PureX's Solution To The Current Capitalist Nightmare

[PureX]

The crux of the problem as I see it is two-fold. One the one hand, modern societies have become so complex and inter-dependent that the humans living in them can no longer survive without almost total participation in 'commercial trading'. We can no longer stake out our own land, build our own homes, harvest our own foods, or protect our own well-being. We need to trade with others to get nearly everything that we need to live in the modern world. On the other hand, this puts us at a very severe disadvantage in relation to those who control the mechanisms of commercial trading. A disadvantage that they will inevitably use to enslave and exploit everyone that they can. As they are currently doing. Anyone who manages to gain some extra wealth (wealth beyond that which they need to survive) can 'invest' that extra wealth and use it to capture more. And the more wealth they capture, the more able they become to capture yet more. The obvious result being that a very small number of people eventually gain control of very massive amounts of wealth and then use it to control the lives of millions of other people. And they inevitably do so according to their own well-being, and not according to the well-being of all those who's lives they control. This generates enormous unnecessary human suffering, stifles enormous degrees of human potential, and causes endless cycles of violent bloody revolution as the wealth must be forcefully redistributed over and over, to restart a cycle that is doomed to failure by it's very nature.

So what can we do? How can we break this link between accumulated wealth and toxic control?

I think the answer is that we have to put the means of survival back into the hands of everyone involved; through radical socialism, and to limit capitalism to those areas of free trading where it works best: that is the "luxury markets".

Put very simply, here is what I would propose:

As a society, we determine what each of us needs to have access to in order to live with reasonable functionality, dignity, and security. And we make these available to every citizen in exchange for their participation in the task of producing them and making them available. Basic food, clothing, housing, transportation, communication, health care, emergency services, and so on are all being provided for by a social welfare system in exchange for the work required from each citizen to generate and maintain that system. Let's say it takes each citizen 25 hours a week labor (of any type) to provide these services to all citizens. And in exchange for that labor the citizen gets a social service card allowing them access to all essential human products and services on offer.

Beyond that, the free market system kicks in. So that as one works more hours, takes on more responsibility, increases productivity, provides better and more "luxury" products and services to the public, one gets paid for this in money. A doctor, for example, would still have to work his 25 hours a week to receive his basic social services card, but because he is taking on significantly greater responsibility, has invested significantly more time and effort in his skill set, he can demand significantly more in terms of monetary compensation for any hour he works past the basic 25. And he can spend that extra money on whatever "luxuries" he likes, or he can invest it in luxury markets for a profitable return, same as he might do, now. And the same would go for anyone else.

The point of this is to remove the basic necessities of survival from the free market system because these are no longer free markets. They need to be treated like the necessary social services that they have become, and that will demand a significant amount of production participation on all our parts. But as the robots get better, and the profit margins are taken out, and these systems become far more efficient than they are, now, the number of hours each citizen would have to devote to maintaining them would decrease, allowing people more time and energy to expend on their individual priorities: family, education, creative endeavors, private business, etc.,.

Imagine that because you work that 25 hours a week maintaining social services, you have a card that entitles you to free transportation, groceries, clothes, a clean appropriately sized apartment in an area of your choosing, heath care, emergency services, communications, education, and whatever else is needed for you to be a productive, functional member of your community. And beyond that, then, you are free to pursue whatever interests you find yourself suited to. You could work a few more hours for a little more spending cash for some "extras", if you prefer, or you could work a lot more hours for a lot more money. You could pursue more education so as to gain access to jobs that pay more per hour.

The point is that each citizen would be free from the systematized greed that rules us all, now, and could still be able to survive. All they'd have to do for that freedom is contribute the minimum daily requirement to their social service network. And they could do that in any of a huge variety of ways, with varying degrees of extra monetary compensation.

It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism that guarantees everyone's basic security while still allowing people to pursue their desire for "more" of whatever it is they want from life. Once our survival is affirmed, the power of money is greatly diminished, to the point where it belongs: to the realm of our desires, rather than abject necessity.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The crux of the problem as I see it is two-fold. One the one hand, modern societies have become so complex and inter-dependent that the humans living in them can no longer survive without almost total participation in 'commercial trading'. We can no longer stake out our own land, build our own homes, harvest our own foods, or protect our own well-being. We need to trade with others to get nearly everything that we need to live in the modern world. On the other hand, this puts us at a very severe disadvantage in relation to those who control the mechanisms of commercial trading. A disadvantage that they will inevitably use to enslave and exploit everyone that they can. As they are currently doing. Anyone who manages to gain some extra wealth (wealth beyond that which they need to survive) can 'invest' that extra wealth and use it to capture more. And the more wealth they capture, the more able they become to capture yet more. The obvious result being that a very small number of people eventually gain control of very massive amounts of wealth and then use it to control the lives of millions of other people. And they inevitably do so according to their own well-being, and not according to the well-being of all those who's lives they control. This generates enormous unnecessary human suffering, stifles enormous degrees of human potential, and causes endless cycles of violent bloody revolution as the wealth must be forcefully redistributed over and over, to restart a cycle that is doomed to failure by it's very nature.

