need to give it our all and do our best not to succumb to defeatism.

      Progressive, pragmatic optimism is not naïveté IME.

      A lot of causes seemed even more hopeless in their day. And yet, MLK, Ghandi, Mandela and more have all had their dreams accomplished. This situation is not more drastic than others in the past.

      There is no denying that things are bad for a large number of people. But, if it wasn't for the hard times and the economic collapse, I doubt you would see an Occupy movement at all... let alone spreading around the world like wildfire. Sometimes things need to get real for people before they throw off their despondency and quit their slacking.

      The facts of economic inequality are indisputable, but it is also true that the average standards of living across the globe have risen tremendously and continually over the last century. Pre WWII Europe had a standard of living along the lines of modern day Ghana... and Africa was like the medieval serfdoms of the pre-Renaissance age. It is easy to see all of this from the lens of middle-class, baby-boomer America. But the world is a bigger place than that demographic.

      Standard of living is actually rising the fastest in Latin America, of all places. Brazil & Costa Rica have not only avoided the recession, but continue to flourish. In fact, on the Happy Planet Index, Costa Rica scored #1 last year.

      Anyway, I am not saying that it doesn't seem like we are going to hell in a handbasket sometimes... just that now is not the time to give up. We need to keep spreading awareness and pushing the masses to wake up. This system is unsustainable, and there is no way we will be practicing it in 200 years.

      So, we need to lay the groundwork for the Utopian future we all hope for. We need to sow the seeds of the future, and not just piss and moan like a lot of my friends do.
    • thumb
      Nov 24 2011: Oh, and to answer your question:

      Yes, I am a CEO... but of a non-profit for which I have taken no salary or recompense whatsoever.

      We are all-volunteer actually, and still manage to accomplish miraculous things around the world. With over 750 completed projects in over 70 countries... and starting an average of one new one a day, we have helped a huge number of people in a time when I still live basically hand to mouth.

      I am also the President of an indie record label, but I make so little money doing that, that at this point it might as well also be a charity. ;)

      Money is not my priority, but I do hope that all of my endeavors grow and spread out. I measure success in the number of people I can help make happy.

      To this end, we might wind up hiring a publicist or PR firm to help us reach more people and raise more money... at the moment we have no PR budget whatsoever. When this happens we might cease being truly ALL volunteer.

      But with both of my businesses, the core of people involved are all altruists and could all be making a lot more money with their time than they are.

      There you have it. Feel free to check out the website if you have the interest, all our projects are online somewhere and we have 100% transparency.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Jah Sun,
        And I agree totally with you. I'm just sensitive to any form of Pollyanna ness, that sometimes I detect from those who say things are getting better. Remember over half the people on the planet live on under 2 dollars a day, hardly a sustainable amount. However I do agree with you that we must move beyond the negative and depressing realities and attempt to create new visions, institutions and models of what constitutes "success". I to haven't been motivated by personal monetary advancement but working on the issues and transitions that will benefit future generations. My fields of work include sustainable forestry, affordable housing and conservation and renewable energy. I would love to look at your website, just let me know how to find it. I applaud your efforts and perhaps one day we might find a way to collaborate and spread the wisdom that money isn't the most important measure of success. Thank you for all you do...
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: The links are in my profile, but for convenience http://watercharity.org and our Appropriate Projects Initiative (small immediate need projects) http://appropriateprojects.com

          I am also interested in your fields of work... feel free to share information or links as you see fit. These things can also be considered part of any real alternative to the current global economic system to some degree.

          Be well Craig.
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2011: Jah Sun,
    Very well said, I couldn't agree more with your observations. What will it take for critical mass to change the status quo? I wish I knew. I also wish that enlightened self knowledge could become the basis of that transition, but I fear it won't. Those with wealth, power and domination often have the least enlightened self awareness which generally means the transitions will be violent. Gandhi said that poverty is the worse form of violence. While I continue to hope for and attempt to influence a non-violent evolution, I fear we are heading for many violent revolutions. The occupy movement so far have been predominately non violent. However who knows what spark could cause that to change overnight. If only the world could focus on the wisdom of Gandhi when he said, "there is enough for every man's need, but not for every man's GREED'. While greed remains off the charts. I believe we are at a cross road regarding this human experiment on earth. The next 3 - 5 years will determine whether we survive as a species, or not. I'm not saying all will die off, but the trajectory of human population may take a radical turn. Those who live closer to the ground will have less of a fall. Think about it as we surround ourselves with smart phones, smart meters and smart bombs.
    • Nov 21 2011: Maybe the people of the world need to stand up and make it clear that they want enlightened self knowledge to be our focus? Maybe we need to be louder and more constant when we speak against greed?
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: Perhaps we will see a Hundredth Monkey effect...

      I can not quite adopt as pessimistic a view as what you have posted. I recognize that the situation is dire and the odds are seemingly against any rational and progressive solutions... but I have a lot of confidence in the creativity and intelligence of the brightest minds.

      Julia's points above are worth considering as well.

      Before we give up or adopt defeatist attitudes, we should at least try giving it 150%.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: Jah Sun,
        Perhaps its a function of time involved in these issues. For those of us who have been working for over 3 decades, the pessimism. is well warranted. Particularly when things continue to get worse on all fronts, with little evidence that real solutions are anywhere to be found. Sorry to be a bummer. However an honest accounting has to be the first step.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: Hey Craig,

          I'm with you on the three decades... but I don't think pessimism is well warranted.

          Things have not continued to get worse on ALL fronts. I've seen a tremendous amount of progress in this time. There are far more people today who are aware of the issues. This awareness has gone up substantially even in the last five years.

          Three decades ago we saw the crack epidemic ravage the inner cities to the point where being black and living in a ghetto gave one a 1% per year chance of being killed violently with almost no hope of ever making it out of the ghetto. [Soldiers on duty in Iraq only have a 0.5% per year chance]

          Three decades ago, the West was still playing a dangerous game of mutually assured destruction with the Soviet bloc, and children were taught to huddle under their desks.

          Three decades ago income inequality was far higher than it is today for women and minorities. The younger generations today are nearly post-racist... especially in the more cosmopolitan multicultural areas of the world. (current right-wing anti-Islam government of the Netherlands aside)

          Look... I'm not going to pretend that things are perfect, or even all that good. On many fronts things are, in fact, worse. But in respect to my "hundredth monkey" comment, we are closer than ever before. The debacles of the economic crash and the subsequent behavior of the corporation and banks has opened a lot of eyes. People who refused to see the slimy workings of our system before, are now coming up to me in droves, wide eyed and mind blown... repeating back to me things I told them many times over the last decades when they refused to see what I was on about.

          Sometimes, not always, the darkest hour Is just before the dawn. Just keep doing your best to spread the information and raise the consciousness.
  • thumb
    Nov 15 2011: Orlando, My contention is that our so called Institutions of higher learning, corporations and government all for the most part don't have a clue about the causes and effects of their collective actions. My evidence? Show me where anyone has effectively connected 'cause with effects' relative to environmental damage? In forestry a field I'm most involved with, everyone seems to be on board with "restoration' but its totally disconnected from the causes that created the need for restoration in the first place. When I have attempted to suggest that we need to hold monies in escrow for the litany of damages (restoration needs from soil loss threw invasive species, changing dynamics of birds and insects and carbon sequestration that never attains the values it had as an intact old growth forest etc... ) that follow the clear cutting paradigm I'm laughed at. In part because it would hold them ACCOUNTABLE. However if we did hold monies in escrow for all the externalizations and unintended consequences that follow, we could begin to understand the significance of cause and effect. Without it, cause and effect are effectively DISCONNECTED. This is an example of how corporations complicit with education and with research obscure the real effects of our 'management'. Do show me where any corporations who plunder for profit are willing or doing meaningful whole systems thinking and cost analysis? I'd be most interested.
    • thumb
      Nov 16 2011: Craig,

      Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are two different things that are being talked about here: (1) the knowledge of ones actions (cause and effect). (2) taking responsibility for these actions (being held accountable).

      I think your wrong in regards to their ignorance of cause and effect. I've already provided evidence for you about that (the depletion of natural resources, profit over everything, etc) and if you want more evidence I'll be happy to give you more evidence without a problem.

      Now, in terms of accountability I think I can agree with you on that one being that laws are created to justify such actions but this has nothing to do with their ignorance of cause and effect.

      So your basic assertion is that if corporate leaders knew the cause and effects of their actions, they would then be compelled to take accountability for their actions? We would hope so but the fact that their actions are protected by laws and the fact that their excessive self-interest is justified by living in a system in which we must continually strive to make money and obtain as much power as necessary really does not support your claim that they are unaware.

      You mentioned "This is an example of how corporations complicit with education and with research obscure the real effects of our 'management'".

      Of course they would. What these corporations and educational systems are doing is fudging the facts to support their own agenda. It has nothing to do with the fact they they are unaware of cause and effect. What is going on with that is that they realize that the public opinion is actually far different than the opinion of the opulent. They have to find a way to satisfy and control the public mind. So by using words like "managing" and "conserving", they are creating an image that would show that they are to a degree "environmentally conscious". This is classic public manipulation.

      BTW: There are many laws that prevent clear cutting in "endangered areas"
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: This is a prescient distinction.

        I too see that the disconnect seems to lie after the knowledge and before the responsibility. Meaning that these businessmen are often aware of the information vis a vis their destructive behavior, but simply unwilling to allow themselves to be held accountable for those actions.

        It is the time honored game of "pass the buck." Like the juvenile version of the game (hot potato), no one wants to get caught holding the bag of sh*t.

        So in the banking crisis, everyone was happy to let Lehman Brothers go down... point accusative fingers at Fannie and Freddie... even blame AIG... anything to avoid taking their share of responsibility.

        This is not ignorance, but rather conscious damage control and attempting to "get away with murder." In Craig's example of the timber industry, I refuse to believe that the executives or the brains they keep in their employ are not smart enough to connect clear-cutting to restoration, soil erosion, desertification, loss of biodiversity and the rest. They would have to be clinically brain damaged. (Actually, that would be insulting the mentally challenged...)

        It is the same old song and dance. Remember the Big Tobacco guys going before the committees swearing up and down they had no idea that cigarettes are bad for people. That wasn't ignorance... that was bald-faced lying. After all, they only took a poisonous deadly nightshade, and then 600 ingredients (most of them even worse for you), and created a product that has over 4000 distinct chemicals in its smoke... all carefully designed to hook people into addiction.

        They put fiberglass in the filters (to replace the old cotton ones) to cut your lungs and allow for greater absorbtion of the poisons... this is an accident? They are poor morons who don't know any better? They just HAPPEN to get ridiculously wealthy off of the slow suicide of their customers...
    • thumb
      Nov 16 2011: Hi Craig;

      'When I have attempted to suggest that we need to hold monies in escrow for the litany of damages (restoration needs from soil loss threw invasive species, changing dynamics of birds and insects and carbon sequestration that never attains the values it had as an intact old growth forest etc... ) that follow the clear cutting paradigm I'm laughed at.'

      Many permaculture practices are not taken seriously, but people are beginning to understand how vitally important this is if we are to achieve sustainable development. You are clearly ahead of your time, as is everyone who is at the forefront of change. One day you might be surprised, you might hear people repeating back to you the lessons you have been teaching for years, as if it is their own idea! Then you will know, nothing was in vain.

      I think one of the best thing I have read along these talks came from Jah Sun who reminded me that the Berlin wall came down in a day, and Apartheid fell in a matter of days, when I begun to think I would never see either thing happen.
      • Nov 24 2011: Are you really sure the Berlin wall as well as a revolution in 1917 in Russia happen over night? That is right if you watch it from a side probably, I have never seen that from a side. People awaked in another country, even did not by a ticket to. It seemed to be so easy: one big boom and change regime. But do not forget what happen before and after that night. That is years and ages, lives and deaths of our friends (even in Berlin case). TV makes us deaf to all this "small" problems. Everything is possible but it is not a case for trial-and-error method.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: Hi Serg, of course you are right, the perception that these changes occurred overnight is only a perception. In reality that they are always the result of a long and bitter fight. I think the comment relates more to the idea that although we sometimes think change comes as the long slow process, the turning point, the flash point, can happen quickly.
        • thumb
          Nov 25 2011: As Joanne has said, no one is denying that a lot of blood, sweat, and tears go into laying the foundation for change, and that the Kodak moment we see on TV is the result of many many years of struggle... the point is more that seemingly impossible struggles have often come to a head and been resolved much faster than anyone could have imagined.

          Even the inner circle of the Kremlin, it seems, were taken by surprise at how fast the Soviet bloc came undone. For those of us who were unaware of the economic situation there, it certainly did seem like an overnight phenomena. But even those in the know would not have bet on a reunified Germany coming so quickly.

          There was very little sign that the South African government was even willing to consider abandoning apartheid before it fell apart. I am pretty sure that Nelson Mandela himself would not have wagered that he would go from prison to president as fast as he did.

          The analogy is that what seems insurmountable and often inconceivable, may be right around the corner. And even those deep in the trenches are often dumbfounded when change finally does occur.

          If you would have asked Martin Luther King on his deathbed if he would even dream that America would have a black president 40 short years later, I'm willing to bet he would've laughed... hard. Shit, I could barely believe it was happening myself in the vastly improved racial climate of 2007.
    • thumb
      Nov 20 2011: Obviously Craig, the current situation allows for corporations to nearly completely dissociate themselves from the effects of their actions, as well as ignore the communal and ecological aspects of the resources they utilize. Corporations, as they are currently structured, have only a single overriding motivation. They must make profits for their shareholders at all costs. If their earnings charts dip for a quarter or two, heads begin to roll.

