Natalija Maric

EVS Volunteer, Radi Vidi Pats

This conversation is closed.

How should economy system that comes after capitalism look like?

History is much longer than human existence and it has shown that, how our society looks like in our lifetime, changes over time. In that timeline, commodity trade, commodity-currency and finally currency-currency trade are systems meant to serve for a while.
Recently, in the light of ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, those who support acts that might limit internet freedom, say that it is necessary for them to "maintain their business model", and that piracy and copyright issues are making it impossible.
It might seem that they are spending too much money to lobby preservation of system at this moment of development, in stead of offering solution for its progress.
It might seem easier, and it is not unrealistic, to make new business models, achieve goals, and yet not repress middle and lower class.
However, in order for business models to change freely, monetary and economic system have to change as well.
How do you imagine system that is better and more human than capitalism?

  • thumb
    Feb 2 2012: acta, sopa and pipa are not capitalist at all. they are anti-capitalist. big corporations want to keep the status quo, and try to use the states to do that. this is not capitalism, which supposed to be built on free competition. we do need change, but the change should be the demolition of artificially erected walls and barriers.
    • thumb
      Feb 2 2012: I do agree that capitalism as a system is not bad, but last decades or practicing it made lots of rules and original idea bend in a way that is ruining that system. Do you have any idea how to save its essence than?
      • thumb
        Feb 2 2012: not really. as i see it, everything comes from the people. it is simply false that power is hijacked, and politicians together with oligarchs rule the world. i think this system exists because people allow it to exist. and i see no easy way to change how people thinks.
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2012: I agree capitalism is to continue at the scale it does today, but also agrre that the social benefit will have to be re-integrated.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2012: This is a really good question. It should provoke some interesting comments. Of course, most current activity comes from those who prefer to perpetuate existing systems. The fact that they, the Elitists, gained mainly at other people's expense seems not to bother them. It is time for the negotiations and wrangling to be between all people, not just the rich and powerful. The dominant power must finally be the voice of the people. No longer will we have leaders to tell us what to do. Instead, we will engage staff to run the country for us in accordance with our instructions laid down in Manifestos, Constitutions, etc . Any decisions not covered by the prime documents, will have to be voted on by anyone who could be affected by the results of the poll. The Internet is an ideal tool for this. Everyone, is an equal shareholder in the business of life, and is entitled to a share of everything the business produces.
    The universal catch-cry of nearly all those who demand People Power, is "Freedom!, Freedom!", but not many seem to understand what that really means. Despite it's name, Freedom is not without cost. We shall have to work hard to keep it going. There are three basic commodities that are essential to sustain life. Two, air and water, are practically available free to everyone. Food, however, is a commercial product and millions die every year because they cannot afford enough of it. This is a crime against nature, and we are all guilty of it. The primary command for all those who administer the country, must be that all the food required to sustain the entire population must be produced and distributed. Everyone must agree to spending as much time and energy as may be necessary to do this. Once this is done, we are practically guaranteeing life for everyone. Once our primary security is established, everything else falls into perspective. Whatever else we might do, and how we do it, is not really important.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2012: Thank you for this vision!
    • Feb 5 2012: It is not capitalism that causes local starvation, it is politics. There is a surplus of food produced globally, but for the most part, politics prevents its transport and distribution to places of scarcity. The problem is worst in failed states and where civil strife prevails. Often it results from misallocation of national resources to military or corruption.

      Most problems that are attributed to capitalism are really caused by wrong-headed political policies, both by interfering with sound economic dynamics, and by corrupting sound and needed regulation.

      Your question cannot be answered in a world of such turbulent politics and such drastically conflicting political, economic and moral values.
    • thumb
      Feb 6 2012: Not only does food need to be distributed more efficiently, energy does as well. The corrupt and greedy people cause starvation, because of the abuse of supply and demand. I wish they wouldn't be so capitalistic.

      One hundred million "Bad Guys" are ruining it for the rest of the 6,900,000,000 of us.
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: PART 1a / Nalija Maric asks the question "How do you imagine system that is better and more human than capitalism?"

    I personally don't think that a system such as capitalsim can stand forever as there will always eventually arise a fringe of individual company leaders who will be competetive to the point of using government to stunt their competition as well as free-trade for their own personal gain. When the rules that define capitalism are broken by way of government allignment with private interests, capitalism begins to disapear. On the other hand, I don't think Socialism is a very efficient system either (but I guess its efficieny depends on whether you're part of the ruling class [or associated with such] or just a part of the average class of people, the so-called "99%"). Unfortunately, I don't think there's a corrupt-proof system in existence (I have submitted two previous comments that go into more detail on this idea).

    Having said that, I have thought of a governing model that may bypass the issue of corruption entirely. My place-holder name for this model is "Subservient society via Transparent Government." Basically, my idea comes from my notion that government will always have a vested interest in purposely thwarting the efficient workings of capitalism (whatever you think of capitalism, this is an idea I'm spreading to those who are illuminated in economics and know what the real game is). This is because capitalism is a system that grants power to the people by allowing the efficient acquistion of wealth for all financial classes but that threatens the maintanence of power for government. Governments respond to capitalism by setting up various rules and "regulations" that limit the growth of private business and its accumulation of wealth and power. Under this condition, the economy suffers in various ways as a result (a book called "Basic Economics: 3rd Edition" by Thomas Sowell is a good read). [continue to Part 2a]
    • thumb
      Feb 8 2012: "as there will always eventually arise a fringe of individual company leaders who will be competetive to the point of using government to stunt their competition"

      there is a straightforward solution to that. we don't need government.
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2012: You said "there is a straightforward solution to that. we don't need government."

