...and, in this country, we have more lawyers than any other country. Malpractice insurance accounts for more than 50% of most doctors revenue. You draw the conclusions. Also, you must consider the fact that capitalism allows the consumer to place the value on the good/service being offered. Most people place a very high value on their health.



OS...don't make the mistake of assuming that what gets taken out of your check is what you pay for health care. Your company is also contributing...money that you would receive in pay if it wasn't going into that contribution.

Hobbes, don't make the mistake of thinking that if suddenly a system was established where the companies would no longer have to pay for health insurance that their employees would suddenly receive a raise.

I'd be willing to bet if that happened, many companies would actually use it as an excuse not to give raises in the next year or so. "Why do you need a raise Sailor? You just got a bump of $150.00 a month now that you're not paying for health insurance."

The only reason people would see any of that money would be if there was a competitive market for qualified people in those jobs. One company or another would likely increase pay on jobs they need filled, to increase their chances of hiring good people away from other companies. However, in many sectors right now there are less jobs then people to fill them, so there would be no motivation for the companies to give that money to their employees rather then keep it to increase their overall profits.

For example, many grocery stores have benefits programs for their employees. I HIGHLY doubt that any of those employees would see one dime in additional pay from the company if the company didn't have to pay for those benefits anymore. There are simply too many people who can fill those jobs.

And thanks to the Six Sigma crowd out there I am POSITIVE I would not see a dime of it if that cost was suddenly lifted from my employer.

Other forms of government? This discussion is about economic systems. Not that I'm advocating leaving capitalism, but if we did there is no reason we could not stay with democracy. And considering what you were opposing, namely an increase in government control over corporations... how would this change our form of government?

So...let me see If I can sum up what we've covered. Capitalism is the best system that we know of. Parecon has some major flaws, and no evidence to support it's potential success. The only feasible solution to the flaws of capitalism if that the government effectively regulate the industry. I suppose the flaws then are in the money exchenge system between big money groups, be they lawyers or corporations and the elected officials. Effective campaign finance reform seems to be an issue then. McCain/Feingold left the PAC soft money loophole. Hrmmmmm....

Although not one and the same, capitalism and democracy go hand in hand.

A dictatorship could never have a true capitalism form of economy, simply based on the dictator's whims winning out over the market. Ditto with capitalism, and most other non-democratic forms of government. Command economy goes hand in hand with dictatorship or oligarchy or any other form of non-democratic government.

I could argue that capitalists (those figures outside of government who are motivated by making money) are actually a check and balance to the power of government. Although the government regulates business (to a degree), business also regulates government (through lobbyists, etc.) The two are intertwined and inseparable.

I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. In fact, democratic liberties serve as a check and limiter on the capitalism practiced in this country. Look how many people on these forums have argued in various threads about employers' rights in running their businesses. Capitalist businesses are inherently undemocratic. Capitalism on its own is practically fascistic, if it is not oligarchic.

Our pathetic obedience to corporate structures have been a constant thorn in the side of our civil liberties. During the age of the "robber barons," when capitalists were exempted from almost all regulation, the workers suffered an extreme lack of civil liberties. Companies would often pay workers in company scrip they could only use at the company store. Workers who dared to organize (surely a democratic right) were violently stopped, whether by the Pinkertons or the state (kowtowing to the capitalists). The US Military served for many years as an instrument of US buisiness. We have sent troops into more countries than any other modern nation; and how often has that been to secure business interests? This isn't some wacko leftist rant, it's all there in the history books.

I just don't see how you can say they go hand in hand. I'd say we have capitalist structures in spite of our democratic institutions, not because of them. Real democratic freedoms might go hand in hand with Adam Smith's version of capitalism, but that certainly isn't what we practice today.

Parecon is something I've been reading about for a good while, as I've been a follower of Z magazine for years. It contains a lot of good ideas. It would no doubt be more liberational for the individual; however I don't think it will ever happen.