      In such a setup, the idea that corporations could be counted on to "do the right thing," or put the needs of the people ahead of their net earnings... is ludicrous. The free hand of the market is used to pick the pockets of those who can't afford to defend themselves. Plants and animals can simply forget about being anything other than assets or obstacles to the almighty profit.

      When humans had a much smaller footprint on this planet, and the resources seemed inexhaustible, this behavior might have been merely greedy and rapacious. In today's climate of 7 billion humans, dwindling natural resources, and collapsing ecosystems... this behavior is downright heinous and psychotic.

      It is in recognition of the obviously suicidal nature of the current global economic (as well as political systems) that this conversation is asking for alternatives. Anything to improve the situation is welcome, but it seems clear that complete overhauls of how we look at wealth & resources are in order... hopefully sooner rather than later.

      The present state of affairs is that of monstrous beasts roaming the land, feeding on everything in sight, and when they step on your house or knock down your place of work... they never even consider picking up a broom and helping with the cleanup. BP is still making profits while the dolphins continue to die and the Gulf is still poisoned.
  • Nov 11 2011: Thanks for your encouragement, Jah Sun.

    Perhaps the big push back to the requirement I'm suggesting for the hypothetical new system would emerge from investors. Few investors are interested in putting their money into a non-growing company. And if sustainability is the goal, where does that put a fledgling company that has yet to fulfill market potential? The requirement I'm suggesting is very coarse and needs significant refinement.

    My sense is that a science based accounting of all earth resources would be necessary to build a framework to make this concept work. Linking monetary currencies to the world's finite resources might be an additional requirement. If one company grows, another must shrink. If one person is paid more, another person is paid less. Our current system suggests this but fiat currencies allow governments to create and destroy money at will. Money today is more of an intermediate abstraction than a tangible reality.

    As consumers it's beginning to dawn on us that there may not be fresh fish at the grocery store in the future because the seas are being over fished. So why should our intermediate, the money, be any different? I am suggesting that by making money infinite in the face of finite resources, it creates an illusion that leads to unproductive behavior.
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2011: I concur with your observations.

      The accounting of resources idea is part & parcel to the Venus Project's resource based economy. It is logical and intelligent, but the kind of thing that would be easier to do on a small island than on the Earth as a whole.

      Getting all of the world's population (or even a majority of it) to agree to a global resource based system would be beyond a herculean task. I like to think that the humans from 3011 will have evolved to that level, or beyond... but considering how short sighted and myopic most people can, we might just do a global version of Easter Island and not even be here.

      I think some intermediate transitional steps are necessary.

      As you have said, corporations have no motive to play along with such proposals... regardless of how well intentioned they are.
  • Nov 10 2011: improve the quality of life for all of citizens. New mothers will be given the opportunity to raise their children instead of a daycare, the youth of the nation can spend more time attending school, etc....
    On the cost of college tuition that is a result of bad government intereferance by allowing almost all potential students receive a loan. Easy credit is the reason that tuition fees are so high, it was also a huge cause of the housing bubble. If the government made it impossible to get a student loan, and only offered grants to students at community colleges, then most would go to a 2 year college, and soon the private schools and state schools would have to lower their prices or shut down. Since they currently have no competition and since their demographic has has access to nearly unlimited funds ($1 trillion in debt now) why wouldn't these institution charge ridiculous amounts of money?

    Through the measures I mentioned before we would have a truly free market, and we can get there through better taxation and a better usage of the money collected through the taxes.

    Also putting an end to career politicians would help immensely, members of congress do not deserve to be paid $180k a year, nor does the president deserve $400k. Career politicians are probably the worst thing to ever happen to this country.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: Why not give free education to those who can utilize it?

      Perhaps students could agree that in return for their free education they will spend X amount of years putting their education to work in the economy that funded them... and not simply pull up shop and move to another country.
  • Nov 9 2011: A Proposition:

    Jah Sun should open another discussion where peers could ANONYMOUSLY send some concrete examples of what is to be done, however naive and whatever the reasons. Think this new page as an open feedback box. I think it is the fear of ruining one´s reputation here - were it for one´s nickname only - that prevents these concrete ideas to spring out freely.

    The operator would then publish the contents of this idea storming list here and update it regularly. The bar must be lowered for this conversation to reach its goal.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: I was just going to write that someone should really go and open up an open source "next system" project.

      Let it grow by input of everyone that care about the subject, Get some basics in place and offer them to everyone to improve and develop. Get universities into it, let students try and come up with different suggestions as practice. Get experts involved.

      Economy 2.0 open source.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: There is a lot of merit to that idea.

        Easier said than done, but it could take off. Open source think tank with the goal of creating the next generation of socially and environmentally enlightened economics... I've fantasized about such things before.

        Ambitious.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: I think you may have something.

      If I could figure out how to allow anonymous posts in a discussion, I would consider it. You may be right that people are afraid to be ridiculed for the simplistic, naive, or unworkable nature of their ideas.

      Although, honestly, I don't know that being cynical or championing the status quo will do all that much for people's rep here either. TED talks are about innovation and risk taking, trailblazing and thinking outside the box... I have yet to see one that proposed that what we are doing is the best we can come up with.

      :-)
  • Nov 9 2011: Posing that global capitalism should fail, even in a what if scenario, is not, in itself rational. Trade between people from the most basic level to more sophisticated levels will continue regardless of the current economic situation. Secondly capitalism exists under any system of government, although constrained in some significantly. Lastly, competition or greed or survival, all reflections of man are not going to go away anytime soon. That does not mean that "capitalism" to use a catch all phrase will not though in the context we currently view it nor would I pose another system as replacing it. What logically should occur as we continue to evolve is a better appreciation for life. Here are examples many of us can relate to....the lack of time spent with my children, the lost love and my mistake, the grief at not having done more. To do this or avoid this pitfall actually requires time to both be and think, discourse with others that think and an environment that is conducive to not making these (and other) mistakes. So what does the future hold....material wants as in the sense of manufactured goods (he who dies with the most toys) at a point in time will become less important for multiple reasons (as it is for many of us today and most all seniors would agree)....perhaps as a function of economics but more likely the simple recognition of what is important....family, friends, comfort, health, security and contribution with emphasis on the latter. These basic needs, irrespective of the "system" will change and have changed the path of humanity over time and will continue to do so...the historical record is evident. In turn they will change the system. Will that result in a better world....yes. Is it actually happening, curiously yes despite outward appearances. But, you must measure things in increments of time that are meaningful, the simplest example being are we not better off today than 100 years ago?
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: Global Capitalism could fail and that would not keep people from bartering, making local currencies, or trading in markets. The terminology here is confusing because we have the terms as they are used in Economics, and the terms as they are used in common parlance.

      I disagree that Capitalism (in the sense of Corporatism, debt based currency, fractional reserve banking, securities & commodities being traded by brokerage firms etc.) exists under "any" system. The fact that the human race went for 150,000 years without any of those things, alone demonstrates this. Generally, using absolute terms like any, all, always etc. opens your argument up to easy debunking via logical fallacies.

      The idea that man is incapable of working together and that greed and corruption will always win out irks me. It may turn out to be true, but again, looking backwards... I can point to a good score of cultures that lasted a fair amount of time without having a major problem in this area. Many of them got by without any concept of private property whatsoever... often thinking of themselves as stewards in service of the land.

      (Before anyone brings it up, it is true that such cultures often got destroyed by their more aggressive neighbors.)

      I don't think most people are truly aware that we now have the technology to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet, and that if we did this in an egalitarian fashion, it would only require that people worked 20 hours a week. The current system forces us to work harder for less so that the owners of capital (& the means of production) can bask in opulence while doing nothing. It also forces competition between people that breeds a lack of empathy and difficulty in recognizing that we are all in the same boat.

      I believe that in 500 years, we will have either achieved a global resource based economy, or we will have destroyed civilization entirely. Or perhaps something totally different... only we won't be doing THIS.
      • Nov 9 2011: I said the same thing as your first paragraph. With respect to your next paragraph certainly capitalism as you chose to define it could hot have existed 300 years ago but capitalism did existfor the "150,000" years you stated.....albeit without the modern tools of finance and capitalism so there is no disagreement presumably. Your 3 paragraph is of interest but it was not something I commented on and it was not in your original statement. As for your third paragraph obviously technology exists. Your arithmetic is suspect if you examine world figures on income, work hours, etc. and more pointedly only a very small percentage of people "bask in opulence". No system necessarily requires one to work, slavery has been abolished, hunger and ambition tend to be the more primary motivators. The lack of competition gives you socialist states....historically they have not been successful despite the appeal of that type of society. End of comments.
        • thumb
          Nov 10 2011: I appreciate the comments.

          Obviously, as I said, one has to define one's terminology. I spoke about "global capitalism" in my introduction and heading for this debate, so trying to broaden the term to include all forms of private ownership or mercantile trading is a bit of a red herring.

          The arithmetic in chopping the 40 hour work week in half is not mine. I am merely quoting a pair of studies I read on the subject. If I have a moment, I will try and find them online and link to them... but even still, it is superfluous exactly how many hours people would need to work IMO.

          The point (right there in the title) of this debate is to come up with alternatives. Many people seem to prefer to practice apologetics for the status quo, but whether or not alternatives are currently workable, necessary, or aesthetic to our sensibilities... that is what this conversation was set up for. Think of it as an intellectual exercise.

          BTW... the fact that only a very small percentage of people bask in opulence is kinda the point. 1% controlling 40% of the wealth, with the upper 0.1% controlling the majority of that... who can defend this? Marie Antoinette wasn't that rich and she was offering the people cake.
  • Nov 8 2011: The best economic system would be a mixture between Capitalism and Communism, what kind of economic system we want really comes down to questions of, do we want to only pursue our own self interests? Or have we reached a point in civil maturity in knowing that we live in a country that produces enough for all individuals to still amass wealth, while maintaining our moral obligation to help the needed and our fellow citizenry when we have more than enough to satisfy our needs. We have to understand that not all people are equal and some people need unskilled labor jobs because that is within their capacity and that is how they contribute to society; and they should be able to live a life with all of ones relative needs taken care. So we need to have a tax system that taxes this richest the most without loopholes, in order for the rest of society to live meaningful lives; it is the patriotic thing to do. The funds that are redistributed to the lower income households should also be put into special bank accounts sort of like food stamps, have an account for food, and an account for housing, and you figure out the rest yourself. I think it is really inhumane for us to punish unskilled laborers, because the amount of time spent working is the same as specialized, and they are spending a good portion of their lives doing it. So by saying they do not deserve to make a enough money to fulfill a persons relative needs; that is heartless, and it places a really low price tag on the value of another human beings life.
    A system like this could really give an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to all citizens, and is guaranteed by its government and fellow citizens.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 8 2011: What you describe is actually just Socialism.

      The countries with the highest standards of living and greatest contentment tend to practice some form of this already. Denmark, for example, was voted the happiest country on Earth 3 years running.

      Some of what you said reminds me of the Basic Income Guarantee. Have you heard of this concept?
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2011: Anarcho-Syndicalism all the way.

    Or I'll just give you this link or two:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw (it may repeat a little bit in the beginning)

    and there is also a book out about the debate as well with the same title as it will show. What they both say in a sense sums up my political views but I mainly refer to Chomsky

    But if we are talking about Practicality, Foucault would be the person you would want to listen to in this debate being that he relate to the common individual, more-so than Chomsky. As great as these occupy movements are, most of the views are divide and although many people may state that capitalism is not good at all, other alternatives are always looked down upon or thought as wishful thinking. So it really makes no sense that capitalism is criticized so often by people but then these are the same people that are not really doing anything about it. I've done my share of protesting and I'm about to go to the occupy L.A. movements later tonight but at the same time it we need a movement in which every hard working class individual can take a part of without having to ruin the well-being of their family or worry about getting fired at work and I do not think these occupy movements is really going to do that (but I've been wrong before)
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2011: We don't need any system from the drawing board.
    No centralized, supervised, controlled management will ever work apart for those that run the show.

    The way to exchange and communicate can evolve from the local needs and goods and adapt to the momentarily conditions.
  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: Hello Jah Sun,

    Thank you for your question.

    I share some of the views you state, lack of sustainability of the current economic system being one of them. However, I don't think that global collapse or other all-or-nothing scenarios should be the only possibilities. Partial or gradual approaches should not be discarded.

    One thing that I have learned from listening to personal comments from people in the ows movement is that "end of capitalism" is not one of their objectives, regardless of how many times mainstream media has tried to portray it to be so.

    Another thing I have learned is that many revolutions seem to happen overnight just because they way they are told, but there is a long chain of steps both before and after that makes them revolutionary changes.

    I think the approach Water Charity takes is on the right track. One must have a solid long term vision but be pragmatic enough to see the small local steps required to move in that direction. Once you break down the transition from A to B into a multitude of small steps it is easier to start acting towards the bigger goal.

    I have visited remote communities, and in my experience, they are not waiting for someone to come and turn their ways of life upside down. It's easier to work with the things they are already familiar with and the resources they have available.

    As seen in the talk "Willie Smits restores a rainforest", a local approach to governance provides an excellent method to include in the decision making process the very people who is most affected by those decisions.

    Maybe free goods for everybody is the ultimate long term goal. 100% self sufficiency. Personal free fabricators for all basic goods.

