What form of government would you like to see?

[lictor616]

I would qualify that with "western humans" are greedy. There are lots of cultures in the world who are not greedy

that's interesting, what you mean to say though, is that only white people are greedy.

although, i'm curious to find out which culture are NOT greedy, i'd love to see what you come up with.

[ToadBrother]

I would qualify that with "western humans" are greedy. There are lots of cultures in the world who are not greedy

I disagree. How other cultures keep score may be different, but the root desire is common to all. In hunter-gatherer societies, the economics are against any kind of meaningful accrual of wealth, but it certainly doesn't stop the vying for status and the pursuit of a better life.

In other words, your re-invocation of Rosseau's "noble savage" is garbage.

Edited July 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. How other cultures keep score may be different, but the root desire is common to all. In hunter-gatherer societies, the economics are against any kind of meaningful accrual of wealth, but it certainly doesn't stop the vying for status and the pursuit of a better life.

In other words, your re-invocation of Rosseau's "noble savage" is garbage.

Well-put. The idea of "wealth" is almost meaningless without an economy. We sure don't think of a "wealthy" person as someone with better tools, or more food than us. Wealth and status are a product of the kind of economy that comes with central organization, such as happened in Sumeria, Mayan culture, and everything from Rome and forward.

[ToadBrother]

Well-put. The idea of "wealth" is almost meaningless without an economy. We sure don't think of a "wealthy" person as someone with better tools, or more food than us. Wealth and status are a product of the kind of economy that comes with central organization, such as happened in Sumeria, Mayan culture, and everything from Rome and forward.

There are other ways of keeping score, and you'll find these in pre-agrarian societies, too. If it was just about comfort, most people would be satisfied with a warm, non-leaky house with enough room for beds for the family, a kitchen and enough room around the fire for everyone. But we don't stop at that. Everyone wants the 4,000 square foot house with the big pool, the huge flatscreen TV, and these as much as anything are status symbols, and believe me the obsession with status isn't something that began with large-scale urban society, it plays a huge role in pretty much all hominoid societies, whether chimps, gorillas or humans (orangutans might be a bit different, but they tend to be less social in some respects than the rest of us apes).

What people in urbanized cultures are very good at is rationalizing the accrual of wealth as a matter of necessity. We co-opt that age-old desire for four walls and a roof for purely materialistic ends. I'm just not convinced we can change that. What usually changes that is altered economic states. We've seen that plenty, people losing their homes and being forced into more cramped apartments, selling off expensive vehicles and buying cheaper ones. But those people, like all of us, will turn around when the times are good and seek for the "good life" again.

And let's remember here that that the rise of the middle class (you know, the major consuming class), while perhaps at least partially created by greed and envy, has also fueled the greatest rise in the average standard of living in the history of our species. Yes, we still have the poor, even poverty, but instead of the vast majority of the population hovering at the subsistence level, it's only a relatively small fraction. People who think that Canada or the US has homeless/underemployment problems should head off to Africa, China or India.

While I can't say the consumer society is a perfect entity, it has created all sorts of problems, I have to say that, knowing how my ancestors lived in Germany and Ireland four or five hundred years ago, I'll stay where I am, even if it means being accused, probably rightly, of being greedy.

Edited July 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bebe]

I'm not anti-capitalist,either...But I'm not for unfettered free markets.I believe if that were to happen that over time,most people would be reduced to animals living like Medieval serfs.I believe that anyone advocating for some sort of Von Hayek version of global free market is advocating for a wealth redistribution plan as horrible as any Marxist nightmare one can think of...

As to you're megacorporation(multinational globalist corporations) comment,I agree 100%.The problem is we have'nt seen a global check and balance to counter what you speak of.Ideally,this should have come from the labour movement,

I think what I am proposing is that we stop thinking someone else (eg labour unions) has to do it, and just start doing it ourselves by changing our thinking ... spontaneous change from the bottom, not organized change from the top.

An example ...

