"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
- John Maynard Keynes

"Capitalism is our only moral system. All other systems take advantage of man's rights and liberties. "
- Ayn Rand

"In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy."
- Fran Lebowitz

"This American system of ours, call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you will, gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it"
- Al Capone

"I am going to fight capitalism even if it kills me. It is wrong that people like you should be comfortable and well fed while all around you people are starving."
- Sylvia Pankhurst

This little collection of Quotes provides a glimpse at the various views and beliefs about capitalism. It certainly is a mainstay of American life. It is the driving force behind every industry, from education to defense, healthcare to sports, and everything in between. I personally think that capitalism has no place in healthcare, education, or media (news). That is beside the point.

The Participatory Economics Project (Parecon) offers a detailed alternative to capitalism. From their website: "The underlying values parecon seeks to implement are: equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutional vehicles to attain these ends are council democracy, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning. "

http://www.zmag.org/ParEcon/index.back.htm

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?

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

It is hard to envision a system which is better than capitalism. Capitalism is founded on a very simple principle...people are self-motivated, and will work hardest to obtain their own good. In order for their to be a better system, it would either need to put forward a new ethos, and provide evidence that it would be superior, or it would need to take better advantage of the self-motivation ethos. I don't see evidence of either for parecon. It is founded on "equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management." Wonderful ideals...but completely lacking in any evidence that such a system would be superior to capitalism. Further, there is no evidence that such a system is even any different than capitalism...one could easily decide that setting up such an entity would be in their own best interest...and each of their employees could make the same decision. So, parecon has two large hurdles to overcome: first, to indicate what differentiates it from capitalism; and second, if it is different, providing conclusive evidence that it would be superior. If you look at their ideals, it is basically communism...and we have seen how successful that has been.

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?

One would have to answer the above questions before addressing this issue. The question itself (as well as the entire issue) makes a basic assumption...that capitalism is somehow 'bad'. Specifically, why doesn't capitalism 'serve' the public? Sure, it is based on self-motivation, but in general, one can best serve his own needs by providing those goods and services that most benefit the public. So, one must define the supposed flaws in capitalism before addressing solutions. Those that succeed in a capitalistic system are the ones that provide the best value...is there any reason to assume that we don't want the best value in the industries listed here?

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

Hmmmm, this is an interesting question. The answer is also interesting...none, and omnipresent. None, in the sense that democracy and capitalism are two completely separate entities...one is a form of economy, the other a form of government. It is perfectly possible to have a democratic communistic state...in fact that is probably the only way to achieve true communism. Conversely, it is also entirely possible to have a dictatorial capitalistic system. So, the two issues are completely separate theoretically. However, they are completely intertwined in a practical sense. One cannot operate a business without considering the influence governmental regulations/policies will have on it. Then, addressing that influence simply becomes a part of operating the business---one would be quite foolish to ignore such a large factor in their business operations. Again, though, the question inherently implies this is a bad thing...an assumption that would require considerably more proof than is offered.

I don't think outside of slavery I could ever find anything as offensive as parecon.

1.) Is capitalism the best we can do, or should we begin to look at other economic systems that may prove useful.Capitaism allows those who want to go above and beyond the chance to create their dreams-Parecon will always stifle freedom because you are forced to settle for second best to not be unfair to those who want to do little.

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?No. Parecon is simply institutionalized jealousy of others and allowing the bitter to suppress those they are jealous of.

3.) What role do you think capitalism plays in the current political state of affairs in America?
Capitalism is simply self interest. Of course it plays a part in politics.

[quote=christopher,Jan 25 2005, 02:11 PM]
I don't think outside of slavery I could ever find anything as offensive as parecon.

Hrmm....what exactly is so offensive? The thought of people working together for the common good?

In response to Hobbes: Firstly, you assert that "Those that succeed in a capitalistic system are the ones that provide the best value". I think that those who are successful are those that reap the most profit, not exactly the best "value". There is an abundance of deception and fraud in the interest of profit, that has absolutely nothing to do with value. Take for example, the Pharmaseutical industry. The corruption there is absolutely out of control.

http://pharmawatch.blogspot.com/2004/06/po...n-and-lies.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/...a_companies.htm

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/levine_c.shtml

Just a few examples. In the capitalistic mentality/system, the drive is profit only. That is not exactly the aim of a social service industry such as healthcare.

FDA corruption - http://www.canucklinks.com/fda.htm can largely be attributed to capitalistic practices in the healthcare field.

Our current state of what I would call a far greater crisis than Social Security is the media. The fact that huge corporations are making vast amounts of money off of exploiting the public's resource (airwaves) with a sole interest in profit. For more info on that subject, visit http://freepress.net/. Manipulation through control of information is not exactly a good thing. That is fascist, not democratic.

And so, yes, I would say that without a doubt, there is something wrong with capitalism in the arena of social service and public interest industry. Profit, and general welfare of the people don't necessarily go hand in hand.

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

I don't know if it is the best we can do, but it is certainly tried and true and I think that it in general meshes well with our human instincts.

In my opinion the reason people sometimes label capitalism as evil is because the core definition of it is that you do what is in your best interest. So, based on that capitalism has the potential to be an evil thing depending on the parties in the transaction. However, the beauty of capitalism is that it provides people with opportunity, allows them to dream and innovate. These are core things to our human spirit and I tend to think the benefits of the latter outweigh the risks of the former.

But really, capitalism is only as good as the parties involved in the transaction. Is one party trying to exploit the other or do both parties want to come away from the table mutally satisfied with the outcome? Therefore it is up to each individual to decide where their ethics lie - will they try and make money at all costs or will they make sure that everyone benefits in some way from each transaction?