So what can we do? How can we break this link between accumulated wealth and toxic control?

I think the answer is that we have to put the means of survival back into the hands of everyone involved; through radical socialism, and to limit capitalism to those areas of free trading where it works best: that is the "luxury markets".

Put very simply, here is what I would propose:

As a society, we determine what each of us needs to have access to in order to live with reasonable functionality, dignity, and security. And we make these available to every citizen in exchange for their participation in the task of producing them and making them available. Basic food, clothing, housing, transportation, communication, health care, emergency services, and so on are all being provided for by a social welfare system in exchange for the work required from each citizen to generate and maintain that system. Let's say it takes each citizen 25 hours a week labor (of any type) to provide these services to all citizens. And in exchange for that labor the citizen gets a social service card allowing them access to all essential human products and services on offer.

Beyond that, the free market system kicks in. So that as one works more hours, takes on more responsibility, increases productivity, provides better and more "luxury" products and services to the public, one gets paid for this in money. A doctor, for example, would still have to work his 25 hours a week to receive his basic social services card, but because he is taking on significantly greater responsibility, has invested significantly more time and effort in his skill set, he can demand significantly more in terms of monetary compensation for any hour he works past the basic 25. And he can spend that extra money on whatever "luxuries" he likes, or he can invest it in luxury markets for a profitable return, same as he might do, now. And the same would go for anyone else.

The point of this is to remove the basic necessities of survival from the free market system because these are no longer free markets. They need to be treated like the necessary social services that they have become, and that will demand a significant amount of production participation on all our parts. But as the robots get better, and the profit margins are taken out, and these systems become far more efficient than they are, now, the number of hours each citizen would have to devote to maintaining them would decrease, allowing people more time and energy to expend on their individual priorities: family, education, creative endeavors, private business, etc.,.

Imagine that because you work that 25 hours a week maintaining social services, you have a card that entitles you to free transportation, groceries, clothes, a clean appropriately sized apartment in an area of your choosing, heath care, emergency services, communications, education, and whatever else is needed for you to be a productive, functional member of your community. And beyond that, then, you are free to pursue whatever interests you find yourself suited to. You could work a few more hours for a little more spending cash for some "extras", if you prefer, or you could work a lot more hours for a lot more money. You could pursue more education so as to gain access to jobs that pay more per hour.

The point is that each citizen would be free from the systematized greed that rules us all, now, and could still be able to survive. All they'd have to do for that freedom is contribute the minimum daily requirement to their social service network. And they could do that in any of a huge variety of ways, with varying degrees of extra monetary compensation.

It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism that guarantees everyone's basic security while still allowing people to pursue their desire for "more" of whatever it is they want from life. Once our survival is affirmed, the power of money is greatly diminished, to the point where it belongs: to the realm of our desires, rather than abject necessity.

"It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism"

I applaud the real concern you seem to have for the basic inequities of our current system. But I think that mixture is like mixing arsenic with spring water, hoping to make the former healthy. We can't have a system - if we want long term sustainability - that commodifies nature. Capitalism in any form will eventually destroy the biosphere. It is an irrational system.

 

[PureX]

"It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism"

I applaud the real concern you seem to have for the basic inequities of our current system. But I think that mixture is like mixing arsenic with spring water, hoping to make the former healthy. We can't have a system - if we want long term sustainability - that commodifies nature. Capitalism in any form will eventually destroy the biosphere. It is an irrational system.

Capital investment for a modest profitable return isn't irrational. Neither are free markets when applied to luxury items where the buyer can refuse to buy. The toxicity comes from giving the capital investor near total control of commercial enterprise by forcing the buyers to participate in their markets, to survive. Once we remove the survival threat, the markets become free, again, and the power of the capital investor can only rule by desire, not by necessity.