    I have been thinking that a smaller first step could be this: locally sustainable free energy for each community. Both production and storage. Even that needs to be broken down into smaller steps. But hopefully that is a step in the right direction. Let me know your thoughts.
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2011: Very true Andres. I think the comment you make; '(the) "end of capitalism" is not one of their objectives, regardless of how many times mainstream media has tried to portray it to be so', underscores an important issue; the way in which capitalists use simple propaganda techniques to protect their control channels. I think this does need to be dialogued. When people are aware of it they may then have more chance to resist it. Here in New Zealand where I live, the right have invented the catch phrase 'the nanny state' to institute fears around banking regulation and to encourage citizens to view the privatisation of healthcare as 'freedom of choice' ,to name one example in a wider problem.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: Indeed Joanne, more informed people is always empowered to make wiser choices. And propaganda will allways be there to try to misinform us.

        Many people in the conservative right considers the possibility of a "nanny state" tantamount to a state on it's way to become some sort of totalitarian socialism. Although I do not share that particular view and I suspect that it is based in misinformation rather than facts, I have many conservative friends, and I do not consider them as part of the "other". I actually share many of their grievances against the current US government and it's collusion with big banks and the Fed.

        And talking about the "other". The old adage "divide and conquer" is as effective today as it was thousands of years ago. And lines that divide a population almost exactly in half are the most effective in keeping each other busy and distracted with the attacks.

        Refreshingly though, something that can be said about the ows movement, is that they have managed to move away from the official lines of division: republicans vs democrats, liberals vs. conservatives, and they have focused in one that does not divide the population in half. Since the beginning they have taken aim at the super-rich and the people in the government that work on their behalf.

        I'll be happy to hear from you about grassroot movements and/or local activist groups in New Zealand

        cheers
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: Yes Andres, I agree and I think it is important to remember we are talking about social systems, not individuals. I too do not focus on 'isms' as much as specific types of social systems which I view to be particularily destructive. Not all captialism per se, but Milton Friedman's idea of a free market that leads to totally deregulated monopolistic systems. I do believe these systems are highly exploitative, detrimental to human societies and to the planet in general. It has been documented (Kline, 'The Shock Doctrine', Hagar, 'The Hollowmen', Schulze, Retirement Heist') , that free marketeers do collaborate and work effectively against democracy and constitutions to effect change that will allow them to excercise more freedom in their own private interests. I think the extent they manipulate government and the propaganda machine is often dangerously underestimated by many of us, and we must expose it. As you said, 'tak(ing) aim at the super-rich and the people in the government that work on their behalf'.

          Re the OWS movement; My fear is, that the capitalist power structures are so deeply intrenched, with highly evolved systems in place for maintaining power within the democracy and despite the constitution, and because this is so poorly understood by many of us, they will be able to stage manage the appearance of retreat, while business as usual continues on as it has in recent times. Things will not get better for people, they will get worse, if this happens.

          The Occupy movement has made it to N.Z. too. The good standard of socialism we had here, has been eroded steadily since the eighties as people have been suckered into the free market success story produced and disseminated by the U.S. The love affair with Capitalism is relatively new here, and is still in its honeymoon phase. Hopefully the global groundswell of support for more equal, holistic and sustainable social systems will be heard in my country too and it will be enough to stem the rivers of greed.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: The "End of Capitalism" is not one of the goals of the majority of the OWS movement because the majority of people (OWS or otherwise) can not envision a future without it.

        We have been born into it, and it seems as natural and normal to us as a lake does to trout. However, if a lake fish (or one born in an aquarium) were to conceive of an ocean... better yet, to actually see one... they might begin to formulate goals of moving their family there. (considering that they could survive in salt water)

        The reality is that all of us are small minded, infantile even, when compared to the humans the year 3011. Our greatest achievements and most advanced systems will be regarded as the clumsy building blocks of toddlers in time. The majority of humans take a much narrower view of things and tend to be unable to think beyond this fiscal year, or election cycle.
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 7 2011: Hello Andres

      As a pragmatist, and someone who believes in rational, progressive constructivism... I am not in favor of all or nothing, catastrophic scenarios, or chaos either. I promote the assessment of individual actions that can be done simply and have an immediate beneficial effect. (ala Water Charity - thx 4 the plug btw)

      The size of the action or concept to be improved upon is not as important as the simplicity and efficiency by which improvement can be accomplished, benchmarked, and evaluated for success.

      The fact is that everything, no matter how well it seems to be functioning, can be improved. Our task as rational beings concerned for our collective future, is to identify those changes that get us the most bang for our buck, so to speak.

      As you have astutely pointed out, those in favor of derailing change tend to try and use a "divide & conquer" approach, and polemics which split people into "black & white" opinions tend to be extremely effective. The issues of our time are not left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, or democrat vs. republican. This is clearly an oversimplification of things and distracts people from looking at the myriad of actual solutions for a myriad of actual problems in favor of demonizing their perceived other.

      I don't think that humanity will still be practicing capitalist economics in 1,000 years... or even 300. I think the same can be said of nationalism. If we survive as a species, we will have evolved into some form of global resource management. (speculation) Whether I am correct in this or not, whatever we wind up doing will best be approached step by step and with cool logic, rather than knee-jerk emotion guiding the way.

      I like your ideas, and I too believe that we can work within Capitalism for the nonce. If something clearly better AND efficiently workable with a relatively painless transition comes along... THEN we can talk about possibly implementing that.
  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: First, I am going to assume you an alternative to the modern large scale financial system (and perhaps other super large systems such as the industrial food system). After all, capitalism also includes a gardener selling veggies out of the back of a truck, and I doubt anyone wants to put an end to that.

    The challenge with "alternative systems" is people often envision a final ideal system. However, the means of changing the system is what defines the result, not the original vision. History is littered with revolutionaries seeking utopia but instead creating a dictatorship as a means to that end. Eventually the vision becomes propaganda, and the dictatorship is the result.

    The means must define the end.

    I think the modern system is somewhat doomed for several reasons, but I don't think it will necessarily collapse instantly. People will cope, and it is the way in which we cope that will define future.

    I personally like the transition towns movement, with a focus on local economic resilience. Some people have tried local currencies which I think is a good idea. That can reinforce local connections and deny the financial sector a piece of the pie in every transaction. Free cycling and websites devoted to barter systems in local communities also serve this purpose. The ripple project is an alternative system of credit which is based community connections rather than centralized banks.

    These ideas aren't a revamp of the whole system. Instead they are projects that people can opt into to help them cope with living in a failing system. Perhaps they will grow to replace it eventually, perhaps not.
    • thumb
      Nov 7 2011: I agree with what you say Scott wholeheartedly.

      I won't restate things I have already mentioned elsewhere, but I have posted comments already to that effect.

      I like the way you are thinking about this, and thank you for bringing up 1) Transition Towns 2) Local Currencies 3) Barter System Websites & the 4) Ripple Project. I am curious to hear what others have to say on these very pragmatic and immediately implementable ideas.

      I have no immediate plan that could completely replace the financial system or our current resource distribution model... though I am (have been) formulating some decent interim solutions and methodologies of ascertaining the viability of future actions, as well as ways of forming more intelligent consensus

      Thanks for chiming in. Your input is most welcome.
  • thumb
    Nov 6 2011: Nice theme.

    But not many really constructive posts, which is to be expected, really.
    The negative path is always easier, cheaper and quicker to take, so taking a few lines and criticizing them out of context is much easier then coming up with a solution to the problem.


    I think, from all the different proposals i have heard that the ideas behind the Venus Project are the ones which we should pursue.

    Simply because they all start at the very basic level and build on that.
    It is the basis of current economics that we should change, rather than some other rules within the system.

    The most basic principle is the one of making profit.
    That starting fundamental rule of current economic systems (whether they are capitalistic or otherwise) is the main problem.

    When you get down to it, it actually means that you have to cheat the other side in the deal (trade) youre making in order to achieve that so called "profit".
    Or speaking plainly, to sell something for a greater value than it is actually worth.

    It is a system that is geared toward one or very few individuals getting the most out of it, at the expense of all others. And we see the consequences in reality very, very clearly.

    Clearly then, we should devise a system that does not rely on such basic goal.
    And that MUST be a new system.
    Evolution rather than devolution into some of the past failed systems.


    The change in the political system must follow.
    We need Democracy 2.0 that would replace the existing fake democracy.
    And i have some ideas about that, which i will explain in a separate conversation.
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2011: Thank you siniša. Your participation is most welcome.

      The "resource based" economic models of Jacque Fresco and the Venus Project people are certainly among the more exciting concepts out there. If we actually had a global society of rational, forward-thinking people, something along those lines would certainly be a natural outgrowth.

      I am mainly very unclear about how they propose we get from 'here to there.' The recent Zeitgeist film "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" (available for watching free here: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ ) brought some of the VP concepts forward, and was certainly entertaining... poignant even. However, the fact that they made it seem like this transformation would take place miraculously, and out of anarchist chaos, seems somewhat naive. IMHO
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: First, i think it is clear that systems themselves evolve.
        Same as everything else.
        Our history proves it since more advanced social and economical systems inherited one another.

        If we are talking now about some sort of new system its only another step in that natural progression.

        With a difference that maybe this time we dont need to wait another hundred years as the current system slowly collapses into wars and revolutions and bloodshed.
        Maybe its not necessary to go through that now.

        Its all about design after all. If you develop a better technology it will spread because it is more useful. The current democracy was a better social and economic technology and so it spread around the world. We see even now, in Arabic world how that technology overcomes and older inefficient one by nothing more than inertia of its effects, already employed in the wealthiest and most advanced nation states of the world.
        Russia went down under it, and even China changed considerably.

        Of course, it takes time in our history, and its often very bloody and if you want to go into details of it then you see that incredible numbers of different conditions must align for such a change to happen.

        I mean, the current economic system is very much aligned with the current most successful sociopolitical system. Open markets, globalization, removal of borders, free exchange of information (since information is money) etc, etc.

        They both need to change since i really dont think you can change one and leave the other be.
        It has gotten to be all too intertwined.

        I consider the Venus project ideas well thought out because they accept that these systems have fundamental flaws and try to build from the ground up with fundamental changes.
        Which is the only possible answer when you have a fundamental flaw in the first place.

        You dont go patching such flawed system endlessly but you design a better, new system or technology by keeping what works from previous ones and improving what isnt good.
      • thumb
        Nov 7 2011: What Venus project gets very right (although i really wish they chose some less unfortunate name) and Jacque Fresco explains so aptly is that when you really come down to it, in a economic system based on profit - it is not possible for everyone to profit.

        Because money has to come from somewhere for somebody to have more than the other person - which we call profit.


        And i think he provides some good examples and suggestions for specific solutions and issues we have.

        I didnt get the message that some kind of anarchy is the desired step in between our current system and the next one in the latest Zeitgeist.
        I think the movie was more about showing what is happening now, rather then some future preferred development.
        Police barricades, protests, violent clashes, tear gass... and much worse, - all now.


        Anarchy itself is already an outdated system. It is an old idea gaining popularity in later half of 20th century and is often mentioned now.
        Which means its will be in the past of the next, future system.

        Plus it is itself a deeply flawed idea because it does not take into account the violent and selfish human nature which it, as a movement, paradoxically exhibits all the time.
        Its on the level of naivete of early hippie ideas or hypocrisy of communism and would bomb horribly in current reality as much as those did, or even worse.

        What we need is a smarter designed system. system with different basic goals, a system that would be designed so it does not create a privileged caste of people, economically or politically.
        Something that even actively works against such "side effects".

        As to the exact minute steps that would create such a system, well, we have already started.
        Its a process tightly fused with development of new technologies that affect humanity on the global scale, be it those that deal with spreading the information or those dealing with our resources, environment and energy directly.

        There is enough smart people around.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: I agree. Anarchy as a political system is outdated and ridiculous. Anarchy as a noun describing a chaotic situation with a vacuum of power, is something that happens regularly when existing systems break down. Hakim Bey spoke of the TAZ's (temporary autonomous zones), and that is what we see in riots, pirate societies, gang controlled ghettos (like the favelas of Brazil) etc.

          It is this kind of anarchy one sees in the Zeitgeist film and now see in Oakland.

          I have not seen anything in Zeitgeist Moving Forward or the VP literature that amounts to a tangible step by step plan to get from what we have now to a resource based economy. My reading of the end of ZMF was that after the protests it just magically happens that everyone comes together and institutes a VP model.

          Anyway, I think people will lump all ideas of post-Capitalist economics together as Utopian and naive untli they see one or more of them functioning and prospering as an example that can be pointed to. A demonstration model, or a prototype perhaps.

          All the best siniša.
      • thumb
        Nov 9 2011: I would just like to add that i dont consider something like VP to be a candidate for the next system. Simply because it demands too big of a change for which humans are not generally ready.

        Such a system or something very much like it may very well come into being in the near future but what we really need is an intermediary system that would seriously deal with the most negative features of current ones and start to move things forward to more ideal, honest and positive solutions.
  • Nov 4 2011: 'To each according to her or his ability to appreciate.' Perhaps it is time to separate money income from work. Aristotle agreed. I wasn't there when he said it, but he's been quoted as saying something like: working for money is demeaning. Also, perhaps, working for money does not cause the greatest products to be made, the highest productivity of the worker or maximize creativity. What has the need and desire for goods and services got to do with the production of goods and services? They seem to be quite separate. For example, a pianist works in a factory that makes jars with the hope of saving part of his money income to purchase a piano. What has the need or desire for the piano got to do with the expenditure of his hours creating jars? Suppose Mozart and Van Gogh had lived another 20 years with enough money to live at a decent level.......what precious music and art are we now deprived of because their lives depended upon money income that, then and now, is tied to "hours" of work producing goods or services that may or may not be valuable to the well-being and advancement of our sweet society?
    • thumb
      Nov 4 2011: The question, I suppose, is just how would we go about doing that?