I do believe that for the human race to survive and become more collectively enlightened, we must eventually move beyond capitalism. We're not ready yet, but it will happen. Marx was flawed in many ways, but there is a dialectic in history. What we see around the world - the few benefiting from the many, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - will be the seeds of its own destruction. We can either start addressing the real issues of human suffering and liberty, or we will eventually be washed away in global revolution.

I thought it was implied, but I must say that the government is also a check and balance to the excessive influence that capitalists have over individuals.

The basis of a true capitalist system, the informed consumer, will forever be a problem. The informed consumer makes better choices and hence forces the system to be more efficient and to please the consumer. The uninformed consumer (and they will always exist) can be fooled into buying an inferior product for a higher price.

Of course, when the balance of power shifts from capitalists to government, we can also see the harm it causes to the general populace. Examples abound. What we have not seen (to any lasting extent) is the capitalists wielding absolute power over the government. Some might argue that it exists today in the US, but of course, that would be overstating the problems.

Freedom should not be differentiated. Is economic freedom more important than political freedom, is political freedom more important, or do they go hand-in-hand?

Ideally, I'd say they go hand-in-hand.

Actually I find parecon has a wonderful leftist alternative to the typical leftist big government programs. Let me quote from www.parecon.org



I think leftists should jump all over this. Form companies where you can institute "balanced job complexes". I much prefer this over big government solutions. There is nothing to hinder this under our capitalist systems. In fact, I would argue most business partnerships are parecon in nature. What you have to ask yourself though is why such a wonderful system has never dominated in any modern market ? Let us ignore the criticisms of the US. The fact is the parecon ideology has never dominated the business environment anywhere.

Why has a system evolved with employee hierarchy and specialization of labor? The simple answer is we are not all equal. Our education varies greatly, our motivation, our innate intelligence, our labor vs. leisure curve, our skill level. I once worked in a company with a man who was functionally illiterate. He was also a brilliant mechanic. Yep, most of his work required getting his hands dirty and working in the heat and cold. He did get paid more than the literate payroll girl, however.

Specialization of labor allows for more efficient production. There are some businesses where the parecon philosophy can be applied quite successfully. Mainly smaller, single location type businesses. In most businesses it is much more efficient to let the CPA do the accounting and the illiterate janitor to clean the toilets.

Can't let this statement of Quark's get by.



Yes, businesses themselves should not have issues decided on a democratic basis but by the owners of the firm. Just like no one except yourself and your wife should decide how your household is run (You can decide to give your kids a say if you wish, but I doubt you would give a three year old equal say on the grocery shopping list) Yes, capitalism does recognize the right to property. What many argue is that there is a strong positive correlation between private property rights and civil rights, such as the right to vote.

I think the greatest flaw of capitalism is it's irrationality with regards to property rights. Under capitalism, property is based on property. You own land by claiming resources and you claim resources by owning land. If you ask me, it's pathetically stupid.

A better alternative would be a labor-based property system. Under such a system, man-made things would be private property but natural resources would be accessible to all. If someone wants to claim a natural resource, he must extract it from Nature through labor.

For example, a wild tree growing in a forest would have no owner. But when Bob comes and chops it down, the fallen tree is his.

In contrast to this is the capitalist landlord system, whereby a wild tree is not claimed by Bob who cuts it down, but by Joe who asks the State for exclusive rights to it. And all the while, the capitalists preach non-intervention and laissez-faire.

Furthermore, under the landlord system, the landless must pay fees (rent) to the landlords, and if they refuse, they are arrested. This is not compatible with liberty. It violates the most important tenet of economic freedom - the right to exist without being required to pay a fee for existence.

I don't understand this at all. Once that tree is cut down, where would the forester take it to make the lumber? If there are no property rights, there would certainly be no lumber mills, as the equipment would be up for grabs to whomever could carry it away, and there would exist no building to house it in (also open to whomever wanted to be there). Are you suggesting we revert back to a nomadic, hunter and gatherer society? How would farms even exist to grow food? Why would anyone ever bother to plant a seed if it would belong, legitimately, to whomever decided they wanted to harvest it? Or, are you advocating that the government own everything in lieu of private property rights?

