reply to post by greencmp
I'm going to ignore your remark because you were the one who dismissed a tribal source on the subject of land ownership to perpetuate your own dogmatic belief.
The closest that we have in concepts towards a communal land is "the commons". Basically, the idea of shared resources that are not owned by are used by all members of society. I can see the overall value in terms of preserving those common resources for all and its longevity in terms of preserving those commons; however, I'm really loathe to say that the concept of land ownership should be abolished. Our world view in Western society just is not conducive to it. As a society, we're more prone to compete with the Jones into terms of wealth accumulation. Put us on the commons and we'd rape the land simply to compete with each other. In fact, that's what we've been doing, isn't it? It's the tragedy of the commons. At least with private land ownership, then you reap what you sow and should your actions be felt on another's private property in so much that it damages it, then they are allowed the opportunity for civil recourse. Personally, I think that's the best we can do so no, I would say that private land ownership for our specific segment of society is most likely the best solution for it.
But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. James Madison, Federalist #10
I think it is much deeper than this. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, but Capitalism has lead to the modern day decline of this country. You think our country is run by the people, but it is not. It is run by large corporate America. They govern us, enslave us, and we all just play along.
Could it be a variation of Marxist principals ?
Could it be that "Progressive Corporatism" is using Marxist 'theories' and applying selective agendas to control governments as well as populations ?
Perhaps the "Ten Planks" are being implemented.
It may go beyond known 'borders'.
There is something in here that stinks of truth. I cannot say that there is a complete consistency by any stretch but, I hadn't thought of comparing the communist to the corporate manifesto.
Thanks for the interesting perspective, food for thought.
3. The maximization of production and cutting of costs is what has been determined to be the root of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the Macondo Well rupture that did unimaginable damage to various industries and the environment. When does maximizing profits go too far? According to Milton Friedman, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to increase its profits". Under Friedman's assumption, BP was simply fulfilling their sole social responsibility. Is that okay?
2. Maximizing one's capacity takes place on a number of levels in production. Basically, if you have a machine that is capable of producing 20,000 units in a day, then it's logical to set that production level to at an optimal 20,000 units so that it's operation is maximized and profitable. However, machines are not the only area that have an optimal expectation of performance placed on that. Human counterparts of labor do, too. Amalgamated Giant Product Shipping warehouses (servicing Amazon) also set a level of maximized optimal performance upon their human components. The assumption used is that their human employees will be operating at the maximum and desired efficiency all day. What's the problem with that?
false. It was due to central banking practices. Do some research.
Complete unregulated free market led to the Great depression.
A potentially more important development slipped by with less notice, Bloomberg Markets reports in its April issue. Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, placed into the hearing record a five-page document itemizing the mortgage securities on which banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA had bought $62.1 billion in credit-default swaps from AIG.
These were the deals that pushed the insurer to the brink of insolvency -- and were eventually paid in full at taxpayer expense. The New York Fed, which secretly engineered the bailout, prevented the full publication of the document for more than a year, even when AIG wanted it released.Bloomberg
There is no such thing as a free market economy. There never has been, and there never will be. Free Market economics is unrealistic, idealistic, nonsense. All attempt to create a Free Market Economy always backfire, resulting in a economy like we have today, were the International Banking Corporations wind up running everyone's lives, and stealing the fruits of labor from the people who actually work and produce the goods and services, so that a group of elites can rule over everyone else.
Stop listening to the ignorance put out by right wing talk radio shows, and wake up to the reality that you have been had by these con artists.
reply to post by greencmp
The monopolies developed in spite of government, not as a result of government.
There is no possibility of creating a free market, just as there is no possibility of creating a communistic society. I don't believe either system is supported by human nature.
reply to post by greencmp
The free market is the natural state of humanity ungoverned.
That is also communism, as claimed by the communists.
I think you are both right.
To be honnest at the end of the day only care about these thing witha economic system:
Good Social mobility
Level playing field and laws regardless of Rich or poor or Big buisness or small buisness
Ability for hard work and inteligence to pay off no matter whats ones backgrounds
Low poentialy for abuse
Ability to get vital needs and services were they are needed.
Repect for saftey
Respect for the enviroment around
Low poverty and human suffering.
Makes the most people happy.
Social justice IE The bankers and politicians that killed the econemy should have been the ones who sufferd. They should have been striped of all there personal assets as fines and banned from holding any positions of resposiblity again like why way you wouldnt give a pedophile a job with kids.
I dont care how the above is meet. Be it 100% Capitlism, 100% communism or a mix.
I dont care about the top 1% happyness, I care about the 99% happness. Why should we concentrate on a system that only makes a small minority happy?
And to be honnest I dont care about the bottom 1% either (IE the lazy and job shy).
And to be honnest I dont know why anyone should care how the perfect system is meet as long as it "works" and makes the most people content.
edit on 9-10-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)