Finally, I don't think it is really as simple as "looking at other economic systems", something so firmly entrenched not only in history but in our culture isn't going to go away over night and be replaced with something new. Those that think they have better ideas will have to develop them over decades and even centuries and work them in to the public discourse. If there is a change in the far off future it won't be because it happened overnight, it will be a gradual progression that can only be noticed by looking at one point in history and comparing it to another.

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?

I think that it is a little too extreme of an idea to be swallowed by either the public or the business community.

First, the idea that things like education and healthcare would be government provided is a hot enough debate in this county as-is. If the country is not willing to accept a government solution in these areas, then I don't see the ground as being very fertile for this idea.

Second, as Hobbes stated in his reply, for something like this to be successful or even get moving in the first place people would have to feel that capitalism was "bad" and needed reform. Given the alternatives in the public discourse such as communism, people aren't going to be inclined to think there is a better way out there, in fact they'll think we are using the best way.

Finally, and probably most importantly, what would be the incentive for the businesses in these industries to just toss away their shares and become a non-profit organization to provide public services? Healthcare and Media companies make a lot of money, and I highly doubt (again no one saying capitalism is bad) that there would be any serious talk of giving that up.

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

The answer there is simple, corporate influence of public policy. Corporations can and will act in their self interests to make as much money as possible and keep their shareholders happy. Some corporations are more ethical than others due to the leaders in charge of them. However, the vast majority of corporations participate in the political process because of financial interests.

Each year corporations pour millions upon millions of dollars on to politicians to lobby for favorable legislation and block other legislation. The result is that corporations run this country and not the citizens who elect the politicians in the first place. It would take thousands of phone calls to your local representative to make your voice heard (and that doesn't even guarantee they'd listen) but it only takes a few large contributions by a corporation and they have that official's full attention.

But, it isn't capitalism that is the problem here. Capitalism is merely the vehicle and it gets a bad rap. The real problem is the motivation of these corporations. As I stated before, some of them are more ethical than others and therefore lobby for things that go against the interests of voters and consumers. For example, I think that if you asked most people they would be for a clean environment. But when the government starts talking about environmental regulation the usual suspects line up to shoot down whatever is proposed because that would mean increased costs and reduced profits for them.

The reason capitalism is so successful is that it is a genuine system. It reflects animal (human) nature and doesn't pretend people are angels.

Even if you have some type of socialist system, you still have a free market mentality. People will always be self-interested. In a social type system you simply see that manifested in ways to bilk the gov't instead of each other.

You cannot change the nature of people by changing the economic system. It's a bit like people who join a cult and think their perception of the world actually changes the way the world is.

Capitalism puts it all out there, nothing is hidden. The key to good capitalism is fundamental rules and enforcement of those rules. People will always play the game to further themselves, even in a communist system, so you need as few rules as possible, but enough so that there is some fairness and parity.

The problem today, ala the pharma companies, is that the rules favor them too much. The problem with pharma companies is not too much capitalism, it's too much protectionism. They are shielded from competition.

I have no idea what Parecon is, so I'll refrain from comment on that.

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

I don't think it really matters. We have the tools for democracy, people refuse to use them. Capitalism is not stifling anything.

Exploiting the Airwaves?

Let's see. TV Broadcasters:

Provide all types of entertainment, news, even entertainment news to the public for FREE. They finance these FREE services by selling advertising space to companies that want to promote their goods and services to the public and are willing to pay for the air time in front of the public to do so.

advertising is successful because people see products and services on TV that they feel will benefit themselves in some way, be it through entertaining themselves, loosing weight, cleaning up the house, or whatever.

The Advertisers are willing to pay more for shows watched by more people. Thus, the networks are always competing with each other to provide more programing that more people want to watch so that more Advertisers will want to advertise and thus the price of advertising rises when the networks provide more programing that the American public wants to watch.

Where is the exploitation here?

The networks are even required to run some public service announcement advertisements for the good of the public. The networks frequently stop their normal programing for important breaking news or events. It is you local TV network that goes live with storm tracking and keeps you up to date on the progress of that Tornado that was spotting in your county while constantly reminding you of the dues and don'ts of surviving such a storm.

TV Broadcasting is the PERFECT example of why Capitalism works. People get an enormous amount of FREE services and entertainment simply for the price of sitting through a few commercials (which is the time most of us choose to get another drink, sandwich, run to the bathroom etc.).

You're not forced to watch TV, and if you do watch, you are not forced to watch the Advertizements. Yet those Advertizements are the reason you get all that you do from Broadcast TV for FREE.

I tried to open the link you left on the subject, it would not open. However, if the first link of your first post is any indication of the "evidence" and "compelling arguments" against capitalism, then I probably didn't miss alot.

Where does capitalism fail? Capitalism fails when people are not willing to do whatever it takes to support themselves and when government officials ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ignore fraud and abuse of the system.

The failures of Capitalism are actually the failures of individuals and the failures of government officials (elected, appointed or hired), not failures of the system itself.



IMHO there is as much, if not ALOT more deception and fraud in government and politics. How would allowing this organization (our Government), known for lying about anything and everything to get what it wants from the public, possibly solve the problem of corporate deception? I think it is more likely that the government officials and the corporate officials would simply get together a few nights a week and swap advice on ways to fool the public.

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

The parecon system is hideous. It makes several assumptions about individuals that will simply not pan out into real life.

For example...It treats workers like automatons. It pays workers more for working "odious" (although the judgement of what is odious is nebulous...)

Ownership is "collective":


Everyone owns everything. Everyone has an equal share in how something is used. I simply cannot see such a system as viable. In such a system, one simply cannot "get ahead", since he never owns anything.


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?

No. See above for the fatal flaw.

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

Others have addressed this. The capitalist system makes it beneficial to each individual to participate and "get the most" out of the system, on an individual basis. Although this is certainly not ideal for everyone, it does not exclude the large disenfranchised masses (the working class) from organizing in order to forward their own wants and needs.

