Economic Standards

[Kyran]

A brief discussion on economic theories & systems may prove useful to solving the issues of today.

I'd like to start off with the commonly known norms:

Ownership:
1) Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production & distribution.
2) Corporatism: Partial private & partial public ownership of the means of production & distribution.
3) Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production & distribution.

Economic Law:
1) Mercantilism: Regulation of the private sector & market
2) Laissez-faire: Deregulation of the private sector & market
Which brings us to my personal economic theory:
3) Fusionism: Standardization, not regulation, of the private sector & market

A few remarks about ownership. Property rights only exist under a capitalist system. Income redistribution only exists under socialism. Partial forms of these, such as we have today, arise out of corporatism.

The system of ownership seems to be reflected by the economic law of a nation. I believe that the private sector and market would best be governed by a permanent set of standards, rather than according to the whims of individual leaders, which protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizenry.

In example, the prohibition of slavery is a fusionist standard; one we need to keep. Slavery is not regulated or deregulated, but the Labor System we have is partially-standardized due to our corporatist nature. We lack a true standard eliminating the possibility of slavery. Wage slavery is regulated. Marriage is regulated. Everything that becomes regulated is done so by lawmakers for short-term reasons.

This topic is about determining standards which may allow a completely deregulated private sector & market. Please submit your ideas.

[ComradeRed]

Ummm... your definition of "Corporatism" is the same as that of a Mixed Economy. Corporatism is fascism, they are synonymous. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini

Most people confuse this with socialism, but socialism involves the workers rebelling and taking power into their own hands. Corporatism, on the other hand, is a thing of appeasement to the bourgeois. It is still, however, a form of capitalism, since there still is a private control of the means of production...just the "friends" of the government control it! A good example of this is the president of the FCC, who is a friend of Bush's Secretary of State[I believe, I might be wrong]. Nonetheless, the FCC is in the pocket of Bush.

[donkrabbit]

Why does the government need to enforce market standards?

[Scribbler1]

ComradeRed,
Just passing through an I thought I'd give you a heads up on the FCC Chairman. He is Michael Powell, the Son of Colin Powell. Another blatant example of nepotism, in my opinion. And the way the FCC is heading, not a very GOOD example, either.

[tman_ndsu08]

The only thing that is needed to regulate a free market is reputation.

If someone does a good job, has good prices, both, or neither, word gets around.

[bishop]

nice quote comrade...

heh, i've always thought of bush as having lots of similarities with mussolini.

[Kyran]

Originally posted by ComradeRed, ]Ummm... your definition of "Corporatism" is the same as that of a Mixed Economy. Corporatism is fascism, they are synonymous. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Well it's about damn time you started understanding it! I disagree corporatism qualifies as capitalism OR socialism just by sharing meager attributes.

Perhaps you could define a standard which necessitates the opportune individual ownership of the means of survival? I was just posting this part in the other thread, and I realize that it is core to freedom from the bourgeiouse, the upper-class, or whatever.

Donk, so that human beings are not traded as property, nor indentured illicitly (or fraudulently) through the purchase or sale of goods and services.

Ideas folks? I'll be back late tonight to check progress. Put your brains into this one.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Kyran Ideas folks?

A mixed economy (strategic essentials under public ownership, the rest private) regulated by a taxing-and-spending, wealth-redistributing, free-market-protecting government, i.e. one that steps in to 'regrade' the playing field when capitalism's natural tendency toward concentration nudges things toward monopoly.

[donkrabbit]

Originally posted by Kyran, Donk, so that human beings are not traded as property, nor indentured illicitly (or fraudulently) through the purchase or sale of goods and services.

Slavery is something that the government would continue to protect against even without economic regulations. I don't consider government regulations to protect one person from initiating force on another person to be an economic regulation.

[ComradeRed]

Well it's about damn time you started understanding it! I disagree corporatism qualifies as capitalism OR socialism just by sharing meager attributes.