 

[shmogie]

The crux of the problem as I see it is two-fold. One the one hand, modern societies have become so complex and inter-dependent that the humans living in them can no longer survive without almost total participation in 'commercial trading'. We can no longer stake out our own land, build our own homes, harvest our own foods, or protect our own well-being. We need to trade with others to get nearly everything that we need to live in the modern world. On the other hand, this puts us at a very severe disadvantage in relation to those who control the mechanisms of commercial trading. A disadvantage that they will inevitably use to enslave and exploit everyone that they can. As they are currently doing. Anyone who manages to gain some extra wealth (wealth beyond that which they need to survive) can 'invest' that extra wealth and use it to capture more. And the more wealth they capture, the more able they become to capture yet more. The obvious result being that a very small number of people eventually gain control of very massive amounts of wealth and then use it to control the lives of millions of other people. And they inevitably do so according to their own well-being, and not according to the well-being of all those who's lives they control. This generates enormous unnecessary human suffering, stifles enormous degrees of human potential, and causes endless cycles of violent bloody revolution as the wealth must be forcefully redistributed over and over, to restart a cycle that is doomed to failure by it's very nature.

So what can we do? How can we break this link between accumulated wealth and toxic control?

I think the answer is that we have to put the means of survival back into the hands of everyone involved; through radical socialism, and to limit capitalism to those areas of free trading where it works best: that is the "luxury markets".

Put very simply, here is what I would propose:

As a society, we determine what each of us needs to have access to in order to live with reasonable functionality, dignity, and security. And we make these available to every citizen in exchange for their participation in the task of producing them and making them available. Basic food, clothing, housing, transportation, communication, health care, emergency services, and so on are all being provided for by a social welfare system in exchange for the work required from each citizen to generate and maintain that system. Let's say it takes each citizen 25 hours a week labor (of any type) to provide these services to all citizens. And in exchange for that labor the citizen gets a social service card allowing them access to all essential human products and services on offer.

Beyond that, the free market system kicks in. So that as one works more hours, takes on more responsibility, increases productivity, provides better and more "luxury" products and services to the public, one gets paid for this in money. A doctor, for example, would still have to work his 25 hours a week to receive his basic social services card, but because he is taking on significantly greater responsibility, has invested significantly more time and effort in his skill set, he can demand significantly more in terms of monetary compensation for any hour he works past the basic 25. And he can spend that extra money on whatever "luxuries" he likes, or he can invest it in luxury markets for a profitable return, same as he might do, now. And the same would go for anyone else.

The point of this is to remove the basic necessities of survival from the free market system because these are no longer free markets. They need to be treated like the necessary social services that they have become, and that will demand a significant amount of production participation on all our parts. But as the robots get better, and the profit margins are taken out, and these systems become far more efficient than they are, now, the number of hours each citizen would have to devote to maintaining them would decrease, allowing people more time and energy to expend on their individual priorities: family, education, creative endeavors, private business, etc.,.

Imagine that because you work that 25 hours a week maintaining social services, you have a card that entitles you to free transportation, groceries, clothes, a clean appropriately sized apartment in an area of your choosing, heath care, emergency services, communications, education, and whatever else is needed for you to be a productive, functional member of your community. And beyond that, then, you are free to pursue whatever interests you find yourself suited to. You could work a few more hours for a little more spending cash for some "extras", if you prefer, or you could work a lot more hours for a lot more money. You could pursue more education so as to gain access to jobs that pay more per hour.

The point is that each citizen would be free from the systematized greed that rules us all, now, and could still be able to survive. All they'd have to do for that freedom is contribute the minimum daily requirement to their social service network. And they could do that in any of a huge variety of ways, with varying degrees of extra monetary compensation.

It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism that guarantees everyone's basic security while still allowing people to pursue their desire for "more" of whatever it is they want from life. Once our survival is affirmed, the power of money is greatly diminished, to the point where it belongs: to the realm of our desires, rather than abject necessity.

You are obsessed with your vision of greed, yet your vision is seriously flawed.

So, you come up with communism lite. Another system designed to penalize the productive for the benefit of the non productive.

Of course, as always, the central collective, party committee, or dictator, the government ,manages and controls individuals, controls services, controls production, controls with an iron fist.

Innovation, who needs it, I get my ration of potatoes every day. Work harder for higher production, why ? I get my half pound of green vegetables every week.

This concept is the stuff of what destroys liberty, and limits and controls human aspiration and initiative.

