Alternative to capitalism?

[Cruentus]

The subject of Capitalism has been in the Study recently. What I am interested in is what alternatives you think would be better, or do you think that there is no better alternative.

It is easy to critique, but difficult to come up with answers. I am interested in seeing some of the answers you all have.

artyon:

 

[Cruentus]

O.K.....I'll start.

I think that Capitalism needs to evolve to a better system that hasn't been fully "discovered" yet.

I think that our Federal Government needs to excersise more regulatory control over corporations, especially on issues that effect society and healthy competition.

I think that Corporations need to be focused on making money, not social welfare.

I think that all Governments, especially State/Local Governments, need to be more socially concerned about things like living wage, healthcare, our education system, etc.

I think that Governments, especially federal, need to excersise far less regulatory control over citizens (more libertarian in terms of citizen regulation).

Answers? I think that we need to start by taking our civil liberties back. This can/should occur by giving States and Local Governments more power, but with the idea that less regulation on citizens is best. I think that each county should decide how to regulate it's people. Each state should decide how to regulate living wage, healthcare, etc. If a particular state wants to raise taxes to give everyone coverage, for example, then they should be able too.

Federal Government should focus on regulation of large corporate entities, because state/local governments do not have the capital to do so, plus most large corporations are at least international, if not global. The Fed would also worry about defense, and ensuring that States and counties are offering the minimum amount of rights to citizens.

Federal Government would impliment a flat tax for all citizens, no breaks allowed. This includes corporations. The problem with our tax system is that even though Richer people are taxed more, they are also able to pay to find the loopholes to get major tax breaks. THey often pay far less then 28%. Corporations also often pay far less then 28%, and often times they don't pay taxes at all. There was a study that was done (I don't recall what the percentages were), but it estimated that if we went for a flat tax, everyone would be somewhere between 15 and 20% tax bracket to afford what we have now. This seems to be the way to go under a system like this. Also, because more power will be going to state/local governments, the Federal Flat tax would be far lower; say less then 10%.

Now State/local taxes will vary, depending on the services that people want. If people want better services, schools, or interstate healthcare, then this will cost money. So the State taxes will fluctuate, as will local taxes. This will help the efficiency because the larger the government entity, the more ineffecient things seem to go. Tax dollars tend to get "lost" at the federal level more then they do at the state, or local level. This way people in their locals can decide through their votes, and through their representatives, what they need, and what they can afford to have. The Fed will only set minimum standards for states, and states will set minimun standards for counties.

So, I'd like to see a move towards a very different system that seems to be a mix of libertarianism, socialism, and capitalism, with other undefined elements. Yes, there are loopholes, and many of these I couldn't cover in an internet forum due to time/length of post.

If you have criticisms (as I am sure you will) then also post your alternative solutions. This thread is about solutions, not criticisms.

:ultracool

 

[someguy]

I'll assume you mean not pure capitalism. But before I answere I'll ask that. I think that the absolute best depends also on where you . Changing also is difficult to go from on type of ecomonmy to another is hard.

 

[Cruentus]

I'll assume you mean not pure capitalism. But before I answere I'll ask that. I think that the absolute best depends also on where you . Changing also is difficult to go from on type of ecomonmy to another is hard.

Nope...my solution does not contain "pure" capitalism.

 

[rmcrobertson]

To the extent you're not simply arguing flat tax/state's rights and Federalism, what you're describing is pretty much called socialism. Like in Switzerland.

 

[Cruentus]

To the extent you're not simply arguing flat tax/state's rights and Federalism, what you're describing is pretty much called socialism. Like in Switzerland.

Shhhh. You weren't supposed to tell EVERYONE. :roflmao:

It's close to socialism, but I am not fully convinced that it is "pure" socialism. In most socialist governments, I thought the Federal Government had more power then what I am proposing. Yes, I am kind of proposing a federalist-socialism, where Government isn't so "big," and people can maintain their individuality.

Under what I am saying, however, individuality is very important. I believe that people should be able to earn money that is theirs, and the amount that they earn should reflect the value of what they are doing in society, and should reflect their hard work. I believe that individuals should have the right to own property. I believe that corporations should have the right to make money (just not at all costs). In the socialist "ideal" economic system, there is no company or individual ownership (all workers own the company) no management (all workers are supposed to manage themselves) , and the economy is "socially controlled." The idea of a socially controlled economy sounds great on paper, except in application this eliminates individualism. Plus, a Government-regulated socially controlled economy too easily turns into a totalatarian Government system, like the old Soviet Union. This is the fear of most capitalists. I believe that a capitalistic economy can work, but the Government needs to NOT be capatalist for it to work. In other words, the Government needs to ensure that certian things are in place, like fair competition and fair wages, while companies and people working for them should be worrying about being productive and making money. Under "pure" socialism, the focus isn't on making money (or, in my opinion, being productive).