      What you are proposing sounds like the Basic Income concept. Are you familiar with that?
      • Nov 5 2011: I am not sure. Perhaps income could be linked to age, geographical location, other variables. Are you familiar with Kenneth Boulding's work that he referred to as the "Grants Economy?" I do not believe I am familiar with "the Basic Income concept." Please tell me about that. Thank you.
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2011: Well folks, time is running out for this conversation.

    It has been quite interesting. Inspiring , frustrating, informative... but most of all, it has brought certain things into sharp focus.

    The basic question of "what alternatives to the global economic system are there?" has been only cursorily addressed, because the answer is that there really aren't any that are ready for prime time. We have seen plenty of good fixes, adjustments and modifications... some quite striking and comprehensive... but nobody has been able to put forth a clear model of what we could actually do INSTEAD of the current status quo, should this model fail. And, fail it could... make no mistake about that.

    A lot of you might imagine that the Venus Project model could fill the breach, and while I think a resource based economic model is an extremely intelligent concept... I can't see how it could be implemented as it is currently formulated. It might provide a wealth of material for the system of the future, but it still smacks of Utopian fantasy at this point. IMHO

    We have seen a lot of people defend global capitalism, and a couple wanting to shift the blame for its ills onto too much, or not enough government regulation. I find that this misses the point, personally. And, REGARDLESS of your feelings for the current system, one could treat this endeavor to find alternatives as a mental exercise. (i.e. Imagine that global capitalism was collapsing and couldn't be patched... what could we conceivably do to replace it with something more sustainable and friendly to the planet and its people?)

    Anyway, with 3 hours left, I don't expect a last minute manifesto to appear... I have a number of ideas (developed over a long period of time) which I have been holding back, but rather than drop them now, I will start a new conversation around them when I have time.

    A bit more blah blah follows in a new post...
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2011: I really don't believe that the current economic system is going to be able to sustain itself in the coming years. Our ability to automate tasks (through the use of technology), coupled with our desire to lower operation costs in businesses, will inevitably lead to less jobs. The only way to avoid this while maintaining our economic system is to stifle our technological advancements. I am a very strong proponent of Jacque Fresco's Venus Project, and I do believe that a system similar to what he proposes is what is where our society is going to have to head.
  • thumb
    Dec 1 2011: I suppose the impending end of this conversation, combined with the persistent episodes of topic derailment, moderation censure, and the attention seeking antics that led to them have kind of put a cap on this debate.

    I found many of the contributions here rather helpful and parts of the debate were inspiring. I hope anyone who still might stop by here will chime in and comment about some of the more recent proposals and concepts put forth here.

    As of this post, there are still 2 1/2 days left. Maybe we can still squeeze some more juice out of this fruit.
  • thumb
    Nov 30 2011: The Capitalist system is flawed in much the same way that the Communist system was misused by the Soviet Union. There are people who will attempt to manipulate the system to their own ends and, over time, the true goal or the essence of the idea is lost to the general public.

    Communism, as envisioned by Marx was for an equal state where each person received according to their needs and gave according to their abilities. When implemented, a much different reality was realized. The party members became the only people who could advance to any position and the much of the Proletariat was left living in fear and worse off than before Socialism.

    The same is true of Capitalism. It was conceived that every person would have the opportunity to make a fortune in their lifetime. That a basis of freedom and property rights would facilitate this culture. Unfortunately (or fortunately) some people (for the lack of a better term:the winners in life) are smarter than the others. Some of the winners used others' ignorance to their own advantage and manipulated the people so that they could profit. This left the winners on top, a shrinking middle class, and the losers on the bottom.

    Capitalism is a dying concept. The main drive of the Occupy protests was that people feel that, to gain the education necessary to compete, they have to levy upon themselves so much debt. The mutilated form of Capitalism that is now practiced provides a small hope, shrinking by the day, of transcending the classes. As for a new system, at this point, less regulation would only benefit the previous winners and perpetuate the economic strife that has engulfed society. On the other hand, no one wants to give up money to a welfare state. It seems as though Capitalism has reached a point of stagnation: the only way that it will be reformed will be through a global economic meltdown.

    I have no suggestions as to what system might be formed after this occurs, but Capitalism is failing.
  • thumb

    TED

    • 0
    Nov 29 2011: Please keep the discussion on topic and engage in respectful way without personal insults.

    Thank You,
    TED Conversations Team
    conversations@ted.com
    TED.com Terms of use: https://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_terms
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: Yes, it's here in New Zealand but only in a very small way. The level of apathy within the camp in Auckland seemed pretty high though, until lunch was ready :-)
  • Nov 28 2011: Krisztian:

    "our economy grows exponentially for thousands of years. yet, you can not name a whole lot of products that are produced in exponentially growing amount. the economy develops in a way that old products and services go out of use, and new ones come in. we don!t use more, we use different."

    As an argument for supporting the idea that ever continuing economic growth is achievable is flawed.

    "money or GDP or welfare or wealth is not material. you can live a much better quality life, use higher quality products, have higher quality services without actually using more physical materials. so economic growth is not limited by any physical factors"

    As is this premise.

    All the factors you mention have physical manifestations and it is the physicalities of consumerism (ie the manufacture of products) that will eventually mean that exponential growth is unsustainable. This is so for 3 reasons.
    1. general population expansion - ie more people = greater consumption = more manufacturing= more products
    2. increased standards of living in previously "underdeveloped" nations - ie greater consumption and a greater demand for energy resources etc
    3. the inability of the earth to create resources at the rate we consume them - even the processes of maintaining the current economy are unsustainable. As a species we rely heavily certain things - oil, coal, copper,gold etc to manufacture computers and power them which in turn maintains the money markets as they are now. Eventually these resources will run out and with the industrialisation of nations that were previously using less resources and the increase in population this will eventually become critical.

    Also Free Market Capitalism even in its truest sense relies too heavily on consumerism to be the engine that drives it and allows those with an excess of capital to use those resources to provide items they "want" as opposed to items that other people "need" by any definition of what that need is. AKA inequality.
    • thumb
      Nov 28 2011: if you listen carefully to your own arguments, you will see that in essence, you are saying the following: what i say is wrong, because the opposite is true. now, it might be the case that i'm wrong and you are right. but it also can be the case that you are wrong, and i am right. we can decide that by actually addressing the arguments uttered.

      you say the population expansion means more resources needed. but i already gave you the counterexample of food production and land. food production went up while land usage actually shrank a little. it is possible with every resources. with correct technology, the amount of pesticides and fertilizers can be reduced. the amount of waste produced by manufacturing a cell phone can be reduced. the level of recycling can be raised toward 100%. there is no scientific limit on any of these, except of course the sheer tonnage of materials available, but it gives us a very distant time horizon (imagine all the lithium on the earth embedded in batteries).

      the key is technology. we need to increase the amount of R&D investment, and we need to do that now or sooner.
      • Comment deleted

  • Nov 23 2011: Very interested subject. But not the way it evolves. Sorry guys. [I've just open whole conversation, I admit I have not seen it before, it is so looong :) ]

    From my technical point of view (where capitalism takes most of ideas from according to Schumpeter) the trial-and-error is the most expensive way of evaluation. I believe it is not a secret anymore.

    Of course, it seems not really rational to turn to our past to gather ideas for future considering such global phenomenon as economical system. But I want to bring to your attention the system worked much before WWII in Germany. Where government not being absolutely social collected most of ideas from such organization as "Verein fu¨r Socialpolitik". Which was disordered by Hitler but nowadays works still. In fact, this organization, consisting from university professors etc., has been designing plans to develop stable economical and social system in the country. The government needed to execute the plans only. Just goole this organization to get better idea about it. Very interested on my view.
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: I'm an advocate of tax on consumption instead of tax on labor.
    (much like a small political fraction in my country advocates: http://www.vivant.org/en)

    Why?
    - I don't think people who contribute to society should be penalized for it. (it is a medieval remnant anyway)
    - It eliminates tax on labor fraud
    - It allows for in-calculating the ecologic (pollution cleanup), health (fat tax, tobacco and alcohol tax) and social cost of products and services
    - it is transparent
    - It stresses the limits of our material resources
    - people who consume more pay more taxes
    - the amount of tax can be dependent on the basic needs of people (healthy, local cheap foods and transport, tools are low-taxed (say 6% or less), while luxury goods get taxes of 100% or more)
    - no need to fill in tax-forms, or all the current constructions.
    - tax-evasion would remain, but shift their attention
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 23 2011: Such tax schemes are un-progressive.

      They are inherently unfair and unsympathetic to the poor. Taxing consumption always means that poor people will pay a much higher percentage of their money to government. For people living hand to mouth, month to month, such taxes take money directly out of their food budget and rent.

      Rich people save and invest their money, and do not spend their entire incomes every month. Even weighting the tax on luxury goods and non essentials doesn't nearly offset the fact that what you propose will inevitably lower the tax burden on the wealthy and raise it drastically on the poor.

      Perhaps you have not considered these things?

      Or maybe you find that even with capital gains taxes at their all time low of 15% and the highest income tax brackets also at record lows , that we need to somehow lower taxes even further for the wealthy? With the National Debt at record highs, social programs being gutted to balance the budget and pay for unprecedented corporate welfare... are you seriously proposing to shift the tax burden onto the backs of those least able to afford it?

      What do you want? Homeless people who can't even afford to buy tents to sleep in because such items have luxury goods taxes of 100% on them?

      Where is your heart?

      People who "contribute to society" shouldn't be penalized for it? I don't know about you, but I think teachers and child care workers contribute more to society than hedge fund managers and bankers. I don't see how buying and selling stocks and real estate contributes to society. I don't see how calling your broker from poolside in Aruba is actually labor.

      Taxing the wealthy is not a medieval remnant either.

      In the feudal system, the lords of the land owned everything and let the serfs work the land on their mercy & grace... and huge tithes, sons for the army, with taxes going to profit the landed GENTRY who didn't work. Not too different from today, really. Except now we expect the gentry to pay SOME tax.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: Think you did not understand the difference in taxation between products...

        Poor people don't by the luxury products, so they would not pay much at all. (if you assign value to tents as luxury good, then I guess you should have dealt with housing problems already)
        poor people receive money from government (at least where I live).

        As for ad-hominem arguments: please refrain from using them.
        Dismissing people because they happen to have assembled more riches than others... depends on how they acquired it.
        I don't say all wages are in proportion to the value, but I do think that high wages clearly show a gap for competition.
        As for stock exchange more specific: I didn't make any statement about them, so you should not assume I think that they are doing a good thing. More-over, Buying a stock is buying a product... and that can be taxed according to my system (and that money could go to the poor so they can buy the proverbial tent)
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: I understood your differentiation.

          But as I said above, even weighting the tax on luxury goods and non essentials doesn't nearly offset the fact that what you propose will inevitably lower the tax burden on the wealthy and raise it drastically on the poor.

          There have been many studies on taxing consumption and all of them that I am aware of show a lowering of tax burden on the wealthy.

          Someone who makes 20k a year will spend all of it on products. Someone who earns 10 million will likely spend only a tiny fraction of it.

          Are you proposing to get rid of capital gains taxes and estate taxes?

          As for the old ad-hominem cry, this doesn't apply to my comment whatsoever.

          1) I am not attacking you (or anyone else in this argument)
          2) My argument does not rest on any kind of insult
          3) There are no personal attacks whatsoever in my post

          Recognizing that some people's labor and contribution to society amounts to laying by the pool in a 5 star resort and making a 3 minute phone call while being massaged and exfoliated... is not an ad hominem logical fallacy.

          One way to recognize the oft shouted but rarely accurate ad hominem fallacy is if the supposed attack on the person (an opponent in the debate) were to be removed would there still be a valid argument. If the argument is not dependent on the insult, it is not a logical fallacy... merely dickish.
        • thumb
          Nov 25 2011: Things might be better in Flemish Belgium. At least the beer is better.

          Socialist European countries often miss the point that their safety nets, while eroding somewhat, are nearly nonexistent elsewhere.

          A simple stroll around any actual ghetto, township, or favela will show you what I mean.

          At any rate, income inequality is not so high in northern Europe. Totally free University educations may be a thing of the past, and privatizing of things like transportation and telecommunication haven't gone as well as you all had hoped... the whole euro thing is looking to be a mistake in retrospect... but it is still relatively unheard-of for poor Europeans to die of hypothermia or starvation.

          Let's hope you keep it that way.

          Be well Christophe.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: "where is your heart" seems ad hominen to me (though I could be mistaken).

        I did not dismiss your other arguments because of that.

        Anyway. What would a person spend his money on when he earns 10 million?
        If he invests it, then it goes in a win-win situation (labour for people and revenue for himself).

        To be honest: I was only thinking on tax on labour and tax on consumption... other taxes can stay the same (or change, but I'll leave that to those with more knowledge in that area)...

        I do think there are problems with current financial markets (some forme of speculation don't have anything to do with creating mutual benefits, or becoming the "invisible hand")

        I don't have problems with people earning more than I do (let's say I spend everything on products), and if earned well (even when it means only making decisive phone calls from a beach), then why should I? If he gained it by doing bad (hurting people, stealing, slavery,...) then I do have a problem.

        There is only a problem with rich people if there is no social structure to give a decent life to the poorest. When the poorest can live (have enough food, a roof & time to raise their kids, health insurance), the rich can be as rich as they happen to be...

        I really don't see the conflict with my proposal... (so please feel free to elaborate or enlighten me on that account)
        • thumb
          Nov 25 2011: Well Christophe,

          If we lived in a perfect world, with a level playing field... decent safety nets, wealth creation without hurting people, and investments that actually create labor... then I suppose people wouldn't have much of a problem with your proposal.

          Sadly, this is not the case.