Who decides what is required for me to "survive"? You ? The party, or just a faceless bureaucrat ?

A truly free market without trusts and monopolies with true competition, coupled with a reasonable security net for those who require it will serve the people in a much, much better fashion.

A company that cannot meet the demands of the market ( the people) will cease to exist. This applies to price, quality, environmental awareness, treatment of workers, whatever the issue is, whatever the people want, can be achieved by market forces.

The people are free to achieve, save, invest, buy, work, not work, own a home or car, start a business, whatever their imagination and hard work can achieve.

Humans aren´t plodding drones lumbering along just to survive, they are marvelous creatures that thrive in an environment where liberty is preserved, and they can self actualize their own potential, and strive mightily for what they want.

 

[sealchan]

The crux of the problem as I see it is two-fold. One the one hand, modern societies have become so complex and inter-dependent that the humans living in them can no longer survive without almost total participation in 'commercial trading'. We can no longer stake out our own land, build our own homes, harvest our own foods, or protect our own well-being. We need to trade with others to get nearly everything that we need to live in the modern world. On the other hand, this puts us at a very severe disadvantage in relation to those who control the mechanisms of commercial trading. A disadvantage that they will inevitably use to enslave and exploit everyone that they can. As they are currently doing. Anyone who manages to gain some extra wealth (wealth beyond that which they need to survive) can 'invest' that extra wealth and use it to capture more. And the more wealth they capture, the more able they become to capture yet more. The obvious result being that a very small number of people eventually gain control of very massive amounts of wealth and then use it to control the lives of millions of other people. And they inevitably do so according to their own well-being, and not according to the well-being of all those who's lives they control. This generates enormous unnecessary human suffering, stifles enormous degrees of human potential, and causes endless cycles of violent bloody revolution as the wealth must be forcefully redistributed over and over, to restart a cycle that is doomed to failure by it's very nature.

So what can we do? How can we break this link between accumulated wealth and toxic control?

I think the answer is that we have to put the means of survival back into the hands of everyone involved; through radical socialism, and to limit capitalism to those areas of free trading where it works best: that is the "luxury markets".

Put very simply, here is what I would propose:

As a society, we determine what each of us needs to have access to in order to live with reasonable functionality, dignity, and security. And we make these available to every citizen in exchange for their participation in the task of producing them and making them available. Basic food, clothing, housing, transportation, communication, health care, emergency services, and so on are all being provided for by a social welfare system in exchange for the work required from each citizen to generate and maintain that system. Let's say it takes each citizen 25 hours a week labor (of any type) to provide these services to all citizens. And in exchange for that labor the citizen gets a social service card allowing them access to all essential human products and services on offer.

Beyond that, the free market system kicks in. So that as one works more hours, takes on more responsibility, increases productivity, provides better and more "luxury" products and services to the public, one gets paid for this in money. A doctor, for example, would still have to work his 25 hours a week to receive his basic social services card, but because he is taking on significantly greater responsibility, has invested significantly more time and effort in his skill set, he can demand significantly more in terms of monetary compensation for any hour he works past the basic 25. And he can spend that extra money on whatever "luxuries" he likes, or he can invest it in luxury markets for a profitable return, same as he might do, now. And the same would go for anyone else.

The point of this is to remove the basic necessities of survival from the free market system because these are no longer free markets. They need to be treated like the necessary social services that they have become, and that will demand a significant amount of production participation on all our parts. But as the robots get better, and the profit margins are taken out, and these systems become far more efficient than they are, now, the number of hours each citizen would have to devote to maintaining them would decrease, allowing people more time and energy to expend on their individual priorities: family, education, creative endeavors, private business, etc.,.

Imagine that because you work that 25 hours a week maintaining social services, you have a card that entitles you to free transportation, groceries, clothes, a clean appropriately sized apartment in an area of your choosing, heath care, emergency services, communications, education, and whatever else is needed for you to be a productive, functional member of your community. And beyond that, then, you are free to pursue whatever interests you find yourself suited to. You could work a few more hours for a little more spending cash for some "extras", if you prefer, or you could work a lot more hours for a lot more money. You could pursue more education so as to gain access to jobs that pay more per hour.

The point is that each citizen would be free from the systematized greed that rules us all, now, and could still be able to survive. All they'd have to do for that freedom is contribute the minimum daily requirement to their social service network. And they could do that in any of a huge variety of ways, with varying degrees of extra monetary compensation.