1. No, Socialism is, Viva ´la revolucion....... Seriously, of course its not the ´best´ way, nor is it a good way, and yes you should look for a better way, but whom am i to tell.

2. Yes.

3. Everything, the reason GW Bush is in office is because of money. And the same goes further down, we may not like it, but thats how it is.

Is capitalism the best we can do, or should we begin to look at other economic systems that may prove useful.

I think I have to throw my hat in the ring with those who think capitalism, while flawed, is still the best system going.

This is my only problem with the capitalist model; rule enforcement isn’t always complied with (I'm trying to be generous here ). The rule-makers and those who should be following the rules are generally very cozy, or oftentimes one and the same.

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

I wanted to be open to this, but to me it’s just another communist model doomed to fall victim to human nature. Even in education, where Parecon states that each person will be educated and trained “in their preferred pursuits”, that would soon deteriorate, since we can’t all be basket-weavers or whatever. Someone has to do the jobs that no one likes, and I could see that creating a forced education/job system.

What role do you think capitalism plays in the current political state of affairs in America?
Too big a role if you ask me. I would like to see politics divorced from big business completely…with no alimony or support. In other words: enforce the rules, and don’t make the rule enforcer beholden to the politicos or the corporate fat cats.

In the long-run, this is simply not true. Too often the criticisms against capitalism only focus on the provider, ignoring the impact of the consumer. While the provider is constantly trying to generate the most profit....the consumer is trying just as hard to get the most value. In the long run, the consumer will always win this tug of war, because just as soon as someone could better service their needs, some other provider will step in to fill that gap. Why have foreign cars made such an impact on sale of domestic automobilies? Because they are perceived to provide the best value. Profit follows, not leads.



Yes, there is. This has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with human nature. But, lets go through a little analogy. You are a consumer who needs to purchase some medicine. Are you going to get it from the company that charges the least, or are you going to seek out the producer that practices participatory self-management? If I was buying stock...I'd put my money on the low cost provider. Further, if indeed consumers did choose the latter, capitalism would simply encourage others to follow that model, indicating that there is no need for the parecon philosophy.



I am curious...how much of your free time do you spend watching PBS? Why is PBS not the dominant media provider? PBS is as close as one could come to parecon, and it is absolutely trounced in viewership by capitalistic companies, requiring public assistance to stay afloat. So, what indication is there that such companies could survive in the market?

Further, what exploitation is occurring? The media companies simply provide the content the people want to watch. They're not being exploited, they're enjoying the benefit of being able to watch programming that suits their desires. I have yet to see anyone forced by a media company to watch programming they don't want



Ahh, but they do. First, where do people get the money that they have to spend? By working at companies that are profit oriented. Second, as I stated above...consumers are just as protective of their money as corporations are motivated to get it. Consumers are the wielders of ultimate power (what company will succeed if no one buys their product?)...therefore capitalism is inherently geared to serve the public interest.



Here lies the greatest question of parecon....what would lead us to believe that it would be successful? Why would a parecon company succeed in the marketplace? Why would our economy prosper more under parecon than it does under capitalism? Capitalism will always exist...it is simply human nature. Is there any reason to believe that those who supposedly corrupt the capitalism system would have any qualms about circumventing any legislation enforcing parecon to maximize their own self-interest? I don't see it.

This is really one question: Who do you trust more to provide goods and services – Corporations or Governments? The age old fight between Republicans and Democrats may never be resolved. I may be over simplifying this but the first thing you learn about buying stocks is diversify, diversify, diversify.
IMHO Governments (Federal. State and local) have even less accountability than Corporations or individuals. There are only two alternatives in the world. Governments provide a service or people provide a service. The more services you allow your government to provide the less control you have in how the money is spent. Government run education hasn’t been a great success story in America, why would anyone trust them to control healthcare? To even suggest government controlled media is frightening. I certainly hope capitalism is here to stay. If a company doesn’t provide a service or product to my satisfaction I can go someplace else to shop. The Government is a bottomless pit.

Wrong. First, by trying to turn this into some kind of partisan debate (i.e. Republicans value the free market and Democrats are communists and socialists) you are missing the point of antny's question. I'm not siding with the position presented by Parecon, but the idea they are suggesting for the media, healthcare and education is much more like a non-profit organization than government control. I may be misreading it but I don't see anything in there that suggests the government should take over these industries, I do see suggestions that they shouldn't be profit driven.

Secondly, the idea that Democrats do not value capitalism and the free market and Republicans somehow are ardent defenders is completely false. If you wish to casually throw about such generalizations I'd think the argument you present should be better supported.

Is capitalism the best we can do, or should we begin to look at other economic systems that may prove useful?

I think that there is a real problem with using the word capitalism. What does capitalism mean? Does it mean as little government intervention in the economy as possible? Does it mean a mixed-market economy, in which the government provides a social safety net and certain public goods? Does it mean an economy in which most goods are bought and sold in a market? Does it mean no government at all?

It is more useful to look at certain models, whether real or hypothetical. For example, the US model, the Swedish model, the Chinese model, the Japanese model, the Korean model, the Brazilian model.

I would say that the US could benefit from changes in the way the government participates in the economy. Universal health care would be good, a more helpful welfare system would be as well. Assistance to the poor in other forms would be good too, such as assistance in buying homes, getting education, or starting small businesses. We need to establish strong programs to invest in a reform inner-city schools. We need to help small farmers develop a network of capital to put them in a equal playing-field with corporate farms. We need to fund and expand Amtrak and re-regulate industries such as electricity. Expansion of the earned-income tax credit would be helpful in order to suplement the incomes of the working poor.