You misunderstand me. I am not advocating for the complete abolition of property rights. Just the abolition of land ownership. Personal property (i.e. man-made things) should be privately owned, because private ownership of these things have a basis in the moral justification of property - the right to own the fruit of one's labor. Land ownership, however, conflicts with personal property, and therefore is theft.

People should be able to own whatever they take from Nature, but taking from other human beings is theft. If a farmer plants a crop, that crop is not part of Nature because it was planted by human labor. Since the farmer planted it, he should have exclusive rights to it. But in the case of wild-growing plants, these should be open for anyone to use.

And no, I am not advocating for hunter-gatherer societies.

[QUOTE]
Questions to debate:
1.) Is capitalism the best we can do, or should we begin to look at other economic systems that may prove useful.

2.) Could "Parecon" provide a useful Reform movement, specifically in relation to education, healthcare, and Media - The industries that are designed to "serve" the public?

3.) What role do you think capitalism plays in the current political state of affairs in America?



[/quote]
[/QUOTE]


I would take issue with the wording of some of these questions. From the sound of it, it leads one to believe that western style capitalism survived, while any other form of economic arrangement was left in the dust. I would argue that it was because of capitalisms adjusting to it's problems that it has thrived for so long. The eight hour wage, health benefits, public pensions, and disability payments were not the product of capitalism or the "robber barons" but rather, were accepted by them, however grudgingly, to accomodate workers and to steal the thunder from more left wing groups. Otto Von Bismarck did the same thing by creating a retirement pension in his nation. He hated socialism within every bone of his body, but he understood that to coopt the opposition's power, you sometimes have to run with a good issue of theirs to please people.

With all that being said, I do believe that par-econ would be a smashing success. Any place that increases the voice of workers can only ultimately succeed. Companies today include employees at often the lowest level of operations in committee assignments, fly employees to headquarters if they have a great idea to improve a given product, institute "employee ownership" plans, as well as forming progressive due process grievance systems. It seems to me that Par-Econ seems to leave communism at an arm's distance, while trying to save an economy from capitalist excess.

[/QUOTE]


I would take issue with the wording of some of these questions. From the sound of it, it leads one to believe that western style capitalism survived, while any other form of economic arrangement was left in the dust. I would argue that it was because of capitalisms adjusting to it's problems that it has thrived for so long. The eight hour wage, health benefits, public pensions, and disability payments were not the product of capitalism or the "robber barons" but rather, were accepted by them, however grudgingly, to accomodate workers and to steal the thunder from more left wing groups. Otto Von Bismarck did the same thing by creating a retirement pension in his nation. He hated socialism within every bone of his body, but he understood that to coopt the opposition's power, you sometimes have to run with a good issue of theirs to please people.

With all that being said, I do believe that par-econ would be a smashing success. Any place that increases the voice of workers can only ultimately succeed. Companies today include employees at often the lowest level of operations in committee assignments, fly employees to headquarters if they have a great idea to improve a given product, institute "employee ownership" plans, as well as forming progressive due process grievance systems. It seems to me that Par-Econ seems to leave communism at an arm's distance, while trying to save an economy from capitalist excess.

[/quote]

I beleive that the major obstacle to Parecon is that the ruling financially elite have absolutely no desire to allow for more employee voice. They have resisted unions from the start. Parecon is certainly much more employee based, and doesn't cater to the financially elite. That is the kicker. It would represent a major shift in the socioeconomic structure of industry. I for one, would like to see it attempted somewhere. If for nothing other than an expiramental project in reality. It would make a great study.

Capitalism works.

Someone mentioned the game Monopoly earlier, and noted that there were always winners and losers. Originally, the game had two phases: the initial phase that we are all familiar with, and a second phase where aLand Value Tax was collected. There were winners and losers in the first phase. There were winners and bigger winners in the second phase.