It's a mixture of socialism and capitalism that guarantees everyone's basic security while still allowing people to pursue their desire for "more" of whatever it is they want from life. Once our survival is affirmed, the power of money is greatly diminished, to the point where it belongs: to the realm of our desires, rather than abject necessity.

I like this...but of course how to tune the level of socialism and how to make it palatable to those who fear it is a whole other discussion.

We have plenty of communally supplied services that are taken for granted even by those that fear guaranteeing further services is such a way.

The case needs to he made in each new area (like jobs, medical care, housing) based on existing accepted practices (like emergency services, education, mail delivery, national defense).

Also, we need to see fiscal responsibility and to know that industry lobbies arent standing in the way of industry changing decisions that we the people would like to make.

 

[PureX]

I like this...but of course how to tune the level of socialism and how to make it palatable to those who fear it is a whole other discussion.

We have plenty of communally supplied services that are taken for granted even by those that fear guaranteeing further services is such a way.

The case needs to he made in each new area (like jobs, medical care, housing) based on existing accepted practices (like emergency services, education, mail delivery, national defense).

Also, we need to see fiscal responsibility and to know that industry lobbies arent standing in the way of industry changing decisions that we the people would like to make.

How to implement such a system is a real problem. And exactly how it would work still needs to be determined. But the central point remains that the huge problem we are having with capitalism as it now exists is that money = control of commerce, which in a modern society, means control of life and well-being. And that rewards and enables the greed of the individual rather than the well being of the society. Such that it is fundamentally toxic to the society that engages in it. That greed is fueling the use of that control to enslave people and cause them enormous unnecessary suffering and neglect. We need to find a way to separate the desire for more wealth (greed) from controlling our commercial interactions, as engaging in commerce is now an abject necessity of individual human survival. We humans aren't going back to hunter-gathering, or to an agrarian subsistence, and what we're doing now isn't working for the vast majority of us, so we need to look for a new way forward. And I see no logical way around the organized generation and dispersal of essential goods and services in exchange for an organized collective input of time and energy. The amount of actual man-hours spent on providing for the essential well-being of everyone in a given population is not going to be that high, and would likely decrease over time. Leaving most of us with far more freedom than we have now, and far more opportunity to use that freedom in ways that serve our personal inclinations and desires far more fully than they are being served, currently.

Also, keep in mind that no version of government or economics will work if we continue to allow corruption to poison it. The corruption has to be stopped no matter what else we do in terms of government and commerce as we move into the future. The corruption caused by greedy individuals and groups amassing huge amounts of wealth and using it to exploit and subjugate everyone else will take down ANY government we set up, and will destroy ANY commercial system we devise. That has to be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to impose limits on the acquisition of wealth, and on it's influence on our decision-making process, and then to ensure that they are persistently enforced. After that, I think we need to acknowledge that human culture is fueled by both our collective needs, and individual desires, and our system are going to have to acknowledge and accommodate the antithetical nature of this. One size is not going to fit all. One system is not going to fulfill both imperatives. We have to provide for those collective needs while leaving opportunity for the fulfillment of our individual desires.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A truly free market without trusts and monopolies with true competition, coupled with a reasonable security net for those who require it will serve the people in a much, much better fashion.

What is the path to that? What country currently best exemplifies this?

A company that cannot meet the demands of the market ( the people) will cease to exist. This applies to price, quality, environmental awareness, treatment of workers, whatever the issue is, whatever the people want, can be achieved by market forces.

Sure. But you act like these things aren't competing priorities, or that people will act in the long term best interests of people. I'm not convinced other systems are better than capitalism, but I am convinced capitalism has some substantial problems and contradictions, whatever the form.

The people are free to achieve, save, invest, buy, work, not work, own a home or car, start a business, whatever their imagination and hard work can achieve.

For a given value of 'free'.
It's just Wikipedia, but it fits well enough with other things I've read, so...
How do you reconcile that social mobility has been dropping since around 1980 with studies that have found increasing numbers of Americans believe America is a meritocracy?

Humans aren´t plodding drones lumbering along just to survive, they are marvelous creatures that thrive in an environment where liberty is preserved, and they can self actualize their own potential, and strive mightily for what they want.

Far be it for to speak for @PureX , but I missed the part where he (?) suggested humans were plodding drones. Whether you agree or not, he is trying to reconcile the rights of individuals, and the ability for everyone to have a basic standard of living alongside the need to motivate and reward 'high achievers'...people willing to invest more time, effort and skill.
I'm not too sure on the specifics of the proposal, I'd need to think carefully, but waving it off because it doesn't meet a high ideal of capitalism which is far from where the US is right now anyway appears overly dismissive to me.