          Safety nets are nonexistent for most of the 7 billion humans on the planet. Even in a so-called first world nation like the US, people still die on the streets. We have families huddled in the cold. Meanwhile, members of the GOP who support shifting the tax burden to consumption, are trying to cut heating oil subsidies & school lunches.

          You say "there is only a problem with rich people if there is no social structure to get a decent life to the poorest." Well, that happens to be the case. We have people working two jobs to support a family in a one room apartment that can't afford bus passes, let alone health care.

          Most investments do not actually create labor for people. Savings accounts (often overseas), gold futures contracts, options on the Swiss franc... even buying stocks in blue chips... no new jobs are created. Generally, the only labor generated is for a single broker.

          Anyway, the sales tax & other taxes on consumption are well known to disproportionately affect the poor. If you scrap the income tax, payroll tax, and other taxes on labor and made up the difference in consumption taxes... you would be effectively handing huge gobs of money to the richest people while making life even harder for the poor.

          If you say that other taxes can stay the same or change, I'm not sure I understand your proposal. What would you do with the capital gains tax & the estate tax?

          Note: Ad hominem does not simply mean insulting. It is a logical fallacy only in the context of a logical argument. If an argument is based on insulting one's opponent rather than proving one's case, only then is it an ad hominem fallacy.

          Asking someone where their heart is, is not even an insult, IMHO.
      • thumb
        Nov 25 2011: Though Europe is going to some troublesome times, and I'm not a socialist voter in my country,... I do think that all countries can learn a thing or two from each other.

        Coming back to your initial question: you clearly don't agree to my proposal... as such the question remains...
        I do think that the answer can only be found through trial and error, meaning we do need to try new models, knowing that some might fail. We don't know enough about humankind to come up with an ideal solution right away.

        I don't know about capital gain taxes nor estate tax (wiki helped me here).
        Capital gain: probably tax is needed
        estate tax: As I understand, it has to do with heritage. I don't think it's unfair to want to give your own children as much of an advantage as you can give... though some kind of tax might be beneficial to the community.

        You did pull me into some revision of my initial thoughts (thank you for that!)... Though I'm inclined (certainly within my own experience and country laws) to think it's not a bad proposal at all...
        The distribution of wealth needs to be contrasted to the amount of free-riding and the general well-being of the population. I think we can find better pareto balances, but there are a lot of (more or less) equal (but wildly different) options left.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Nov 25 2011: Trial and error... and a recognition that no matter what we do, we can ALWAYS improve upon it.

          I agree that the balance needs to shift, and this is certainly different on a country by country basis.

          As far as wanting to pass on one's wealth to one's children... it is quite understandable, and natural. But, it must be reined in to some degree, because it creates dynasties of wealth and opportunity that hearken back to the feudalism that we struggled so hard to get rid of. Inheritance doesn't account for merit, and it doesn't let the best and brightest rise to the top. Furthermore, it propagates and continues injustices from the past.

          Let me give you an example. The diamond mines and gold mines in South Africa were acquired by theft, trickery, violence, and underhanded dealings. The vast wealth of these resources has never gone to benefit the people of that land, but rather makes its way to almost exclusively European hands... including, as you must know, many in Antwerp. The fact that this money is still being passed down, and providing unfair advantages for the descendants of the people who oppressed and murdered to get it, is not justice. Even if the family got out of the sordid business a century ago, and reinvested this ill gotten gains in land or even restaurants, this wealth still provides advantages.

          The point is that we have never had a level playing field. Inheritance preserves imbalances and injustices. Knowing that one's vast wealth will be perpetuated through one's descendants gives people the motivation to hoard, be greedy and uncaring. It diminishes the sense of oneness with the species and communities, and instills a very narrow familial identification.

          I don't think that we can get rid of heritage, but I do think that after you have provided a comfortable life, opportunity and education for your offspring... it is only fair to make sure that the less fortunate are not sleeping in the rain.

          Nice chatting with you.
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: Well the first problem with a merit based society is one of education eg do you ban private schools or raise public education to private standards which would not only take time the training of teachers through to the cost on the tax payer.
    Where democracy is concerned on the face of things I really dont see the need to change anything.
    Private property I can see being an issue not to mention having the establishment willing to move out of the way for others and possibly having their less intelligent off spring drastically down graded.
    There's a lot of issues for a meritocracy that haven't even been mentioned yet!
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: In relpy to Krisztian Pinter, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagon etc. Hitler courted the industrialists (capitalists) to fund and get himself elected! In what way is corperatism and capitalism not the same thing they are one and the same thing.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: market choice vs state choice.

      market is identified by trial-and-error. winners win, losers lose.

      state solutions identified by choice of government officials. friends win, others lose.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: Please don't fool yourself?

        Market or warfare, is the same.
        The army with the most advanced weapon and best strategy wins, the company that has most capital wins.

        Any good government is controlled by the opposition and sent home as they act as you suggest.
        Corrupt countries are exposed more and better, let's hope this will become history.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: i certainly want to move to the netherlands if your government is not arbitrarily favoring some power groups of their choice.

          however, "market is warfare" is a world view i don't envy at all. you must be frightened when you go into a supermarket. enemies all around.

          your factual errors are boring, we heard these a million times. you think that capital automatically makes more capital. no it is not, that is why the market is a place of profit and loss. emphasis on loss. capital grows in able hands, and shrinks otherwise. big companies are often challenged by startups. where was google 15 years ago? it does not take a university degree to see such things.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: You seem to always insist that States and Corporations are somehow not connected and exist in pristine vacuums from one another.

        This is certainly not true today... if it ever was.

        What we have is a revolving door of business executives becoming politicians and lobbyists and vice versa. We have former CEO's and board members being appointed to the regulatory committees that oversee the very business they ran... and often continue to run despite the obvious conflict of interest.

        With the Citizens United ruling allowing unlimited corporate spending in politics, how on Earth can you not see that government (which you seem to blame for all the ills in corporatism) is complicit and often a wholly owned subsidiary of big business?

        Our Treasury department is literally stacked with the very crooks that tanked the economy. Any wonder why they chose to bail themselves out? Energy execs regulating the energy industry and what do we get? BP destroying the Gulf.

        I mean, if having a former head of Haliburton as VP go ahead and secure no bid contracts for his own company in Iraq didn't wake you up, maybe nothing will.

        Corporatism is the ownership or direct collusion of governments and corporations... the system whereby the large capital holders indirectly (or overtly) run the government for their benefit. This was the system under Mussolini and Hitler... and it is also (to a somewhat lesser or better hidden extent) the case with the US & the EU.

        Your defenses of pure Capitalism grow stale... there is no such thing. Just as there has never been any pure Communism. We are talking about the current global economic system which is known as a type of capitalism. It may be better described (as we have continually in this conversation) as a form of corporatism, but lets not play semantic games.

        What we have is debt-based currency, fractional reserve banking, the IMF and the World Bank playing god, and governments doing corporate bidding. Do you support these things?
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: okay, no problem, i will tell the 78th time. when we have a state, corporations, individuals, churches and any other organizations seek to loot out some money from it. it is natural. it is human nature. the same corporations seek customer satisfaction when facing market competition. solution: do not allow state to hand out money and create unnecessary interventions favoring their chosen groups.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: I wasn't talking about the supermarket but the world market.
        Look at this to have an idea:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/02/abcd-food-giants-dominate-trade

        75% of everything is in the hands of a few traders.
        Their actions are beyond control of any government.
        Even more so, governments are more and more governed by banks and multinationals.

        Maybe being bored makes one blind.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: you would be right if we were measuring truth by number of believers. but no, we tell true from false by reasoning. so if i say it 77 times, and 77 times no or incorrect reply follows, i won't just quit. also attaching (wishfully) characteristics to a group, and then assigning yourself to the group won't make you right. this reasoning is so bad it immediately defeats itself. sorry, but TED audience is not too much different from any other one. we have everything here from religious zeal to homeopathy advocacy.

          i usually don't let the discussion to diverge to other areas, but prefer to finish one topic before starting another. but because you still seem to be in the absolute state of disarray about what my position is, here we go:

          debt-based currency: it does not exist. we have fiat currency. fiat currency is a statist fenomenon, it is not functioning, it is terrible. we need free market money.

          fractional reserve: it is fraud, a clear violation of contract, the core cause of the boom-bust cycle.

          IMF, world bank: these organizations are created by states and are for states. the market does not need them.

          governments doing corporate bidding: evil. abolish the governments.

          multi national corps: cool. we need that.

          trans-national capital: cool. we need more of that badly.
        • Nov 24 2011: I guess Mr. Pintér doesn't recognize the cronyism that takes place in business world.

          He said that with state solutions friends win, others lose, but it's pretty clear to me that the same is true within the business world.

          Many businesses I see are simply given to the children of the owners, and they definitely play favorites with their friends.

          Also, I see JahSun's point that when governments are filled with the players of business, the lines are not so clear.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: "mr pintér": when we have a state, corporations, individuals, churches and any other organizations seek to loot out some money from it.

          "mrs gafner": I guess Mr. Pintér doesn't recognize the cronyism that takes place in business world.

          interesting observation. however, looting seems to me a rather unethical activity, and i seem to recognize that corporations do that. so maybe you read that wrong.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: At least we can agree on some things. That is progress I suppose.

        Just to reiterate, if you have to say something so many times and it is still not getting across, then there is something wrong with your ability to communicate. Communication involves tailoring your message to the audience being addressed. 78 times saying the same thing is poor communication, plain & simple.

        I can not be in a state of disarray vis a vis your positions, this is a ridiculous statement... especially in light of the fact that until your last post, you never actually expressed them or answered anyone's direct questions before.

        Your focus on not diverging from the point of the conversation would be admirable if what you thought was the point wasn't already a divergence from the theme and thrust of the debate to begin with.

        Anyway, thanks for finally telling us what you think of these salient issues. The fact that you are not for fiat currency (which is still debt based) or fractional reserve banking gives us a lot of common ground to explore. Also your disdain for the IMF and the World Bank, though I guess we might find them unhelpful or deleterious for different reasons.

        I don't really know what the world you envision would look like. No governments sounds good, but a world entirely at the mercy of the corporations we see today in the world would be frightening, TBH. I think we would see rampant destruction of the environment without anyone to stop it. I think we would see masses of people without any assistance whatsoever who would simply die if they couldn't get some slave labor job to support their family.

        Where would be the democracy? How would people have any say about the world they live in? Do you think that we would be safer if all the armies of the world were owned by multi-nationals?

        Who would pay for the police? The firemen?

        Do you really support letting the poor die en masse?

        What you fantasize over would be a Distopian & Owelian future indeed.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: "I don't really know what the world you envision would look like."

          and later:

          "What you fantasize over would be a Distopian & Owelian future indeed."

          isn't it a little self contradicting?

          anyways. last time i gave you a link to another conversation, in which we debated similar issues. it seems you haven't checked that, but you still insist that i keep my opinion secret. strange.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2011: Hello again Jah,

          being that there are only five more days for this post, I think we really should up the ante and see what possible alternatives there are...like serious ones..I think you, I, Joanne and many others have done enough arguing with Krisztian. He has his mind set on his views and he is entitled to that.

          By now I think that most people agree that there needs to be some sort of change in the global economic system..being that I have not been on this thread for about a week or so and I most likely would not have time to read all the replies I would like to ask, has there been any common ground in regards to what a possible alternative would be or might look like?
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: I perused your link.

        But if you think that posting a link to a long dead conversation, and expecting people to go back and read an entire lengthy debate that is closed, amounts to the same thing as answering direct questions on this thread... I think you will find most people are bewildered by that.

        I don't find the fact that I don't know what the world you are envisioning would look like, and the recognition that if you answer the above questions in a way that accords with the opinions you have been posting thusfar, the future you are painting would be Distopian, to be overly contradictory.

        The first part is a simple fact. The second is a speculation as to how you would answer my questions. (That is the problem with quoting out of context.)

        You, again, chose to not answer a single question in series of direct questions. If you are concerned that people do not understand your opinion, you could start by actually replying to their legitimate queries into what you actually mean.

        Not strange at all my friend... typical.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: "I perused your link."

          then later:

          "if you think that posting a link to a long dead conversation, and expecting people to go back and read an entire lengthy ..."

          i'm the only one seeing the contradiction here?
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Again with the trying to point out a nonexisting contradiction rather than actually answering the questions?

        Really?

        Just because I took the time to read your (not all that informative) long dead conversation, does not mean that OTHER people will take the time. Considering that this conversation (which is still open) is over 250 replies... I'm pretty sure most people coming to it now won't even bother to read this debate through.

        So again, if you really want people to understand what you're saying... how about answering the questions?

        I'm not sure if all this going back and forth with you Krisztián is worth the time it takes. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be just playing games most of the time. On the one occasion when you did answer some questions, it seemed like we might be getting somewhere... but eliciting your opinion on the subject in question feels like pulling teeth with you.

        I'm happy that we managed to find some common ground. But posts like the two previous ones leave me little hope for any real discussion with you. Maybe somebody else here will have more patience.

        And, by the way, even after reading your posts on the other conversation... I still have no idea what the world you envision would look like.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: we are running in circles. i have said already that i'm not willing to engage in divergent conversation. it is probably a personality issue. i like to go in depth and not jump between topics in rapid succession. i came here to dismiss some misconceptions about capitalism. this conversation is not smart enough to get my attention otherwise.

          this conversation is like we have a sick man with stomach pain, and we ask, since the pain is psychosomatic, what kind of relaxation or meditation would be good for him. but nobody established whether the patient really psychosomatic or has ulcer. and when someone comes in with the suggestion to first make a good diagnosis, you try to ban this person as being off topic, and urge him to talk about yoga or something. sorry, not going to do that.
      • thumb

        Jah Sun

        • +1
        Nov 24 2011: No one is forcing you to keep posting here.

