Forum Post: What system do you want to replace Corporatism with?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 8:28 p.m. EST by genanmer
(822)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What economic and political systems do you want, if any?
Corporatism? You might mean Capitalism?
I would suggest a new economic system that addresses the inherent exploitable flaws of Communism, Socialism and Capitalism and taking the best out of them combining it into one.
I am actually currently creating a draft of it and will publish it online. The Venus Project (I am not affiliated with them) will be the first one to know.
Here is my proposal: create a new national capitol. Only that move will be seen as satisfying when we look back on these events in the decades to come.
But how can this small movement break free from the current oligarchy that controls us? We are doctors, lawyers, and farmers just the same as our founding fathers. Yet, the principles they created have been distorted to serve the oligarchy. These principles should be renewed.
In creating a new and better seat of government, we have the most powerful tool ever created - the internet.
I suggest Kansas City, Kansas as a location for this new seat of government. A new and faster internet is being created there. An open and more benign canvas exists at this site, without the stifling history and "baggage" found on either coast.
We don't need to hate "them", we'll just focus on creating a better "us". The energy to do this, exists right now in New York.
CarryTheGrips
main street capitalism, instead of wall street capitalism.... true capitalism, with appropriate checks on it, does not fail the people what we have is a perverted form of capitalism people, educate yourselves, on what true capitalism is the 1% have profited from a dumbed-down complacent america for too long don't give up our heritage
Political: Democracy (Equality & Freedom)
Economic: Democracy (Equality & Freedom)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-rebels-or-revolutionaries-choose-revolutio/
Democracy is a Greek word for people power. It is a management system where power rests with everyone equally. It can be used to run a government, an economy, a single business, a family, or it can be used to decide what to cook for dinner.
A democratic economic system simply means we have equal economic power. Incomes - your source of economic power - are equal.
Just like you get equal votes in a democratic government, you get equal dollar votes in a democratic economy.
However, since income is a way to compensate work, equal income means you get equal pay for equal work. When income is allocated equally, based on effort, everyone in society is wealthy as a right which solves nearly all our social problems.
Capitalism, soviet communism, china socialism, fascism, they are all systems of inequality. Liberal democracy is the source of the only good in this world where people are given the EQUAL right to FREEDOM - the freedom to live how you want without political or economic coercion or restraint.
Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform in the 1st link. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.
The one our Constitution secured for us, before we let our elected servants enact rules that changed it to favor big political donations. Get the money out of politics. New facebook page directed solely to that issue. No parties, no other issues, just that discussion.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Get-Money-Out-of-Politics/170454236375392
Communism
Well-regulated market capitalism, democracy for people, with 100% public campaign financing.
regulations are the problems. Our business have trouble competing with businesses in other countries because there are so many of them because of morons like you who can't fend for yourself.
Fuck regulation. It's what started this mess.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-out
Stupid post.
My preferred systems
Political system: A democratic Technocracy
Economic system: A resource based economy
Explanation
Political system
The primary difference of a democratic technocracy from our system is simply in how issues are posed and solved. The majority of problems would be addressed in a transparent technical matter and solved via the scientific method. e.g. How should the bridge be built, how many resources should we devote to it, etc.
A voting process will remain when the issue is not technical e.g. Would the people prefer to use the resources to build a medical facility instead of a bridge?
Economic system
Of course a technocracy requires an economic system that would prevent a handful of people from forming a monopoly on the resources and a highly educated population to understand the implications of certain decisions.
As for money, there is no need for it.
The function of money is to distribute wealth ‘fairly’ among individuals. The problem is this implies people can’t settle their disputes without a form of exchange, that they are by nature greedy beyond our capacity to produce, and that money itself is fair.
The first problem is money is unfair. That is because it restricts access to the best competitors within the monetary system based on its “rules”. So these rules either need to be enforced or unethical groups will gain an advantage. How?
The price of goods and resources themselves increase as their availability is decreased. So money is gained from scarcity. If any ‘competitor(s)’ is/are able to game the system to artificially increase a product’s perceived scarcity then they will earn more money selling it. E.g. advertising and crop destruction.
Also if the regulators themselves become corrupt then once again these groups are free to use whatever tactics are necessary. And yes, the market will correct itself if a sufficient amount of competition exists. However corrections will only occur after the mistake was made.
Another problem, how is money obtained? Certain activities are rewarded with money while others are not. Labor, research, and service sector jobs often pay an employee but obtaining an education does not. Pushing money around and gambling on the stock market rewards a LOT of money without contributing to society. The same applies to corporations that make weapons for war and rebuild the structures they destroy from those weapons.