On the other hand, some of US industrial policy needs to be gotten rid of. Our subsidies to large agribusinesses needs to stop, as does our tarriff protection of industries such as agriculture and steel.



You claim that governments have less accountability than corporations, and your reasoning is "the more services you allow your government to provide the less control you have in how the money is spent." You are just restating your position in that. It think it is obvious that government is more efficient in some areas of the economy, and less efficient in others. I don't really want to debate universal health care again, but other countries have shown that it is more efficient and would improve health care for those who recive the worst care right now (the rich might have to wait a little longer for care because they can't pay their ways to the front of the line). (See the Universal Health Care thread.) I would like to see evidence that privatizing education would improve it - I think much of the "failure" of government-run education has been that it is underfunded in poor areas and that whatever system runs education, there are problems. European countries have much better education statistics (before college) than the United States, and this has not been achieved by more privatization.

"Capitalism is the worst economic system divised by man, except for all the others." Is it flawless, no, are humans flawless, no. Is their an alternative that is more efficient than capitalism, no. So it seems like the best we can do to me.

No, the system is horrendously flawed, as Amlord summed it up.

America is commercial and merchanistic, that attitude is everywhere, including our government.

Sure it is. The thing you have to look at is "how do they make a profit?" They make a profit [assuming this is a non-government run healthcare type deal we're talking about] by providing service superior to their competition. So, in theory, the drive for profit will allow service and quality to improve.

CP

I guarantee our ideas of the "common good" don't match. So there is your first fatal flaw.
What if I do not want to play by your rules?
What if i join together with others who would also not want to be subjected to your collective borg mentality and simply bypass you and yours? While you are in a meeting waiting for the vote tally, we will simply take advantage of our head start and probably leave you behind.
Because you need to take care of everyone in your collective you are unable to adapt quickly--so again you fall behind.
You need to support your whole collective, that generally leads to people doing just enough to get by--Mine would want to win and would find ways to gain an advantage.

Those who have ability and skill and drive and determination will quickly tire of supporting the slackers and leave you behind.

and finally if everyone does not submit to your collective "common good" it will fail.

So then what do you do?
Re Education camps for dissidents? Prison time?
I suspect it all ends the same way all communistic endeavors will--at the point of a gun for those that demand their freedom.


Hrmm....that is exactly what is so offensive? The thought of people believing they are justified to enslave others for their particular vision of the mythical common good?

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

No, capitalism is definately not the best we can do. I believe strongly that we can do much better, and in order to do so, we need to try different things -- some in the context of capitalism, some in the context of different models.

For example, the business cycle is one of the most ugly parts of capitalism, more so now than ever before -- now that we have a global market along with global economic players who can leverage entire regions and countries into boom or bust cycles.

Another part of capitalism that isn't very pretty is the pressure for cheap labor. With a global labor pool in the multiple billion range, the downward pressure on wages and salaries is now greater than we've experienced before, and it's not just on certain economic segments like manufacturing.

Perhaps the greatest drawback of capitalism is the development of a new royalty class -- those controlling the capital -- in a global, and thus not tied to any nation, manner. In effect, that puts nations at risk of being conquered economically first, then possibly by military later. I'm not sure this will actually happen, but I can see the potential.

From its inception, capitalism has had its problems. Attempts at regulation have had some positive effects, such as stabalizing the US dollar via the Fed -- before this, each bank issued its own currency. But times have and are changing at a fast clip -- the USD isn't so stable in the world market. But the point is that, left to its own without intervention, capitalism has already failed. Intervention/regulation has made it work longer than perhaps it deserved.

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?

From readings on the site, no. It's too oriented to undesireable, dangerous jobs. These jobs are already in the process of automation, centralization, and outsourcing. For example, the voice that takes your order at a fast food drive-in lane might very well come from a person not in the restaurant -- and could even come from someone living in a different country.

I think we need to start thinking about what people will do for a living, period. I mean, we are over six billion and growing. Massive unemployment has come our way and will return due to the business cycle -- and the movement of capital -- and the straight lack of jobs. I think about this a lot, probably more than the norm. Or maybe it is normal these days, what with college grads worried about career opportunities, established career paths evaporating, and a seeming blind eye on this from the current holders of power.

Anyway, Parecon is one swag at what might be done. It doesn't look like a very good one to me, but at least it's an attempt at handling things rather than just accepting the status quo, moving into disaster, and wondering what the heck happened.

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

This is pretty obvious -- the capital leverage people are also the political leverage people. Now that the US is just another country to be manipulated with the economic levers, political decisions no longer hold the best interests of the country in mind. However, I don't think the best interests of the country have been in mind for a very long time except by some remarkable political folks.

I'm also doubtful that anything will change until major crises hit. That's too bad. It's being reactive, not proactive. Economic summits are being held, and that's a good sign. The big shots really need to consider that economic collapse on a global scale will indeed be disasterous for everyone. Regional problems have already wiped out tremendous wealth, even as other regions heat up to white hot. Thinking about what has been going on in Asia: the Korean/Japanese busts, the Chinese boom.

Overall, I think people are okay with capitalism, as they understand it, as long as capitalism works for them. When capitalism stops working for people, then we will be seeing a lot more efforts to fix the problems, possibly going into a whole new kind of economics never tried before. Will that be better or worse? How will we know?

Well, if the economic system of the future can support the billions of people on the planet, that would be a good indication of success. If it could support all these people while affording the benefits of capitalism (freedom of choice, innovation, creation and so on), the better the success. I'd sure like to see the better success rather than something even uglier that what has developed.

Part of me doubts success; a bigger part demands it.

