What is the Ideal Economic System?

[ElusiveTruth]

I think some people may be somewhat satisfied with today's economic, social and political systems but I know for a fact some of us want change. The question is what should change, how should it be changed and what is the ideal result?

This is a discussion focused upon the Socioeconomic side of the equation.

I personally have bought into the idea that our current system and it's monetary focus(profit) is a big part of the problem. There was a time when monetary focus was beneficial and in some ways it still is but in many ways it has served it's purpose and it's time to transcend a focus on Profit.

It is interesting to note that the medical and pharmacutical industry rely on people being sick and that a growth or increase in revenue in that industry implies an increase in sick people or that people keep returning. This is a side-effect of a focus on profit.

It is interesting to note that alternative sources of energy, and green technology are not fiercely pursued when man and the environment supposedly need it. Again... it is not good for certain businesses to have competition in those areas, and the technology and advancements in said area are costly in the beginning.

If Quality of Life was the focus of the system then profit would be a by-product assuming it still had relevance in the new system. Quality of life would mean the higher the numbers of healthy people the better. It would mean the more self-sufficient, clean and safe the environment the better. It would mean pursuing new technologies without regards to making a profit, but rather a focus on what they can do to increase quality of life.

As good a place to start as any. What do you think the Ideal Socioeconomic system would look like?

Discuss and keep it civil.

[Angry Citizen]

The ideal socioeconomic system is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Important (health care) and volatile (banking) industries should be nationalized, large-scale industries should be significantly regulated, and small-scale industries should be regulated only enough to ensure honesty between employer and employee, and between business and client. The underlying need for profit and incentive should remain.

Put simply, the Scandinavian model has shown its ability to sustain economies better than systems based mostly on capitalism and better than system based mostly on socialism.

[seyorni]

A socialized commons, a comprehensive social safety net, and private, free enterprise for the rest.

Basic safety and security for all gives citizens the freedom and security to pursue economic, intellectual and aesthetic goals without fear of catastrophe.

The goal of good government is to move citizens up the Maslovian scale.

[ElusiveTruth]

The ideal socioeconomic system is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Important (health care) and volatile (banking) industries should be nationalized, large-scale industries should be significantly regulated, and small-scale industries should be regulated only enough to ensure honesty between employer and employee, and between business and client. The underlying need for profit and incentive should remain.

Put simply, the Scandinavian model has shown its ability to sustain economies better than systems based mostly on capitalism and better than system based mostly on socialism.

Why nationalize important and volatile industries? And upon what basis do you decide which industries fit either category?

When is an industry large-scale and when is it small scale? And what regulations should apply to the large-scale industries that do not apply to small-scale industries? In fact... why have greater regulation for large-scale industries that do not apply to small-scale industries?

Do you believe these socioeconomic system should be applied worldwide?

[ElusiveTruth]

A socialized commons, a comprehensive social safety net, and private, free enterprise for the rest.

Basic safety and security for all gives citizens the freedom and security to pursue economic, intellectual and aesthetic goals without fear of catastrophe.

The goal of good government is to move citizens up the Maslovian scale.

What would a comprehensive social safety net entail?

And what do you mean when you refer to "private, free enterprise?"
By "for the rest" do you mean that people are either supported by the social safety net or a part of a private free enterprise? How does that work?

[The Black Ghost]

This entire question depends upon a subjective opinion of the word "ideal". What is ideal, and can an understanding of what is ideal be reached objectively?

In my personal opinion, the ideal economic-political system is one which provides the the most stable lifestyle, has the least competition, and is the most sustainable. All of this without restricting individual liberties.

If you're willing to give up some technology, a barter system is actually the most fair. A subsistance economy would be much better for everyone, even though we would lose a lot of scientific advancement.


But....since I would be in the minority in favor of that, I think a state socialist system is really the best way to go, at least one that can provide the basic social needs of all people and promotes small business and not large corporations. Again, the drawback is less cool technology--or at least at a slower pace--but I think thats a fair trade for less stress

[Angry Citizen]

Why nationalize important and volatile industries?

To minimize costs on those who cannot afford it, and to eliminate the volatility of the industry, respectively.

And upon what basis do you decide which industries fit either category?

History. Health care, for instance, is a large-scale industry that tends to penalize those who need it the most: the poor. The banking industry is a volatile industry built on greed, which again screws over the little guy while the fat cats bail.

When is an industry large-scale and when is it small scale?

Set a particular percentage of GDP if you wish, but the difference between large-scale and small-scale would not exist in terms of a sudden drop between large-scale and small-scale, but rather there would be medium-scale industries that would shoulder higher regulations than smaller-scale industries, but lower than larger-scale industries. A sliding scale, as it were.

And what regulations should apply to the large-scale industries that do not apply to small-scale industries?

Closer safety inspections, for instance. Forcing them to provide employees with basic human rights like paid vacation and sick leave and reasonable working hours/conditions.

