Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.

---

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

...This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

---

Apparently not redundant, since you go on to call capitalism a societial system.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.

---

So Bill Gates isn't a capitalist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
All of Taiwan's "economic miracle" came from their mixed economic system. Just because they may be changing their economy NOW doesn't negate the fact that their rapid development came from an alternate economy! How do you justify ignoring such an obvious and significant fact?

---

Quote:

---

So, what WERE your criteria for accepting an alternate economic structure?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

---

Quote:

---

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above)

---

Quote:

---

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development

---

Quote:

---

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

---

Quote:

---

I have a personal preference for Door #3 but I'm willing to discuss the benefits, perils and pitfalls of all of them.

Gotta go.

---

Quote:

---

Because they are dumping the mixed economic system themselves to move toward more privitization and free market economy.

---

Quote:

---

If it works so great, why get rid of it?

---

Quote:

---

An alternative economic structure should provide similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development to those provided by the current capitalist system. Actually, to be viable, it should be able to provide these things at a higher level, else there's no reason to implement it.

---

Quote:

---

INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability. Whatever system an INTJ happens to be working on is for them the equivalent of a moral cause to an INFJ; both perfectionism and disregard for authority may come into play, as INTJs can be unsparing of both themselves and the others on the project. Anyone considered to be "slacking," including superiors, will lose their respect -- and will generally be made aware of this; INTJs have also been known to take it upon themselves to implement critical decisions without consulting their supervisors or co-workers

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And I addressed this already. I will repeat myself one more time. That does not take away from the fact that they spent the last 40-50 years developing under a different and very successful model.

---

Quote:

---

I refer again to Singapore, Taiwan, and PRC. They meet all of your requirements and they are not capitalist.

---

Quote:

---

AFA raising capital is concerned.. you know, there are ways to raise money besides selling stocks. Whatever happened to loans, bonds, and government-guaranteed loans?

---

Quote:

---

Geezer, you're such a millstone in this discusison. Always looking backwards and dragging your feet. No fun at all!

---

Quote:

---

The first is a tweak on capitalism. Since the checks and balances apparently need to come from outside "the economic system" then politics and information flow must be freed from the influence of money. (Needs to be a truly "independent variable") One partial example is Europe, where wealth distribution is controlled by democratic governments but production is controlled by the private sector.

---

Quote:

---

The second is a "mixed economy" like PRC, Taiwan, and Singapore, with government ownership of the major industries and banking but ownership of minor industries and services by individuals. However, since any system is open to abuse and corruption the government itself must come under checks and balances provided by democracy. (See above).

---

Quote:

---

The third include variations on "cooperative economies" where production is owned by the employees. There are many ways to tweak this system. I can think of ways to add incentive for development.

---

Quote:

---

The fourth is complete government ownership, like the USSR, but smarter.

---

Quote:

---

A model that's only viable with a totalitarian government to create it. Thanks, but no thanks.

---

Quote:

---

The PRC "provide{s} similar employment, compensation, goods and services, and incentives for development..." to, say, Germany? What you smokin', SignyM

---

Quote:

---

And where do you think that money for loans, bonds, and government guaranteed bonds comes from? Investors. Capitalism at one remove.

---

Quote:

---

I'm having fun.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to want that "One Simple Solution" system, but one size does not fit all when you're dealing with individual humans.

---

Quote:

---

At first I thought this was about separating the power of money form government - breaking the "$1 = 1 vote" equation as you formulated a while ago. However, wealth distribution under control of government is just as liable to cascade the other way (FROM wealth and power to people TO wealth and power to corps) should corporate money gain the edge. It looks like a bi-stable system. So I'd like a bit more explanation on this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
In a cooperative economic system as I have envisioned, the only allowable busniess forms are either single member cooperatives (sole owner/ employee) or multi-person Cooperatives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
If they are producing more with less work hours then the benefits of those sales accrue to the people who 'own' the cooperative, no matter how many or few hours they work. More money AND more lesiure time. YUM !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Then they raise their prices or go belly up. Same as under capitalsim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Distributing wealth thru work not ownership.

---

Quote:

---

Keeping the money circulating w/o welfare, so it doesn't clump up in one spot and stop flowing while still retaining the positive aspects of competition, free markets, and increasing productivity.

---

Quote:

---

I think that YOU think I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not. Hence my avoidance of "charity". I want to FIX the system, not bandage it.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not bobbing and weaving. Do YOU think I am? I think I'm being straightforward.

---

Quote:

---

So they started comin to me with whatever bash of the week it was on TV talkshowland, which, imop, is a place pretty damn far removed from the real world, and I would systematically demolish the entire argument/theory/talking piece, end to end, and I can be awfully mean and downright thorough about it if I wanna be, which I was.

---

Quote:

---

But in your cooperative, everybody is forced to be the owner. They are required to risk their capital - be it money, physical labor, or special skill - on the success of the cooperative. If the cooperative fails they are all responsible to creditors, fellow members, people who have ordered product, etc. As noted before, some folks are up for this, and this model has worked in many cases. However, a lot of people would not want to be in this position, and would rather just work for wages, then you got capitalism again.

---

Quote:

---

There are always going to be people who can not or will not work and will need some sort of welfare. There are also people who's jobs go away and savings are wiped out for a while due to business failure (Probably more if everyone involved in the business has to pay off its debts). There still has to be some sort of social safety net.

---

Quote:

---

Based on your ideas here, I think you have totalitarian leanings. Everyone MUST structure their lives to suit your economic theories. Not good.

---

Quote:

---

Then you need better arguments. The fact that you can convice folks who already agree with you is fun, but doesn't do much good. When you can convince the guy who puts in his 40 hours a week at the widget plant, goes fishing on the weekend, watches sports, and is pretty happy with his life that your idea is better, then you might get somewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
SO hey Geezer- any comments?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've set up then is an ecology of (limited liability) worker-owned businesses which raise caoital thru loans and bonds. Some will be large and some small, some will be more efficent and some less so. These cooperatives (as currently devised) pay their taxes and creditors, set aside capital for future investment or contingency, and then pay their owners by divvying up the remainder.

The more efficient cooperatives will be able to pay their members more, the less efficient cooperatives will pay their members less. Do you suppose there should be some sort of minimum-wage law? OR is the basis for a minimum wage (protection of workers from "the bosses") simply not existant/ applicable, and will market forces efficiently handle these differences?

Don't forget that in this system there is still competition: for capital, market share, jobs, workers, etc. In the ideal world these forces will keep the economy near equilibrium, but in the REAL world power concentrates. Does this system need further legal constraints?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey, so what would it take to create a utopia? We have several Masterminds on this website (funny, that...). IS this something we can sink our teeth into?

---