        Your bellicose and insulting replies here are not uplifting the discussion. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the conversation here has become less than smart, it is in direct proportion to the amount that you have contributed.

        You have single-handedly created endless threads that go nowhere, steadfastly refused to address any points, including your own (with one notable exception out of dozens of postings), and, meanwhile, taken all of our goodwill and patience and made a mockery of it.

        Sadly, this is all too typical in public forums, but I had higher hopes for TED.

        Since you have descended into ad hominem attacks on the conversation (and by extension the participants in it), and seem to have nothing to add here other than your grammatically (and syntax) challenged assertions that you understand capitalism better than anyone else... I humbly ask you to stop trolling here and allow us to have our discussion in peace.

        It is too bad you don't appreciate meditation or yoga... it might actually make you a better person. I mean that sincerely. Perhaps your circle of friends gets you and appreciates your obstinacy. I hope, for your sake, that you have such people in your life because the mean-spirited, callous road you appear to be walking can be a lonely and sad one indeed.

        Who knows, maybe that is why you hang about here, and are, hands down, the largest contributor to this conversation you claim to despise so much.

        Bless you brother, but please go away.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: Krisztian - I feel I know you and have developed a strong respect for your opinions and the way you express them, but if you are trying to persuade someone to see your side you've got to change your tactics.

          In my recollection of all the conversations I've been in with you, the only one you have ever persuaded to change their mind even a little bit was me. But then again, I'm one in a million.

          Capitalism? It must be regulated. Not to the point where it becomes something other than capitalism - just to the point where it isn't lethal to 99% of the people. Come on - let's get some sensible rules in place to level the playing field a bit and to send a message to those who worship the god of greed.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: jim, i'm not exactly a tactical person. i just speak my mind. my style is almost purely determined by my opponents. if i hear good arguments, i'm polite. if i hear bad arguments, i'm mad.

          ps: actually i feel superb if i could give you some good points to think on, and embed into your world view. but in the heat of this debate, i forgot to point that out.
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Krisztián,

        If this was the first time you were hearing comments like this, it might be understandable that you could not get your "head around" it. But this is not the first time.

        This is, at least, the third conversation, that I am aware of, where you have been asked to go away or been threatened with censure - and I do not read most of the conversations you participate in.

        You might want to consider there is something in your delivery that is motivating people - quite reasonable people - to ask you to go away.

        Regardless of the topic, your position appears to be that what you believe in is incontestable; that any counterargument is fallacious; that you can ridicule people who disagree with you; and you are justified in taking offence when people point out your heavy-handed and bellicose nature. It's as if you think it's okay for you to be rude (because you're right) but it's not okay for people to say you are being rude (because they are wrong and it's just not okay to be rude to Krisztián Pintér - It's only okay for Krisztián Pintér to be rude to other people.)

        You also seem to be genuinely unable to understand that people might disagree with you, and have very sound reasons for doing so - such is your faith in your own beliefs.

        TED has a reputation to maintain. In my opinion, you are not measuring up to their high standards.

        Take the hint: When multiple authors ask you to go away, it might be time for you to make some adjustments to your conversational style.
        • Nov 24 2011: Wow.

          I am new here, but just wading through this thread, I can see why people might get fed up with Krisztián.

          I don't think that people need to stoop to his level, and insults are not called for. Whether they are actually logical fallacies or not, they seem to be lowering the level here.

          Maybe we can try ignoring Krisztián and get back to discussing the theme of this thread. I am quite interested in this subject.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2011: So true about what you say, I have had my share of experiences but I'm not going to focus much on Krisztian since the thread is not about him but I will say this:

          The time and energy we have spent telling him about his conversation style is the time we could have used to discuss the issues of the global economic system and find other alternatives for it but instead it has gotten to the point where we had to divert from that...hopefully within the next five or so days left on this thread something useful can come about all this discussion.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Krisztián,

        I get it. You seem to genuinely not see that the way you communicate is alienating.

        Believe it or not, I am actually trying to help you.

        As I have mentioned before, you seem to be a bright guy and you have some interesting things to say BUT I suggest to you that the way you communicate does not come across the way you might think it does. It comes across as belligerent, confrontational, and rude.

        If this is not your intention (and apparently it is not) you might want to analyze your communication style and adjust it accordingly.

        If three separate authors all ask you to go away, it is very likely NOT a conspiracy levelled against you but more likely an impartial indictment of your style of communication.

        That it does not appear to you that you are initiating aggression does seem to indicate you are not aware of how others read what you write so let me be plain: The way you write comes across as aggressive, rude, and condescending.

        Again, if this is not your intention, you might want to examine your style of writing and make some adjustments.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: you have a biased view. i'm rude to those who are dishonest, or using dishonest arguments, those who dismissive, call me a fool or troll, misrepresent my or other people's arguments, and such stuff. for me, these things constitute as immoral and impolite behavior. i'm not tolerant in such cases. i admit, this is not a virtue, but hey, that's me. with people who actually makes some effort, who are curious and open minded, i can engage in a very civilized conversation, as demonstrated in various threads on these forums. even if we don't agree.

          the reason why you believe i'm that way with everyone is because you fall in that category too. you project your own discomfort talking with me onto others. sorry to disappoint you, but i don't have that problem with everyone. not even with the majority.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Hello Krisztian. In several ocasions I have read you argue the "market choice vs state choice" dichotomy. I do not know of any country whose economy is purely market controlled, nor do i know any country where the state controls it. Can we agree so far?

        So, do you think that there is room for a combination of both? and if so, controlling which functions would you leave to the market and which ones to the state?
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: no country with pure market control. however, pure state control was tried in many dictatorships.

          there is a room for combination, we do have that today, and it functions on a level. however, i believe that there is nothing that is better to be left to the state. the free market, i believe, can handle everything better. however, it is subject to value judgment to some degree. if someone strongly believes in equality for example, some intervention is required. free markets won't deliver equality. for me, though, it is not an argument for the state, because i don't think that equality holds any value.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Krisztián,

        You are an interesting fellow. You get asked to leave conversations repeatedly and it is somehow "our" problem. There is no room in your mind to even accept it might have a little to do with you?

        And you see me as biased? Why is that; because I point out you are a bright guy, have interesting things to say, AND get asked to leave conversations on a regular basis?

        How is that "biased?"

        Because I don't add the part where you feel it's okay to be rude if you think people are being dishonest, or using dishonest arguments, are being dismissive, calling you a fool or troll, misrepresenting your or other people's arguments, and such stuff?

        So what you are saying, Krisztián, is that people like Michael Hagans, Frans Kellner, Jim Moonan, and Jah Sun are being dishonest, using dishonest arguments, being dismissive, calling you a fool or a troll, misrepresenting your or other people's arguments, being immoral and impolite, and such stuff - and BECAUSE of that, you are being rude?

        Is that right?

        Krisztián, you are the ONLY person on TED forums I have ever seen that has been asked to go away; not once but multiple times.

        That you see this as other people's problem, is probably why you have not made any effort to regulate your behaviour and why you are repeatedly asked to leave.

        You are tarnishing TED's reputation for open and respectful communication.

        That you feel justified in doing so because you find people who disagree with you to be dishonest or immoral is absolutely no excuse for such behaviour.

        When a new person joins TED and one of the first things they post is "I am new here, but just wading through this thread, I can see why people might get fed up with Krisztián" makes one wonder just how long the administrators will put up with your contributions before THEY ask you to just go away.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: i coined a new term for what you do: semantic copy and paste. basically, you repeated your earlier points with different wording. i hope it is not your best contribution to ted's reputation.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Krisztián, You really don't get it, do you?

        Dude, accept the help that is being offered. [Or not.]

        Listen: You repeatedly get asked to go away. By a group of intelligent, open-minded people.

        You do, Krisztián.

        You repeatedly get asked to go away. By a group of intelligent, open-minded people.
        • thumb
          Nov 24 2011: actually, i remember only two persons, and neither of them were particularly open minded. nor too much intelligent, for that matter.
      • thumb
        Nov 24 2011: Yes, that certainly makes a difference: ONLY two closed minded, unintelligent people here on TED have asked you to go away (that you can remember.)*

        Do you listen to yourself?

        This conversation is not actually about you so I will not respond to anymore "Krisztián-themed" comments.

        ---

        * If you wish I could send you a private note and remind you of some of the other people who have asked you to go away or otherwise censured you. Perhaps you might think one of them open minded and intelligent (but certainly not "worthy")?
  • Nov 22 2011: Basic Income seems to be the most humane solution overall, its time for a simple and radical approach while extinguishing the dehumanizing stigma of the current social help systems. Eliminate all programs and rearrange where the money goes, clean the slate by awarding all citizens a fixed monthly income. Those that want to work will, those that can't or want to focus on other areas of more importance can. Sadly, I don't think Americans can get past their mindset for such a progressive approach/. "Handouts, Entitlements, Get a Job" are often phrases in response to social help. But, if one looks at the U.S. as a huge business venture, or The Age of Technology, where people have been replaced by machines --wouldn't it be logical to reap the profits of a "business" we all in some way helped advance?
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: I don't think people really realize how cheap it would be to give everyone a Basic Income Guarantee.

      Even if we gave half of all US citizens a basic food & shelter stipend, we are only talking about 150 billion dollars or so... call it 200 billion with the infrastructure. To put this in perspective, our basic Military Budged for 2010 was nearly 700 billion. (Actual military expenses per year are estimated at 1.6 trillion. http://front.moveon.org/what-eats-up-53-cents-of-every-tax-dollar/)

      Also, this money is not just a pure expense because it would save us from spending on the back end. Having poor and destitute citizens running around has other mitigating costs... Emergency room visits, current welfare system, food stamps, low income housing credits, police enforcement of vagrancy, cleaning up after the homeless, lowered property values... etc. etc. It COULD wind up actually saving us money.

      People would surely have their knee jerk trained reaction against freeloaders, but they could be made to see the logic if it was clearly presented.

      Another un-quantifiable benefit would be the surge in creative output. People with more free time would be able to invent new technologies, make art and music, come up with new theories, and expand our human knowledge base... people could go to school and learn stuff. Imagine how big Wikipedia would be.

      Hehehehe.

      Seriously though, if people can't see that a basic living is an entitlement that we ALL deserve, and a safety net that would make society better and safer for everyone... then they are not really thinking this through.
  • Nov 22 2011: Hi Orlando,

    I'm not pretending that capitalism is perfect, I am saying that we have not found a better alternative.

    It's true that capitalist economies disrupt the environment more than tribal societies do. But that's the point, You couldn't possibly scale up tribal environmental values to a planet of 6 or 7 billion beings. Imagine if everyone in St. Louis dumped their sewage in the Mississippi.

    I would differ on the thought that a few greedy individuals can disrupt a capitalist economy. I think that to lay the current state on a few (hundreds or thousands) is incorrect. We did not get where we are due to a few scapegoats. A lot of people acted foolishly. I am not excluding myself from that group.

    You are quite correct on the number of panics. But here's my argument.... Let me put you on a time machine. You get your choice of being a farmer in 1929. Would you rather find out that your farm was 50 miles from: 1) Chicago, 2) Hamburg, or 3) Kiev?

    Someone is going to control the capital (in the economic sense, meaning the means of production) in an economy. Societies that have put that control in the government's hands have not done well. We tend to think that ALL capital is controlled by 6 or 8 banks and it's just not true. The small businesses I see are far more likely to be financed by small local banks, credit unions, or personal savings. GM might depend on Wells Fargo, but a 50 employee construction firm probably would not.

    Best wishes,
    Doug
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: Sure! here they are:
    1. Define clear group boundaries.

    2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

    3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

    4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

    5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

    6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

    7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

    8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

    I Bought the book and is amazing. If you have time please see this video.
    http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1223

    Best regards,
    Víctor.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: Forbes has just posted this article affirming that 0.1% of the US population earns 50% of the capital gains!

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

    Need I remind people that the capital gains tax is at an all time low of 15%, and that capital gains accounts for 60% of the wealth of the Forbes 400?

    The article is actually startlingly against the wealth accumulation of the 315,000 Americans who seem to own most of everything valuable. And remember, Forbes is no leftist rag or bastion of the "liberal media" by a long shot.

    Anyone wanna comment?

    (edit: Really? No one wants to say anything about this?)
    • Nov 24 2011: This is astounding.

      I don't live in the USA, but I imagine things are not much better where I live.

      How can anyone imagine that this is a level playing field, or any sort of equal opportunity?
      • thumb
        Nov 29 2011: I don't think many people realize the extent of the imbalance actually. The talk of the 1% & the 99% is already shocking and somewhat unbelievable to a large number of people.

        This information about the fairly obscene fact that the top 0.1% dominate US capital gains (the kind of wealth that doesn't involve any labor), and are being taxed a ridiculous 15% on this... is not really all that well known, I'm afraid.

        Generally, people too poor to be part of the investing class have no real idea of what capital gains are. And, those who do get it, are usually happy that the little people they exploit are unaware of it.

        Have we returned to an era of robber barons, oligarchs and plutocrats? This needs serious discussion.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: And what about this variation http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/ostrom.html on Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. For this research work the autors get the Nobel on 2009
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2011: Okay peeps... I would be happy if we could try and return to discussing alternatives to the current systems.

    I know that it is easier said than done to envision an alternative to something that seems omnipresent and inescapable... but it is not impossible. The chances that we will still be using the current incarnation of global capitalist corporatism in 1,000 years are basically nil.

    So, all you brilliant people... are we really saying that we can not do better than a system that rests on a razor edge, destroys its own foundation, and causes abject misery for a majority of the population?

