Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: █████ What would an OWS economy look like? █████

Posted 8 years ago on March 28, 2012, 12:11 a.m. EST by ForrFreedom (49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

What sort of economic structure does OWS want for the U.S.?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

So concerned with keeping everyone happy that most end up pissed off and frustrated :)


Not sure.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

Every one of us has a different goals.
But I'd bet that more than 90% of us would agree that these three things would bring us all a lot closer to our goals:

get rid of citizens united
get rid of buckley
get rid of corporate personhood

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (66) 8 years ago

OWS wants an economic structure of cooperatives (democratically run workplaces) without bothering to actually create them.

Since more than 150 years ago, all the socialist and communist leaders were calling the people to take over existing production facilities, and they could never find the time to call the people to build new cooperatives.

Those leaders don't care about the people. They just promise they will give the power to the people, without bothering to train the people to become capable to manage cooperatives. Because all those leaders are (and were) charlatans. They just want want power, not solutions.

And the OWS leaders don't really look different than all the previous communist / socialist leaders.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

well, genetic designdevelopment might change appearance in 100 years

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

A Third Industrial Revolution is looking to make the future capitalist system sustainable, democratic, and efficient. This should be something that OWS supports.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Construction of the new by deconstruction of the old (although, OWS won't need to worry about deconstructing anything, our system is doomed to implode in on itself anyway). From the Wikipedia article on Pierre Proudhon.

Proudhon favored workers' associations or co-operatives, as well as individual worker/peasant possession, over private ownership or the nationalization of land and workplaces. He considered that social revolution could be achieved in a peaceful manner. In The Confessions of a Revolutionary Proudhon asserted that, Anarchy is Order Without Power, the phrase which much later inspired, in the view of some, the anarchist circled-A symbol, today "one of the most common graffiti on the urban landscape."[2] He unsuccessfully tried to create a national bank, to be funded by what became an abortive attempt at an income tax on capitalists and stockholders. Similar in some respects to a credit union, it would have given interest-free loans.[3]


Not a bad start. There's even a small chance that there won't be an extinction event caused by environmental catastrophe, and even though the odds are against the human race at the moment, there's still a small reason to have hope (although if you're a statistician, maybe not so much).

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

Like all economies we need to balance socialism or collectivism with individualism and free-markets.

Currently there is NO balance, the free-marketers have gutted all regulations, and social programs, what remains is largely corrupted and weak. By removing the influence of the 1% who have been manipulating matters for their individual gain, we can re-balance the mix of collective ownership and group support structures, with free-markets for people to innovate and create, furthering the group and their own personal wealth.

The 1% can not be given control over all the resources, ownership has limits as does anything. Capital gains should be taxed well above earned income. The 'casino' stock market we currently suffer, needs to be redesigned entirely. I would limit personal income with a 90% ('your winning') tax on any thing over a reasonable limit 1 million dollars a year say,. I would also provide a basic living expense to everyone. 1 thousand dollars a month say,. so students, the retired, the sick and infirmed, artist, writers, mad-scientist, or the down right lazy could find a way to live on a tinny safety net level income. allowing ALL their birthright to just live on the world that birthed them is the basic requirement of any system for human organisation if it want my support. I can go in and on,. there are endless options for structuring a society that is egalitarian, just, and truly free. It only require our will to do it. We have let the greedy few rule here for far too long. No longer!

[-] 0 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

How would you suggest redesigning the stock market?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

The current state of the stock market is rather pathetic. What we have today is a skimming machine, with an casino interface. The 1% use it to skim money from the investments and retirement savings of the 99%. Even the value of the dollar is manipulated to suit their needs. Letting people bet, on the out come of their bets, seems insane, how about letting them bet on the outcome of stocks they don't own. What is their motivation then? Are the pulling for the little company they just shorted to succeed?

The whole thing has degenerated into a not only non-useful, but positively DESTRUCTIVE system. The money system itself is the root of the problem. Letting private for-profit banks create our money is a major dumb move. We can devise any of a million different systems to organize ourselves, this old way is too broken to go any further. Money based on 'debt', is by definition, a ponzi or pyramid scam.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 8 years ago

Getting rid of it for starters ... oh, okay that's not redesign. How about this, we could redesign it by removing a few pillars from the NY stock exchange, and our new casino (oops I mean stock market) could be taking bets on how long it takes to collapse :)

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

I dont speak for OWS but I think personally that this would be a good alternative.


[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 8 years ago

I suppose an OWS economy could look like America in the 1950s, where schools and students were not treated like profit centers, the banks were regulated by Glass-Steagall Act, America was building the infrastructure that promoted and allowed business to flourish, and corporations had more of a sense of patriotism so they didn't run to Dubai like Halliburton after they got billions in no-bid military contracts, and then .... oh, you get my point.