There is no reason that a middle ground cannot be tried here. Certainly we should consider alternatives to the current system where it fails us. But there is no reason to abandon systems that work most of the time. For example. during the Clinton Presidency we were considering a Universal, single payer (the US government, meaning the US Tax-payers) health care system. We were considering it because a rather small minority of Americans (approx 10% at the time, I think the number is around 12% now) had no access to health care. We were willing to abandon a system that took care of 90% of America in order to make sure the other 10% had coverage rather than work on a system that addressed the needs of those 10%. Seems rather ridiculous to me. There is middle ground on this, as well as most other issues.

For example, a link in my signature is the New America Foundation. There you will find a wonderful example of an idea on how to achieve universal healthcare without abandoning the capitalist system that drives the vast majority of the innovations in the field. I strongly recommend that people check it out.

Specifically the idea can be found in part Here, and in great detail Here.

The problem I have with both sides of the aisle in American Politics today is the blind resistance to any idea that is not in lock step with one side or the other's ideology. When an idea from the center is proposed, the right demonizes it as if it was a left wing plot to make America a communist state and the left demonizes it as if it was a right wing plot to stave children and throw grandma on the street.

If you are willing to look at this idea based on merit and not ideological bigotry you might just find that it has real promise. You might not agree with it completely, but is certainly is worth consideration, even if you feel some tweaking is needed.

.

[/quote]
Wrong. First, by trying to turn this into some kind of partisan debate (i.e. Republicans value the free market and Democrats are communists and socialists) you are missing the point of antny's question. I'm not siding with the position presented by Parecon, but the idea they are suggesting for the media, healthcare and education is much more like a non-profit organization than government control. I may be misreading it but I don't see anything in there that suggests the government should take over these industries, I do see suggestions that they shouldn't be profit driven.

Secondly, the idea that Democrats do not value capitalism and the free market and Republicans somehow are ardent defenders is completely false. If you wish to casually throw about such generalizations I'd think the argument you present should be better supported.

[/quote]


Interesting...at least someone caught onto the intent of my question (I'm no economist, and have no attachment to Parecon. I see problems, anyone got solutions?


I'm not really blindly resisting anything. I was really hoping that this debate would provide useful information. I will check out the links you posted when I've got more time.

I disagree with you here. Capitalism is not the cause driving the use of cheap labor. Sure capitalism allows this decision to be made, but it also allows you to make the decision to pay your workers a reasonable salary. The cause of increased use of cheap labor has to do with the leadership of the executives behind these companies and their ethics.

I'll give you an example. Let's compare two very large companies in direct competition with each other - Wal-Mart and Costco. On the one hand you have Wal-Mart:


The case against Wal-Mart as one of the worst examples of capitalism is astounding. On the other hand we have Costco:


So what is the difference here? The difference is the ethics and values of the executives in charge of each company. The CEO of Costco apparently believes that you can pay your people a fair wage and give them health care while still remaining profitable and offering cheap products. The CEO of Wal-Mart obviously does not share these beliefs and looks at employees as costs to be cut rather than people.


This topic really has nothing to do with social security because social security is not an issue of capitalism. Social security is an issue of wanting to eliminate entitlement programs run by the federal government.


Incorrect. I don't know how many non-profits you have run in your time but since I am the president and chairman of one I can assure you that the profit does not go to either the individuals or the government. The money raised by a non-profit primarily goes towards achieving their mission and staff and business expenses are kept to a minimum. The only non-profit executives that make a lot of money are VERY large ones with a huge budget like the Red Cross. Furthermore, most non-profits are tax-exempt and therefore the government doesn't get any of the money, although there are some classes of non-profit which are not.

If you think a non-profit business is concerned with making money in the same way as a traditional corporation then you do not understand what a non-profit is.

Clearly their are flaws in capitalism AM, and in theory, things can be done to make it better. But what has actually been better, in human history, than capitalism. Certanly socialism, communism and this horrific Parecon have flaws. So what exactly are we to do without capitalism?

CP

CJ,

Yep, you're right -- capitalism does allow for the ethical running of a business. Not all businesses are out to gouge labor by outsource to the rising Third World; firing older workers in favor of younger, lower-wage workers; going with contractors rather than employees; even using illegal aliens rather than citizens. I'll chalk that up to a potential positive that depends on human nature.

This is easier to do if your competition is local, not global. One of the problems that comes with a global economy is the government-supported foreign company undercutting prices to push ethical, not government-supported competition out of business.

The funny thing about your statement in reference to "other" economic models, is that nearly all economic models have been tried... with far less success. You choose to ignore the nature of human beings and the fact that greed is often a motivation of your friends and neighbors. Capitalism offers us the wonderful standard of living that we enjoy. Socialism didn't work, communism hasn't proven to be effective, etc. If you choose to discuss hybrid economies in Europe (Sweden for instance), you have to understand the scope of their GDP and their population, which is less than most of our states individually. It's far easier to manage domestic problems.

In reference to cheap labor, something many opponents of capitalism seem to ignore is that America has been so successful financially due to its persistant drive and dedication to being a market leader. Cultural apathy has allowed our labor market to remain "behind the times" in the past 20 years. We have to understand that technology driven labor is how to sustain American wage requirements. Other nations have caught on to the industrial revolution, as late as it may be, and labor in these nations is naturally going to be attractive.
Why do we as Americans have to be apathetic and complacent?

The beauty of capitalism and its form in the US is that most people here have the ability to get better training, to become more adept at technology driven careers, to move out of the manufacturing menatality. Why should we pay $25/hr for a factory job? That's more than our teachers, more than nurses, etc? Capitalism does work, but as long as the "left" in our nation holds on to the notion that a highschool education should provide a quality living for a family of 4, things will never change.

This is what I thought before I responded. Capitalism is just the idea that people can privately own property. The rest is just what people associate with the term "capitalism". You can have social spending along with capitalism and you can tax with capitalism.