    Really?

    Someone hit me with this link recently http://www.sacredeconomics.org/ and while it is not a workable solution (it could be considered horribly naive), it at least puts forth some very needed ethical concepts. Anyone read Eileen's book? Anyone want to comment on it?
    • Nov 21 2011: I don't have any solutions, but I would be happy to help work on some if they come.

      This book in your link seems interesting. Why is spirituality horribly naive?
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: I don't mean to suggest that spirituality is naive... that is not what I actually said.

        The idea that what Eileen proposes doesn't seem directly workable and could be considered naive is probably a rush to judgment on my part considering that I have yet to read her book through.

        I have an epicly long to-read list at this point, so I can't really say when I might actually get around to reading her book. Even with my Kindle enabling me to read more than ever, and my ability to speed read getting a bit better... there are simply not enough hours in the day to consume all the information I am interested in.

        Be well Julia.
  • thumb
    Nov 20 2011: Merit based societies where all have the chance to do well, this does not exsist anywhere in the world so we need to put laws in place that will stop the greedy from pulling up ladders after themselves for their selfish gene!
    • thumb
      Nov 20 2011: It is interesting you should bring this up Michael. I have been working on a concept that involves the balancing of merit with the ideal of democracy.

      It is a larger framework than simply an economic system, and I am not sure if this TED forum setup is a worthy place to discuss something in depth. It is a bit limited and not set up well for real discussion. It serves its purpose for extended conversations on TED themes. But in the end, it is simply an extension of the comments section for each talk.

      Perhaps as this conversation progresses, we can delve into some of this further... or carry the conversation on elsewhere if that is more useful.
  • thumb
    Nov 11 2011: I still feel that free market economics is good provided we can maintain transparency and competitiveness and respect the basic tenants of democracy . We are failing consistently on these accounts. The fact that monopolies and oligiopolies have hijacked the system and the system is malfunctioning also shows that it will be rigged as long as the monopolies are not weakened and dismantled. We can only think of implementing alternatives after the present system crumbles again....possibly after.... another market crash !
    • thumb
      Nov 12 2011: Well, you may be right... but I would like to think that intelligent, progressive, futurists could come up with ways to get from here to there without having to be subjected to chaos, confusion and regression that are the natural by-products of such scenarios.

      We don't have to succumb to defeatist notions.

      I watched South Africa overcome Apartheid almost overnight when no one thought it could be done... the fall of the Berlin Wall. Positive change doesn't have to come hand in hand with catastrophe and suffering. IMO
      • thumb
        Nov 12 2011: You are right. It could easily happen witthout chaos. However the measures taken after the 2008 crash shows that we are working to build a bigger pack of cards,hoping that it will stayup. I am not defeatist but an optimist in thinking that a second crash is close because one of the biggest strength of free markets is that it mercilessly does away with the inefficient system and brings about a more efficient mechanism. Only this time I hope there will not be appetite for a make shift repair job , it will be a rebuilding work from ground zero.
        • thumb
          Nov 15 2011: We can only hope.

          ... or perhaps we can do more than that.

          If enough of us start going beyond merely protesting or being anti, and begin to work on, perfect and implement alternative ideas, we can come up with something workable. If a clearly superior solution exists, and is known to be practicable... people tend to gravitate towards it.

          Not always, of course, and especially not when the forces opposing progress are entrenched, resourceful, and amoral. But, in time, inferior practices tend to always get replaced.
  • Nov 10 2011: Your comment, "BTW... the fact that only a very small percentage of people bask in opulence is kinda the point. 1% controlling 40% of the wealth, with the upper 0.1% controlling the majority of that... who can defend this?" I would take exception to. Controlling wealth and living in opulence are two different subjects. Yes, the ultra rich can live in opulence if they so choose but so can many people with much more moderate incomes, yes many are personally rich and yes many control wealth....no disagreement.....but....controlling wealth and personal wealth are slightly different subjects. In corporations stock holders control wealth, most of whom are not in the 1%. With respect to personal wealth, given one can only live in so much opulence. Assets not used typically invested and while they create more wealth they also create jobs and wealth for others. That is the system today. With history as a teacher we know that socialism does not work on a massive scale and that cooperative societies (small tribes) did exist with more or less equal distribution of wealth if not power. We also know that as tribes got larger and grain instead of hunter gathering became the norm this changed and capitalism was born. Your quest short of going back to small communes with their own societies and laws would not change the desire for "more", be it women, food, horses or a better cave. That instinct is part of our genetic makeup and most people today, not all, fall into this category. Short of waiting for some ultimate evolution to a better man the only alternative would be for government to regulate wealth. Something along the lines of you can only have this much of whatever and the rest goes back into the pool for others. That would very probably be salable to the voters (depending on where the cut off line was). The issue that would exist is how to change everything we know....the Constitution, Congress, etc....short of that I can think of no other alternative.
    • thumb
      Nov 11 2011: There are other alternatives. And infinite sub-varieties to boot.

      The system we are in is not stagnant, and it is changing even as we speak.

      The fact that it is difficult to envision alternate ways to deal with labor, resources, exchange of goods & services etc. does not mean that attempting to do so is not a worthwhile endeavor. If I can say one thing for certain, it is that whatever humans will be doing 400 years from now, it won't resemble what we do now very much.

      Controlling wealth and living in opulence are, in fact, two different things... they tend to go hand in hand, but not always. And, I fully agree that it doesn't take a small fortune to live ridiculously well.

      I suppose the real issue at hand is how we can improve everyone's quality of life. Societies that have working safety nets and maintain a decent minimum standard of living for all tend to do better on nearly every index. And as such, I would rather live comfortably in a more enlightened society than hide in a fortress as an oligarch in a poor country.
  • Nov 10 2011: I don't agree with the logic of having social programs = socialism. There needs to be a balance between social programs and private ones, and their should always be an option between the two, without options you get monopolies which are bad for everyone. The ways in which the U.S. government intervenes in the private sector usually leads to more problems, the house crisis is the most recent example of this.
    With a basic income guarantee done through a negative income tax, would lead to a freer market, we could get rid of minimum wage, and laborers would be given more leverage against corporations when it comes to pay. If we heavily taxed income and profits, then businesses and their owners would be faced with the options of paying people more, or just having their extra income and profits taxed away; and when unskilled laborers don't need to work it makes the labor market more free by adding in competition, as of now there is no competition in the unskilled labor market which is a big reason as to why wages are so low, you're easily replaced.

    We've never had a truly free market, so we can't say that free markets are bad because we don't know. The best thing to do would be to have a: Basic income, with a negative income tax, along with a progressive income tax for those who have an income that is above the line, along with a government that actually protects our property rights. Property rights would protect ourselves and our environment, progressive income tax prevents people from making an obscene amount of money as well as helping those who make just above the line save money, and the basic income provides true competition in the jobs market and insures the health of the people, and the negative income tax makes things fare for people who have an income just over the line, because they're taxed on the difference between the line and their income, otherwise it'd be better to make amount just below the line instead of above it. These measures would improve
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: I don't know that global capitalism would be affected overmuch by a single nation state enacting such plans. They would just pick up and move to a friendlier environment. Most of them are already registered in tax havens as it is.

      They don't care about society. Ethics play no part in corporate decision making.

      As for free markets, we have seen them plenty... they are usually known as black markets. Arms dealing, sex slavery, pirate warlord fiefdoms, guerrilla armies etc. etc. The local crack house is a prime example.

      Free markets usually have absolutely no regard for human life or the quality of life for the people they impact.
    • thumb
      Nov 13 2011: Hi Chris, 'The ways in which the U.S. government intervenes in the private sector usually leads to more problems, the house crisis is the most recent example of this.' can you give an example of how govt intervention lead to the housing crisis? From my perspective it looked like a giant ponsy scheme that, without govt intervention, would have pushed America back into the stone age if it had been allowed to collapse completely. Even with govt intervention, it has put the entire globe into the worst slump since the thirties, and has toppled the economies of Greece, Ireland, and destabilised the Eurozone. Can you justify your remark, I can't wait.
  • thumb
    Nov 10 2011: The first question I want to propose is this, is there really a way to improve our government system/economic system so that those in society who work the most recieve the most? Without socialism I can not think of any way. So, if we want to choose what to buy, what to do, where to spend our money, then we had better give up the idea of a perfect society where hard work equals more money. With this termendous amount of wealth that these finance tycoons recieve, comes great responsibility and risk. Let's say I own a hedge fund. If the stock market falls (2008) investors get scared and they decide that they want there money... now. So they pull their money out. Well, the value of their portfolio decreased significantly so I have to sell stocks to pay whatever they had in the last quarter. Eventually investors keep pulling out and I have to keep selling stocks that are extremely under valued. I go out of business. My home is forclosed, my bank accounts empty, I am bankrupt without a hope to get a job in this awful financial market. So, while these people contribute nothing, they do not have a stable job, a stable income source, and they are the first to lose their job if things go bad.

    Back to the present. People are angry that these financial tycoons are wealthy and sucsessful and that they, people who work hard, don't recieve a fraction of what these brokers do. Well, the only explanation I can think of to solve this is to tax investment profits signifcantly so that these financial tycoons cannot recieve as much as they would. However, this can discourage a lot of people from investing since the reward has decreased significantly and the risk stays the same.

    What I am saying is there is no obvious or easy way to resolve this dilema. For now, until a solution or path becomes clear, we must just take satisfaction in knowing that these financial tycoons are not in much of a better situation than everyone else.
    • thumb
      Nov 10 2011: I hope I have not suggested that coming up with an alternative to the current system would be easy. If that is the case, then I apologize.

      Improving upon a system that dominated the last two centuries is no easy task. However, in time it will be done. Nothing stays static forever, and I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this economic system is perfect.

      When the collapse of Greece could take the whole thing down (conceivably), it is not ludicrous to ask what we could do differently. In fact, to paint this system as the best we can do, or say that other solutions are not perfect either, is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy.

      Your example of the hedge fund owner is tenuous. Anyone who understands the markets wouldn't be so exposed with all their eggs in a single basket and no... HEDGING of their bets. If they were so careless, then they would only find themselves in the position that millions of hard workers already find themselves in. Namely, being unemployed. And even this mythical hedge fund owner you have devised would probably still avoid being homeless or living in a tent. Bankruptcy doesn't usually cause one to live under a bridge.

      At any rate, these types of people are NOT the first to lose their jobs if things go bad. Well over half of the unemployed in the US no longer qualify for unemployment because they have been without a job so long.
      • thumb
        Nov 10 2011: Hedging can only do some much when your entire portfolio is down 35%. Yes, you made a few million off of hedging, but you lost 100 million in your portfolio. Most hedgfund managers are quite well off, but that being said, if they lose their job, it doesn't take long for the money to run out and the homes forclosed.

        In 2008, the stock market fell to 8000 points and many of the blue chip stocks fell with it. Some falling 25-75% from their highs. You can imagine that many hedge funds invested in these blue chips like mutual funds or bonds, they were almost certain they would not fail and when they did, they were not prepared.

        To protect the governments from spending to much money, a group (the UN) could stop countries from borrowing too much money. They could also help get that country back on track with their budget and perhaps even bail them out, but to do this would require a lot of cooperation between countries as well as the willingness to admit that they are having problems that they can not fix, and many countries will not do that.
        • thumb

          Jah Sun

          • +1
          Nov 10 2011: Somehow it is hard to feel overly sorry for people who gamble on margin accounts, controlling portfolios worth10x what they can actually afford to lose. Nobody buys anything from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on margin without understanding the risk involved. If you gamble in such a way that you leave nothing for yourself should the worst come to worse... you are an idiot.

          Sorry.

          Millionaires losing their homes due to stupidity and greed doesn't tug at my heartstrings the way that families living on dumpster diving and a local food bank does.

          I have seen homeless people deathly ill that are tossed out of emergency rooms while they are unconscious... only to wake up cold in an alley somewhere. The heartless "healthcare" professionals have no problem getting around the emergency room clause by transferring patients who are likely to have no insurance to a nearby hospital where they can safely be no longer considered emergency room patients.

          Having traded commodities and futures myself on margin, I know what it is. If you delude yourself to think it isn't gambling, than you are delusional. It might be better odds than Vegas or the Lotto, but it is still something you should not be doing with your living expense money. Never place a bet you can't afford to lose completely. Buying options of futures on blue chips is no different. I don't care if you are a hedge fund manager or an international bank/ brokerage firm.

          Nobody is bailing out the single mothers with infants living on Skid Row.

          As for countries that borrow too much, it is a smokescreen. Debt based currency implies that there is always more debt than there is money to pay it. Even if ALL the money in the world were used to pay off debt, it wouldn't be enough. If you really understand economics, you know that it is a scam.
      • thumb
        Nov 11 2011: I never said that what they do is right, fair, or deserves sypmathy. I am simply saying that not every banker or hedge fund manager has millions upon millions upon millions of dollars.

        As for the current question/beate, as far as limiting the rich's fortunes/income, someone on TED.com had an idea about taxing everything 90% giving the government more money to subsides things, pay off its debts, create projects, have more control over the economic standpoint of our country. Of course, this may not be practical, in theory it could work.
        • thumb
          Nov 12 2011: Not sure that giving that kind of power to any existing government would improve things overmuch.

          As it stands, the governments of the world are like the saps and cronies of the corporate interests.

          The only way for governments to be worthy of the position that the idea you have described would put them in, would be if they completely changed their modus operandi and adopted societal ethics and righteousness strictures that would govern their decision making processes... or if the governments were truly democratic (not representative or republican).

          IMHO
  • thumb
    Nov 9 2011: @Andres (Because I cannot reply directly and because that thread has been derailed, probably out of the unsophisticated conflation of "Anarchism" the political usage and "anarchy" the banal misuse .)

