Capitalism Doesn't Work... So What Would?

Dubai_oriantal_sim_city.jpg


Capitalism works. The Bush, Paulson, Bernanke triumverate should familiarize themselves with the concept.
 
Last edited:
If you are hypnotized by fancy buildings, then I guess you are satisfied. However, this photo represents the fleecing of America.
 
ashura said:
So with your proposal of giving government even more power vis a vis some mix between capitalism and communism, why would you expect things to get any better?
Click to expand...

I don't propose giving this government anything at all. I'm talking hypothetically about the idea of whole new government. A true government of and for the people, where there is no distinction between the two. Why must there be a division between the government and it's citizens? Why give power to a ruling class, when it should be divided between all?

I have an idea that every citizen should be a member of government.
So in a way, yes I do think that we should give the government more power- complete power in fact.

It's easy to come up with a million reasons why something wouldn't work. But isn't that sort of thinking un-American?
 
Here's my general idea:

Imagine a country without any taxes at all, where the "government" actually pays you. Your wage would be determined weekly according to a universal formula which takes every person, job demand, the national economy, and the value of one's work/accomplishment into account. In addition- every single citizen, regardless of employment status, one's value to the national agenda, or any other factor(except perhaps age/dependency status), would receive a weekly base salary at the very least, as a right of citizenship. This base salary would be sufficient to sustain a normal, decent, healthy life in the current economy. Basic health care would be free, as well as all schooling, policing, etc.

Mainly, our current idea of money will no longer exist. Money will no longer be a separate entity, able to work for you while you sit on your ass. No longer will money be able to be manipulated or printed out of thin air. Money would be equal to labor(labor being any form of work deemed as beneficial to society and sanctioned by the government). If you stop working, your money would stop as well(not including your weekly base salary of course). The government would be the only entity capable of determining or dispersing money. (And since the term "money" already has such an understood meaning, let's call it "credit" instead). For example, one would not be able to sell his car directly to another citizen, but instead would have to go through the government which would determine the car's value, oversee the exchange, and give you credit directly.

So what about incentive for competition and growth that capitalism seems to claim exclusively for itself? I believe this driving force of capitalism can be emulated by the national formula used to disperse credit. These credit incentives would be guided by the ideals and direction of society. And I know what you're thinking, but don't worry... doctors and CEOs would not get paid the same as Walmart workers. I imagine that they would get paid much more because their work would require more training. Credit incentives would be calculated according to the needs of the job market, among other factors. So to put it simply: Instead of CEOs getting paid god-like amounts of money, they will receive more human-like compensation. And on the other hand, fast food workers would be able to actually enjoy life working only 1 job. Imagine that!

So how would the government/power be organized? I'm not exactly sure to be honest. What I do know is that one's power would have no influence over credit, and one's credit would have no influence over power. The system would have to be designed this way- to resist corruption by our basic human tendencies of greed and power. To sum it up in one phrase- power to the people!
 
We have speculated among friends for fun what it would be like if you get paid for hours,
you clean toilet 8 hours, you are credited 8.00 credits and Co Manager would be credited by the same, 1 hour 1 credit.
I mean it was fun hearing our politicians to talk that "every job is important" and so on before elections and our Bourgeois candidate naming himself as "President Of the Working People" LOL
 
The problem with modern, US-style capitalism is that it's way too free a market. The world's governments don't have enough control over the wealthy who in turn have too much control over what they do with and where they take their money.

The bailout by the US administration, awaiting Congressional approval, might be "the only way", but it's the wrong message to send to the financial sector, because it goes: "It's ok if you screw up, we'll just get the taxpayer to cover your mistakes, you carry on now, we need those markets you invent to keep us all confident, happily borrowing money that doesn't exist, trading shares in nothing whatsoever, looks great from here."

One or two are making noises about hanging some regulations and restrictions on the rescue package, why would they do that??
 
Vkothii said:
The problem with modern, US-style capitalism is that it's way too free a market. The world's governments don't have enough control over the wealthy who in turn have too much control over what they do with and where they take their money.