Frozny disagrees with the notion of nature as property, and while I disagree on some of his particulars, I agree with this notion. Including natural resources as property, or more particularly 'Capital' creates distortions, and allows the 'owners' of those natural resources to become richer on the efforts of others. Consider a Texas Oilman with a claim to the drilling rights on some plot of land out in West Texas. Imagine that this Oil Man inherited this right from his father, who purchased it from the State for a pittance several decades ago. In the intervening years, while this family of oil-men has done nothing productive with the land, has not labored on it, and hasn't invested any additional capital, the market value of this land has skyrocketed. Why did the value increase? Because other people (not the Oil-men) have demanded more and more oil.

Contrast this with someone who bought AT&T stock at the same time: while both the oil-men and the stock investor take on some risk that their initial investment will be lost, society benefits from the stock purchase, and loses from the oil right purchase. If no one bought AT&T stocks, the company would not have been able to raise initial money to purchase capital such as wires & telegraph machines, and the society would not be able to communicate. If no one bought the right to drill the oil, the oil would still be there.

Had the oil men purchased a drilling & pumping machines, and paid some men to sink a well, then the product of the well would rightfully be theirs. It's just when the oil is still in its natural state, when there is no cost of production, that it should be considered natural wealth.

The classical economists, like Adam Smith, counted three factors of production: Capital, Labor, & Land. These are combined to form Wealth, which is traded until people get what they want. (And people always want more). Taxes on Capital (Dividend taxes, property taxes) reduce the availability of Capital, reducing overall wealth. Taxes on Labor (Payroll & Income) reduce the availability of Labor. Taxes on trading (Sales, VAT) reduce the demand for wealth. HOWEVER, taxes on Land do not reduce the production of Land--It's already been made.

Taxes on land are the opposite of the solution to the landlord problem. Under the normal capitalist system, the landless have to pay fees for existence to the landlords (rent) while the landlords pay no such fees. Instituting a land tax makes it so everybody has to pay a fee for existence, including the landlords.

Furthermore, advocates of a land tax say that the revenues should go to welfare for the poor. The ultimate result of this system is that the landlords rely on the State for their rent-collecting powers, the landless rely on the State for welfare, and everybody becomes dependent on the State.

The State, remember, created the problem in the first place. It created land ownership. It defends the "right" of the landlords to collect rent from the landless. And I say, instead of having the left hand create the solution, we should have the right hand stop creating the problem. Nobody should be forced to pay a fee for existence. Land ownership, as well as taxation, must be abolished.

Now, this has gotten interesting. Stop land ownership. That would require a new Constitution, and probably the destruction of the nation.

I like the concept, but I can hardly see it being feasibly possible without a complete civil war, or something at least that drastic. The ruling elite would never permit such a thing.

The indiginous peoples, Native Americans, had such beliefs. I respect them, and wish "we" had learned more from them, but "we" did not. By "we" I am referring to the Western European conquerors from which I descend, and undoubtedly, many of you reading this also could trace their roots.

Land ownership, the "right to own property" is one of the principles that the USA is founded on. It's conception dates to Feudal Europe in the Middle Ages. It is also noteworthy that the 17th Century is a when corporate stock trading origionated in Europe, and consequently, "capitalism" was established.

Check wikipedia if you want source info for those statements of historical fact.

While our American forefathers intended to create a Nation governed for, by and of, the people, the infrastructure of the wealth distribution model that they brought with them had evolved under the guidance of the "landed nobility". Property Rights, a "medieval concept", and "Capitalism", "from the Renaissance", ensured that an elite class would maintain it's status in the New World as well. Hence we have "Land Owners" and "tenants". The haves, and the have not's. I guess the "middle class" are the ones who "have" just enough for themselves. The Nobility, and the Peasants, in it's current evolution.

It occurs to me that "we" as an intelligent people could quite probably establish a "better way" than capitalism. It would, however require a violent revolution to overthrow the "elite establishment."