    I didn't actually say that "what makes a system fail is the impossibility of getting rid of corrupt individuals." I said (and am repeating for the last time because I no longer care who cannot detect the difference between the two statements): the problems we are seeing are not inherent to the system that is in place.

    Oversight - you know that thing that is obliterated with true Anarchism in favour of 'voluntary association'? - accountability, and checks and balances are needed to keep people who would game the system from doing so. And not because the bulk of people would indulge in that behaviour, but to keep the small percentage who would do so in line.

    The issues that we are experiencing are a result of a lack thereof.

    And it doesn't matter whether they are behaving this way because they are physically incapable of empathy or because their daddies didn't love them, unless proper oversight and regulation is a factor, it would not matter what the underlying system was.
  • Nov 9 2011: It's actually far from just Socialism; the means of production are neither state nor collective owned/run by the people, the means of production are still owned by Capitalists. It is similar to socialism in that the people who have the "unskilled" labor jobs are contributing to society in the way that they can and it is beneficial to our society. Therefore as a society we should recognize this and make sure that those in our society have their relative needs met.
    It is similar to the Basic Income Guarantee; however, it is not a guarantee to all nor is it a flat sum of money. It would have to be done on a sliding scale something more similar to a negative income tax.
    Capitalism is a very good and efficient economic system, this wouldn't really change the economic system, its more of a change to our social system and should be viewed separately. Capitalism fulfills our Country's economic needs, while the basic income guarantee fulfills our social and moral obligations to one another.
    • thumb
      Nov 9 2011: Fair enough.

      A country does not have to have state or collective owned means of production to be socialist, though. Most of the successful European economies were at least some what socialist, and the degree that they have fallen apart on social issues often mirrors the degree to which they have dismantled their social programs.

      Many of the EU nations have stopped giving free higher education, drastically slashed social welfare, and privatized industries which had been public (trains, telecom, post etc.). Statistics have shown that this has been nearly universally disastrous. The old talking point that free markets are more efficient has not borne fruit. These countries now pay more, have reduced services, and the quality of life has diminished.

      The profit motive of privatizing causes companies to cut buses and train service... even eliminating them entirely to villages where the population is not great enough to warrant service. This, in turn, causes young people to have to roam the streets at night when the clubs close and there is no way for them to get home. The mischief they get up to (fights, vandalism etc.) more than offsets any small profits that the privatizing has made for the shareholders, sociologically speaking. After all, these industries had been owned by the public and provided public services that were deemed more important than the pure profit motive could maintain.

      Think about what would happen if the police were privatized... or the fire department.

      European socialism (the kind still practiced in Scandinavia) provides for society, and while it doesn't prohibit capitalism... it recognizes that capitalism and wealth generation are not the goals of society.

      Free markets create things like the recent tripling of tuition fees for universities in the UK. Do you think that only letting the children of the wealthy become educated will be good for the UK in the long run?
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2011: I must mention that there are not any actual pure capitalist societies in the world. Every country has regulations for businesses to follow, and have also outlawed monopolies. Which are in essence are against capitalist ideals.

    The before mentioned issues in the opening statement, are issues that any other economic system would encounter. The man who cleans the toilet will always be payed less than the C.E.O. of a corporation. (unless of course he is in a "Utopian society") Allow me to modify slightly the words of Winston Churchill: Capitalism is the worst economic system, except all the others that have been tried. The actual quote refers to democracy, but I think it can be applied in this context.

    The economic system is not the issue. It is our way of thinking that corrupts the system. We as a people have caused the issues; not the current economic system. If we as a people do not change, then no matter how many different economic systems we try, we will still have the same issues.
    • thumb
      Nov 8 2011: While I agree with you, I think that it is too easy to get caught up in semantics and technical definitions.

      The actual thrust of this debate, as I had envisioned it anyway, is what alternatives and better models are there than what we have... however we choose to define the various systems that are in play worldwide.

      Personally I don't think the old yarn of whatever we try will still have the same problems has legs. One need only look at the different standards of living in the world. The data is conclusive that the Nordic Socialist model produces the best results by a good margin. And, that model is nowhere near perfect.

      So, again the question is: What can we do better?

      (btw, ghetto crack houses are a pretty pure form of capitalism)
  • thumb
    Nov 7 2011: Andre; these words from Dr. Clonan re the super-rich as you have called them; the neoconservative project is not about "implanting of democracy" but a repressive prescription for the maximising of global profit for a small elite. "Neocons see the ideal ratio of super-rich to permanent-poor as consistent with an uber-class of business oligarchs and their political cronies from the top 20%". The remaining 80% of the world’s population, the "disposable poor", would subsist in "planned misery" unable to afford adequate housing, privatised education or healthcare.'
  • Nov 5 2011: Economic model debates are too broad for my liking. The ills of economics very rarely find that all their necessary and sufficient conditions come from the model. Industrial agriculture's cruelty to animals is a problem in both the capitalist and communist model. Forced labor is an issue with indentured servitude of capitalism as well as central economic planning in state capitalism and communism. Colonialism certainly isn't limited to any particular model. Trust-fund kids are just as much of free-riders as welfare queens.

    I think the hard truth is that economic problems are the result of limited resources & a need to distribute them + the intent to game the system + value differences that become ideological causes (such as criticizing stock trading for being too easy for the amount of money it generates). So I don't know what the point of changing an economic model is, because it seems that no model change has the nuances to solve any problems.
    • thumb
      Nov 5 2011: I hear you.

      The idea of this debate is to come up with NEW ideas.

      What could we do to improve upon the systems we have. No one thinks we should throw the baby out with the bath water...

      The crux of the matter is that our current way of doing business is not perfect.

      How can we make it better?
  • thumb
    Nov 5 2011: For the record, it is the intent of this debate to juggle the pros and cons of alternative economic systems.

    While defending the merits of global capitalism is fine, it does kind of miss the point of the 2nd question above... namely "Should global capitalism fail, what would be the best model to replace it?"

    Even those of you who are totally enamored with the current economic model must realize that it will not last forever, and that it is a fairly fragile system. If the recession hasn't convinced you, simply look at what is happening with Greece at this very moment. The fallout from this situation could ripple out well past the Eurozone.

    Also, I highly recommend the viewing of Richard Wilkinson's excellent TED Talk on How Economic Inequality Harms Societies.... http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
    • thumb
      Nov 6 2011: While many impressive thinkers have imagined wonderful social systems, including Marx and Engels, I think the imposition of a vastly different social system, no matter how brilliant, is futile in today's world. We are drunk on accumulation, on individual gain. We think as an 'I' not as a 'we'. Even the best of us would have difficulty making even a partial paradigm shift. Yet I too, have hope. Richard Wilkinson's talk shows that some modern economies are more holistic than others and manage to straddle with some success the conflict between social harmony and market enterprise. I think we need to look to these countries for a model that can be adapted, enlarged and modified as a world with declining resources will dictate. People who fear regulation will soon learn that the planet itself is about to impose restrictions; the oil will run out, we will soon be forced to take care of our planets lungs, the forests if we wish to continue to breathe. We will have to protect our food baskets, the sea and soil if we wish to continue to eat. In his illuminating talk 'Why Societies Collapse', also on TED, Jared Diamond describes how societies often display polarised extremes of wealth just before they collapse. I think, since it could well be a matter of making the best of what we have, choosing a system that is already in place and working quite well, is an appropriate and necessary starting point.
  • Nov 4 2011: I'm not sure that I agree with your characterization of capitalism. Can you name another system that is even close to being this efficient? Or another system that gives society the luxury of considering careers based solely on our desires? Or allows us the to leeway to consider environmental concerns?

    History is littered with other economic systems. None of them do nearly as good a job of feeding their people, let alone producing artists, scientists or environmentalists.

    Best wishes,
    Doug Bell
    • thumb

      Jah Sun

      • +1
      Nov 5 2011: That's what the intent of this debate was... to ascertain if anyone has any ideas for a better way.

      History is not exactly littered with other economic systems, actually. There have only been a handful.

      Artists have always existed, and the Communists had just as many scientists as we did.

      I proffer the notion that our economic system has been so unfriendly to the environment that it created the need for environmentalists.

      Tribal societies, for example, had shorter work weeks, more leisure time, a tiny carbon footprint, and negligible depression or suicide rates.

      I am not saying we go back to Tribalism or adopt Communism. Though, if Capitalism collapses, we could find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic neo-tribal future quite easily.

      I don't think people realize how precariously balanced our global economy actually is.
    • thumb
      Nov 5 2011: "History is littered with other economic systems.", can you name any? I know just a few.
      Environmental issues have all to do with the system we live by, what do you think?
      • Nov 5 2011: Hi Jah and Franz,

        Sorry if I pulled the conversation from it's intended course. You raise good questions, let me expand on my positions.

        I think there are quite a few systems in history that are demonstrably failures to the people that live in them. Here are the examples that I had in mind; The command economies in the 20th century. The model being the Soviet Union. The utopian economies that spring up occasionally. The example being the Anabaptists in Europe in the 1500s. The feudal landlord/serf economies. The example being Europe in the 1300s. The slave or conquest based economies. Examples being ancient rome and the American pre-civil war south.

        My position is that capitalism allows a larger segment of the population the economic freedom to pursue art, science, or environmentalism. This is instead of being the serf for the landlord, or the plumber by some party beaureucrat's decision.

        I would argue that industrialization is a greater source of environmental problems than the economic system. As an argument, I'd point to the environemental problems of the former Soviet Union. I also would not let tribal economies off the hook. A tribe of 200 people can treat the environment in ways that would be a disaster for a ciity of 1,000,000. It was feudal systems that deforested most of europe in the middle ages.

        Capitalism is a harsh but very effective system. The question for me is how can the excesses be controlled without destroying the basic efficiency.

        So, to return to the topic. I guess that my idea is that it's a mistake to abandon the capitalist system even if it collapses. One must hope that we don't repeat the experiments of the 1920s.

        Best wishes,
        Doug Bell
        • thumb
          Nov 5 2011: Interesting.

          Obviously, none of the systems you have enumerated are even remotely worth pursuing.

          The question here is more: "Can't we come up with something better?"

          I like to think the answer to that question is yes. Call me an optimist.
        • thumb
          Nov 7 2011: I feel I have to respond to this, even though I wasn't part of the original conversation. With due respect to the arts - I don't think capitalism is a great system (or at least inherently better than any other). Popular art is a reflection of the culture that produces it. Look at the popular music and "artists" of today who celebrate materialism, hedonism, and narcissism. Compare that to the music of the sixties, now compare that to jazz, and further back...early classical, renaissance, and baroque music - music that was made under various societal structures.

          I digress, and really this wasn't the point of Jah's conversation.

          After watching Wilkinson's talk, I was struck by the correlation to another study that demonstrated that happiness increases with income up to a certain level. Meaning that you will be happier making 80k vs 20k, however making 120k won't make you much happier than making 80k. Diminishing returns, if you will. His thesis to me seemed to take that idea and apply it to a societal level.

          What I gathered was not an open indictment of capitalism, but only that it is effective up to a point, after which it becomes destructive. I think that is a rational idea. I agree that the excesses do have to be controlled without affecting the efficiency - that is the exact problem in fact.

          This idea of no-holds-barred free-market (whatever you want to call it) capitalism is a problem in my eyes because it centralizes power and control. At the very least there should be a checks and balances system, similar to how our government was designed to operate.

          We used to have more of these regulations in our economic system, and maybe it's coincidence, but when we did away with them, things went awry really quickly.

          I'm on point with Wilkinson that the issue is not necessarily the type of economic or political system you have. That's too simple. It's how all these systems interact and treat the general populace.
        • thumb
          Nov 9 2011: Indeed Glen.

          You make some astute points. It is effective up to a certain point. (i.e. the lemonade stand)

          What Wilkinson shows, is that the range of the difference in incomes is the deciding factor in many of the social indicators of contentment, including trust in your fellow man. It didn't matter how much money people made in his study... only how wide the gap from the highest earners to the lowest earners.

          It seems to me that once basic survival, adequate healthcare, access to education, and a modicum of leisure/ culture time are covered, most people reach a plateau where this 'diminishing returns' you mention begin to set in. Obviously, a nicer house, a working vehicle, and a massage every now and again are certainly pluses. But, it seems that making sure that no one in your society has their back against the wall and exhibits the kind of desperation seen in cornered animals, is a incontestable benefit. After all, paying for it on the back end (violence & more police, uneducated workforce, emergency room healthcare) costs more and is less satisfying for everyone.
        • thumb
          Nov 21 2011: Douglas,

          You are correct that tribal economies have managed the land to support their own needs but you can not compare that to capitalistic societies being that capitalist disrupt the environment on a scope and scale that tribal societies could only dream of..

          How exactly is capitalism effective when a few greedy individuals can disrupt the global economy?

          the only time in American history in which capitalism was great was during the 50's-60's and the 90's.. I know those days are forever gone.

          America has been horrible at economics and here is a list of the economic crisis the U.S. has had before 1950's: (you can find all of these on the internet in more detail)
          1.The Panic of 1819
          2.Panic and Depression 1832
          3.Panic and Depression 1836
          4.The Panic of 1837
          5.Six Year Depression 1837-1843
          6.The Panic of 1857
          7.Panic and Depression 1869-1871
          8.The Panic of 1873
          9.The Panic of 1893
          10.The Panic of 1901(the stock exchange)
          11.Panic and Depression of 1929

          It is obvious that some of these pre-dates industrialism but given that this is only a handful of financial issues in the U.S. comes to show that something is really wrong with how we run our economic system.