The bailout by the US administration, awaiting Congressional approval, might be "the only way", but it's the wrong message to send to the financial sector, because it goes: "It's ok if you screw up, we'll just get the taxpayer to cover your mistakes, you carry on now, we need those markets you invent to keep us all confident, happily borrowing money that doesn't exist, trading shares in nothing whatsoever, looks great from here."

One or two are making noises about hanging some regulations and restrictions on the rescue package, why would they do that??
Click to expand...

They have too much control over some things, and not enough control over other things. For instance, we need Obama to get us out of this economic depression, but we don't need so much welfare going to those who don't need it.
 
matthew809 said:
Here's my general idea:

Imagine a country without any taxes at all, where the "government" actually pays you. Your wage would be determined weekly according to a universal formula which takes every person, job demand, the national economy, and the value of one's work/accomplishment into account. In addition- every single citizen, regardless of employment status, one's value to the national agenda, or any other factor(except perhaps age/dependency status), would receive a weekly base salary at the very least, as a right of citizenship. This base salary would be sufficient to sustain a normal, decent, healthy life in the current economy. Basic health care would be free, as well as all schooling, policing, etc.

Mainly, our current idea of money will no longer exist. Money will no longer be a separate entity, able to work for you while you sit on your ass. No longer will money be able to be manipulated or printed out of thin air. Money would be equal to labor(labor being any form of work deemed as beneficial to society and sanctioned by the government). If you stop working, your money would stop as well(not including your weekly base salary of course). The government would be the only entity capable of determining or dispersing money. (And since the term "money" already has such an understood meaning, let's call it "credit" instead). For example, one would not be able to sell his car directly to another citizen, but instead would have to go through the government which would determine the car's value, oversee the exchange, and give you credit directly.

So what about incentive for competition and growth that capitalism seems to claim exclusively for itself? I believe this driving force of capitalism can be emulated by the national formula used to disperse credit. These credit incentives would be guided by the ideals and direction of society. And I know what you're thinking, but don't worry... doctors and CEOs would not get paid the same as Walmart workers. I imagine that they would get paid much more because their work would require more training. Credit incentives would be calculated according to the needs of the job market, among other factors. So to put it simply: Instead of CEOs getting paid god-like amounts of money, they will receive more human-like compensation. And on the other hand, fast food workers would be able to actually enjoy life working only 1 job. Imagine that!

So how would the government/power be organized? I'm not exactly sure to be honest. What I do know is that one's power would have no influence over credit, and one's credit would have no influence over power. The system would have to be designed this way- to resist corruption by our basic human tendencies of greed and power. To sum it up in one phrase- power to the people!
Click to expand...

Pure wishful thinking, I'm afraid.;) Without realizing it, much of what you've just described has been tried many, many times - and failed. The now-defunct U.S.S.R. had many of those features. So did the Hippy communes in the U.S. back in th 1960s.

The primary reason they failed is something very basic to human nature that you've failed to consider: greed!

Regardless of WHAT system you devise and safeguards are built into it, there will always be individuals who crave power that will find ways to manipulate it and make it work to their personal benefit.

You're attempting to construct something based on economics alone and completely disregarding the human factor - psychology. That will never work.
 
Read-Only said:
Pure wishful thinking, I'm afraid.;) Without realizing it, much of what you've just described has been tried many, many times - and failed. The now-defunct U.S.S.R. had many of those features. So did the Hippy communes in the U.S. back in th 1960s.

The primary reason they failed is something very basic to human nature that you've failed to consider: greed!

Regardless of WHAT system you devise and safeguards are built into it, there will always be individuals who crave power that will find ways to manipulate it and make it work to their personal benefit.

You're attempting to construct something based on economics alone and completely disregarding the human factor - psychology. That will never work.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

The massive computing power and networking ability that we have now is the key to making this work. I believe that because of modern technology(something that didn't exist all those years ago in the USSR), this form of society is now possible.

