I'd like a free-market economy. As opposed to what we in the U.S. have now, what with tax breaks, other kinds of corporate welfare and the buying and selling of politicians. Certain goods and services ought to be off the table. Health Care, Education and the Criminal Justice System ought to be publically-owned and provided entirely by the state. There needs to be environmental and safety regulation. Everything else should be tossed to a Darwinian marketplace. Then get rid of tax returns. Pay taxes based on what you earn, what you buy and the property (land, structures) you own, and that's it. No tax breaks, everybody pays 20% of what they earn, and no rebates. Finally, politicians ought to be paid enough to keep them from feeling like they have to steal money or take bribes. If they do either they should be shot at dawn.
Part of me wishes for a basic 'you make it, you sell it' system. Away from the big port cities, things are mostly created in small, family owned cottage industries where the focus is on quality above all else. Some 70 year old craftsman just sits there refining and perfecting some skill passed onto him by his father. Lets say the guy makes toasters. They are expensive, but they will be toasters that you can pass onto your grandchildren with little more than a quick burnishing. Anyone trying to sell an inferior product, even at a vastly reduced price, will literally get laughed out of the market. The government taxes property according to value along with a small flat tax on all goods passing through cities. You can drop whatever tariffs you want on international trade. Of course, that will not and can not ever happen in this day and age. The best we can hope for is stable, and halfway honest, business if we hope to survive in this world. I largely agree with Te Jen on most of her (his?) points. I do, however, have a problem with keeping healthcare and education completely away from private ownership. Private clinics and schools (right up to and including colleges) often serve important functions that the government either can not or will not serve. I also have to say that, below a minimum income, taxes should gradually start diminishing until, at the poverty line, they vanish. Both qualify as different versions of capitalism.
they do, the starting wage for MPs is $90,000/year but the fact is that after so many years in politics they become corrupted by their power, they think that the country needs them and they deserve to earn more than their already insanely high salaries. then they work only for themselves, and that is where the dodgy dealing comes in. what needs to happen is that politicians must do some sort of 5 years on 5 years off thing, so that in between 'running the country' they get back into society and act like real people, not overpaid snobs that that dont come into contact with anyone that earns less that $100k
Each one has its own pluses and minuses. No system is ever going to be perfect but capitalism is the one that seems the best of the three. Actually America has a socialization program with Medicare, Social Security and other Federal and State organizations helping those in need along with a capitalistic system.
both caitalism and communism are incompatable with free market trading as the factor of tax must be deemed to be doing something otherwise it is just jungle law all for themselfs with no laws at all. mixed economy with state owned and funded schooling health care and pensions with the state operating core service industry like power, water and regulating other minerals and country changing markets. Stability is KEY, and that can only be done through government regulation which requires tax. if you can not support the weakest and mos dissadvantaged in your country then you have no rite to be taking tax. user pays does not work either as you can not cost out the price a company must pay to purchase all those years of training for an employee. this is where the government comes in to fund those employees so the companys do not have to buy in an employee for the cost of their childhood and training. cottage industries should be supported as the grass roots to all busines as that is where the greatest level of support for the community structure is found. a nation is built by its people who live in communities. This is the core reality of all countries as a rationalisation of the cross over from rural to city production of goods and services. The real task is trying to find quality management.
Well, nobody has seen communism built yet. There is not even agreement about definition of communism. Thus, for me, communism is some abstract ideal society infinitely better than present ones in all regards. Sure, better is always better than worse. So my choice is communism. Unfortunately, I suspect that in any society humans ultimately will need to deal with the existentional questions a.k.a. "meaning of life". There is no obvious universal answer. Therefore, I speculate that even societies without poors, sick, stupid... will have lots of problems similar to ours.
I dislike the idea of universal path to "societary happiness" for all mankind. Is there one? What if there are several ways? Let Americans build liberal capitalist paradise. Let others try something else.
