Capitalism needs to be tweaked.

Richard Wolf says that 'centralized state socialism' is as 
bad as 'centralised state capitalism'.

IOW, Crony socialism is as bad as crony capitalism.

Crony socialism existed in india, Soviet union, China and 
large swaths on the globe in the 1950's and 60's. In the 
early 1970's the Soviet economy was already in the red and 
it became clear that the centralised state socialism is not 
working.  It was then most countries changed course.

If you are talking about socialism of the cooperative 
entities like mondrovia corp, or Amul cooperative in india, 
that's a different issue.  They exist side by side with 
corporates and do business with them.

You are better off socializing the political system.  You may 
have to give millions the political parties, but it's small 
price to pay to prevent vested interests from corrupting the 
system.

As the world moves into the third wave, new forms of 
ideologies might emerge.



--- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote :

 The bottom line is that capitalism is to chaotic to exist in a world 
population of 7 billion plus.  The party is over.


The capitalist's party.  Corporations now have personhood which means we can 
arrest them and throw them in prison.  So let's arrest Goldman-Sachs to start.
 
 "The US economy no longer is based on education, hard work, free market prices 
and the accountability that real free markets impose. Instead, the US economy 
is based on manipulation of prices, speculative control of commodities, support 
of the dollar by Washington’s puppet states, manipulated and falsified official 
statistics, propaganda from the financial media, and inertia by countries, such 
as Russia and China, who are directly harmed, both economically and 
politically, by the dollar payments system."
 
 
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/30/us-economy-house-cards-paul-craig-roberts/
 
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/30/us-economy-house-cards-paul-craig-roberts/


 On 05/01/2014 05:25 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote:



It's important to draw a line of distinction between 
 "creation of wealth" and "accumulation of wealth".
 
 If the income is not spent, but put in banks or government 
 bonds, no tax should be levied on it.  Banks can lend that 
 money to government who can use the money for infrastructure 
 development.
 
 Only if the income is spent on something, taxes should be 
 levied on it.  It should be "progressive consumption tax" 
 and not "progressive income tax".
 
 You must punish 'spending of wealth'.
 
 You must reward 'creation of wealth'.
 
 You must also give incentives for people to put their money 
 in banks, IOW save money.
 
 
 
 > --- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 The original intent of the founding fathers was a mix of 
 capitalism and socialism.  There are just some things that 
 need to be in the commons and the Internet is now a new one 
 that belongs there.  It is the role of government to 
 maintain the commons and leaving it open for everyone.  It 
 is the role of the people to keep government reigned in and 
 out of the clutches of special interests.  We also don't 
 need "landed gentry" which the founding fathers were 
 against.  Look at these pompous ass "capitalists" like 
 Donald Sterling, Tom Perkins and the Koch brothers.  Use 
 progressive taxes to discourage absurd accumulation of 
 wealth.
 
 When Tito ran Yugoslavia the citizens got a month vacation 
 and free health care.  It was a prosperous society and a mix 
 of socialism and free enterprise.  As soon as Tito died the 
 globalists stepped in led by the US to destroy the country. 
  When I visited India the most prosperous state was Kerala 
 which has a mix of socialism and free enterprise.  
 
 > > On 04/30/2014 04:41 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote:
 
 
 Agreed that greed kills.  Sustainable development can be 
 done if taxes are based on 'consumption of resources' and 
 not income.  Salaries and wages paid to employees should not 
 be treated as consumption, but as general expenses (created 
 wealth).
 
 The salaries and wage differentials across hierarchy in 
 corporations can be flattened and narrowed down by strict 
 regulations.  What's stopping them from doing that?
 
 It's not enough, if you just give state-funding to political 
 parties.  The system should be transparent.  Any system that 
 is opaque becomes a ground for corruption.  Darkness covers 
 a multitude of sins.  Shine the light and the system will  
 cleanse itself.
 
 
 > > > --- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 > > > You're confusing capitalism with free enterprise.  Capitalism itself 
 > > > generates entropy and chaos.  Just look at what it has done to this 
 > > > country now.  You really want to live in a country of poor people?  Some 
 > > > correction needs to be done to reign in the oligarchs and plutocrats.  
 > > > Greed kills.
 
 > > > > On 04/29/2014 06:02 AM, jedi_spock@... mailto:jedi_spock@... wrote:
 
 
 Capitalism is the only system that can incentivize and 
 motivate people.  Again, only capitalism drives innovation 
 and creativity, enables people to adapt to the everchanging 
 conditions.  It also generates wealth.
 
 By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory 
 inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to 
 fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don't 
 matter! 
 
 "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of 
 ignorance, and gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the 
 equal sharing of misery"...~ Winston Churchill 
 
 Nature is balanced between 'meritocracy and egalitarianism.'
 
 Nature is balanced between the 'individual and collective.'
 
 Nature is balanced between 'competition and cooperation.'
 
 Nature is balanced between 'chaos and order.'
 
 Nature is balanced between 'determinism and randomness.'
 
 It's important to understand the paradoxes in nature. 
 Cooperation is the other side of Competition.  Both are two 
 sides of the same Darwinian coin.  Single cell organisms 
 cooperated to evolve into multi-cellular organisms.
 
 On contrary to popular thinking, microbes are extremely 
 social creatures.  The constantly communicate with each 
 other with chemical signals.  Completely unrelated bacteria 
 come together and work together on variety of things, like 
 decomposing organic matter, breaking down food in human gut, 
 etc etc.
 
 Lateral gene tranfer is common among microbes.  Completely 
 unrelated bacteria exchange genetic material to make 
 themselves more resilent to harsh environments.
 
 
 > > > > > --- Sparaig <LEnglish5@...> mailto:LEnglish5@... wrote :
 
 > > > > >The problem with Bernie Sanders (and I respect him highly) is that he 
 > > > > >is a "Socialist" in both name and attitude. If you want the Right 
 > > > > >Wing to come out in droves in the next election, put a self-described 
 > > > > >Socialist (note capital-S) on the Democratic ticket. 
 > > > > >   
 > > > > > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E2DB1030F932A15752C0A9619C8B63&pagewanted=all
 > > > > >  
 > > > > > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E2DB1030F932A15752C0A9619C8B63&pagewanted=all

 

 > > > > >  L
 
 
 > > > > > > --- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote :
 
 > > > > > > Biden and Clinton are establishment candidates.  Nothing will 
 > > > > > > change if elected.  There is a move to get Sanders to change from 
 > > > > > > Independent to Democrat since he has said he is willing to run.   
 > > > > > > Of course if he did get as far as the WH the first day there would 
 > > > > > > be a "come to Jesus" session with him.  I'm very cynical about 
 > > > > > > this country because it has run it's course with capitalism which 
 > > > > > > has  been exploited to the point absurdity.  We now live in a 
 > > > > > > plutocracy.
 
 
 > > > > > > Do Presidents make any difference?  They're mainly just car 
 > > > > > > salesmen for the same corporate elite.  How about a Bernie Sanders 
 > > > > > > and Elizabeth Warren ticket?  That might actually sell well to the 
 > > > > > > millennials who you have to consider.
 
 






 



Reply via email to