When it comes to an economy and gov't, I believe in the free market and capitalism, but I also believe in strict rules. The problem with an unfettered free market is that it can lead to huge disparities. Ever play monopoly before? There's a reason there's always a winner and loser. A progressive tax structure and social programs (although inherently flawed) are great balances to huge disparities in wealth.

Right now we are moving away from balances of wealth and you can see disparities quickly emerging.



I think you're totally mistaken. The "new" jobs of the future are service-based jobs, i.e. janitors, food service, waiters, house-cleaning. Those tech jobs are going to Asia and Eastern Europe. Your beautiful "solution" isn't really working because college-educated people in Asia/E Eur will work for $5/hour. But that goes for a slew of other professions as well, such as accounting, doctors, architecture, lawyers....

I think the "left" is trying to look out for workers, not corporations. They're trying to keep all of our manufacturing from going to China and Mexico to save whatever jobs they can.

This is true, but I think the basic issue that there is an extreme lack of agreement on what the so-called problems of capitalism are...and those that argue against seem to completely disregard its strengths. So, there needs to be much more discussion on what the problem is before any attempts at solving it are enacted. Consider the following:



I agree with this comment, and it clearly points out that what many consider flaws in capitalism are really more flaws in human nature, which would then be present in any economic system. So, the question really becomes what is the most efficient mechanism for dealing with these issues. In capitalism, these are dealt with in the market (with legislative influence in our system) -- in order for another system to be considering, it would have to be shown to be more efficient than the market. The reason capitalism is so pervasive is the simple fact that is indeed, at least so far, the most efficient system. As I stated previously, any system that seeks to replace capitalism would have to show how it would succeed in a capitalist market--since that is what we, and most of the world have. If indeed it would succeed, capitalism will then naturally gravitate towards that model, with no governmental legislation required. I find it quite interesting that none of the links, and no posts here, indicate how parecon would indeed be more efficient than capitalism...leaving no other conclusion than that it would be unsuccessful.

Remember, I'm only talking about three areas of industry here. You assert that our idea of the "collective good" is "guaranteed to be different. Let's check that out:

Education: The goal of education, for the "common good" is to produce intelligent, productive, responsible citizens of this democracy. Disagree???

Healthcare: To provide people with health, and the means to achieve it.

Media (news): To keep the public informed on the news that is important to them, in that it effects their lives.


You see, there is a conflict of interest here. Look at the Pharma industry. They don't want healthy people. That would put them out of business. They want lifetime customers. Healthy people do not need drugs, so their entire industry is dependant on keeping people sick. I should hope that anyone can see that. And yet, they continue to to rake in giant profits. They are not really interested in healthy people. They can't be...it would cut into their profits. Their only responsibility, by law, is the fudiciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profit. This is mutually exclusive to the idea of "health". You with me here? Here's a pretty good link to lots of stories on this subject.

http://www.newstarget.com/Big_Pharma.html

Education is in a horrible state of affairs, largely because, in it's conception, it was based on the "business" model. Children are not products, and "cheap labor" doesn't exactly attract the best and the brightest to the education field. The industry behind standardized testing, and publishing textbooks is incredible. I just don't think that it's in the best interest of the children to run education like a business to make money. At the collegiate level, the price of textbooks, and indeed college tuition, continue to soar. I don't think that's necessarily a good thing for democracy. Here's an interesting take on the Education monopoly by the Capitalist Magazine: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1203 I agree, the government has a monopoly on an education system that is based on business. It should be diversified. I would suggest that charter schools, magnet schools, etc should still be non-profit. That is still capitalistic, but not profit driven.


The Media (news) is reliant on the Giant companies that have a vested interest in the political agenda. Corporate welfare http://www.corporations.org/welfare/ is really a major issue in the fiscal budget, yet we are never informed about it because of the conflict of interest in the Media. FCC reform, is never covered in the "mainstream" media because of the conflict of interest. The argument about Media being great b/c it offers valuable "entertainment" for free is not taking into consideration the impact of NEWS. I'm not talking about entertainment here. I'm talking about the fact that a handful of corporations: Viacom, Newscorp (FOX), Disney, GM, Clear Channel have the POWER to control the information that is presented to the people, over the PUBLIC airwaves, with little or no access of the PUBLIC to their own resource (airwaves). The Media Reform Movement has been gaining strength, but it is working against the main means of communication. Busting up the monopolistic liscensing practices of the FCC is a critical piece of reform for the sake of democracy, and it will never make the 5:00 news b/c of the conflict of interest inherant in the system. Again, the link to the Free Press Media Reform page: http://freepress.net/


THAKY YOU Cube Jockey for clearing up the non-profit corp. status issue. I do believe that the corporations in the social service industry should be non-profit. Non-Profit media, non-profit healthcare, and non-profit education seem to be desireable reforms. This would not necessarily conflict with the fervent support of capitallism, but it would take out some of the corruption and greed inherant in the profit-driven system.

I see it as just the reverse. Education is in a horrible state of affairs because of government involvement. If more schools were privatized competition would, in theory, make the quality of education improve. If there is no incentive for schools to improve, they won't. Education would be better of if it was based on the "business model".

CP

aevans176,

Please don't quote me and use your own word. I wrote "different," not "other." You may find it amusing. I find it dishonest.

A different economic model doesn't have to be an old one. It can be a new one. Right now, economists are trying to figure out what model will work for a global economy. The old ones, including capitalism, aren't working -- if the measure of working is stability. Spiking booms and busts have caused instability in Asia, and we currently have an overheating China impacting the rest of the global economy, threatening to send it all spinning out of control.

One of the problems involves the manipulation of currencies by small groups and even an individual, something that is a part of capitalism, and this manipulation negatively impacting entire regions. I don't call this "success." In fact, I'd call it failure.

