Distributism

[metis]

Nothing really stopping this now if a person can find a needed niche in the market. Government is often encouraging small business creation. The bigger problem is capability. Success is just not a guarantee.

True, but it can be made easier and there can be more done to encourage success. Here in the States, four out of five start-up businesses fail within five years. Here's where local communities and even states can possibly help out, although there will always be some businesses that will fail, and that has to be expected and allowed. Distributism still is a competitive system, thus not a "nanny state".

 

[dfnj]

Interestingly that seems not to hold true in our current situation. We have an inflation when we only look at the value of money. (You don't get money for your money. Interest rates are way down, so far that they have become negative for banks that store their money in the European central bank.)
But that money is only book money and the banks and the rich are sitting on it or take it to the casino. (Casino capitalism) As long as this money stays in the hands of the few, prices stay stable and we don't get a runaway inflation.

Obviously, you did not click on the link I provided. In my whole the only time these numbers improved was Bill Clinton's second term. Other than that, it's heading in only one direction.

 

[Heyo]

Obviously, you did not click on the link I provided. In my whole the only time these numbers improved was Bill Clinton's second term. Other than that, it's heading in only one direction.

Interesting graph. Interesting as in unexpected. Is there a definition what they see as a "consumer dollar"?

 

[Salvador]

One of my favorite scholars and authors is C. K. Chesterton, and he was a strong proponent of what's called "Distributism".

In brief, distributism is an economic/political approach that is neither capitalism nor socialism, and it's main gist is that economic ownership should ideally be in the hands of the most people possible. The enemies of this approach is both big government and big business.

Small businesses are more intimate between owner and laborer, thus they have more of a mutual drive to cooperate and care for each other. I've worked in both, and there is a vast difference between big and small businesses in terms of how employers and laborers tend to be treated.

This approach also was very much favored by Gandhi and also by numerous popes, including Pope Francis. I also have strongly advocated this over many years now, and my my wife's and my actions reflect where we do most of our shopping and eating.

Anyhow, here's a link to take it further if you'd like: Distributism - Wikipedia

Thoughts?

We have anti-Trust laws preventing a few entities from owing and controlling the means of production for any particular industry; hence, a well-regulated free market effectively works to have economic ownership in the hands of the most possible people.

 

[metis]

We have anti-Trust laws preventing a few entities from owing and controlling the means of production for any particular industry; hence, a well-regulated free market effectively works to have economic ownership in the hands of the most possible people.

Distributism is in reality far more "free market" than capitalism, largely because the freedom to own and operate a business is significantly greater since there are fewer big businessesm smaller government, and also more cottage industries. And with this, larger businesses can be encouraged to form co-ops that also better have the power and wealth more spread around.

It also lessens the necessity to try and have the government control huge businesses to keep them honest and prevent them from forming monopolies. Thus, any person who doesn't want BIG GOVERNMENT should welcome this concept. We already do this to an extent with having corporations, but strongly encouraging even them to allow for more smaller partners, versus just mainly wealthy investors, would also be good for the country as a whole.

And it one actually considers themselves to be a "libertarian", isn't there more liberty when more people can own more businesses, thus having a greater say in the economics of the country? By reducing the size of BIG GOVERNMENT, this better fits into the libertarian scenario.

 

[Revoltingest]

Distributism is in reality far more "free market" than capitalism, largely because the freedom to own and operate a business is significantly greater since there are fewer big businessesm smaller government, and also more cottage industries. And with this, larger businesses can be encouraged to form co-ops that also better have the power and wealth more spread around.

It also lessens the necessity to try and have the government control huge businesses to keep them honest and prevent them from forming monopolies. Thus, any person who doesn't want BIG GOVERNMENT should welcome this concept. We already do this to an extent with having corporations, but strongly encouraging even them to allow for more smaller partners, versus just mainly wealthy investors, would also be good for the country as a whole.

And it one actually considers themselves to be a "libertarian", isn't there more liberty when more people can own more businesses, thus having a greater say in the economics of the country? By reducing the size of BIG GOVERNMENT, this better fits into the libertarian scenario.

That's a pollyanna view..
Many industries only work if on a large scale. So they will exist.
If big businesses don't run them, then it will be big government.
This is socialism....the dictionary definition version of it.
Historically, socialism doesn't exist without the oppression needed
to prevent free economic association, eg, USSR, N Korea, Cuba.
You've eliminated large companies which need regulation, but
replaced them with government run entities.....which means
self-regulation. You trust that?

"Distributism"....it's just another name for socialism, but dressed
up as capitalism only for small operators. And who will decide
upon whose property gets distributed? Government. You'd give
leaders like Trump this increase in power over us. Or, if you're
lucky....to Pence instead.

 

[Tambourine]

"Socialism" doesn't mean "the government owns property". That's Statism.
Socialism means an economy where the working class controls the means of production by (which can come in statist or anti-statist forms).

Distributism would still maintain capital control over the means of production, only distributed across a larger section of society. So it wouldn't be a socialist economy, and as long as it would retain private ownership of businesses and business capital, then it would "only" be a different variant of a capitalist economy.