John, it would appear, if my thinking is correct, that we already have a
complete matrix [see end of the message below]. What we may need to do
is add some other intervening variables which deal with other than
ownership. For instance, AZT was developed with about a billion dollars
of public taxes but the profit goes to a private company. The web itself
is another example of public funding and private benefit to some extent.
This is somewhat in line with a bumper sticker I saw the other day about
Earth:
If you can't take care of it, give it back. Proud to be
a Cherokee.
Maybe we need to add stewardship in here somewhere.
Bill Ward
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*************************************************************************
******
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500 "john courtneidge"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dear f/w friends
>
> Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
>
> My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word
> in social
> and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and
> so on.)
>
> I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better
> system (at
> least one, practically, that we could get to within our?
> life-times!), then
> defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
>
> Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a
> slippery task.
> tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
> "Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a
> description
> of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true
> of other
> heirarchy-based systems!)
>
> Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition
> that I
> took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
> production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit)
> is a
> start only, but this will get us along.)
>
> (Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical'
> component
> behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically
> possible,which we
> could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
>
>
> So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a
> table
> of possibilities:
> John
Economic system Ownership of Ownership of
> productive assets
benefits
>
> Capitalism Private
Private
>
> Communism Public
Public
> (Theoretical?)
>
Monopolies Public
Private
>
Charities Private
Public