It has, in no small way, recently occurred that the wealth distribution gap has gotten much, much, worse in the recent years.

http://www.inequality.org/facts.html



And so, I believe that there is certainly something very "wrong" here. There is nothing "fair" about it. America is not really any the land of "opportunity" any more. It is now the land of the "established". Now firmly established, those financially elity are bending "our" government to their will, and squeezing the rest of the people for everything they are worth, in every market they can. Every sector now has a well established corporate elite. They compete with each other, but the "have nots" will remain employees. The "free market" of capitalism at this stage of it's evolution is oppressive, economically, to all about 80% of the population.




It is a pretty clear historic pattern (from my studies of history) that when the wealth distribution gets too far out of accord, the people rise up. Hopefully, the "We the People" movement towards a new political Coalition will make it happen politically; before it happens violently.

Regardless of foreign affairs, the economic factors in America are starting to move in an unhealthy direction at a dangerous pace. "Trickle-down" economics really looks more like throwing crumbs to the peasants.

-Frozny

Not exactly. More exactly would be say that land owners collect the product of society in the form of increased land values, and therefore increased credit and sale prices. Non-land owners are excluded from the same product. As transportation, commerce, arts, & population develop around some particular site, the value of that location increases.

Everybody has to pay a fee for existence? Again, not exactly. Currently, everyone must pay a fee to someone for exclusive rights to a location, as long as others desire that location: I must pay monthly rent to my landlord, many landlords must pay mortgage loans to the banks, and even those who own land outright had to pay a fee to obtain that right. That guy pushing a cart down Pennslyvania Ave didn't have to pay a fee to anyone to sleep on a public park bench, but then again he doesn't have exclusive access to the bench.

Abolish government enforced property rights? There'd be problems here: Either the landowner enforces his own rights, which may be OK, or he hires some thugs to do it for him, in which case we have just created a minor dictatorship -- a form of government. Perhaps a group of neighbors band together to cooperatively enforce their individual property rights -- again, a form of government. Even if we all shared all property, with only exclusive rights to the physical space our bodies currently occupy, there would be some sort of social contract, or government, to uphold these various rights. Either way, it's a pipe dream.

What I propose is a minor change in the way we tax, using our existing property laws and conventions. Stop taxing built property, and shift that tax to land. Stop taxing labor, which is productive, and shift it to land taxes. Stop taxing investment, which allows labor to be productive, and shift it to land taxes. There'd still be individual property ownership -- in fact property ownership would be more clearly defined - what you made is yours to keep or trade as you see fit, with no taxes due.

As for land tax advocates supporting welfare for the poor, I've seen nothing consistent with this statement. If there was one spending idea common to many land value taxers, it would be the idea of a Citizen's Dividend, which goes in equal amounts to each citizen, regardless of wealth or income.

Again, I am not advocating the abolition of all property rights. I support the government defense of personal property (i.e. the products of human labor) and universal, rather than exclusive, access to natural resources. The exclusive access to natural resources is land ownership.

And no, I do not support the abolition of government. A minimal government could prevent the landlords from hiring bands of thugs and re-establishing land ownership through force.

And as for existence fees, I was de-euphemizing the word "rent." Wherever a landless person goes, he must pay rent to a landlord - unless he is on public land, which shouldn't exist in pure capitalism. If he wants to be free from this taxation, then he has to buy land - in essence, he has to pay a fee for freedom. Many landlords, in contrast, inherit their land, and thus they inherit their freedom and power - a form of aristocracy.

Some form of property rights is necessary, but when those without property are without freedom, then the system of property must be reformed.

How do you allocate scarce resources? If you and I both want to occupy the same space, both of our wishes cannot be accomodated at the same time.

Public lands do exist in this country, and hopefully will continue to do so. I'm not so sure that access to them should be free, but that's another topic.

The model I'm thinking of: People trade each other for property, including land titles. The Owner of land title subject to land tax of 90% of it's assessed rental value. Foreknowledge of land tax keeps market price of land low. Land tax is used by Government to provide government services AND a Citizen's dividend. For argument's sake, say the revenue is spent 60% on services (Public Safety, Military, Courts, etc. etc.) and 40% Citizen's Dividends. Currently, far more than 90% of the land value (and therefore land tax) is owned by far less than 10% of the population. The average guy is going to receive a Citizen's Dividend 4 times larger than his land tax.