And in fact I am totally considering the human factor, even though I failed to actually explain any of it yet. As far as the human factor goes, the hardest part(if not impossible part) would be the transition to the new system. Those in power will resist parting with it, and those with money will refuse to accept it's vanquishing. Greed is an essential part of human nature, not something I would ever expect to somehow suppress. In capitalism, greed is unregulated, and inevitably leads to exploitation and corruption. In my system, I plan to channel this greed for majority benefit by restricting and channeling it with an unbiased, carefully engineered infrastructure, where the means of production are controlled by all, and benefits of productivity are divided fairly. Greed would still be the driving force of the economy; but self-sufficiency would be replaced by teamwork, and worker exploitation would be nonexistent. Of course this could only happen if power is truly divided equally between all citizens(of rational mind and age of course), and I believe this sort of true democracy could be accomplished on a national level with technology.

Is it possible that the reason why you (and most others) are so pessimistic about an idea like this is because everyone is brainwashed/conditioned into thinking this way? I know that communism doesn't work, and at the mere mention of the word "communism" evil dictators is the first thing programmed to pop into mind. But this is most definitely not communism. Grouping all similar ideas into this one dismissive category does no good at all.

Although I only gave a very limited description of my idea- does anyone have any specific reasons why this sort of system would not work?
 
matthew809 said:
I completely disagree.

The massive computing power and networking ability that we have now is the key to making this work. I believe that because of modern technology(something that didn't exist all those years ago in the USSR), this form of society is now possible.

And in fact I am totally considering the human factor, even though I failed to actually explain any of it yet. As far as the human factor goes, the hardest part(if not impossible part) would be the transition to the new system. Those in power will resist parting with it, and those with money will refuse to accept it's vanquishing. Greed is an essential part of human nature, not something I would ever expect to somehow suppress. In capitalism, greed is unregulated, and inevitably leads to exploitation and corruption. In my system, I plan to channel this greed for majority benefit by restricting and channeling it with an unbiased, carefully engineered infrastructure, where the means of production are controlled by all, and benefits of productivity are divided fairly. Greed would still be the driving force of the economy; but self-sufficiency would be replaced by teamwork, and worker exploitation would be nonexistent. Of course this could only happen if power is truly divided equally between all citizens(of rational mind and age of course), and I believe this sort of true democracy could be accomplished on a national level with technology.

Is it possible that the reason why you (and most others) are so pessimistic about an idea like this is because everyone is brainwashed/conditioned into thinking this way? I know that communism doesn't work, and at the mere mention of the word "communism" evil dictators is the first thing programmed to pop into mind. But this is most definitely not communism. Grouping all similar ideas into this one dismissive category does no good at all.

Although I only gave a very limited description of my idea- does anyone have any specific reasons why this sort of system would not work?
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it. Technology would make no difference in the least.

As I tried to tell you, no matter HOW good a system you set up, there will always be those who will find a way to pervert/divert it to their own purposes.

Although you disagree, you seem to know very, very little about people. There will always be good people and evil, overly-greedy people. That last group would tear your new system to shreds.
 
Read-Only said:
You're still not getting it. Technology would make no difference in the least.

As I tried to tell you, no matter HOW good a system you set up, there will always be those who will find a way to pervert/divert it to their own purposes.

Although you disagree, you seem to know very, very little about people. There will always be good people and evil, overly-greedy people. That last group would tear your new system to shreds.
Click to expand...

Unless of course you are wrong though. Not wrong about these core human motives that you keep reminding us of, but wrong about our ability to contain them. And wrong about your implication that we are not smart enough to find a way to re engineer society for the better. There are a million things preventing us from getting to the moon, but we've done it. We have developed hardware and software far beyond anything that could have been remotely conceived not too long ago. You really underestimate humanity. We are like gods on this earth yet you have so little faith in our ability for creation. In the job of creation there is no use for pessimism.

Humans are imperfect by nature. I am not proposing some sort of utopia, the idea of which would demand perfection from us. I am only proposing the idea of something better than capitalism, which would bring out the best in us instead of the worst.
 
The technological salvation of humanity has been a long time coming.
It isn't going to arrive until we evolve our muddled psyches out of the hunter-gatherer stage they're stuck in. Tech is great, but how many people who use it, really understand it? A spear or a bow and arrow is fairly easy to understand (the working principle) and use - how many people who drive cars know how they work, or who use computers, or microwave ovens, or pretty much any modern appliance?

That's the big problem - the new tools are way too complicated for our neanderthal minds, although most of us scrape through and can pass the user test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top