 

[sealchan]

How to implement such a system is a real problem. And exactly how it would work still needs to be determined. But the central point remains that the huge problem we are having with capitalism as it now exists is that money = control of commerce, which in a modern society, means control of life and well-being. And that rewards and enables the greed of the individual rather than the well being of the society. Such that it is fundamentally toxic to the society that engages in it. That greed is fueling the use of that control to enslave people and cause them enormous unnecessary suffering and neglect. We need to find a way to separate the desire for more wealth (greed) from controlling our commercial interactions, as engaging in commerce is now an abject necessity of individual human survival. We humans aren't going back to hunter-gathering, or to an agrarian subsistence, and what we're doing now isn't working for the vast majority of us, so we need to look for a new way forward. And I see no logical way around the organized generation and dispersal of essential goods and services in exchange for an organized collective input of time and energy. The amount of actual man-hours spent on providing for the essential well-being of everyone in a given population is not going to be that high, and would likely decrease over time. Leaving most of us with far more freedom than we have now, and far more opportunity to use that freedom in ways that serve our personal inclinations and desires far more fully than they are being served, currently.

Also, keep in mind that no version of government or economics will work if we continue to allow corruption to poison it. The corruption has to be stopped no matter what else we do in terms of government and commerce as we move into the future. The corruption caused by greedy individuals and groups amassing huge amounts of wealth and using it to exploit and subjugate everyone else will take down ANY government we set up, and will destroy ANY commercial system we devise. That has to be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to impose limits on the acquisition of wealth, and on it's influence on our decision-making process, and then to ensure that they are persistently enforced. After that, I think we need to acknowledge that human culture is fueled by both our collective needs, and individual desires, and our system are going to have to acknowledge and accommodate the antithetical nature of this. One size is not going to fit all. One system is not going to fulfill both imperatives. We have to provide for those collective needs while leaving opportunity for the fulfillment of our individual desires.

I just think about how much voluntary and sincere labor would be joyfully given by people who have even an hour more free time would we to reduce the definition of full time to, let's say, 35 hours a week. How much more family time might be had?

Excess in any system is a waste. But how to define that waste and excess in terms that make it seem like a problem rather than a right?

I just an interesting thought...may be tangential or it may be useful.

Money is consciousness. In the system of a free market money is a sort of emergent property that abstractly represents the exchange of goods and services. Its abstraction allows for the possibility of an extreme pooling of wealth outside of the general system which, short to long term is a loss of energy to that system and creates the potential for scarcity because it is used to generate wealth without effort for very few.

Consciousness is a sort of abstraction of the exchange of neural impulses in the brain. Its abstraction gives rise to free will and self-consciousness as it pools around conflicted needs, thoughts and ideas. This can give rise to an excess of willpower without aim. Boredom, addiction, emotion are some of the outcomes of excessively pooled willpower.

In both systems it may be that any excessively pooled energy should be directed back into the system. Money, perhaps, should not be "bored" (allowed to sit in a bank merely to generate interest), "addicted" (used in an effort to control something that might better be addressed in a more direct fashion (such as to amass a collection of valuable items)) or "emotional" (used in an excessive fashion for some short term event on a super lavish scale (like a party that involves the glorification of something far beyond a reasonable value)).

Now these things do occur but could be seen as a sign of systemic dysfunction in an economy just as they are experienced in a psyche. In the psyche the problem becomes one of managing meaning. In the economy the problem becomes one of managing wealth.

Solutions, IMO, would be...using boredom to alleviate frustration. Boredom often is the ground for creativity giving strictly non-necessary activities a chance to be pursued. In other words, we fill in downtime with creative efforts or tackling jobs we dont relish.

In an economy that might translate to interest generating accounts being used as a grant (on the interest if not the principle) so that others might be freed from a lack of resources. I suppose a loan is a similar solution but a grant might be a faster way to address an excessive pooling of wealth.

Maybe more thoughts later...

 

[shmogie]

What is the path to that? What country currently best exemplifies this?



Sure. But you act like these things aren't competing priorities, or that people will act in the long term best interests of people. I'm not convinced other systems are better than capitalism, but I am convinced capitalism has some substantial problems and contradictions, whatever the form.