        I don't think society makes a conscious decision to set up a government. I think that at the beginings of a society the most barbaric members will always rise to the top, due to natural competition, as the rulers and will employ the help of others, in sort of a "your either with us or against us" sort of way. Over time, this group of leaders and its constituents grows in numbers, becomes more organized, more sophisticated, more wealthy, and eventually assumes responsibility over all of society. Government is a natural social occurence. This is why Governments pop up all over the world. And in less developed societies, there is at least some sort of hiearchy of power among the people. Government is inevitable.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: that's an apt observation. having a ruler has costs and disutility. overthrowing the ruler has a cost in time, effort and risk of many sorts. if the costs of accepting the ruler are lower than the costs of getting rid of it, the ruler can sit in the throne for another day.

          however, we can not overlook the trend that society evolves. as time passes, we have more and more freedom. the average person had zero influence on anything 500 years ago. today, we have democracies combined in which rulers need massive efforts to blind people, and convince them to accept them. we don't need weapons, we just need to spread the word of truth in order to change things. it is only a matter of time.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: "Government is inevitable"

          ah my friend this is where we have disagreement and I'll provide some links for you to check out:

          http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000282.txt
          http://www.enotes.com/topic/History_of_anarchist_communities (in case you do not like Wikipedia)
          http://directory.ic.org/records/communes.php
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

          Government is not inevitable. What is inevitable is the human desire to be innovative, to have free inquiry, to come to terms with their existential anxieties and to live a life of value without the limiting effects of arbitrary institutions. In this way societies should be designed in way as to maximize these fundamental human qualities. This is something government cannot do, which is why I think many people protest against it.
      • Feb 8 2012: Krisztian,

        "We don't need government."

        I know you probably have already answered this before but - who negotiates contract disputes, and who enforces the terms of the contract once signed?

        An agreed upon arbiter can satisfy the first need (government is an agreed upon arbiter, by the way) but the enforcement aspect is troubling to me.

        As I type this I think I know your answer.

        Only trade with reputable partners and it won't be a big deal.

        But doesn't that hinder start-up businesses? Doesn't having a legal system actually increase competition in both the short and long term?

        SEP
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: the most accurate answer is this: we don't know. but have like a dozen ideas, probably none of those will be implemented in a free market. or if they will be, they won't be the winners.

          but a solution is independent private courts. you choose one judge, i choose one judge, they both choose a third judge. then they investigate the case, and make a decision. you can ignore the decision. but the word will get out. i will advertise every possible forums that you broke the contract, and then either refused to go to court or ignored the court decision. who will ever make business with you in the future? except if i'm a moron, and everybody knows that. for example i repeatedly abuse contracts to gain advantage. then you can get away with it.

          startups will be hurt by that, but this is not exactly a problem, you need to be smart. you need to give some insurance, some guarantee. be creative. if you don't have a name, you need some other way to shift the risk from customers to yourself.
      • Feb 8 2012: Krisztian,

        I remain unconvinced as to the practicality of anarchy, but am pleased to see you admit we do not know exactly how it would operate.

        In light of that admission, does it not strike you as reasonable to be skeptical?

        Also -

        Do you actually think the process you describe in your second paragraph exemplifies efficiency? You are adding to the cost of business and reducing competition.

        Free market arguments can be made for civil court systems and law enforcement, so long as both are subject to public transparency.

        SEP
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: "does it not strike you as reasonable to be skeptical"

          always. but i'd like to ask for the same skepticism about the arguments for the state. but you see, it never happens. free market is not good until i can prove it could work to the last detail. government is assumed to work until i prove it otherwise with absolute certainty.
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2012: @ Krisztian: You said "having a ruler has costs and disutility. overthrowing the ruler has a cost in time, effort and risk of many sorts. if the costs of accepting the ruler are lower than the costs of getting rid of it, the ruler can sit in the throne for another day. .....however, we can not overlook the trend that society evolves. as time passes, we have more and more freedom. the average person had zero influence on anything 500 years ago."

        I think the only reason that people now may mave more freedom than they had 500 years ago is that the population has been growing exponentially and it's getting harder and harder for governments to manage and control the growing number of people. This is why in modern times "rulers need massive efforts to blind people, and convince them to accept them." Eventually, the population will reach a level that is unrealistic, or not ideal, for government to manage. But I think the ruling elite are smart enough to have plans in place to prevent that.

        You also said "we don't need weapons, we just need to spread the word of truth in order to change things. it is only a matter of time."

        The truth is a very weak weapon when your staring down the barrel of a gun. We must consider that dishonest people can know the same truth that honest people know. But dishonest people are more likely to use whatever means neccessary to uphold their agenda. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about people who have morals, especially people in today's society. They're not willing to fight. This is why the Occupy Movement (not that I agree with their general creed) has been so unsucessful and non-productive thus far. You can't fight with banners, marches, slogans, songs, or the "truth." You can only fight opressors with weapons made of steel. And we know that those that live by the sword, die by the sword. And not many people are willing to die for the truth.
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: don't be such a pessimist. i think rulers today could have a greater control over their people than a king in 1200. a peasant in 1200 had not much chance against the king, granted, but the king also had not much chance to have eyes and hands all over the place. the technology and resources just weren't there. today, however, just look at the former soviet union, or other totalitarian dictatorships. they can be in every household, every church, every office. and they are, in some countries. but not in democracies, not in the west. here, they have to rely on propaganda.

          i'm also more optimistic about their future plans. the government is stupid enough to screw up everything. they can't even run the postal service, let alone fool people in the era of the internet. sooner or later, people get the memo. i believe if majority understands what's really going on, western governments fall without resistance, like a house of cards.
      • thumb
        Feb 8 2012: @ Orlando Hawkins: You said "ah my friend this is where we have disagreement and I'll provide some links for you to check out," in response to me saying that government is inevitable.

        I haven't had a chance to check out the web sites that you've provided but I do have my immediate thoughts in response to your comment. We must understand that competition is something that is prevalent the world over, prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, and perhaps can be considered a law of nature. There is no way to escape competition. And competition implies that someone will arise as the victor, come out on top.

        Now I imagine that you desire a society that makes a general compromise to not have a ruling body in place. And for people in the society to adhere to the compromise or truce, they must adhere to the rules. But what is to be done about those that decide not to follow the rules? I guarantee that there are competitors in any society that, at some point in time, will operate careful plans in secrecy in order to subvert whatever compromise the general society has agreed upon. And in no time there will arise a ruling class. And all it takes is a small window, an opening, the slightest opportunity for this to occur.

