Changing things

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Xmo1, Oct 24, 2017.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    I've quoted two or three paragraphs without reference, because I didn't want to rewrite them in my own words.

    The United States economic system
    "A "true" or "absolute" free market economy requires that all property be owned by private individuals, and all goods and services be privately provided. Prices are allowed (in a free market economy by the owners, or by some other mechanism or group of people) to fluctuate based on supply and demand, and all transactions are voluntary, not compelled or restricted by the government. This is also referred to as "pure capitalism" or "laissez-faire capitalism.""

    "Conversely, a mixed economic system as in the United States, has elements of both free markets and" (governmental economic control, sic). Our economy seems to be controlled by the wealthy, no only because they are the owners of resources, but because they effectively write the laws to serve their systems in order to get what they want. Thus the laws are bound to the economy, where the aristocrats are the primary owners of the system.

    The single law that runs the system is 'companies must make a profit.' With that said, capitalism is (likely) the most conservative approach to success. In that system, the only people that matter are the aristocracy (the owners). They could do without people, whom they view as a cost in their system. The Fed and the banks could operate the system without the money or resources owned by the middle and lower economic classes (today), because they own so little.

    In order for us to realign the system to serve the common good we only need to add one phrase to 'companies must make a profit:' Companies must take care of life, and make a profit. While this might not seem conservative, it is when the economic system is viewed as one integral part of the society.

    One opposing force, or (today) critical need is for the capitalist aristocracy to understand just this; that they are one integral part of the society, and are thus subject to (a mathamatical) variance in the alignment (to the law) process.

    When the over-arching aristocratic curve flattens, the society will become more successful and productive. People will be taken care of, and the resources will be used to their maximum efficiency. In theory, related to resources, the society may produce more resources (from as yet undetermined sources), which are necessary for societal success and longevity.

    This has implications for people. People (and life in general) would have more opportunities to enjoy their lives, while contributing to the greater good.

    There is a necessary transition stage, as described in the aristocratic scenario, which includes proper defense. People must stay alive long enough to minimize threats, and allow time for the systems to change with the laws. Defenses can't be lowered until attacks stop.

    "There are several different ways market economies are changed in a mixed economy. Governments might place regulatory restrictions on voluntary transactions in the private market. Private establishments might require government-granted licenses to perform certain activities. Some activities might be banned altogether. Governments might also own public property or provide public services and use tax policy or subsidies to change the price signals in the market. In a mixed economy, some private transactions are allowable but only under conditions subservient to the government's goals."

    That statement indicates that there is a viable role for government in a changing system. My guess along the same lines is that many businesses will fold, and many others will be formed relative to the mandate of a changed economic law. Also, considering how badly the economic and legal system has been wounded, it is going to take additional efforts by more people in those areas in the near future. That curve too will flatten by virtue of the needs of the society.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,290
    One could imagine a free market economy in which everything was owned by small communes.
    Meanwhile, since we live on a planet in which things like water and air and children are not privately owned, the information necessary to price according to supply and demand only is not available, and many involuntary circumstances or coercive factors exist besides merely "government", clearly this is an idealized thought experiment - more or less equivalent to the kinds of engineering analysis that assume an absence of friction and wear.

    The point is: government is not something one can add in or take out - it's integral, and always has been.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    The paragraph is preparatory to the context. It exists for the definition(s) it contains. It defines a free market economy (also known as a capitalist system) in the pure sense. That helps to inform the idea of a mixed economy in the next paragraph. I sourced it for that reason, notice the quotes around it, but can't at the moment find the source text.

    The next paragraph identifies the government as a significant part of the U.S. mixed economy. The idea I am offering is that government change the law governing corporations, which in turn would transform the world with one simple phrase. BTW Pepsi and Coke are the leaders in owning the world's fresh water supplies. To this day people die over the right to use and drink fresh water owned by multinational corporations. Here's one example: google Bechtel water.

    Not sure who owns the air, but you can bet someone is trying to buy it. That's why that little phrase, take care of life, is so important. Add: The World Bank thinks global land management (privatization) is good for everyone. They had a section on their website about it until someone actually read it, and they pulled it. IMHO Bechtel vs. Bolivia was a test case for Pepsi and other conglomerates trying to seize natural resources (Ex: Alphabet trying to buy the Rocky Mountains).
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page