Not true. I think this is part of the conditioning the rich have put us under. Correct me if I am wrong Frozny Say there is a resource... Like a Nickel mine. Currently someone can own the land the nickel mine rests upon and thus own the mine and the resources. What I gather Frozny is saying is no one should be able to own the mine or the land. The mine is of no value, the nickel within is. If I choose to walk into the mine any Nickel I pick and axe out would belong completely to me. We are not occupying the same space we are working it.

A few questions on this:

Someone spent time money and energy to build that mine. Are suggesting that this has no value? If you choose to walk into a nickel mine that I built should I not be compensated for providing you with access to the nickel? Also, how would this possibly be controlled. In the case of a gold mine, every person with a pickaxe would flock to the gold mines and demand entry, how do you select who can and enter and who cannot? Will those the desire to mine require training? What about the safe capacity of the mine? What about the prospectors in days of old who hunted and struggled for years. When they finally found a workable vein, that would secure their future and recover all the costs and hardships that came before, they would have to share it? What if it is a small vein, that will play out soon. Now they likely wouldn't even recover the costs and hardships they invested in finding it because so much of it was lost to others that invested nothing in the mines discovery and development. Under this system who would prospect any resource? What about all those employed in these mines. Wouldn't they all loose their jobs (darn good paying jobs) if anyone could work the mine? Why would a company pay a work force to work and maintain a mine if anyone could work the mine. With the profitability lost, I would expect that companies would pull out of mines all together, then who takes the risk to search for and extract resources?

Secondly, how will this work with private land ownership? If I desire to build a house on some land and someone else desires to live in my house wouldn't I have to let them under this type of system? It sounds to me like I wouldn't even be allowed to charge them rent, even though It was my money that built the house. Then of course there is the maintenance costs of the upkeep of the home. Those costs tend to increase when more people live in a home, who would pay for these costs as well? Why should people not have a right to own what they build?

Property ownership is the key for people to get out of poverty. This is why so many programs are in place to help the poor purchase homes and start businesses. This is why habit for humanity is so successful. Once someone OWNS a home, they, more often then not, will work hard to maintain it. The Founding Fathers Believed (Correctly IMHO) that property ownership was not just a basic human right, but the key to success in free nations.

The answer is not to eliminate property ownership, the answer is to develop more ways for people to become owners themselves.

Never truer words spoken! Property enables people to satisfy life’s material needs without becoming dependent on the state. Secure property rights provide individuals with the confidence needed to invest their labor and capital in productive activity today, knowing that success will benefit them and their families tomorrow.
Private property is the vehicle by which individual freedom and the enrichment of society are joined in a cycle to enhance the welfare of all. Democracies must include a right to property to survive as such. To the extent that a nation’s wealth and property are in the hands of the state or pass through it, government is empowered and individuals are subjects.
Without private property rights, bureaucrats and politicians are both tempted by and capable of tyrannical abuses of power.
A general interpretation of the founding fathers' vision of freedom was the power or ability to enjoy one's life, liberty and property. Property rights could easily be considered the foundation upon which all other elements of freedom rest.
The right of property is an essential component to capitalism and the bedrock for democracy.


“The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes his life living. To give him his liberty but take form him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.” - Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland

Agreed, but Frozny indicated that once the house is built, it should be yours (manmade property), which sets up a whole other series of questions, doesn't it? How big could this house be?? Would people build massive walls around acres of property in the city and claim it as their yards? Would people be allowed to have a yard? How would we maintain a food supply? He indicated that what you grow, you keep, but how does one enforce that? If a farmer never owns the land he grows his food on, how can he claim the seeds and grown plants are legitimately his? Why would anyone ever plant a seed (except perhaps in their own personal greenhouse, which they "own" because the house is man-made). What would happen to the best land? As SWM28 mentioned, that would be a very inefficient means to allocate scarce resources. Such a conflict is the reason property rights initially came into being in the first place. I started a defending the indefensible on this one, btw...it's the last post on that thread. Just a plug in case anyone is interested because I'd hate to see that thread die after my post.