        The competitive nature of humanity will always find a way...
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2012: I have a couple of ideas:
    THese ideas cover a transition phase in which currency is repaired and then allows for a non-currency phase.
    If transition is subsequently required back into currency, then the model provides the means to do so.
    Firstly - the wikidollar.
    The wikidollar is a currency issued from mineral royalties and fishing/farming rights.
    Because it is pegged to physical Earth resource, it is not subject to the fluctuation of non-value things like gold or debt.
    (Cannot eat gold). Being administered by the participants, it is not subject to narrow manipulations of supply.
    Secondly:
    During the wikidollar phase, the wikicitizen is granted 2 accounts in the wikibank.
    Account 1 is the operating account of the citizen - it is openly available for scrutiny by any wikicitizen.
    This account has 2 thresholds - an upper threshold and a lower threshold (determined by consensus of the wikicitizens).
    The lower threshold indicates the need for nurture.
    The upper threshold cannot be exceeded.
    Funds within the account can be disbursed as the account holder sees fit.
    INcome that exceeds the upper threshold are automatically deposited into Account 2.
    Account 2 is the "investment" account.
    Funds in the investment account are at teh account holders discression, but must be disbursed on behalf of another wikicitizen or wikiproject - not for the direct trade of the account holder.
    Social custom will direct that Investment funds are disbursed for nurture as a priority before other projects are considered. Obviously, the account holder's children and dependants willl have accounts below the nurture threshold.

    The wikidollar and wiki-accounts, being global, solve the problems of wealth distribution and disparity.

    After social custom assimilates to the model, it will eventually fall to a state where no currency is required - depending on abundance. Scarcity will indicate a return to currency.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2012: Non-Zero Sum-ness and social evolution to super-Sovereignty
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2012: A little comparison: the open-source model in the software industry

    The code is free, fed by thousands of people.

    If you use it for commercial purposes, you have to pay some fees/royalties.

    This system is value-based and by that I mean "value" for the users, not the makers.

    Thousands of companies offer open-source products and services and make a living out of it.

    So, to sum up:
    Capitalism minus profit at all cost and irresponsibility.

    PS: remember the war against Napster? Then P2P software? Then "hub" websites like pirate bay, and now Megaupload? Internet is too big to control it or restrict it, its "freedom" is exponential.
    • thumb
      Feb 3 2012: I was thinking about that, but can you see other things functioning in open-source way? How could you do open-source food shopping for example?
      • thumb
        Feb 3 2012: Hi Natalija,
        Mmh..difficult question, because open source doesn't mean free (in my example) and food isn't either, most of the cases.
        I'll have a go by starting with the meaning of the words.
        Open source, semantically, is "open", so something to which someone has access (easily).
        To what things do we have access to in the food industry? Everything. But...organic food is quite expensive, a good not everybody can afford.

        So, semantically speaking, I'd say an "open source" food model would be to make organic food accessible to a broader part of population, for eg by cultivating together vegs and fruits on a common piece of land. I think such initiatives are sprouting around the world actually.

        Would that be, semantically-speaking, an open-source food shopping model?
        • thumb
          Feb 3 2012: Yeah, that could be it, but it brings element of "common" to world of personal possession that we try to keep so much. And everybody seem to be too frighten by idea that sharing basic life-maintaining resources is too connected to Communism that failed. I believe we reached top of exploitation of this economy and system, and that something will have to change in order to save society from crashing. New system requires social change, social change is slow and has its shortcut in civil liberty and economy. That is why I'm trying to imagine new economy system... Internet inspires me a lot, but I'm still struggling with transferring virtual to hard-copy world :)
  • thumb
    Feb 2 2012: I thinkcapitalism in theory... Was about as good as it gets. Everything can be improved on of course, but the idea that free people should buy what they like, and that should generate profit, and the government shouldn't get involved... was a good one. People failed it, in my opinion, not the other way around.

    That said, I would have been in favor of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, if we had fair copyright laws in the US. Under original law, copyright was to last 14 years renewable once, I believe, though it may have actually been 7 for awhile... That's fair. Under that law, I could start my own TV station that broadcast classic movies, up until the year 1982.... I think ET, The Terminator, and Alien, would have just hit that channel. More importantly, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Capra, Goddard, and even "The Cosmos" with Carl Sagan, would be freely replicable.

    Piracy of brand new profitable material, is a bit of a crime, but sharing culture should not be. Mickey Mouse, and It's A Wonderful Life should certainly be a part of American culture nowadays, and no one should have to pay to show their images... Also, copyright and patent law in general should have been modernized over time. If 28 years was long enough to make a profit in the 1700's, I have to think 10 years should be enough in the internet age.

    I don't know if the whole system needs to be replaced... Or, if it just needs a modern touch... Good question though.
    • thumb
      Feb 2 2012: In terms of making something and getting money value in return, capitalism works fine as idea, but tan securities market got involved, and we started trading things we don't have now, and wont have tomorrow, but in years to come. Crisis merged out of that: value we have spent wasn't growing as fast as we planed.
      So, SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA are only a peace of story that got stuck in my mind because of official statements saying "we are doing this to save business model", but lots of other fields has same position, only they are not saying what is their motivation for lobbying.
      What really bothers me is that I didn't hear of any suggestions of what to do after this. Its impossible that we cant improve it or transform it to something new; that I haven't heard people of thinking in that direction. Is it really that we reached the top of development in economy field?
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: I do not have a clear idea on how would be the next system after the failure of capitalism, but I am sure it is failing.
    To set an hypothesis, we should look at the back bone of the system we are in, we are locked in a triangle with (speculative system), (military power), (Currency supremacy) in each angle.

    That figure is changing day by day,and as the global shift in thinking and way of living is ascending, military power will be having less and less influences on people's lives. We have a clear illustration in the people revolutions witnessed around the globe latetely. People prefer to die rather than staying in some kind of mind-jail. No one wants to live under dictatorship anymore. At first, we are fighting the military force than submit the people, second, we'll be fighting money power.

    Speculation has gone wild and created such a volume of imaginary money and wealth that no one can really tell you the line between dream and reality. the development of events shows us, that we are going down back to earth, and the economy will shrink up to his intrinsec realm. It will be a big shock, but those who are already down to earth will not be surprise. The majority of the people of the world being poor or with just enough money to make a living will stand the shift as they have very little to loose.

    The third point in the balance being Currencies supremacy, responding to the downsizing of the speculative volume of money created by "world casinos", NY, Paris, London, Tokyo, ect..., most currencies will loose their credibility, thus giving way to refuge in sources like gold and other precious metals. Natural ressources are the future's wealth. A country will be quoted rich or poor according to the quantity of ressource he has and no more how much imaginary money he can raise from his national casino.

