Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Sharpshooter]

Discuss Capitalism vs. Any other model. 
 

Historical or Modern or Future ones. 
 

Keep it civil please. 

[Ryan Strome]

10 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Discuss Capitalism vs. Any other model. 
 

Historical or Modern or Future ones. 
 

Keep it civil please. 

[Sharpshooter]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

 

[Ryan Strome]

23 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

 

I would say capitalism! I know there will be some that disagree, but those that live in capitalist countries have for decades been the most successful in the world. I know the argument is going to come up, How about Norway and their system? My argument to that is we take in 25% of Norway's population every year in immigration. If Norway was such a beacon of hope and success, how come they don't have immigration levels anywhere close to Canada or the United States.

[Sharpshooter]

 

Shots fired. 

[24K]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

I would say capitalism! I know there will be some that disagree, but those that live in capitalist countries have for decades been the most successful in the world. I know the argument is going to come up, How about Norway and their system? My argument to that is we take in 25% of Norway's population every year in immigration. If Norway was such a beacon of hope and success, how come they don't have immigration levels anywhere close to Canada or the United States.

Cause Norway have way shittier weather and they are build on oil money so not much opportunities for jobs. Also pretty hard to cross a freezing sea to reach it. 

 

Like it or hate it but it has to be capitalism but I would say a somewhat neutered one where endless profit is not the end goal. Frankly that is what driving a lot of our wealth inequality and environmental issues. 

 

Companies should be rewarded for continuous steady performance rather be punished for it. 

 

In other word we need a better metric to evaluate companies outside of just monetary. 

[Ryan Strome]

26 minutes ago, 24K said:

Cause Norway have way shittier weather and they are build on oil money so not much opportunities for jobs. Also pretty hard to cross a freezing sea to reach it. 

 

Like it or hate it but it has to be capitalism but I would say a somewhat neutered one where endless profit is not the end goal. Frankly that is what driving a lot of our wealth inequality and environmental issues. 

 

Companies should be rewarded for continuous steady performance rather be punished for it. 

 

In other word we need a better metric to evaluate companies outside of just monetary. 

freezing sea? What century are you living in Guy? I don't know about you but when I was there we flew.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[Canuckle]

Norway has a capitalist economy too, folks. The "nordic model" countries simply have much better social programs and social safety nets that come with it. eg.  Government Pension Fund of Norway borne of the profits from their nationalized state oil company, Equinor (Formerly known as Stat Oil.) Equinor still sells their oil products in the capitalist market place but rather than the profits going into private pockets for private owners, it goes to fund the citizens retirements of Norway.  In fact they had they had a symposium of philosophers and scientists to decide what to do with the profits and that's what they decided on.

 

Also note Norway also has extremely large labor unions. Around half of all workers are trade union members and almost three-quarters of all workers are covered by collective agreements.

 

Social Democratic countries with mixed private and state capitalism certainly have their benefits... if you do it correctly.

 

Unfortunately, even their economy relies heavily on the exploitation of periphery nations to thrive as well as wage labour albeit a bit more subdued compared to most capitalist nations, especially the United States.

 

But that's capitalism for you.  Someone always has to lose for you to win is the mantra. For if there was no exploitation, there would be no profit.

 

See also: World Systems Theory

 

"World-system" refers to the inter-regional and transnational division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries, and the periphery countries.

 

Core countries focus on higher-skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries.

 

Nonetheless, the system has dynamic characteristics, in part as a result of revolutions in transport technology, and individual states can gain or lose their core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. This structure is unified by the division of labour. It is a world-economy rooted in a capitalist economy.

 

For a time, certain countries become the world hegemon; during the last few centuries, as the world-system has extended geographically and intensified economically, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and (most recently) to the United States. (And headed towards China if they aren't there already.)

 

Poorer countries are impoverished to enable a few countries to get richer.

 

World-systems theory has been examined by many political theorists and sociologists to explain the reasons for the rise and fall of states, income inequality, social unrest, and imperialism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-systems_theory

 

Starting good though. Social Democracy is a good blast off point.

[Canuckle]

A different approach to capitalist business structures are worker co-ops.

 

"A worker cooperative is a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

 

Rather than take top down private owner approach or top down state owner approach, the workers are the owners, and organized horizontally with mor decentralized power. And the profits from the products they make and sell in the marketplace goes in their own pockets... or they can use to invest in the organization to grow as well.

 

And this my friends is socialism in it's truest form Workers owning the means of production that good ol Karl wrote over 150 years ago.

 

Or "Democracy at Work" as Harvard Professor of Economics, Richard D. Wolff would describe it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

 

 

(But we can expand on all this fun stuff later as the trek into the murky history of socialism.)

[Ilunga]

Try reading the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

 

If we could make that system actually work how Marx intended, then hands down Communism.

 

However it, like all the others doesn't take into account human nature.