You need only look at real estate to see what system works best. (Yes, I am a Realtor) Real estate is pure free market capitalism. Everything in a real estate transaction is negotiable. Contrary to what most people think, the BUYER always sets the market price. If you do not like something in the transaction, negotiate it out, compromise or walk away. The underlying reason for this is that no one is forced to sell real estate, no one is forced to buy real estate, and no one is forced to pay a set price for anything involved in the deal. It's all open to those who want it but do not need it. This is the opposite of healthcare and why I disagree with government being involved with the healthcare industry. Most people need it, so someone must then provide it, and with the government involved the prices will be set not by the consumer/providers but by the administrators.
Giskard, you've forgotten that a buyer is mortal. He needs to chase that American dream while he's X years old. It's not like he must pay cash upfront for a house. And, of course, realtors never cheat or liePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, it's all about market Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Also, Americans consider a house not as a place to live but as a relatively certain investment. Prices are always going up (mostly). Thus, current price does not matter much if there are great chances to strike it big in the future. Casino mentality. many things are forcing a Joe to pay the price realtors demand. You may call those things "market".
DM:"It's not like he must pay cash upfront for a house. " Some sellers demand cash only, some buyers like to pay cash (against my advise). Each individual to his/her ability and sense of value and desire. DM:"And, of course, realtors never cheat or lie" Almost all I know are honest and out doing a good job. Of course there are always a few bad apples but they don't last long. FYI, the word Realtor is capitalized because it is a designation. One can be a real estate agent and not be a Realtor. Realtors are bound by a code of ethics and can be suffer disciplinary action for violation of that code. DM:"Also, Americans consider a house not as a place to live but as a relatively certain investment." Not true, most Americans buy for a place to live they can call their own. There is, no doubt, a good deal of investing going on (capitalism at it's best) but the majority still buy to live. DM: " Prices are always going up (mostly). " True in most parts of the country, but the reasons are 1) the buyers ability to pay more 2) lower interest rates 3) more people see the advantage to ownership 4) high rents (market driving force). Most who purchased homes 3-4 years ago did not expect such an increase. And remember, if you bought a home for $100,000 3 years ago and can sell it now for $200,000 what are you going to buy with that $200,000? The same house? No, you leverage the money with creative financing and purchase a better home or one that suits your needs better. No casino mentality. DM:"many things are forcing a Joe to pay the price realtors demand. You may call those things "market". " You, like so many others do not understand this market. Since financing is a major part of the market, banks do not lend money without an appraisal from someone they designate. They will lend money on the contract price or the appraised value which ever is LOWER. So, a Realtor can price a house at $300,000 and get a contract on it but if it appraises at $250,000 the deal is dead unless the buyer puts up the additional $50,000. Nobody in their right mind does this. Realtors do not demand prices, they suggest selling prices on what the market will bear based on what the buyers have been willing to pay for similar homes. Free market at it's best.
Sure, I don't know much about home market, I'm a homeless bum after all. However, I disagree about "Americans buy homes to live". Sure, some do. Unfortunately, many are obsessed with equity, it's significant portion of their budget planning (if any). They choose the right neighbors (right race mostly), right plants, do all kind of "supposedly increasing the home value" shit they don't really need/want, create cumbersome neighborhood rules (sweet freedom of home ownership Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) - all in the name of its holyness Equity. Also, I think it's not right to charge more and more $ for older and older homes. I would understand the price of land to grow with time, but it doesn't grow as fast. There is significant element of gambling in home ownership (well, an illusion of home ownership if it's bought on credit). For many, it's the last hope for some kind of financial security later on in their lives. Popular home equity loans let folks to rip more immediate rewards? on home gambling. If statistics does not lie, the income of an average Joe is almost stagnating. Where do money for the ability to pay more come from? Cheap, easily accessible, frequently predatory loans - I guess. Predatory lenders hunt exclusively on poors who want to gamble on housing prices as richer folks do (and catch that American dream at last) and/or to increase their self-worth through homeownership Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)). That is dumb, but those are actual words (about self-esteem) I've heard. So, appraisal generally decides the price of a home. A designated someone analyze current sale prices, which were largerly determined by the previous apprisals which have been done by another/same designated one, the chain is going down and down... Well, I see lots of voluntarism of "trusted ones", lots of "take it or leave it attitude", little say of a little guy, little touch with economics basics (like the actual price to build a home). Set the price, wait 8-12 months (in the area I live), Joe will see that wait does little to the price, Joe thinks that he needs a home, Joe (an average, not a fancy one) hopes that he'll always sell home for more, Joe buys a house. Sound like very "free" market in which a Joe, practically speaking, has little say unless there is significant downturn in local economy. Only then, the collective voice of thousands of a Joes will be "heard" by the free market. Luckily gas and food are traded differently or we'd be very unhappy.