    This is how I think the next economy system will look like, the procedures and details of functionning will set up naturally; human beings are king of adaptation.
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: PART 2a / Having briefly explained how capitalism is a threat to the power of government and how it deals with that threat, how then can a compromise be made which results in the governed retaining the efficient mechanisms of capitalism while the government retains stable power over the people (let's assume that out of society will always arise a dominant governing body and its nature is always to acquire and retain power). I think that compromise might be possible through my model of "Subservient society via Transparent Government." If the government would be more transparent in its agendas for acquiring and maintaining power, if government were to reveal the true reasons for war (securing foreign resources) and other affairs on an internationa level, then I think the people would accept those agendas if it made logical sense and thus would become subservient to the rule of government. In turn, perhaps the people can be trusted to have more economic freedoms if they voluntarily did not challenge the authority of the establishment. Perhaps, as well, politicians would be a lot more truthful if they didn't feel they had to lie so that people would just fall in line without incident. And for those that believe in conspiracies, such conspiracies would probably not take place if the people were subservient to the transparent agenda.

    Of course, under such a model the government would have to reprimand those that do break any rules or retaliate when the truth is diseminated. But I think people for the most part are those that just "go along to get along." And I think in the current era, with all the technology and organization available, the government could easily sustain this type of system.

    This idea of mine is still in stages of contemplation and I do relaize that it might be controversial but I thought it was an idea worth spreading nonetheless. Alright; that's it from me for one day.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2012: Hi,
    Let`s be honest to ourselves ...........
    cause you started such sucject, I think you know enough about its history and our path in these way of lives .
    and if you ask me about it, future won`t be better AT ALL !
    when future technology comes and mixes with capitalism, we`ll have a horrible mixture no one can imagine it ...........
    if you didn`t read about it before, I suggest you to read abou luddism .
    but I think we`d better talk about capitalism in modern societies and illision of democracy ............
    what annoys me about the democracy is the democracy needs rulers, and to a capitalist "ruler" means just "less peoples to pay" .
    I believe that capitalism is not the best but the most stable for humans.
    maybe in the face of monarchism, feodalism, dictatorism and so.
    who has more, rules !
    I see everything dark but believe me !
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2012: Economy is a science.
    Science does not have boundaries.
    Science gives more knowledge and methods.
    Science is incommensurable in regard to Ethics.

    Boundaries of what science is eligible to do are given by law system.
    Law system is influenced by ignorant politicians thus corrupted.
    People choose politicians, that is democracy.

    Moral is what drives people to make actions they believe are true.
    Loss of moral discipline is what corrupts democratic system.
    Loss of moral discipline arouses from ignorance of people.

    Ignorance of people has some causes in emotions and mental barriers people are not willing to brake.
    People suffer because of their ignorance.
    Ignorance has roots in corrupted political, law and moral system via various economic mechanisms (ads, media, rigid educational systems, lack of empathy)

    People want to end their suffering by buying things that offer them commodity so they can buy "less suffering".

    Ethics originates from Greek "ethos" that is "the spirit of doing things in a good (read:uncorrupted) way"
    So forth, ethics is => doing things by loving and caring.

    Thus ethics cannot be corrupted by a human who is not blind.
    But the moral, political and law system can be corrupted.
    Economics (as a science) cannot be corrupted, but only the law that can create economics method legal can be corrupted.

    Today, Ethics pays (economic dictionary).
    That is the root of all capitalistic misery.
    It's not the system, it's the people.

    Is it moral to share wealth? I say no.
    Is it SELFish? I say yes.

    Is it ilegal to be selfish? I say no.
    Is it moral to love someone you don't love? It is not.

    Is it ethical to love someone you hate?
    I say yes.
    • Feb 7 2012: Economy is not a science! Economy uses science but needs to create theories as a basis before being able to rationalise the implications of an established convention...
      Loss of moral discipline doesn't exist in politics... only a change of the importance of certain issus, comparing that to what was and what is elsewhere.
      loving and caring is your ethic... it's not international. Corruption is an imbalance between the necessary influence between powers and a unique decision maker... who can tell what is right for someone else?

      Like in economy, it's easy to establish what is favorable to our point making. Long live relativity and it's battle against ignorance. The problem is ignorance is mostly defined by non-relative people.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2012: It's virtually impossible to say so we can hypothesize on potential scenarios. Coordinating 7 billion individuals with varying levels of free will is not a possibility so to predict collective behaviour is impossible. Who knows what one person or ten people might do to change the world. Who would have predicted that one of the most successful companies in the world is an advertising platform that lets people tell other people what they just had for dinner. In that vain I think we are 'fiddling while Rome burns'. Capitalism is getting stronger despite a growing distrust in this system. Like a hopeless gambler who has lost his house, the banking system is deseperately trying to get back to where it was. I may seem like a pessimist but I'm not with my own life and I think that this is the only way this will change. We have to stop relying on these things that we don't believe in. 'Small is beautiful'. But people are becoming lazier - action is not living your life through the internet. Action is taking the means of production into your own hands and creating your market locally and sustainably. There are so many people studying sustainability which makes me laugh as it is so unsustainable. There isn't the work there for all these people. If you want to fight capitalism you have to emancipate yourself from what it offers little by little and you have to create your own wealth in a way that doesnt need its infrastructure. This is an idealist point of view but small companies generally get bought by larger companies because the pay out to owners is too irresistible. The larger companies get bought by even larger companies and then you have a workforce so detached that working means very little. I don't really understand why people focus on nation states, they are relatively impotent compared to multinationals who actually are the world organising bodies. Lots of people like earning alot of money. And there is the rub.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: Paradism

    Paradism is a political system that is similar to communism but has no "proletariat." In a paradist system, robots, nanobots and computers take the place of the proletariat or workforce.

    Paradism is based on new technologies, such as robotics, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies.

    All production, tools, services and resources that can be efficient without even one human involved can be nationalized.

    The nationalization of all production, services and tools provided by robots renders money obsolete since these products, services and tools can now be free.

    Communism failed because the very existence of a proletariat created inefficiencies. Without the motivation of financial gain, the population had no incentive to work hard or to come up with creative solutions. Automated production eliminates this problem because computers and robots can be programmed for 100 percent efficiency. In addition, they can be more productive and active than human beings since they do not need rest, sleep or time off for holidays.