But this same standard does not apply to mines and the various other man-made properties that generate income? Why would anyone risk starting a business if, once built anyone could use it?

I can't speak for Frozny. My assertation is that the man-made stuff on your land: houses, mines, wells, ditches, etc. is YOURS, and should not be taxed. The natural stuff on your lot: location, fertility, ore, water, is NOT COMPLETELY YOURS, and should be taxed--therefore sharing the Natural Wealth.

EG for the mine, the prospective owner would have to bid every few years for the right to operate a mine on that particular piece of land. Once that right was won, if he lost it to another, higher bidder, he'd have to be compensated for the construction he'd put on the land. Imagine what a rule like this would do to the DeBeers family and the price of diamonds, or to the Saudi Royal Family and the price of Oil: no one could sit on a known natural resource and control it's price.

That's not exactly my position. Nickel mines are dug by humans, and therefore can justifiably be owned. The diggers of the mine have the right to exclude anyone from entering the hole they dug. But the nickel itself is not owned until someone digs it out of the ground.

This means that a company can own a nickel mine, but another company can dig another mine near it to get nickel. Neither company can pre-emptively claim monopoly rights to the nickel. Neither company can deny the other's right to dig a nickel mine.

Thanks to droop this thread has digressed into talking about fictional nickel mines. So, maybe if I could get us back onto the subject: Capitalism is the most effective and yet exploitative economic model that is available, having withstood the test of time.

Participatory economics will not be relevant until the entire world has succumbed to capitalism. Parecon is a euphemism for Marxism. And if you think Marx was correct (and I do) then you should accept capitalism, because Parecon is not an alternative to capitalism, it is a result of capitalism. If you want Parecon, then you should buy stock of the next MNC that infiltrates Africa. If you want Parecon, then you should send HUMVEE armor to the US Army when they take down the next tyrannical domino. You want to fight the system, then feed it.

Ummm, so, if the US is the "tyrannical domino" to which you refer, can we use the US Army and their Humvees to fight it? In terms of global tyrrany, I see no force more powerful than US.

Parecon a result of capitalism. I don't quite see how you can qualify that, but I'd like to see you try. 'Splain it to me...

Fight the system by feeding it? What are you talking about? The world succumbs to capitalism. You mean, I suppose by that that we follow the Project for the New American Century and finally rule the world, (covertly of course)?

I bet we only break ourselves trying. It is the "exploitative" qualities that will prevent capitalism from conquering the world. People around the globe seem to realize that exploitation and capitalism go hand in hand. They also realize that American influence isn't exactly a good thing.

Let me clarify my position. I consider Capitalism to NOT by synonomous with Free Trade. I consider Capitalism to favor the owner of capital over the provider of labor and the inhabitants of the land.

They say it takes money to make money, and certainly a person with wealth is in a better position to make more wealth than the same person without wealth. In our current scheme, this makes for an open loop: the rich will generally get richer while the rest fall behind.

I'm advocating enhancing Free Trade by removing taxes on income, investment, dividends, productive property (real capital such as machines, office buildings, etc.), housing, cars, trucks, sales, commerce, etc.

The source of government revenue, to be shared by all citizens in the form of government services such as public safety, law systems, and defence, as well as direct (but equal) dividends to each citizen, would be the natural wealth of the nation.

This closes the loop and enhances the economy: with capital untaxed, more of it is created, which requires more workers with more skills earning higher wages. The Capitalist still earns interest from his investment, as is fair and right, but no longer gains the profit from natural resources. The laborer (and this term pretty much covers all of us) receives his wages, untaxed. This eliminates the tax wedge between what people are willing to work for and what employers are willing to pay. We all are willing to work for our after tax wages - we do it every day. Our employer is willing to pay us our pre tax wages, plus a little - they do it every day. Without that wedge, more people can be employed, which makes labor more scarce, which drives all wages up.