[-] 2 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

How would you promote infrastructure growth? Would you be in favor of placing penalties on corporations who take their business abroad?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I think it would be a better idea to do things to encourage corporations to do business here rather than penalizing those that don't.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

Ah. I see. Isn't the government doing that already? How would you do it differently to ensure greater success?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

I agree with you. The only addition I would suggest is a science intensive program meant to move the country ahead, like JFK's space program. It may not seem practical going to space, but the scientific research resulted in massive benefits to our economy.

A whole new industry was created, the aerospace industry, which provided lots of good paying jobs.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

there's a lot of old movies about the conflict of business interests and people needs

usually, the businessman comes rounds

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 8 years ago

Public sector banking is a concept that is relatively unknown in the United States. Only one state—North Dakota—owns its own bank. North Dakota is also the only state to escape the credit crisis of 2008, sporting a budget surplus every year since; but skeptics write this off to coincidence or other factors. The common perception is that government bureaucrats are bad businessmen. To determine whether government-owned banks are assets or liabilities, then, we need to look farther afield.

When we remove our myopic U.S. blinders, it turns out that globally, not only are publicly-owned banks quite common but that countries with strong public banking sectors generally have strong, stable economies.


[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

I don't understand this very well. Why is a publicly owned bank more beneficial versus a privately owned bank?

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

What, if any, should the salary cap be?

[-] 2 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 8 years ago

Companies having high profits is good. There needs to be more incentives for them to be using that money for r and d, investment and hiring. Right now the incentive is to put the profits in the stock market and pay higher dividends. That mostly helps the rich. Job creation should be a major goal. The saleries of CEO's seems to be the business of the stock holders. They are getting ripped off if the major executives are paid too much. Changing some of the rules so shareholders are more empowered might work best.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

What proposals do you have to create incentives for corporations to invest in research and development?

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 8 years ago

Investing in our infrastructure and education system and lowering their tax rate but closing loop holes. The US is actually the biggest tax haven in the world for businesses although we blame other countries.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

How should payrates be determined?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

If you agree to work for an amount that your employer agrees to pay you, your pay rate has been determined.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

How do you feel about increasing the minimum wage?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

like eating the rind of the fruit we pick

[-] 0 points by rogerdoger (0) 8 years ago

Socialist, But you soon run out of other people's money

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 8 years ago

Like communist china?

That's what I've been able to deduce.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 8 years ago

so hyper state capitalism with slave labor?

[-] 0 points by MrWashburn (5) 8 years ago

I have a quick question... from what I have observed you guys want both unity and indivualiam... you're forgetting that you cant have both. People are complex and by making drastic changes to things like the economy and government sets people on edge. People cant handle change of such a magnitude the way you are doing things by changing economy you are changing the government. Thus you are creating a new institution which needs to fix the same problems in a better more efficient way. How would you account for the people who wont comfom to your ideals? What happens to the criminals and the people who cause issues? You would have to do a complete overhaul of the government and during that period of time it would be anarchy. People will riot and people will die. Some people cant handle change and a thing like this will result in a death count. Governments cant change peacefully after being around this long. Those criminals and troublemakers will take advantage of the situation. Also when you can all agree on what is going to happen make sure we all know because you seem to all have different ideas and none of them can work.


[-] 0 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

Yes, I just want to know were you stand on this issue

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

there is more labor available than work that needs to be done

but the some labor must get done in order to continue providing for the people

the labor can be more evenly distributed by establishing a 30 hour work week

[-] 0 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

The idea of people getting things for free, not working and thinking they have the right to a wellfare check.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

So you prefer the Status Quo where corporations get subsidized to move their plants over seas? Yeah, I'd like to see corporations get their corporate welfare cut back, especially the share holders who get a portion of those subsidies doing no work at all. I feel your distraught. End corporate welfare now, and put the share holders back to work. The share holders have been getting money from the gov't for free for too long.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

or dividends from investments

[-] 0 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

MattLHolck whos side are you on, I just can't tell you're opinion from you're comment

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

what subject is being addressed ?

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 8 years ago

Are there only two sides?