    Paradist nationalization includes all land and housing, with the exception of family homes.

    In a paradist system, elected politicians work only because they are devoted to humanity. They have no financial advantage or powers.

    Paradism must first be accepted democratically by a population that understands the advantage of a world without money, where everything is available to every person free of charge. For example, robots already produce cars worldwide with very few humans involved, and even those few will soon be completely replaced by robots.

    The same is true for food. Vegetables produced on farms will be harvested by robots, with technology that already exists. Robotized trucks can then deliver the produce directly to consumers, who will select what they want online.

    Services will be provided exactly the same way. For example, surgeon robots are already performing tasks more precisely than human surgeons can.

    see paradism.org for more
  • Feb 6 2012: Firstable , economic is a mere reflection( a tool) of human being. So, the problem that we have to fix is not an economic system. It is our mental system.

    Second, human being are very subjective to Corruption. Communism and democracy are all failed to promote our morality. But , it turned out that democracy is more sophisticated ( which benefit human civilization). Every economic system ( even idealistic one ) would induce an corruption anyhow.

    The answer is new human being. New type of human being will create better econimic.
    Furthermore, remember Natalija , No economic is the best system since we could be all altruistic and open mind to each other.

    Bye, Bye,
    You are wonderful!
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: I hope for a crowd-influenced, fully transparent technocracy (including thorough psychological aspects)...
    Where anyone can join and co-engineer society. But it will be based on scientific process, not unfounded opinion of the uninformed. But deeply human centered.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: Who knows, weather forecast is reliable for 5 days, and capitalism is, judging by lasting of previous socio-economic systems (feudal and slavery) in its early age. It means that even in year 3,000 capitalism will be our global reality. That is really too far away from 2012, so even Nobel Prize winners for economics are not capable to answer that question. It could be some new form of ISM unseen so far.

    I guess, Capitalism will not surrender so easily, it will change "multi-step", "multi phase" changes, claiming it as temporary crisis, rather than make revolutionary breakthrough. Why should tycoons and extremely rich change anything? They need investment opportunities, higher profits not more human society, it’s enough human and democratic for them. It is much more in interest of ordinary people and workers with average income to change than world than CEOs and politicians.

    Many economists say Capitalism is sliding to State Capitalism. How? It could be only "State assisted Capitalism", not State Capitalism. State intervention is attribute of socialism (communism) not system based on market principles and values. Interfering of State in communist countries were once upon a time even mocked, not only by western artists, but by their economists, businessmen and politicians too. State, "sui generis", should be on side of great majority, average, poor and poorest people, not to serve interests of a few extremely rich, that is not case now. Namely, Interference of State today in Capitalism is more providing better investment opportunities, than fighting poverty.

    Western politicians try to increase taxes to rich for 2, 5 or 7 % to make more "fair society". It’s more cosmetics, than crucial change. Governments will have more funds in budget, what does not necessarily mean that poor will get more.
    Talking to poor and, even, people with average income that bank CEOs bonuses are cut from 20 to 15 million dollars is more mocking than serious policy.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: I don't believe that Capitalism, as such, will end. I do believe, however that period of time over which profit is measured, will increase. Right now we are measuring quarter to quarter (or even month to month). There are a GREAT many businesses that are currently eating their own tail because their current leaders are profiting individually. Over time, the interests of the company will diverge from that of the individual leaders because the "value" and of the business is being siphoned off.

    Either that, or company scale will have to radical come down to the point where the value of the company is more synonymous with the interests of its leaders.

    If capitalism is to continue at the scale it does today, the social benefit will have to be re-integrated. For otherwise, those companies are doomed, and that is not in their interests, no matter how large a golden parachute has been negotiated with its failed leaders.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2012: I think it's vital to understand the very basic drivers behind economy - they apply to all creatures that reproduce sexually. There are really ony 3:
    1. Mating driver (universal)
    2. Gregarious social driver - operates to bring individuals together and mandates sharing.
    3. Territorial competition driver - operates to driving individuals apart and mandates owning.
    These drivers operate in the continuum of available resource: abundance/scarcity.
    In times of abundance, the social drive is appropriate.
    In times of scarcity, the territorial drive is appropriate.

    Currency is an expression of territory.
    It is important that any economic system must be appropriate for the ambient conditions.
    MEasuring abundance/scarcity is essential before you can know which system is appropriate.
  • Feb 5 2012: i think capatalism will become like fox hunting...no longer will you need to do it to survive some strong and allied men getting big game some others weaker getting only enough to barely survive... but it will be the sport of gentlemen...after all the money that the elites earn cannot be spent there is no value in it above a certain measure ..they can only eat on slice of bread at a time.. so it is like a computer game..their scores go up and down among themselves...but as it stands now their wins and losses this game they play kills people and is rather unpleasant for millions who dont even really want to play but have to as they have been forced to conform to monetary systems which have been forced on them by phisical violence..... so its not a nice came... and banks arent even subject to the same rules of capatilism like competition and nsider trading laws... so its rather unfair all round..adn i think most people would like the fox to have a sporting chance......its not really a game when you tie the dead fox to a car and drive the dogs under the whells to get it.... so i think if people were allowed to eat and drink water without anyone coming along and shitting in the water and forcing the food out of their mouths to get the gold out of their teeth then capatilism would be a great pastime of the west..such as the persuit of knowledge and science...really a gentlemans game..not really helping anyone but not shitting on their heads as they go about their bussness either... and since there are now so few of these wealthy elite to worry about they should surely be subjucatable intoa postition of honourary power but not actually the power to ruin whole countries and lives of milions just for a few extra score points that will never be spent...
  • Feb 5 2012: Business models should be freely created by inventive individuals, we therefore need basic freedom, including economic freedom to achieve the goal. Adam Smith's warnings against monopolies need to be heeded, and that includes enforcing laws that have been on the books for quite some time. I've seen false capitalism in mainly socialist (or "third way") countries and the deterioration of capitalism in the United States due to political corruption. I cannot imagine a post-capitalist era that would benefit the middle and lower class (I assume you define those by income), at least until we have achieved the kind of technology they have on Star Trek. With virtually unlimited energy and machines that produce whatever is wanted at the push of a button, the fundamental concern over dealing with capital will disappear.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2012: Very good topic. In my opinion it would be useful to separate capitalism and democracy, as we already have examples of fast growing economies in not democratic countries that are using capitalistic models.
    It is not a big error to say that democracy was invented in Athens by Greeks and it was a well working model for a limited number of people. Already in ancient Greece, when the size of the cities (poleis) increased, the democratic system started to deflect toward an oligarchic one.
    Nowadays our governments deal with million people, even more than one billion for India and China, it is clear that the democracy as romantic idea of direct influence of individuals on politics is gradually disappearing. The huge numbers of Global Village require a different type of politics, i would say less idealistic and corrupted and more capable and pragmatic.