 

Whichever system one chooses the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. 

 

Here is the result of  Capitalism for you 

 

 

The Top 1 percent of Americans have taken 50 trillion from the bottom 90 percent.

 

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

 

Trickle down economics ?

 

It's a dirty great flood to the top.

 

 

[Ilunga]

 

Enlightened Self Interest ?

 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-enlightened-selfinterest-business-22880.html

 

 

[Canuckle]

8 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Try reading the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

I've read both. One more than the other... (just due to the sheer size of the thing. Never again.)

 

8 hours ago, Ilunga said:

If we could make that system actually work how Marx intended, then hands down Communism.

A stateless, classless, moneyless society would obviously be preferably if equality and equity is the goal, but fun fact Marx wasn't the only one that wrote on this subject. In fact, conceptions of socialism predate Marx. Tons of stuff look into on that front. I'd personally lean on the anarcho-communist side in terms of philosophy and theory (eg. no transitional state-capitalism) but I'm with you.

 

8 hours ago, Ilunga said:

However it, like all the others doesn't take into account human nature.

There's never been a scientific basis for the belief in there being a "human nature." There is no true "human nature."

 

We are products of our environments, socialized, conditioned, born into bondage ala reinforced by the structures of society that exist. And if we change the conditions of the experiment, we get different results. Humans are capable of all sorts of behaviors. There is no 'genetic only human nature' forcing people to be selfish and dominating. For the most part it's scarcity driven behavior, and societies with structures that award those types of behaviors reinforce them. The notion of human nature was always putting the cart before the horse. And still is.

 

Frankly, if there was a "true" human nature it would probably be more akin to mutual aid and community-- Human civilization would not have survived as long as we have without it. We are social animals, afterall.

 

There's a book called "Mutual Aid: a factor of Evolution" by Evolutionary biologist and anthropologist Peter Kroptokin which I'd recommend. Good stuff in there.

 

8 hours ago, Ilunga said:

Whichever system one chooses the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. 

 

And what would happen if we remove the systems and structures which allow for such domination to occur in the first place? It becomes a non factor.

 

For example, in that stateless, classless, moneyless society where each contributes according to their ability takes according to their need, what good is being "rich?" How would we even define rich in a society with no money? And what would be drivers be to hoard more than one needs anyway?  There would be none.

 

And even if there was there was a need to "have more," need for those kinds of difference in personal property, there are other economic ideas out there which could work to avoid the domineering aspects to such behaviors.

 

See: Mutualism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

 

 

See also:

 

Base and superstructure

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure

 

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

A stateless, classless, moneyless society would obviously be preferably if equality and equity is the goal, but fun fact Marx wasn't the only one that wrote on this subject. In fact, conceptions of socialism predate Marx. Tons of stuff look into on that front. I'd personally lean on the anarcho-communist side in terms of philosophy and theory (eg. no transitional state-capitalism) but I'm with you.

 

preferable to who? sounds like utopia for the lazy. 

[Canuckle]

9 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

Enlightened Self Interest ?

 

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-enlightened-selfinterest-business-22880.html

 

 

"Advocates of enlightened self-interest believe that companies will increase in value if they identify and respond to the needs of society."

 

By spending their profits on society... heh.

 

Its interesting they would expect businesses to help society out of the kindness of their hearts. Oh, how charitable and godlike of you,  mr. corporation.

 

That's some expensive PR. Lol

 

They call them externalities for a reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

 

Nordic states tax the fuck out of corporations to distribute the money themselves with social programs and social safety nets. And that barely happens at all in the United States. Bit more in Canada but not by much.

 

And I mean the profits of these companies come in the form of unpaid labor anyway. So they are just redistributing the workers own money on a wider scale.  Lol.

 

"Enlightened" and "self interest" in terms of economy don't even belong in the same sentence.

 

Thanks for sharing that. 

 

That's definitely a new one.

 

 

[CBH1926]

Playing the lottery is my economic model, which reminds me to donate some money to 1.73 billion jackpot.

[Canuckle]

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

preferable to who? sounds like utopia for the lazy. 

 

Because people don't have to slave for someone else's gain, they'll all  just become lazy and do nothing?

 

Why? Is that what you would do? Sounds like it.

 

Don't you have interests you'd love to have the time to explore? Problem is most people's waking lives are spent toiling struggling just to survive.

 

People will always have interests. People will always want to do things work on projects, explore, invent. Enjoy life. 

 

Fuck slave owners and those who benefit. Infact, capitalism is the utopia for the lazy...at the top!!! The leisure class

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

 

 

Others do the work.  Owners usurp the profits while contributing absolutely noting to the productive process themselves.  Lol.   Lazy.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

6 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

Playing the lottery is my economic model, which reminds me to donate some money to 1.73 billion jackpot.

 

Yeah like a lot of peoples retirement plans these days. 

 

Whereas my retirement plan consists of a bottle of scotch and a gun.