[-] 0 points by shield (222) 8 years ago

I would suggest a banking system where the notes that are printed are backed by (and exchangeable for) goods held in reserve by the banks. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GOLD, nor does it even have to be only one resource. So don't pull out the "gold-standard-doesn't-work-not-enough-gold" line.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

The only reason gold worked is because it's a relatively stable commodity. Because it's still used as currency the price of gold will fluctuate with the world economy. Is there any substitute that wouldn't be subject to a world economy?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 8 years ago

Nothing which was not "subject to a world economy" would have value relative to anything else, and would not serve as a measure of value. The value of goods and services will vary in their relation to each other. The main problem with the currencies of today is that they do not represent, and are not exchangeable for, goods. It is true that we who use the currency as money do exchange goods for it, but try asking the Federal Reserve to trade to you what their currency represents! They can't trade you anything for it because it doesn't represent anything that they own. The currency is not tied to any good or service on the market. Its value can be changed arbitrarily, regardless of the relationship between the value of goods and services.

[-] 0 points by elf3 (4149) 8 years ago


[-] 0 points by therestlessenigma (0) 8 years ago

This is a tough topic because everyone is going to try and figure out how we can fix the monetary system.. We can't and we shouldn't try. Its time to move on to something new. I've read about many resource based economies that I feel if done right could allow everyone to have the essentials for free and have plenty of resources left over. I think it isn't even a question when it comes to the basics: food, clean water, shelter, medical, and transportation should be the first things to focus on because we all need these things to survive. Now I know transportation isn't a survival need but we can do it and it will make travel a lot easier. I think the fact that pollution not only exists but is consciously ignored on such a massive level is a disgrace to our entire species. In the rebuild of our future pollution is NOT an option even if it sacrifices convenience. So i am sure people will say "There is no way we have enough resources to do this! This is outrageous thinking and you, sir, are a buffoon!!" Think about the amount of crap that is made all throughout the world for profit that will fall apart on you in a second.. That will not be allowed. Holding back true progress for profit is insane and it only serves a small percentage. In essence we should all be able to have the best computers, best, phones, tvs, or anything technological and the only reason we cant is because everything is made in grades of quality as if the rich are throwing the poor a bone.. Sickening. The problem is that no one seems to see that we don't have to have a class system. There should just be a ton of individuals with unique ideas getting along as best we can (because arguments happen in life) for the true progress of humanity as a whole not just a few. Life doesn't need to change that much. Simple outdated immoral concepts of power, greed, and control just need to die off and people need to get over their egos and learn to get along. Its not an outrageous idea to want to treat each other well and have some level of common decency and respect for ourselves, each other, and everything else on the world and in the universe! So there is some ideas of what I think we should be striving for in the future. Basically, its not worth trying to fix a broken system its better to build a new and better one even if it takes hard work. And also, better ourselves and learn to be more open even to things we really don't like or understand. Even if we get furious and "know" we are right it is good to hear out the other side and truly try to see where they are coming from. Everything in life is a learning experience. Well, thanks for reading this if you did and I hope everyone is having a great and doing something awesome :) Love and Peace!!

[-] 0 points by littlebiggygirl (26) from Hesperia, CA 8 years ago

limited taxation. www.taxkilla.com

[-] -1 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

Thank you, able body people who can get a job don't deserve a wellfare check, to bad if you dont like the job. You need to work

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

not if they can't get a job

[-] -1 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 8 years ago

Q: What sort of economic structure does OWS want for the U.S.?

A: One where either (a) those who steal small would be rewarded as are are those who steal big, or (b) those who steal big would be punished as are those who steal small.

Next Question?

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 8 years ago

Hey! I like that!

It runs along the same lines of my thinking we need many more elected to DC for congress and many more presidents too..

that way people have a better chance of being represented, elected servants will no longer need 200+ staffers since the load will be lessened, and if big money buys them all, it will be more expensive and maybe tinkle down better....

however, if it really worked that way, we could elect everyone so big money could just buy us all!


[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 8 years ago

Gulags and collectives

[-] -1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

So far OWS has made no demands. The Declaration of the Occupation of New York City has over 20 grievances. I personally don't think OWS is large enough or evolved enough to have a coherent alternative. Right now it is enough to say NO! BASTA! ENOUGH! To say no to injustice. We need to build our movement and become much much larger before we have a sufficiently large democratic base to even begin a discussion regarding what a post corporate world would look like (though I'm not sure it is appropriate to characterize as an economic structure as it may well have nothing to do with economics as presently understood).

[-] -1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

A pure capitalist one that is the true vision of Adam Smith with great education, efficient infrastructure, concrete justice, free trade, and a strong military. Not this pathetic corprotocracy that claims to be capitalist.

[-] 1 points by ForrFreedom (49) 8 years ago

How do you deal with the perpetually poor in your purely capitalist economy?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Education, welfare, and government labor projects

[-] -2 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

If people worked and actually paid their taxes then the Economy would probably be a lot better

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the rich have the money and the tax breaks

[-] -2 points by Copper12 (9) 8 years ago

They want socialism, free handouts, and wellfare, those people just don't want to work.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago


some people collect money for nothing