    In order to have a system that is more human than capitalism we need a certain stability and equality around the world. Probably after the development of African continent there could be a post-capitalism era.

    As mentioned before our political and economical systems should take into account huge populations in terms of needs, rights, services and so no.. China and India are the examples to look at, I found this talk very interesting:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/yasheng_huang.html
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2012: Well, your comment sparks several thoughts.
    First, the debate individuals vs groups. There is still too much publicity (in the broad sense of the word) about individuals and their successes, especially the "winners": geniuses, CEO's and so on. Humans need examples they can look up to, it can be artists, historical figures or even business people (think of Steve Jobs, whose vision was -still is- a huge part of Apple's strength).

    This said, the works created by groups, communities, are not less worthy, but the "share of voice" of the latter is less than the one enjoyed by the "stars". In other words, anyone with an important share of voice, starting with the media, should put the success of groups more often.

    Second, the paradox of online vs offline, and how the "online" might set the example for the "offline" world.
    Let's sum up

    The "social" web started roughly a decade ago. But the phenomenon is as old as humanity.
    500000 years ago people would talk and communicate within their tribe.
    With the birth of big cities, the people would share and communicate with a larger audience. In the agora, the pubs, or in front of the church after mess.
    Today, we do exactly the same thing as our ancestors, only we can do it within this global village.

    And here comes my thought about the fear of putting things in common: there is a plethora of online projects based on social creativity. This has an impact in the offline world. So I'm fairly optimistic that we'll see more "social" activity, business included in the next years. Social entrepreneurship for example, is a recent business model that works. Its definition is pretty broad (or blurry) but in my country (Belgium), the companies following this biz model have enjoyed a steady growth and are "crisis proof".

    We still may fear social-ism in the historical and economic senses of the word, but we are also heading towards something with more "social-xxx" in it.
    :)
  • Feb 3 2012: Good question.
    But sincerely, I have no idea ! :)

    Somewhat connected with open-source and/or social networks.

    Usually I don't make advertisement but you can check:
    http://people.thetransitioner.org/ (open money)
    http://p2pfoundation.net/ (P2P economy)
  • Feb 3 2012: Wait....Don't scrap capitalism. "The problem is our form of government that regulates it. Representative Democracy allows big money companies inordinate control over representatives. If we had direct democracy where the people vote on everything, bad stuff couldnot be slipped past us and there are too many for companies to bribe. Governents are suppose to be of the people, not of the bribed representatives. Why weren't we warned about that huge fallacy of representative government?
  • thumb
    Feb 2 2012: PS... Just in case you are learning English. The more common phrasing would be "What should the economic system that comes after capitalism, look like?"
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2012: @Mitch SMith I'm not sure what you are trying to do, but telling me to drop my ideals... what kind of a man are you, seriously, i am free, i have the freedom to choose what i decide to choose.

    I'm not telling you what path to take, this is your choice, don't tell me what path to take because this is my choice.

    You don't like the options i promote, it's your right.

    But prior to discredit Geniocracy and Paradism, they need to be tested, tried.

    Unless they have been tried, they can't be discredited objectively. Now it's your choice to inform yourself on these or not, either ways are fine with me, but unless you inform yourself with what these solutions are, your argumentation against them have no weight because it's based on ignorance, fear and possibly religious hatred.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: That should be next step in development of our society. But it seems that scientific process is taking a long time battling with profit orientated system.And if we reverse the equation. I think that economy is just consequential to other social rules we accept, and we have built this ideology of material that puts fear into people making them think that if society change they will lose all they have (the less possession they have, the fear is bigger). Now, if we could change economy first, and make some kind of support system for this one, maybe people will be more willing to change other things freely and creatively.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2012: And do you think that education of lower class over the time doesn't change a thing in this? Since slavery people have fought for freedom and equality, but it was more physical than intellectual battle. Now days with education, self-education and global connection social changes might look a bit different?
  • Feb 6 2012: We should go to a system that makes us more happy in what we do and why we do it.
    I just have no clue how to get there :>
  • Feb 4 2012: You have clearly defined the problem, and I think the solution is direct democracy. How is the government now in Yugoslavia? Is it open enough to be able to criticize it?
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2012: Well, I believe that democracy itself is a bit of a myth, any type of it. I also believe that it its next step must be utopia, since you cant take democracy back. At least not without bloodshed.
      Serbia these days is as disappointing as ever. Basically we have freedom of speech, but no one listens. If someone talks about real problems too loud, he is doing either social or both social and physical suicide... I believe things are gonna change soon, but they wont until enough smart people gather. I think we have good people in young generations. It is up to us to be politically counties.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 5 2012: Oh I agree with you, and I even think that good education could lead towards utopia but i do mind word Elite. I understand what you mean by that, but I also believe that any privileged group (no matter what is the base of those privileges) over the time becomes corrupted. I also believe that with good and equally distributed education people might lose need for social differing. And this is only if we reintroduce philosophy and ethics and do not question relevance of values.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: Geniocracy is what we need now. Try to learn more about it on, you can download the e-book for free on the official website www.geniocracy.org

          The term geniocracy comes from the word "Genius" and proposes a system that is designed to select for intelligence and compassion as the primary factor for governance. While having a democratic electoral apparatus, it differs from traditional liberal democracy by instead suggesting that candidates for office and the body electorate should meet a certain minimal criterion of problem-solving or creative intelligence. The thresholds proposed by the Raelians are 50% above the mean for an electoral candidate and 10% above the mean for an elector.

          As a response to its controversial attitudes about selectivity one of the more general responses is to point out that universal suffrage, the current system, already discriminates to some degree and varyingly in different countries, in who is allowed to vote. Primarily, this discrimination is against minors, incarcerated felons, and the mentally incapacitated. This is on the basis that their ability to contribute to the decision making process is either flawed or invalid for the purpose of the society.