In my youth I knew a rich woman with 5 houses. She spent much of her time organizing, arranging, overseeing and despairing about upgrades, maintenance and repairs. EG, "That's not the way that shelf was supposed to be built! Tom's Scotch bottles won't even fit in there and that was the whole purpose! It's taken two months to organize this one little job, and now it just has to be torn out and done over!"[Goes back to writing her lists.] Watching her, it became very apparent to me early in life that I NEVER wanted to own multiple houses as I dislike such tasks intensely. Likewise multiple cars, boats, planes and even hoards of clothes. Even the thought of a BIG house gives me the creeps!

The rich live behind bars ... who wants it!

If the money/status/power hungry people come to be seen as they truly are - sad prisoners of their own obsessions - then perhaps wealth redistribution could take care of itself.

[Michael Hardner]

There are other ways of keeping score, and you'll find these in pre-agrarian societies, too. If it was just about comfort, most people would be satisfied with a warm, non-leaky house with enough room for beds for the family, a kitchen and enough room around the fire for everyone. But we don't stop at that. Everyone wants the 4,000 square foot house with the big pool, the huge flatscreen TV, and these as much as anything are status symbols, and believe me the obsession with status isn't something that began with large-scale urban society, it plays a huge role in pretty much all hominoid societies, whether chimps, gorillas or humans (orangutans might be a bit different, but they tend to be less social in some respects than the rest of us apes).

There's a big gap in between subsistence farming and large TVs. In between, there is having enough to eat, some leisure time, being able to specialize among other things.

What people in urbanized cultures are very good at is rationalizing the accrual of wealth as a matter of necessity. We co-opt that age-old desire for four walls and a roof for purely materialistic ends. I'm just not convinced we can change that. What usually changes that is altered economic states. We've seen that plenty, people losing their homes and being forced into more cramped apartments, selling off expensive vehicles and buying cheaper ones. But those people, like all of us, will turn around when the times are good and seek for the "good life" again.

And let's remember here that that the rise of the middle class (you know, the major consuming class), while perhaps at least partially created by greed and envy, has also fueled the greatest rise in the average standard of living in the history of our species. Yes, we still have the poor, even poverty, but instead of the vast majority of the population hovering at the subsistence level, it's only a relatively small fraction. People who think that Canada or the US has homeless/underemployment problems should head off to Africa, China or India.

While I can't say the consumer society is a perfect entity, it has created all sorts of problems, I have to say that, knowing how my ancestors lived in Germany and Ireland four or five hundred years ago, I'll stay where I am, even if it means being accused, probably rightly, of being greedy.

So this is the challenge, and the world continually responds to challenges.

[Pliny]

I think what I am proposing is that we stop thinking someone else (eg labour unions) has to do it, and just start doing it ourselves by changing our thinking ... spontaneous change from the bottom, not organized change from the top.

An example ...

In my youth I knew a rich woman with 5 houses. She spent much of her time organizing, arranging, overseeing and despairing about upgrades, maintenance and repairs. EG, "That's not the way that shelf was supposed to be built! Tom's Scotch bottles won't even fit in there and that was the whole purpose! It's taken two months to organize this one little job, and now it just has to be torn out and done over!"[Goes back to writing her lists.] Watching her, it became very apparent to me early in life that I NEVER wanted to own multiple houses as I dislike such tasks intensely. Likewise multiple cars, boats, planes and even hoards of clothes. Even the thought of a BIG house gives me the creeps!

The rich live behind bars ... who wants it!

If the money/status/power hungry people come to be seen as they truly are - sad prisoners of their own obsessions - then perhaps wealth redistribution could take care of itself.

It does take care of itself. Wall Street would be an entirely different place had it not been bailed out. The Obama administration however is more interested in creating monopoly in the banking and financial sectors of America. It is easier to regulate.