For a given value of 'free'.
It's just Wikipedia, but it fits well enough with other things I've read, so...
How do you reconcile that social mobility has been dropping since around 1980 with studies that have found increasing numbers of Americans believe America is a meritocracy?



Far be it for to speak for @PureX , but I missed the part where he (?) suggested humans were plodding drones. Whether you agree or not, he is trying to reconcile the rights of individuals, and the ability for everyone to have a basic standard of living alongside the need to motivate and reward 'high achievers'...people willing to invest more time, effort and skill.
I'm not too sure on the specifics of the proposal, I'd need to think carefully, but waving it off because it doesn't meet a high ideal of capitalism which is far from where the US is right now anyway appears overly dismissive to me.

Who in this proposal is going to determine who does what in the work for basic sustenance, allocate housing, and all the other things that are required ?

The government.

As I see it, this basic support system must be carefully coordinated and controlled. If you are a brick layer, and want to do that work, but the central plan has enough, but not enough house framers, they will assign you to framing houses. You become a plodding drone, in a job you hate.

How else can it work ? If there is a minimum standard that must be met across the board in a whole plethora of means of production and services, then the system must be tightly controlled and managed.

Stalin did exactly this in his infamous 5 year plans, which failed, because the drones plodded instead of busting their hump.

, so, the government has central authority in virtually every area of life. Housing, health care, agriculture, construction, transportation, etc., etc., etc. When the government steps in, liberty steps out.

If the OP can present his vision of how a utopian system would operate, I certainly can present a vision of how a true capitalist/market system would operate, and meet the needs of society, based upon what society.
wants.

Crony capitalism, and monopolies are the bane of the current US system, these flaws are made stronger by the the global system. Huge companies located throughout the world are not accountable to any people or government, the bottom line is the only thing that counts.

Since the US is the largest market, this problem could be corrected, by standards to do business in America within the framework of true capitalism.

 

[shmogie]

I just think about how much voluntary and sincere labor would be joyfully given by people who have even an hour more free time would we to reduce the definition of full time to, let's say, 35 hours a week. How much more family time might be had?

Excess in any system is a waste. But how to define that waste and excess in terms that make it seem like a problem rather than a right?

I just an interesting thought...may be tangential or it may be useful.

Money is consciousness. In the system of a free market money is a sort of emergent property that abstractly represents the exchange of goods and services. Its abstraction allows for the possibility of an extreme pooling of wealth outside of the general system which, short to long term is a loss of energy to that system and creates the potential for scarcity because it is used to generate wealth without effort for very few.

Consciousness is a sort of abstraction of the exchange of neural impulses in the brain. Its abstraction gives rise to free will and self-consciousness as it pools around conflicted needs, thoughts and ideas. This can give rise to an excess of willpower without aim. Boredom, addiction, emotion are some of the outcomes of excessively pooled willpower.

In both systems it may be that any excessively pooled energy should be directed back into the system. Money, perhaps, should not be "bored" (allowed to sit in a bank merely to generate interest), "addicted" (used in an effort to control something that might better be addressed in a more direct fashion (such as to amass a collection of valuable items)) or "emotional" (used in an excessive fashion for some short term event on a super lavish scale (like a party that involves the glorification of something far beyond a reasonable value)).

Now these things do occur but could be seen as a sign of systemic dysfunction in an economy just as they are experienced in a psyche. In the psyche the problem becomes one of managing meaning. In the economy the problem becomes one of managing wealth.

Solutions, IMO, would be...using boredom to alleviate frustration. Boredom often is the ground for creativity giving strictly non-necessary activities a chance to be pursued. In other words, we fill in downtime with creative efforts or tackling jobs we dont relish.

In an economy that might translate to interest generating accounts being used as a grant (on the interest if not the principle) so that others might be freed from a lack of resources. I suppose a loan is a similar solution but a grant might be a faster way to address an excessive pooling of wealth.

Maybe more thoughts later...

What is the excessive pooling of wealth ? Who decides this ?

Do you not realize that most wealthy people don´t spend the day by the pool, but rather use their money in a way that creates jobs for others ? A multimillionaire physician could employ nurses, office staff, medical coders, etc.

Investments by wealthy people create jobs in another way. Investments means an industry can expand facilities which creates construction jobs, increases production, which creates more jobs.

This whole concept of wealth redistribution seems to be based in the idea that what belongs to one can be stolen to give to another.

In my working life I came into contact with many, many poor people. There were many who by circumstances over which they had no control, were in poverty.