A similar wedge exists for capital. Investors purchase capital, such as machines, buildings, factories, computers, phones, databases, etc., in order to make a return on them, which we call interest, but in various places is also called dividends, net profits, etc. If the return is higher for a given risk, more capital is purchased. Removing the taxes on such capital creates more capital (something most Republicans understand).

However, what the supply siders don't understand, is that Land, or natural wealth, is different than capital. Reducing the taxes on land most emphatically does NOT increase the supply of land. In fact, land, being in fixed amount, becomes quite a bit more attractive to hold out of use when it is not taxed, as it will fetch a higher price at some future date. When it is taxed, by a portion of it's fair market value, it becomes more and more economically imperitave for the owner to either develop the lot or sell it to someone who will, creating place for someone to work, or live.

When this shift occurs gradually, and especially when this shift begins in urban areas, this tends to encourage land owners to build skyscrapers downtown, ringed by gradually decreasing density, until the rural edge is met. Most farmland, especially in eastern states, has much of it's land value due to it's potential for development. Once the cities and their suburbs are efficiently built and filled in, the demand for development in rural areas will drop, and so will the land value. For low-valued land, the highest and best use, as encouraged by a fair market value tax, may be farm, or forest, or wildland.

.

Interesting ideas. Could you expand on this. What exactly would the "natural wealth" of the nation be?

What would the revenue of the government be based on? A agree with your assessment of capitalism, although "free trade" has been used as a rational for allowing the "haves" get more.

What do you consider to be the differences between "free trade" and "fair trade"

Wikipedia



Both seem more focused on "international" trade and have little to do with taxes.

Natural wealth would be those things not created by man. I would also include location value of unimproved property, including inimproved property under buildings.

These things have no cost to create.

Their 'owners' did not create them, nor would they cease to exist if they were taxed.

In contrast, if we tax capital, through property taxes, taxes on dividends, and taxes on interest, there is less incentive to create this capital. Capital consists of machines, buildings, processes, knowledge, etc., stuff that is employed by laborers to create wealth, or more capital.

Similarly, if we tax labor (the work of people, either brains or brawn) there is less incentive to work.

The tax on these things creates a tax wedge, a difference between the price paid by the user, and the price recieved by the provider. This causes less capital and labor to be employed than is possible under optimal conditions. The surplus of potential capital and labor means that these things cannot demand a premium for their use -- which means low wages and poor returns to investment.

Natural wealth is there whether we tax it or not. In fact, if it is untaxed, it carries a very low holding cost, and speculators can hold it out of use until demand has risen enought to take their profits. Natural wealth includes land value, water rights, mineral & oil rights, electromagnetic spectrum rights, etc.

Patents work in a similar way, in they grant a monopoly to a single producer. They're good for encouraging innovation, and required by our Constitution, but last too long (20 years now). Keep in mind that nothing is really 'invented' so much as it is 'discovered' -- Marconi & Tesla both 'invented' radio within days of each other.

I did not mean free trade in the terms of international trade, as in vs. "Fair Trade", I meant it in the form of commerce without taxes, quotas, tarriffs, limits, etc.

As an aside, and since you asked, I'm all for real Free Trade, but don't think NAFTA, GATT, etc. qualify. Fair Trade is not neccessarily excluded by Free Trade -- informed consumers can still choose not to purchase 'unfair' items.

One caveat though: if US farmers were not so heavily subsidized, food prices would rise, allowing third world farmers to possibly rise above sustenence levels. If land policies were changed (perhaps by taxing the land value) access to land would improve in these countries so that self-sustaining agriculture was a viable alternative to working in a sweatshop - which would require such factories to improve their wages and working conditions to attract labor.

Several times now I have seen you say this sort of thing. The the only way to "fight" capitalism, is to be capitalist.

Now, I have no problem with Capitalism, as systems go I personally do not think there is another that is better if you also want to be free and have individual liberty.

However, you've been asked before and I have yet to see an answer, so now I will ask it as well.

NeoCon30, What do you mean by this? How do you fight anything by joining and supporting it?