          Other components deemed necessary for a more rounded understanding of intelligence include concepts like emotional intelligence. As such, geniocracy's validity cannot really be assessed until better and more objective methods of intelligence assessment are made available.

          The lack of scientific rigour necessary for inclusion of geniocracy as properly testable political ideology can be noted in number of modern and historical dictatorships as well as oligarchies. Because of the controversies surrounding geniocracy, Rael presents the idea as a classic utopia or provocative ideal and not necessarily a model that humanity will follow.

          Geniocracy combined with Paradism sounds the best solution as to a "next step" to Democracy combined with Capitalism.

          www.geniocracy.org
          www.paradism.org
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: @Maxime at al,
          YOu guys are looking for "policy" solutions.
          I submit that policy is local - it is specific and cannot be aplied to the general.
          c'mon - geniocracy is just eugenics in a fancy wrapper - it's thouroughly discredited - have a look back through ted talks about "genetic predisposiotion" and you will see the peer-reviewed proofs that you are not only whrong - but dangerously wrong.
          In effect - your own arguements can be brought against you to identify you as the target for ultimate elinination!!

          Utopian ideals are just that - ideals .. perhapse some are worth moving towards, so long as you understand that they can never be achieved - and you don't expect it.

          In all things - it is the road not the destination that has the true power, because nothing ever stops. If you are on a road - look to the side - is the scenery good(rignt now in this instant!!??)? If not - you are on the wrong road.

          I tell you - math helps - but it only helps the forst step - then you have to walk. If you don't walk, the math was illusory.

          What you take for good and evil has more to do with what you are doing - not what you are thinking. ANd good and evil are just words - sometimes it requires one or the otehr, regardless of what people theorise about it.

          Drop your ideals - they are targets the make your feet move, in themselves, htey are illusions. Yourt feet hold the only truth worth acknowledging. Because that is what gets things done.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: YOu want to get into heaven?

          I can tell you one way - there are a couple.

          Learn to play the pennywhistle. This method is guaranteed if you stay the course. It is far more powerful and effective than any philosophy or politics you could possibly imagine.

          It costs no more than a cofee or 2 - and in that sacrifice, so your feet start moving on a path that leads directly to heaven.

          DOn't argue against me in this untill you have walked it.

          Pennywhistle is not the only path - but it's the only one I can guarantee - because i am there.
        • Feb 7 2012: Do you really think Education can teach our children The morality?

          Education merely focus on knowledge, not Wisdom.

          I think Morality comes from 70% wisdom and 30% instinct.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: I would guess that morality comes from empathy, but than, killing another person in duel was thing of honor and socially accepted until laws thought us it is a crime anyway.

          I never met people striving to Utopia in higher social circles. They don't think about it - because they don't have to. Also, talking about Utopia as an idea that is never to be achieved might be superficial, because that is old idea, and we have to include time reference - at its begging it promoted unimaginable heresy for its time: personal freedom, right to education, canceling death penalty, giving women right to profession, and right to not get married if they don't want to, and civil divorce, and tolerance among religions... So, comparing to where we started from, one could say we are half way there. Of course everything becomes more complicated and slow in overcrowded society.

          I wouldn't argue about good and evil, but I would stick to common basics of right and wrong, and I would like to hear a smart counter-argument to looking only after your ass being wrong. Social changes are necessary because it is a part of evolution, and it cant be evolution if a specie is killing itself. Now humans are specific, since we stopped doing physical positive selection, it is done in social manner. Only at this moment, at the top of food chain are those who function well in this environment that is not permanently sustainable.

          Now what ever might be solution for social problems we have, we wont find definite answer in this argument, but I believe having it is much more constructive and useful than watching tv at this moment.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: Totally agree.
          But .. I like walking .. I like talking too, but only while I walk.
          It's nice to have good company on a good road.

          Life moves in ribbons and flows.
          To oppose them is to be sweapt away.
          Find a small thing of love and hold it lovingly
          Let your love flow through it to the world.
          The small thing gently lifts you from wrong paths
          It softly draws you, but you don't notice - all you notice is the love moving through you
          And soon you find yourself in a different flow,
          A rainbow ribbon
          A difficult, narrow but beutiful road
          In the company of beutiful people
        • thumb
          Feb 8 2012: Thank you for the gift.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2012: Natalija,
        You're right about democracy, but again, like Winston Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of of government, except for all others that have been tried".

        So far, democracy is the lesser of two evils..
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: I think you are right but I think that we need to vote for issues and not people. I don't understand the point of political parties. They harp back to a day when we needed to identify ourselves collectively. Governments should be neutral and working on the issues that the collective deems most important. In western democracy you vote in a party because they are claiming to do something that the largest number of people finds the most appropriate course of action - in theory. In reality we vote in a party because the media have told us we are tired with the last lot. Crowdsourcing is a better way to go. 'Which issues do you deem to be most important?' The people who actually administrate locally nationally and regionally are just doing what they are told to do. Why shouldnt that be directly from the populace and not through the intermediary of self serving politicians who have been lobbied by banking and industry?
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2012: @ Natalija Maric: PART 1/ You said "...I also believe that any privileged group (no matter what is the base of those privileges) over the time becomes corrupted."

        I agree. This is why I don't think that there is any economic system that will be fully conducive to the general population, whether that system be capitalist or socialist in nature. Now I do have my ideas on which one of those systems is more beneficial and efficient but that is irrelevant since the better system will always eventually lead toward the maintenance of power for the super rich as well as the government.

        I've come to this conclusion based on a philosophy I've come up with in regards to the relationship between "good" and "evil": The difference between good people and bad people is that bad people are willing to take actions that good people are not willing to take in order to achieve their goals. Thus, in a competetive situation, good people are ultimately at a disadvantage while bad people always will have the advantage due to their practical unscrupulous behavior.