There also were many who by their own choices, failed to graduate from high school, were into drugs to a greater or lesser extent, and when they chose to work could do nothing more than flipping burgers or washing dishes. Unfortunately, many of these breed at a high rate, are poor parents, and put their children on the same path they are on.

So, you want to steal someone else´s money to allow these to continue in this lifestyle ?

People like this should be compelled to get a high school diploma and or learn a trade, compelled to clean up re drugs, and if kids are involved, be closely monitored. Forcing them to do these things, and providing them with the resources to do them would be money well spent, and I would have no objection to my tax dollars going toward this. However, they must be forced and controlled to straighten up, taking someone elses money and throwing it at them is foolish.

Homeless people should be compelled to have mental treatment if required, most have drug problems and should be forced to clean up, and work.

Poverty is actually a nebulous term that includes all kinds of people, from the poor elderly, to the drug addict who won´t work, steals to support the habit, and act as a pimple on society.

 

[PureX]

Who in this proposal is going to determine who does what in the work for basic sustenance, allocate housing, and all the other things that are required?

Jobs would be chosen by those who want them, just as they are, now. Same with housing, clothing, food, health care and so on. But when you go to work, the first 25 hours of your work week (however many hours that is) gets you a social services card entitling you to access to all the above necessities at a standard level. However many hours you choose/agree to work beyond that you get paid for as you and your employer agree. And you can spend that money on whatever 'extras' you like.

 

[shmogie]

Jobs would be chosen by those who want them, just as they are, now. Same with housing, clothing, food, health care and so on. But when you go to work, the first 25 hours of your work week (however many hours that is) gets you a social services card entitling you to access to all the above necessities at a standard level. However many hours you choose/agree to work beyond that you get paid for as you and your employer agree. And you can spend that money on whatever 'extras' you like.

So, where is the money going to come from to pay for the magic kingdom card ?

Do you really think that 25 hours of work a week is sufficient for everything you need in life ?

There are costs that must be paid for essentially a barter system. Work time for total sustenance.

Where are raw materials, seed, fuel etc. going to come from ? How much labor needs to be traded for the fuel and equipment a large farm requires as an example ?

Money is nothing more than a representation of the value of time you have given to someone else.

You propose that everyone can choose what they want to do for their 25 hours. What if what I choose is not needed, I can´t find a job ? Will I still qualify for a living ?

If I am, say, a physician, will I get the same level of sustenance as the janitor in the hospital ? Is 25 hours of my labor worth the same as his ?

At what age will the clock start running for a card, birth ? If I have six kids, will I get the benefit of seven cards for 25 hours of labor ?

 

[PureX]

So, where is the money going to come from to pay for the magic kingdom card ?

From your labor.

Do you really think that 25 hours of work a week is sufficient for everything you need in life ?

I suspect it's more than sufficient. I think we would discover that it actually would require fewer then that. And fewer still as the system gets more efficient.

Where are raw materials, seed, fuel etc. going to come from ? How much labor needs to be traded for the fuel and equipment a large farm requires as an example ?

The same places it comes from, now. We're already producing everything we need and most of what we want. We're just not distributing it properly. This way everyone works, everyone gets what they need to live. And whatever they choose to do after that is up to them. Start a business. Be an artist. Raise a family. Work 50 hours a week for half a year and then go travel the other half using your card to pay for the essentials. Whatever.

The point is to end the economic enslavement being created by very wealthy people controlling the lives of everyone else (through the control of commerce) to serve their bottomless greed, so people can pursue their OWN desires.

You propose that everyone can choose what they want to do for their 25 hours. What if what I choose is not needed, I can´t find a job ? Will I still qualify for a living ?

You will choose a job from among those available if you want the card. And you will want the card. You can always seek new and different jobs as they become available, or you become more qualified. Or you could forgo the card and work only for pay, like you do, now. But then you'll have to buy all those essentials for yourself, like you do, now.

If I am, say, a physician, will I get the same level of sustenance as the janitor in the hospital ? Is 25 hours of my labor worth the same as his ?

You would get the same level of sustenance as everyone else, but you could demand and receive significantly higher pay apart from your 25 hours. So you could buy many 'extras' if you wanted them.

At what age will the clock start running for a card, birth ? If I have six kids, will I get the benefit of seven cards for 25 hours of labor ?

We limit social services to include one child per adult. If you want more, you have to pay for them, yourself. When the child stops being a dependent would be determined by age and educational circumstances, the same as it is, now.