Another issue is employment. Employers must have positions available for employees. Otherwise if too many people are out of work, the purchasing power of the public is weak leading to a lowered amount of sales. Even without outsourcing to other countries machines are more profitable overall than people. No healthcare, pensions, overtime, and they can work nonstop if designed properly. (Technological Unemployment)
If these machines can be automated to produce abundance and meet the demand for human needs at a community level, then money is unnecessary to ensure ‘fair’ distribution. There would be no need to compete over something abundant. However this only applies if money does not prevent the people from accessing these things.
So the other half of this is providing access abundance to the needs many have. E.g. An efficient mass transportation system reduces one’s need for personal vehicles. Another example is a library loaning out books or a sports facility loaning out recreation equipment.
If abundance via automated “work” and shared access to necessities can be met, then all that remains for the justification of using money is an individual’s addiction to acquisition. I wouldn't say greedy, because their needs are already met, but addicted to the feeling of superiority gained from acquiring money. Private property would not be seized.
So in a nutshell, the Resource Based Economy would improve the quality of life for everyone IF abundance can be created
by Chana Cox
In Tuesday night’s Dartmouth debate, the Republican candidates were generally agreed on the need to repeal Dodd-Frank. That is all well and good, but banking does need regulation. For 70 years a cluster of New Deal laws, the Glass-Steagall laws, successfully prevented American banks from becoming “too big to fail.” Dodd-Frank should be repealed, and an updated Glass-Steagall should replace it.
In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act introduced the FDIC which insured bank depositors for up to $10,000 in loss because such insurance was seen to be essential to the maintenance of the banking system. Once the taxpayers were on the hook for bank losses, Glass-Steagall severely restricted the risk to those taxpayers by restricting the scope of banks. The act separated commercial banking, the relatively low risk business of taking deposits and lending money from investment banking, the very high risk business of issuing securities and taking capital positions in businesses and in all manner of other investments. Commercial banks were insured by the federal government, but they were to be stiffly regulated and limited in geographic scope. No American bank would be allowed to do business in more than three states.
In contrast, investments banks were not restricted geographically and they were less regulated but they could not take deposits and their operations were not guaranteed or insured by the Federal Government. Taken together, these Depression-era statutes limited tax payer exposure and risk and limited the size of any one commercial bank. High risk investment banking could and did continue, but it was not federally insured. Furthermore investment banks were often formed as partnerships and the individual partners were personally liable for the firm’s debts.
The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall was a disastrous game changer. Commercial banks were allowed and even encouraged to engage in high risk activities – particularly those supported by the politicians in power. The politicians used banks to advance their specific agendas, and the banks used the politicians to insure them against failure. At the same time, as the commercial banks became larger and larger, they became less and less effective as traditional lending institutions. In Oregon, we were better served by First Interstate than we are now being served by its successor Wells Fargo; we were better served by Washington Mutual than we are now being served by Chase; and Bank of America was a strong West Coast bank but it has become a very weak national bank.
After 1999 these newer, larger, freer commercial banks were finding it very profitable to take increasingly risky positions in other markets, like mortgage-backed securities and credit default positions. Under Glass-Steagall such investments would have been illegal for a commercial bank. Instead, commercial banks would have been lending money to local citizens and businesses. They would have been serving their communities as bankers. These riskier investments should be illegal for banks not because they are risky but because it is the taxpayers who are at risk. Our bankers are playing roulette with taxpayer money. If individual bankers win, they are rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses that get paid out every year; if they lose, the taxpayers foot the bill. Mere months before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Goldman Sacks, the quintessential investment bank, went public as a corporation and ceased to be a partnership. The partners were no longer liable for the debt – the corporation was. No one was personally liable. Goldman Sacks has now taken the further step and legally turned itself into a bank. Now, even the corporation is not liable – the Federal government and its taxpayers are Goldman Sacks debt. That has proven very expensive for the taxpayers.
In the 1990’s one argument offered for the repeal of Glass-Steagall was that America’s banking system, with its restricted local banks, was inferior to the far more powerful and monopolistic European banks. The banking industry preferred the European model. Ten years ago Deutsche Bank, through its own share position, was in control of much of the German economy. The European banks were far more powerful than the American banks and American bankers wanted that kind of power. In retrospect, we have come to understand that the major European banks have contributed greatly to the current European financial breakdown.
The Glass-Steagall laws successfully regulated the American banking systems. In crisis situations, like the savings and loan crises of the 1980s, the government could step in and save depositors. The problems were manageable. Once banks were allowed to go national and to go into virtually any and all investments, the problems became unmanageable and the moral hazard for both the bankers and co-dependent politicians became catastrophic. Banks were too big to fail and too unregulated to save. Dodd-Frank merely exacerbates those problems.
Bring back Glass-Steagall.