Most people are like yourself and don't have the accumulation of wealth as a priority. The responsibility is greater than they desire. Those that wish to take on the responsibility that wealth brings are very busy. Their descendants will probably waste the fortunes their forebears accumulated if they are given the chance to get their hands on it. That isn't a fact, Ivanka Trump seems pretty level headed. I think most of us just want to live a happy life. If that means going to get water at the well 10 miles away without too many other responsibilities then so be it. The do-gooders can show them how to have running water but until they ae unhappy going to the well, they won't use it and the won't take responsibility for it's upkeep.

The main gist of the thread is discussing what government can best centrally plan society. Is that government's role? Or is it to allow people to pursue happiness according to their individual plans. Of course, having your own plans must include contributing to everyone else's happiness. This is a co-operative non-coercive society. The direction of all of society or the aims of society must remain in the ever changing evolution of society. Giving it an elasiticty that a central planner does not.

I don't propose anarchy as I believe there is some role government can play in organizing society against a common threat or as a final appeal to justice however I don't think it should be planning the society. Planners are all into building the sustainable community but it is really engineering that will benefit some over others in their pursuit of happiness and that is socially unjust.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I don't propose anarchy as I believe there is some role government can play in organizing society against a common threat or as a final appeal to justice however I don't think it should be planning the society. Planners are all into building the sustainable community but it is really engineering that will benefit some over others in their pursuit of happiness and that is socially unjust.

How about the common threat of human fallibility? Markets in the late 19th and early 20th century were unregulated as well as chaotic weren't they ? And the costs of collapse after collapse are expensive, not to mention the inability to set up an environment that can support stable markets.

The problem of addressing the common good has been with us for a long time. Regulation that is open, and well-monitored is a good option that addresses that problem.

[ToadBrother]

It does take care of itself. Wall Street would be an entirely different place had it not been bailed out. The Obama administration however is more interested in creating monopoly in the banking and financial sectors of America. It is easier to regulate.

If there hadn't been a bail out, it's very likely we would have entered a Depression-like deep recession. Everyone knew, or should have known, that there would be waste, there would be someone padding their pockets. That's inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was following the same errors that lead to the Depression, the same slow reaction from governments, in particular in the US.

Isaac Asimov once said "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right", and the same applies to political ideologies. Obama, and indeed GWB before him (let's not forget that the bailouts started before Obama won the White House) were motivated by one thing, to stop an economic global meltdown, a massively deep recession. The alternative, to let Wall Street find its way out, would have left us in about the same position as 1929-30.

[Pliny]

How about the common threat of human fallibility? Markets in the late 19th and early 20th century were unregulated as well as chaotic weren't they ?

No. They weren't. Perhaps you are thinking of the wild west in the US. The US did have the least regulation which made it the most powerful and productive country in the world.

And the costs of collapse after collapse are expensive, not to mention the inability to set up an environment that can support stable markets.

The cycle of boom and bust periods is the result of government fiscal and monetary policies. In the US banking practices that existed in England and Europe were creating problems and instability.

The problem of addressing the common good has been with us for a long time. Regulation that is open, and well-monitored is a good option that addresses that problem.

How about just ensuring integrity and honesty by having government do it's job of removing criminality in the market without granting privileges and pork to it's buddies or making laws to save it's on neck or increase it's revenues? How about that?

[ToadBrother]

The cycle of boom and bust periods is the result of government fiscal and monetary policies. In the US banking practices that existed in England and Europe were creating problems and instability.

I doubt you would find many economists that would agree with you. Capitalism tends towards bubbles, overexpansion followed by periods of retraction, or "correction" (a delightful euphemism). You can never eliminate this, but certainly sensible regulation that can curb some of the worst excesses, will moderate the highs and lows.

There is, unfortunately, no single formula to create a stable economy. If there were, someone would have figured it out by now. Leaving the markets to themselves does not lead to a panacea, it usually leads to a concentration of wealth which is neither healthy for society or for the markets.

[Pliny]

If there hadn't been a bail out, it's very likely we would have entered a Depression-like deep recession.

Yes. We would have had a depression. One that lasted a year or maybe two. The bailout saved many of the politicians investments and many of the Wall Street managers form unemployment. We are not out of the woods now and we won't be for a long time if the current policies are continued.