In fact... why have greater regulation for large-scale industries that do not apply to small-scale industries?

Because large-scale industries employ greater quantities of workers and service greater quantities of clients. It's a "public good" thing.

Do you believe these socioeconomic system should be applied worldwide?

Oh, absolutely not. I can only imagine what a social democratic model would inflict on a dictatorial African nation. Oh wait, we already see that: Libya.

The point of social democracy is that it works for the people, not for the corporations and the elite. When the corporations and the elite control social democracy, then it becomes easily corrupted, if it wasn't corrupt already (again, Libya). No, then it becomes nothing more than socialism, which is as intrinsically evil as capitalism is.

[ALIHAYMEG]

There is no "ideal" model. Every system is emergent and constantly changing. Our current model would have died out decades ago if those in control (i.e. those with money) had not been able to perpetuate it past its expiration date.

The obvious answer is to outgrow monetarism all together. What caused monetarisation to be a necessity in the past was scarcity. There would no longer be any scarcity of resources if technology was unencumbered by monetary concerns.

Monetarism is so ingrained into people that very few can even imagine a world without money; let alone come to realize that money truly is the root of all of the world's current evils.

To summarize, the next step in our social evolution will be a series of moves toward outgrowing monetarism and establishing a global "resource based" economic model. It is the only model that does all of the things that an economy should do, namely to "economize". The current model is actually an "anti-economy" demanding waste, poor quality, and cyclical consumption for its very existence.

Efficiency, sustainability, and preservation are the enemies of a monetary market paradigm. There is no system based on capitalism that is sustainable.

[minorwork]

Ideal? One that I don't have to work and I get what I want. Is the OP supposed to be a hard question?

[seyorni]

What would a comprehensive social safety net entail?

And what do you mean when you refer to "private, free enterprise?"
By "for the rest" do you mean that people are either supported by the social safety net or a part of a private free enterprise? How does that work?

By a social safety net I'm referring to socialised unemployment compensation or food and housing allowances, guaranteed healthcare and education, &c. People wouldn't be ruined by misfortune or catastrophe and would have assistance in getting back on their feet.

The free enterprise would consist of private ownership of business and services -- ordinary capitalism.

[Primum non nocere]

Not sure, as I am still learning and gradually absorbing information on the subject. This site has certainly been helping me on that matter. Anarchism sounds cool though.

(cue violent backlash)

[ElusiveTruth]

This entire question depends upon a subjective opinion of the word "ideal". What is ideal, and can an understanding of what is ideal be reached objectively?

I did specifically use the word ideal. I am asking each and every person who answers what they believe the ideal(according to them) Economic System would look like. I'm interested in the various ideas people have and I'm trying to see if there is any common ground. I'm also taking mental note of possibilities that I hadn't heard of or didn't know about.

Like I have seen a few people mention before, you can learn a lot from people's arguments for or against something in a debate. So I am trying to understand what everyone ideal system is and why they believe it would be the best one.

In my personal opinion, the ideal economic-political system is one which provides the the most stable lifestyle, has the least competition, and is the most sustainable. All of this without restricting individual liberties.

Your personal opinion is exactly what I was asking for.

What do you mean by stable lifestyle? If you can elaborate on that.

If you're willing to give up some technology, a barter system is actually the most fair. A subsistance economy would be much better for everyone, even though we would lose a lot of scientific advancement.

Why is a barter system the most fair?
What technology would you have to give up? And why would a barter system mean losing scientific advancement?

But....since I would be in the minority in favor of that, I think a state socialist system is really the best way to go, at least one that can provide the basic social needs of all people and promotes small business and not large corporations. Again, the drawback is less cool technology--or at least at a slower pace--but I think thats a fair trade for less stress

Putting aside your possibly being in the minority... I'm very interested in what you were speaking of earlier. I for one wouldn't mind your elaborating.

A socialized commons, a comprehensive social safety net, and private, free enterprise for the rest.

Basic safety and security for all gives citizens the freedom and security to pursue economic, intellectual and aesthetic goals without fear of catastrophe.

The goal of good government is to move citizens up the Maslovian scale.

You agree with the above? Your state socialist system seems similar.

The ideal socioeconomic system is a blend of socialism and capitalism. Important (health care) and volatile (banking) industries should be nationalized, large-scale industries should be significantly regulated, and small-scale industries should be regulated only enough to ensure honesty between employer and employee, and between business and client. The underlying need for profit and incentive should remain.

Put simply, the Scandinavian model has shown its ability to sustain economies better than systems based mostly on capitalism and better than system based mostly on socialism.

What do you think about what Angry Citizen says in the quote above? It would seem that rather than promoting small business over big corporations... he feels that big corporations need more regulation than small businesses. I sense common ground in this regard.

I think you may not agree that the underlying profit should remain though? You did say you wanted to minimize competition. Profit encourages competition... and with you idea about barter systems... if I'm not mistaken such a system would take profit out of the equation. Am I understanding you?