I hope that made sense.

So I think that there are differences to pure socialism then what I am saying. But hey...I like switzerland! :uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Seems reasonable to me.

There are nice sf discussions of these issues in Kim Stanley Robinson's, "Mars," novels, as well as in Ken MacLeod's "Star Fraction," and its associated novels.

I like the concept of the Swiss society too...even (and REALLY don't tell anybody) the universal conscription/keep a serious weapon under seal in the home concept...

 

[Cruentus]

Seems reasonable to me.

There are nice sf discussions of these issues in Kim Stanley Robinson's, "Mars," novels, as well as in Ken MacLeod's "Star Fraction," and its associated novels.

I like the concept of the Swiss society too...even (and REALLY don't tell anybody) the universal conscription/keep a serious weapon under seal in the home concept...

Cool. If I ever run for president, I'll expect your vote (but by then it won't matter because Diabold will have taken over all elections with electronic voting machines) :uhyeah:

Oh, and yea...I won't tell everyone about keeping a serious weapon under seal in the home either if you won't! :biggun:

 

[Phoenix44]

Any system could work in an ideal situation, but once you throw us flawed humans into the mix, any system will have problems.

For instance, communism sounds like a great idea, doesn't it? Everyone works hard, and everyone reaps the benefit. But everyone DOESN'T work hard. You don't get great individual contribution when there is collective benefit. The attitude is, "Hey, why should I break my back when Joe Schmo is doing nothing, and he earns the same as I do." It's like a restaurant where the waitstaff pools their tips!

Capitalism is a great idea, too, if you have a level playing field. The harder you work, the better you do. But there is no level playing field, and no one looks out for the collective good.

And these cases represent the BEST case scenario, where everyone has basically good intentions. Throw in some corruption, and any system is a mess.

 

[Makalakumu]

In our current system, there have been organizations and families that have ties that go way back to medievil Europe. These organizations have been gathering wealth for a thousand years. So, you want to talk about an uneven playing field...that is why, at the end of the movie "Fight Club", when Tyler Durden blew up the World Bank, I was like sweet and had to hit the showers. :supcool:

 

[Don Roley]

I think that our Federal Government needs to excersise more regulatory control over corporations, especially on issues that effect society and healthy competition.

I think that Governments, especially federal, need to excersise far less regulatory control over citizens (more libertarian in terms of citizen regulation).

Since corporations are just a group of citizens, don't you see the contridictions in the above two statements?

Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Since corporations are just a group of citizens, don't you see the contridictions in the above two statements?

Quite simply put, there is no other system that is more moral than capitalism since none of the other systems respect the individuals right to act or not act and forces some part of the system to act for another part.

Don,

No disrespect meant.

I do not think the term moral and capitalism are the correct terms together.

Capitalism is about money and trade. Yes individuals are allowed to enter into this game.

Democracy or in our case a Replublic, (* Where elected officials vote on matters for the pulic *), allows for the individuals rights, and rights to act or not act, into the system.

Just my take on it. I think it mean the similiar things, only in different words.
:asian:

 

[Don Roley]

I do not think the term moral and capitalism are the correct terms together.

Capitalism is about money and trade. Yes individuals are allowed to enter into this game.

The key is, no one is forced by another to do anything.

As an employer I can not force you to work for me.

As a buyer, I can not force you to sell me anything or do so for less than you want.

If we do not agree on something, then neither one of us can force the other to our will. The seller can't sell and the buyer can't buy.

Other systems do force people to do things "for the common good", which is a good signal to grab onto your wallets.

Only capitalism respects the right of the individual to do no more than he wants to. All other systems so far have one person benifiting at the unwilling expense of another.

 

[Makalakumu]

Mr. Roley

I would agree that protecting individual freedoms is very important. Consider this though...

1. Companies that egregiously pollute to produce cheaper product.
2. Companies that lay off their American work force for third world semi-slave labor.
3. Companies who threaten above, using it at as an excuse to reduce the benefits for American workers.

This list is not overlarge, but there are somethings that ARE for the greater good of society. Does anyone else feel like they would like to add to my list?

upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

If everyone is serious about implementing the above, two things need to be done.

1. Convince non-voters to vote for politicians who support this.
2. Pull moderate Republicans left of center.

Any ideas on how this could be done?