Uhmm... there is a BIG difference between corporatism and mixed-economy, namely because corporatism is fascism and mixed-economy isn't. Fascism is totalitarianism, capitalism in decay, whereas mixed-economy is non-L-F capitalism.

Perhaps you could define a standard which necessitates the opportune individual ownership of the means of survival?

There is no such thing, this leads to the ownership of capital[constant and otherwise] by the bourgeoisie. It must be owned by the workers, no exception.

I was just posting this part in the other thread, and I realize that it is core to freedom from the bourgeiouse, the upper-class, or whatever.

"The emancipation of the working class must begin with the working class themselves." ---- Marx

[Technosoul]

Hanging a title on types of governments and then trying to pick one from another would abort any chance of coming up with something new that would be workable.

Who would make the standards for maintaining a substainable economy? and would those standards make to non-effect the two party system and/or liberal and conserviative objectives? In other words would those standards not be a form of dicatorship via the person or the parties that authored the "book of standards"? Needless to say we can see that Unions would want different standards then those of the Cooperation, and if you use "Voterism" (my new word for the working class) would lean more towards socialism, but if the government hired C.E.O.s to run the department of standards then we would lean towards capitolism.

If slavery was in fact outlawed then how can they force you to work x-number of hours for the IRS? We would be donating money to them out of free will offerings, not because of some mandatory law.

The interesting thing about Ameirca is that we have become a melting pot for a number of different political and social philosophys. The idea behind that is to use the best parts of each of those systems and to leave out the bad parts as much as possible. We try some of this and some of that, and slowly the better stuff sticks and the ideas that are poorly founded fade out. We cannot have that continued experimention from a wide assortment of concepts if we establish standards that become like stone Idols that cannot wink or sway.

Should the kids tell mom and pop how to run the household? Should workers that full power to tell the boss how to run his company? That would seem a little up-side-down. On the other hand we cannot have parents who abuse children or bosses who abuse workers. And so we came up with an in-between idea, you must do what the boss tells you to do if it is reasonable, safe, and not degrading, and common sense, or a good lawyer, would maintain that tricky balance.

We live also in a system of advocates. Which we sometimes miss-name as special interest groups of lobbyists. These advocates work to educate the courts, lawmakers, and the public about the concerns of each section of our population. Many of these concerns about human rights end up here for debate, but more importantly in Congress, etc. For that system to work we need for those listening to not have partitsan bonds to anyone one, they must be able to remain independant in order to hear everyone's opinion in a manner that is not pre-determined. Finding such people nowadays is like a woman seeking Mr. Right at the local nieghborhood bar.

So that is some of my thoughts as "background" review of topic.

Technosoul.

[Kyran]

Red, be more specific in the difference you mean between a mixed economy and corporatism. And don't say there ISN'T a standard existing concerning the means of survival because I'm requesting you to invent one.

Here's a little idea I was playing with. Property could consist only of the means of survival, whereas Luxury (or Capital if you prefer) consists of those things which are protected under the law as property yet do not serve the explicit purposes of survival.

Nono, what you suggested we already have today minus the free market. Wealth-redistribution can only happen in corporatism and socialism, so when you say private ownership it has to mean private ownership. A free market and wealth-redistribution are incompatible by nature.

Techno, a standard is a method of definitive description. One cannot be used in such a way as to reduce the rights of individuals. What I had in mind was using standards to compliment our rights.

Your comment on us needing those without bonds is well noted. Let us be ready should the opportunity arise.

[ComradeRed]

Red, be more specific in the difference you mean between a mixed economy and corporatism. And don't say there ISN'T a standard existing concerning the means of survival because I'm requesting you to invent one.

This is the basic principles of Corporatism, I suppose that a Mixed-Economy is non-L-F capitalism, ergo Corporatism is included in Mixed-Economy[like how trout are fish].

Here's a little idea I was playing with. Property could consist only of the means of survival, whereas Luxury (or Capital if you prefer) consists of those things which are protected under the law as property yet do not serve the explicit purposes of survival.

No, I disagree totally! Property consists of eveerything which one owns. Be it capital or food, it doesn't matter they are both property.