Jarold, no, it is not called socialism. See my first post in this threat. 
Socialism is based on public ownership of means of production AND the price 
regulation. If income is just redistribute via basic income, it does not have 
an effect of the ownership of means of production and definitely it does not 
have an effect for price regulation. On the contrary, because increasing median 
purchasing power of people will increase the power of free market economy, 
because free market economy is based on the supply and consumer demand. This is 
polar opposite to that of socialism and free market economy does work the 
better the higher is the median purchasing power of the people.

Therefore only thing what distinguishes socialism from ricardian capitalism, 
that in ricardian capitalism Rockefeller owns the means of production and 
controls the prices, but in socialism state owns the means of production and 
controls the prices. For individual consumer they both are the same, because 
democracy is lacking in both systems. And indeed without keynesian 
redistribution of wealth and antitrust laws, Rockefeller would indeed have the 
monopoly of production. 

The new economic system that Jed is referring is called Keynesian 
redistribution. That was widely practiced in 1960's, that was the golden age of 
keynesian redistribution. However, I would think that we need to modify 
keynesian redistribution in various ways. I personally would like to   call the 
new keynesian economy as Star Trek economy, where there is no scarcity of basic 
needs ― globally!

―Jouni


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Jarold McWilliams <oldja...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> This economic system has already been developed.  It is called socialism, or 
> what some people would call communism.  When there is no more need for human 
> labor, it is obvious that governments are going to have to allocate 
> resources.  Capitalism obviously won't work. 
> 

Reply via email to