AM...initially, I was going to disagree with using stability as a measure of success, but I find your currency manipulation story to be convincing. There are clearly certain areas where perhaps capitalism needs to be restricted...this being perhaps one of them. However, to relate this back to the debate at hand, there is nothing from preventing the same thing from happening in a parecon scenario...the entire council could make a decision to benefit themselves by performing these manipulations, just as they do now. Especially if the entire council consisted of a single individual (which it would in a one-man shop). So, even if this is granted as a problem..parecon doesn't provide a solution.

Ok fair enough, but then it would seem to make sense that we'd focus on education as more of a priority in this country right? Those on the "right" want to make a good education a privilege for those with money by using vouchers. That doesn't exactly lead to educating America as a whole.

Furthermore, the real problem with cheap labor isn't that factory jobs are being shipped to China it is that white collar jobs (The technology driven economy you refer to) are being shipped to India and Russia. Students in those countries are becoming just as educated if not more educated than most Americans and they aren't demanding a $50,000 salary for their skills, they might work for $5,000 to $10,000 a year. What does that leave graduating students here with after they have racked up massive debts and spent 4 years of their life studying?

Finally, are those that only have a high school education just supposed to live in abject poverty? The world needs janitors and bus drivers the same as it needs doctors and lawyers. These people should be able to earn a living wage, that doesn't mean they need to be able to go to the movies on the weekend, have DSL and cell phones - it means they should be able to pay their rent and put food on their table.

Bringing this back to capitalism - again it has to do with the people behind the curtain not capitalism itself. You can run a major company and treat your employees right, pay them a fair wage, give them health care and not only be competitive but be a market leader. I have shown one example of that and I can parade around several more if necessary. Treating your employees like a cost that needs to be cut to the bare minimum is certainly one way to do business, but it isn't the only way and it isn't even the best way.

I guess you haven't been lied to by a public school advisor lately? Public colleges run on a profit-based paradigm, don't fool yourself. They fight for your money and they send lobbyists to DC for govt money.

I'm assuming you're talking about public k-12 and not colleges? I think the problem with k-12 schools is that in districts with middle to upper class people, public schools are very good. In poor communities the schools are horrible.

Public schools are supported by local gov'ts and by the local people themselves. I think it's a great setup, but it obviously has problems in communities of destitude peoples.

I must be taking the question too literally because there are only two options.
We either have a free market system or we don't. America doesn't have pure (or unrestricted) capitalism. If the discussion is about how regulated our capitalism system should be that is different from the question proposed. "Non Profits" vary in the taxes and regulations but are still run by the public sector. 527s are considered "non Profit" as are child care organizations. They both have more government regulations than perhaps an individual business but they are both part of the "free market" system.

In reference to your first mention of vouchers and conservatives, I believe that capitalism would be an asset to our school system. If all families were given vouchers to send their children to whatever school they'd like, with poverty stricken parents given more based upon income, schools with the propensity to perform would draw the funding. The schools whom have spent 20 years in a cycle of underachievement would suffer financially, and social promotionwould go out the window. Competition... pure capitalism. As of now, children in poor areas get a poor education not because of funding, but because the best teachers prefer to not work in areas where education is not a priority. These schools also end up spending money on concerns that suburban schools do not (free lunches, security, etc). Why not have a sliding scale based upon ability to pay? Then affluent parents could send their children to better schools if they chose to pay a little more. It has also been mentioned that children whom peform better would be able to gain "scholarships" to better schools, just as in college.

Secondly, in reference to menial wages in America, most people with HS educations do have the ability to make a living. If someone makes $10/hr in America, they can drive a low-end vehicle, pay menial rent, etc. What do you expect? There has to be a reward for hard work.

Finally, in reference to high-paying jobs being outsourced overseas, the majority of positions being sent to India are tech-support jobs that didn't pay the $50k that you mentioned. Call centers are huge over there, and rightfully so. Many companies like Dell (or GE) found that sending calls to India increased customer satisfaction, decreased complaints, and naturally decreased labor investments. Companies like AT&T have sent some call center volume abroad because of sincere failures here in the states. $10/hr positions should be easily filled and considering the requirements, should be staffed efficiently. This wasn't the case. Countries like India should be a wake-up call. If a technology company can keep semi-skilled labor in the US, they generally attempt to due to strategic management issues that become diluted in outsourcing. If people in India have mastered basic computer skills as well as a second language, can complete menial tasks for a reduced labor investment, and it's worth sending the business thousands of miles away... we've failed as Americans. Capitalism rewards the best prepared, and as Americans, we need to learn that hard work and dedication have afforded us this posh living... not passing the buck.

I'll restate that I am not condoning the ideas of parecon and I'll say that I don't really think that I can easily classify them because they are sort of a new thing.

However, I am 100% certain that your simplification of the matter (per your statement above) is completely wrong. These people are not talking about government control of anything and in your (apparently) black and white view of the world things are either run for profit or by the government.

But, I still maintain that what they are proposing is much closer to what a non-profit organization does than anything else we have today. That means that they still buy products and they still pay their people salaries, but the price of the good or service reflects only what is necessary for operating expenses and does not include profit markup.

You are still mischaracterizing non-profit organizations with your statements. Non profit organizations are not run by the public sector by their very definition, they are run by the private sector. A non-profit organization is a corporation just like Microsoft or Boeing but it is bound by slightly different rules and different tax codes apply.

I guess some non-profit organizations do engage in capitalism in a certain sense meaning that they act in their own self interest. However, that interest is not in profit, it is in achieving their mission.

Now back to the question at hand because this is sort of getting off on a tangent. The question is a valid one I think, but as I said in my initial post there isn't going to be some overnight change in the way we do things. But if you believe that our system won't continue to evolve over the decades and centuries then you aren't a very good student of history. What we are dealing with in 2105 will be different than what we have today in 2005.