Everyone knew, or should have known, that there would be waste, there would be someone padding their pockets. That's inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was following the same errors that lead to the Depression, the same slow reaction from governments, in particular in the US.

There was no slow reaction from the Hoover Administration. Price and wage controls were implemented, the Glass Steagall Act came into being. Make work projects were designed. Farm production was heavily regulated and subsidized. Nothing the government did improved the situation. FDR continued the interventionist policies of the Hoover administration with an immediate Bank holiday and the making gold illegal to own by Americans. He kept the five year plans that Hoover had started and developed the TVA and and other make work projects. Unemployment never fell below 15% under Roosevelt during the thirties.

It is interesting to note that Hoover was the Treasury Secretary before he became President. As a matter of fact, John Maynard Keynes hailed his "successful management of the dollar by the Federal Reserve Board from 1923 to 1928 as a "triumph" for currency management. Economist D.H. Robertson concluded in 1929 that "a monetary policy consciously aimed at keeping the general price level approximately stable has apparently been followed with some success by the Federal Reserve Board in the United States since 1922. Keynes continued to hail the FRB policy after the depression began but Robertson became critical stating:

"The great American 'stabilization' of 1922 to 1929 was really a vast attempt to destabilize the value of money in terms of human effort by means of a colossal program of investment...which succeeded for a surprising ly long period but which no human ingenuity could manage to direct indefinitely on sound and balanced lines"

The above is taken from America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard.

America in the twenties was primarily an agrarian economy and Hoover had started farm marketing boards, subsidies to farmers, and manipulating crop yields among other government programs.

Government activity had never been more prevalent in American society during a peacetime period than in the twenties and it only stepped up after the 1929 collapse.

Isaac Asimov once said "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right", and the same applies to political ideologies. Obama, and indeed GWB before him (let's not forget that the bailouts started before Obama won the White House) were motivated by one thing, to stop an economic global meltdown, a massively deep recession. The alternative, to let Wall Street find its way out, would have left us in about the same position as 1929-30.

We will remain in unstable economic times as long as government figures it is the producer of the GDP, jobs and prosperity. Hoover and FDR tried to prove that and prolonged what could have been a short depression.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

I doubt you would find many economists that would agree with you. Capitalism tends towards bubbles, overexpansion followed by periods of retraction, or "correction" (a delightful euphemism).

Economists of today think in terms of the aggregate.

What you say is true of all cap[italism - with one qualification. It doesn't do so in the aggregate. Only government (or previously criminal banking policies) can produces an effect in the aggregate making whole economies boom and bust.

You can never eliminate this, but certainly sensible regulation that can curb some of the worst excesses, will moderate the highs and lows.

Eliminating the failure of economic enterprises is not advisable. They must be allowed to fail and succumb to competitive forces if we are to have a healthy economy. The dead wood must be cleared somehow. "Corrections" (that delightful euphemism) must be constantly occurring but it is only government or previously Bank monetary policy that can create a "correction", i.e. a "bust", in the aggregate.

There is, unfortunately, no single formula to create a stable economy. If there were, someone would have figured it out by now. Leaving the markets to themselves does not lead to a panacea, it usually leads to a concentration of wealth which is neither healthy for society or for the markets.

Government will tell you that only it can create a stable economy and of course, their failure to provide it is inevitably a fault of the market and never a fault of government policy unless you are the opposition, who would of course have proper fiscal policy.

If what you say is true about capitalism -

Capitalism tends towards bubbles, overexpansion followed by periods of retraction, or "correction" (a delightful euphemism).

It cannot not lead to a concentration of wealth. It must have government support or protection.

The problem is that government does not rout out fraudulent and criminal activities but seems to merely take them over and they start with taking over banking - debasing the currency, printing counterfeit currencies, creating deficit and debt. Then they proceed to taking over and monopolizing the gaming industry, rum-running, prostitution, street drugs...etc.

Of course the end for them comes with economic collapse and/or revolution.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Pliny