        Now let's apply that philosophy to an economic system such as capitalism. The theory behind capitalism is that free-trade, competition, and the absence of government mandated rules and regulations causes the economy to run more efficiently. Those 3 factors define capitalism. Now competition is great for consumers because it ensures the highest quality products possible to be sold. But competition isn't good for sellers who are constantly trying to stride passed their competitors. Multiple companies push and pull each other and take risks in an effort to gain more consumer dollars and avoid losing them. And no company wants to be completely put out of business by companies that offer a better product. So how do the more unscrupulous, cheating, company execs find a way to solve the problem of competition? By bending the rules of course. They lobby and pay out dividends to the government for "favors." (continue to part 2)
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2012: @ Natalija Maric: PART 2/ Unscrupulous company execs whom would like to stunt their competition end up seeking the help of the government. They lobby and pay out dividends to the government in order to receive "favors" or "privledges" in the form of new red tape policies that make it harder for smaller companies to enter or remain in the market. The government may also even grant a monopoly to one or a few companies. Of course, this is all done under certain political pretenses which are spun and carefully and strategically justified to the public. But these favors and privledges that stunt market competition may not actually be good for consumers at all. But, in any case, unscrupulous competitors, with the help of government authority, have found a way to stay ahead of the game and indefinitely stay in business regardless of whether or not they provide consumers with quality goods and services.

        I also think the government itself has an intrinsic interest in reducing competition against itself by impeding the rate of growth of big business in the market place. You see, the theory behind the institution refered to as the government is that anybody has the potential to take powerful office positions in that institution, whether it be Mayor or President. But if we apply my philosophy about "good" people versus "bad" people, then the notion of power changing hands every x amount of years, as a rule, may not be so realistic. Now I believe that money is power and therefore having a lot of money is one of the main ways to become involved in government. But I think there are certain individuals in government, who work behind the scenes, who don't want their power to be subverted by newcomers. So rules and regulations (hurdles) are made into law that slow down the growth & efficiency of business, limiting money and power to be attained.

        So, in short, I don't think there's a corrupt-proof system in existence. However, I have toyed with ideas that may actually be viable.
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2012: I couldn't agree more! I also believe that we exploited this system more than we could. I believe that capitalism as we know it or imagine it died few years ago, and now we only live in echo of what is still out there in global flow, and that wont last for too long.
          I would like to believe that that our society wont crush in painful manner, but those are only my hopes. I might be too much of fatalist, but I imagine new currency to be basic survival and life skills for transitional period, which can reset value and power system we have built. Anyway, this question is also my curiosity about weather people think about this at all, or they prefer denial. The more answers I get, the more obvious is that we cant have different economy without big social change.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: @Terrence,
          Thank you for your insight!
          I am trying to analise things in terms of abundance/scarcity which map directly to the social/territorial drives.
          I'd argue that "power" is part of the territorial drive .. but would appreciate your insight into that. Does power represent some other drive? and if so - what drive is that and what is teh evolutionary benefit of it? Is it, perhaps, a defect?

          I see a lot of discussion about rules, rights, freedom and other such meta constructs. BUt here's how I see it:

          Abundance allows the social drive - it promotes grouping and sharing - and the host of things we regard as "good".
          Scarcity allows the territorial drive - it promotes dispersal and competition - and the host of things we call "bad".
          Both have essential outcomes - but to compete in times of abundance will deny the power of shared goals. To share in times of scarcity will result in the death of all.

          Consider: CUrrency is an expression of territory. Its form and operation must conform to the true state of abundance.

          I would argue that the main problem is the hard-wiring of territorial competition in the minds of those who have not recognised abundance. It is in the interest of these hard-wired individuals to take abundance and turn it into scarcity - thus alligning the world to their misperception.

          Fixng this is not an easy thing - we must first take-down the adversarial government and judiciary models - these were deigned by Aristotle and those like him in times of scarcity. The operation of the adversarial politics is taken for granted by most in the West - there is a preponderance of the competition-based mindset. Once the adversarial mindset has been overcome and replaced by collaberative consensus systems, only then can we look ar winding-down the territorial concept of money (and all the imballance it causes).
          But the caveat is: if times turn to scarcity, we will need to return to competition.

          Oh btw - to use money is to give up freedom - the banker rules.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: I'm not sure the good/evil analogy covers all bases. Have you ever done a myers-briggs test? I can't remember what I am but I think most people boil it down to 'dreamer'. If i remember correctly there are something like 16 personality types and they are obviously not fixed its somewhat of a sliding scale. Commercially ambitious people have a certain personality type. I have worked with lots of people like this and I always thought they were quite evil but I just think they are looking at the world in a different way. They enjoy competition and they are less tuned into feelings of empathy. They see themselves as people 'just getting on with life' in a 'dog eat dog' world and without 'the likes of us' nothing would get done. Due to a competitive nature they like to rise to the top and if you are at the top and your personality is without a strong empathetical side then you will make financial decisions. Not decisions about people, decisions about money. Someone is paying you a lot of money to make a lot of money and you want to succeed in your job. These types of people surround themselves with similar types because they appreciate their 'getting things done' attitude. They can't quantify empathy. Alot of people I have thought of as bad people whilst working in corporations I know choose to see as different to me. But those people always rise to the top. They don't get bogged down with rights and wrongs, they look clearly at what needs to be done in order to get to the next level and they do it. And unfortunately they are probably enjoying life. Managers are not managing people, they are managing human resources. There is a difference. This is how capitalism works. Its created by people who's personalities have little empathy. Ive met loads of people like this and they are not alll evil or successful. The clever ones get to the top. 'Tell me, brave captain, why are the wicked so strong? And how do the angels get to sleep when the devil leaves the porch light on?'
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2012: Nice observation Ed.
          Yes - I saw all this. And I walked those halls. In massive retailers, banks, insurance companies and telcos.
          These that you talk of - there are 2 types.
          1. The massively intelligent - but traumatised.
          2. The psychopathic.
          They are bound by one thing - pathology.
          There is not a lot we can do for the psychopath yet. But the massively intelligent - they become that way because of their trauma. Trauma tends to polarise the victims - they become self-destructively disfunctional or they become obsessively super-functional.
          You can pick them - they ask you "are you having fun yet" they are without the means to appreciate life as a flow and rely on detecting rules and playing the game the rules create - to win. And they win.
          If you give them the competition model - they win it. ANd when they win, they add more rules to make it harder for new players.
          If you give them the rules of social harmony - they win that too.
          Except for the psychopath - this one only knows competition.
          OUr civilisation was built on the rules of scarcity - it has not adapted to abundance.
      • Feb 7 2012: What doyou mean Utopia? How does Utopia different from Democracy ?

        Perhaps , We would not need any government in true uTOPIA.