 

[Cruentus]

Pheonix: I agree that human error is a problem in any system. That is why it is vital to eliminate structural problems in a system from the start, and why it is important to put checks and balances in place to try to curb human error. Capitalism, as it exists today, has structural problems, as does communism; these problems prevent the systems from working well.

Don: I appreciate your opinions, but I have to agree with Rich's statement. Capitalism is far from moral...it is about "capital." There is the guise that people aren't "forced" to anything under capitalism, therefore morality can be allowed to flurish, because under socialism people are forced to do things for the society, which may or may not be moral. I think this is only a guise, because first of all, ethics and laws will reflect what is good for "capital" in a capitalist society, not what is moral. Second of all, I don't believe that the idea that people aren't forced is true under capitalism, because there are different ways to force. Example, I know a newly married couple who want to have a family and be happy. Both work their asses off because in order to have a family, they need to live in a decent home rather then a little apartment. But, low and be hold, the wife needs dental care that will cost $8,000. Insurance will only cover $700. So, there goes their downpayment for the house. But, they can't come up with all that money today, so they'll have to borrow it from a creditor at a higher interest rate. Now, do they just pay minimum payements on the credit card, throwing their money away each month, to get into more debt for that house? If so, then by the time they get into the house and have a child or two, both parents will have to continue working just to support them. This means daycare, which means more money out of pocket, and now their children are being raised by Telivision and latchkey programs. And, don't forget that every 15 minutes on the Telivision someone will be telling them to buy more S**t to be happy; and the parents will be too busy working trying to make ends meet to tell their children otherwise. And, all these ads aimed at telling you to buy more stuff to be happy also say that your measurement of happiness is based off your peers, and how much crap they own in relationship to you. With this idea crammed into their kids heads, they will then get to go to school with some of the "social elite" who's parents were handed businesses by their parents, and they will have to wonder why they aren't good enough to compare with those other kids. Well, maybe that young couple should just "work harder" to pay for those medical bills. Maybe they should just "sacrifice more," and not save for things like retirement; that way they can push grocery carts when they are in their 70's and SS has completely dried up. And, if they can't do that, then maybe they should just make some sacrifices and invest in the lead bullet retirement plan; that involves a fairly inexpensive bullet to the head. Quick, easy, painless.

The sad thing is when that couple goes to church, and goes to the voting booth, and celebrates their "freedoms" that they believe that they have. Under capitalism, many people are enslaved. The only ones who are really free under capitalism are the ones who can afford to be. Truely, nothing is "free" under capitalism...not even freedom.

I am sure you and others will disagree, Don. But that is just my perception of things.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry; I had to "wrap it up" in my last post because I had a meeting to attend too. I wanted to say that my intent isn't to go on a diatribe against capitalism (or any other system), as it has positive aspects. Particularly, I think that capitalism does a far better job at driving the economy then any other system we have right now. The problem becomes, under capitalism, who are you driving the economy for? I wouldn't want to lose those elements of capitalism that drive the economy forward and encourage good work ethics. Just alter it to reduce as many of the negatives of capitalism as we can.

:ultracool

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Only capitalism respects the right of the individual to do no more than he wants to. All other systems so far have one person benifiting at the unwilling expense of another."

Well, that's certainly the party line...but in fact, it's simply not true, and it's self-contradictory.

1. You might want to check with the hundreds of millions working for lousy wages, in lousy conditions, for the benefit of a very few.

2. Yes, one is free under capitalism. Free to starve, to see one's family starve. Free to be what the society defines as immoral. Free to go against the grain...possible, but unlikely.

3. Capitalism relies on surplus value--upon "individuals," producing more than they want, and more than they need.

4. Capitalism defines morality as work.

Incidentally, corporations are considerably more than groups of individuals. I direct you to the song, "High Hopes," on the nature of quantitative/qualitative change.

 

[Phoenix44]

How about a nation where corporations are making more profit than ever, but DECREASE their wages by 0.6%?

Oh, wait....that's America in the year 2004.

 

[Cruentus]

Oh yeah...about corporations.

Corporations are made up of groups of people, but when you have large corporations, there is no conscience with the group anymore; it is analagous to a machine that is only interested in the bottom line, making $$, and will do so through any possible means. I don't mind that corporations are out to make money at all. I just think that it is a dangerous paradox that we are then to believe that corporations (large entities with money and power, but no collective conscience other then to make money) will regulate themselves through simple market effeciency, and that Government should not step in to regulate. Then, the further irony is to then legislate vast amounts of regulation on individual citizens, who do have morals and values in society outside of making $$. It just doesn't make good sense.

Let corporerations do what they do best, which is making money; just regulate them through the federal government so that they don't harm people or each other.