Just thought I would add something to this. The use of cheap labor is not always just about poor ethics on the part of the leadership of some companies. In some cases (certainly not all) it is about keeping the price of the goods produced down because the CONSUMER will more often then not choose the best deal with no regard whatsoever as to why that happens to be the best deal.

Now, the argument can certainly be made (Using the COSTCO example) that treating employees better actually saves the company money on training and adminstration (due to much lower turn over), higher productivity (due to having happy employees) and more return business (because happy employees tend to treat customers alot better).

However, when we are considering the difference between say, Chinese manufacturing or American Manufacturing where the consumer has no direct interaction with the employees in question and the wages / benefits / treatment of employees in a company in China could easily be seen as wonderful to those employees though it might be horrid to us because everything is relative to how it compares to the local norm (Pay a Mexican worker 10$ a day verses a norm of say 5$ a day and watch how many happy and productive employees you'll have).

The need to keep costs down is profit driven. But, the bulk of the drive is to keep the cost to the consumers down so they will/can buy the goods. It is the sale of the goods that has the biggest effect on the profits.

I don't see how that really makes sense. By that logic, if we dissolved the union and got rid of the federal government, every state would do better. I would say that the Western European social democracy model is closest to the ideal economic model for a developed country.



I think the members of the left are going against one of the principles of leftism, at least in America. I don't mean to say that members of the right are necessarily more nationalistic than members of the left, but leftists are kind of supposed to reject nationalism. People who are against outsourcing are not looking out for "workers", they are looking out for American workers. They don't even mention the impact on foreign workers.

I would say that outsourcing is good, because it privides jobs to people in countries where income is more needed, especially because of the lack of social safety nets in these countries. Now I do think that if countries regulate foreign investment they can make it work for development better than it does now, but all things equal, poor quality foreign investment is better than none.

It is interesting to note how the orginators of the ParEcon system comment about it.

In their FAQ about how leading economists have responded, they say that traditional market economists have largely ignored the concept.

What has the reaction to ParEcon been in the mainstream of professional economics?



Perhaps it is simply terminology, but calling one's own work "visionary" seems... (I believe he is referring to the underlying concepts, rather than the analysis of such, but visionary seems a poor choice of words from a humble scientist...)



The truth of his statement is fairly well substantiated in this thread. Most people cannot conceive of a system better than the free market, because they have never seen one. Of course, that does not mean that a new proposed system will be better, as the author that that FAQ seems to almost imply.

Let's examine the key concept of this system, the concept of "balanced job complexes".

Parecon is hard to explain quickly to my friends. Can you cram it into one sentence?



This proposal is for a restructuring of jobs. One would not simply be a mailman (for example), one would deliver mail part of the time and (assuming this job is unsatisfactory and toiling) and ice cream taste tester the other part of the time.

What baffles me about this concept is how one evaluates which jobs are odious and tedious and which ones are rewarding and empowering.



I think the author ignores the fact that what one person finds enriching and rewarding, another finds odious and tedious. How do we balance such things? Somehow, this system proposes to reward people more for doing jobs that they hate.

There is a saying: "Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life." That is the best of all worlds under capitalism. The worker is doing something they enjoy, so they do it well. Their attention will wander less and their quality of work will be above average. Even under capitalism, workers will take a job they love for less money than they would take a job they hate (the teaching profession comes to mind). But ParEcon seems to reward those who go into field they hate. It seems to reward finding an unrewarding job. Something seems fundamentally wrong with that being a basis of the system.

Let's see an example from the author of ParEcon:


His statement "however society turns out to assess these options" seems to indicate to me that there isn't a lot of thought put into thinking about just how this situation would work out. It seems likely that the worst jobs would be paid the highest. In his example, coal miners would make more than college professors. But that would lead to a dramatic increase in the cost of coal, wouldn't it?



My boss has often told me that he would much rather have an ordinary machinist's job than that of Production Coordinator. The only barrier to him switching is money. My boss doesn't hate his job, he simply would rather be doing something else.

Under ParEcon, instead of Mozart spending all his time composing, he would be required to dig ditches part of the time to compensate for the rewarding nature of his primary occupation. The losses of having a genius waste his talent of menial tasks, according to the author, are offset by the release of previously bottled up potential in ordinary "rote" workers. He makes the assumption that the current system is hindering the development of certain individuals who are doomed to assembly line jobs.

I submit that his analysis is completely off base. Geniuses who work on factory lines (for example) will still flourish in their free time. Or their genius is manifested in applications to improving their current job. After such a breakthrough, the genius factory worker will not remain on the assembly line long. How does the author think that the assembly line was invented? By some guy dreaming in a field? No, someone familiar with the work invented it.

ParEcon is a radical idea. Paying people more to have tedious, unrewarding jobs with little authority, paying people less if they enjoy their job or they direct the work of others.

Decisions are made by committee. Unfortunately, this would never work. We see from the Communist experience that the proletariat cannot directly make day to day decisions. So the proletariat have representatives appointed for them to make decisions. That was how Communism was run in Russia (for example) and we know how that turned out.

The author summarizes ParEcon in these four statements: Remuneration



It seems very close to communism to me, when looked at in this light. They add in a caveat about working more and getting more or working less and getting less (but never less than a "living wage") but is this a reality?

Quantifying the entire economy ahead of time, and allocating the proceeds of the labor by committee seems like a very complex system. Measuring effort, while trying to compensate for factors such as better capital equipment, seems like and insanely complex task.

The goal (like Communism's) of solidarity, equity (material and circumstantial), participatory self management, and diversity are laudable. However, systems which seek to balance such quantities for every individual when the factors themselves are subjective, seems doomed to failure.