DM:"Also, I think it's not right to charge more and more $ for older and older homes" I think this statement exposes an incorrect view of real estate sales. Sellers don't "charge" a price, they ask a price. Buyers present an offer. If they both agree then a sale happens. Both sides see a value in the property and if they can come to an agreement then fine, if not life goes on. Quite different from a store charging a set price for an item. Also, older homes only go up in selling price if there is someone willing to pay that price. Free market. If the price gets too high, no one will buy. As more and more houses stay on the market due to high prices,the market turns into a buyers market and sellers have to do something to compete for the buyers money, usually lowering the asking price. Markets in real estate continually change by supply and demand, shifting from buyers markets to sellers markets, back and forth. In Florida, it is has been a sellers market for several years. Free Market. I see you are in Tennesse. The Cleveland TN area is getting a lot of interest and may be the next boom area. Again, it is where buyers see a value in the home pricing. Free Market. DM:"If statistics does not lie, the income of an average Joe is almost stagnating" We all know statistics do lie. Average income is meaningless. Family disposable income is what counts. Two income producers in the family now? So what. If that's what it takes for them to get what they want, who cares? Free Market. DNM:" So, appraisal generally decides the price of a home" No, appraisals are a check to over zealous sellers and real estate agents. Appraisals set the amount a lender will lend on a home. Once again, the buyer can go ahead or back out depending on his/her wants and needs. Free Market. Your entire attitude towards real estate is narrow and pessimistic. What you say relates to only a fraction of this type of market. The bottom line is that real estate is a free market system where price is king. If the price is right for you , you buy. If not, you don't. Free Market. It is always the buyers choice. DM:" Luckily gas and food are traded differently or we'd be very unhappy" They are traded on the futures market exactly the same way. Some one can sell only if there is someone to buy. Each buyer and seller has their own opinion of value and if the price is seen as right, the deal happens. Price is king. Free Market.
I think we are approach free market from different view points. I'll try another example. Farmer who grows corn. Theoretically, farmer operates in a free market where price is not fixed like in planned economies. He may seek, demand, insist, whatever the price he wishes. Practically speaking, those theoretical freedoms mean little to a farmer who MUST sell the corn for the price set by who knows whom in commodity exchange business. he has no control over that price. Essentially farmer has two freedoms - to sell or not to sell for that price. From stand point of a farmer, he lives in a "planned" economy which fixes prices. Thus, from stand point of large businesses there is free market, from stand point of a little guy there are two freedoms "take it or leave it". Approximately not exactly the same with home prices. Certain freedom for businesses, "take it or leave it" for little guy.
The Communist-esque system of pre-Euopean invasion Native American tribes. Like any form of Communism, however, it HAS to be an unrealistic ideal, however, because isolated Communism is simply impossible, and world domination is required, which then defeats the whole ideal of Communism itself. But, you wanted "ideal" and I think that all humans contentedly practicing loaclized pockets of Communism and living off the land would be ideal.
communism only works in isolation. a group of like minded people will share what they have until there is a surplus and then they will begin to have disagreements about how to divide the excess. early christianity churches were communistic and they were unable to make the system work. it is the best system but it cannot function in this world. that is why i voted capitalism.
I agree, however, only agree that it would only work in isolation in the modern world and isolation is not really possible in the modern world, thus the need for global domination. It worked just fine in pockets all over America and Africa for many years. But I took this as, "What is your idealistic system?", rather than "pragmatically realistic ideal system?". Idealistically, I prefer Communism. Pragmatically, it would be a version of a Socialist Democracy without Free Market Capitalism (as I think the two ideals are internally inconsistent).