 

(jk.. maybe.)

 

Work til we drop! Lol

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Because people don't have to slave for someone else's gain, they'll all  just become lazy and do nothing?

 

Why? Is that what you would do? Sounds like it.

 

Don't you have interests you'd love to have the time to explore? Problem is most people's waking lives are spent toiling struggling just to survive.

 

People will always have interests. People will always want to do things work on projects, explore, invent. Enjoy life. 

 

Fuck slave owners and those who benefit. Infact, capitalism is the utopia for the lazy...at the top!!! The leisure class

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class

 

 

Others do the work.  Owners usurp the profits while contributing absolutely noting to the productive process themselves.  Lol.   Lazy.

 

 

 

 

small business owners are some of the hardest working people in our society. "slave owners" 

 

so now that you've got the cartoon and hyperbole out of the way, please explain to me why I would bother to make that level of effort in your lazy dude utopia? 

 

I'll just let you grow my potatoes for me, I'll be over in the corner getting high and following my interests. 

 

[Bob Long]

12 hours ago, Canuckle said:

A different approach to capitalist business structures are worker co-ops.

 

"A worker cooperative is a cooperative owned and self-managed by its workers. This control may mean a firm where every worker-owner participates in decision-making in a democratic fashion, or it may refer to one in which management is elected by every worker-owner who each have one vote."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

 

Rather than take top down private owner approach or top down state owner approach, the workers are the owners, and organized horizontally with mor decentralized power. And the profits from the products they make and sell in the marketplace goes in their own pockets... or they can use to invest in the organization to grow as well.

 

And this my friends is socialism in it's truest form Workers owning the means of production that good ol Karl wrote over 150 years ago.

 

Or "Democracy at Work" as Harvard Professor of Economics, Richard D. Wolff would describe it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

 

 

(But we can expand on all this fun stuff later as the trek into the murky history of socialism.)

 

so... you do realize that co-op's operate best in a capitalist system?

[Canuckle]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

small business owners are some of the hardest working people in our society. "slave owners" 

 

so now that you've got the cartoon and hyperbole out of the way, please explain to me why I would bother to make that level of effort in your lazy dude utopia? 

 

I'll just let you grow my potatoes for me, I'll be over in the corner getting high and following my interests. 

 

Yes, slave owners.

 

From slave society to feudalism to capitalism not much has changed in terms of that power dynamic, both in terms of labour exploitation and in terms of overall outcome.

 

They call it wage slavery for a reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

 

And your argument is stale.

 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

Yes, slave owners.

 

From slave society to feudalism to capitalism not much has changed in terms of that power dynamic, both in terms of labour exploitation and in terms of overall outcome.

 

They call it wage slavery for a reason.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

 

And your argument is stale.

 

 

 

your power as an individual has never been greater on the planet. If you're lucky enough to have been born in the West, there isn't much standing in the way of you and a good life.

 

As far as your meme goes, are you suggesting that we go back to a small scale hunter gatherer society? 

 

Our very recent housing and wage issues are the direct result of voter apathy and allowing ourself to get distracted by political polarization. 

 

 

[Canuckle]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

so... you do realize that co-op's operate best in a capitalist system?

 

Operate "best" 

 

What do you have as a comparable?lol. In theory or in practice. (I know the answer. Do you?)

 

Tell me from your extensive research and experience how a co-opertive would work in a different economic model.   I'm curious if you even know. 

 

trying to claim "best" you better back it up.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Canuckle said:

 

Operate "best" 

 

What do you have as a comparable?lol. In theory or in practice. (I know the answer. Do you?)

 

Tell me from your extensive research and experience how a co-opertive would work in a different economic model.   I'm curious if you even know. 

 

trying to claim "best" you better back it up.

 

yes. Compare a worker collective under Stalin to MEC. 

[Canuckle]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

your power as an individual has never been greater on the planet. If you're lucky enough to have been born in the West, there isn't much standing in the way of you and a good life.

 

As far as your meme goes, are you suggesting that we go back to a small scale hunter gatherer society? 

 

Our very recent housing and wage issues are the direct result of voter apathy and allowing ourself to get distracted by political polarization.

You're wrong on all accounts, unfortunately.

 

Sure we may have the luxury of technology to make our lives a little easier, food production, distribution systems, amazing consumer culture bullshit product we "need" to be happy, but in terms of ability for people to climb that socio economic ladder on a grand scale? Absolutely not.

 

Trickle up economics. Do more with less.

 

Yep. Slavery alive and well.

 

Also the meme is referring to your claim that people would be lazy in a communist utopia.  Ie.  No capitalism to drive people to work and explore new things.

Edited October 11, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

yes. Compare a worker collective under Stalin to MEC. 

You didn't answer the question because you don't know.  Thank you for admitting that.

 

Save the works "best" nonsense for the uninitiated, thanks.