- #1733025jens September 25, 2019 at 4:12 pm
Haha halcyon –
1. – Do not haroOO4 and subsequent commentators practically recommend a retreat into small scale personal debt free capitalism (use your savings for owning and managing some universally and at all times needed basic assets) ?
2. Have you not realized yet, that the out-dated political concept of the economic process of saving for reserves and profitable investment – capitalism – does not apply only to a private property based economy , but to any kind of economy you can think of – and even communists without capitalism would be nothing but cave dwelling hunters and gatherers ?
You are welcome to question or refute (with evidence based substantiation) this statement.
If you don’t – then would it not be reasonable for all those dissatisfied with the performance of capitalism so far – to participate in lively discussions on how to get it working for the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority ?
TedE believes in debt free credit creation on that(?), and you seem to think the social ownership of capital might achieve more satisfactory results(?).
But whatever you think on that subject matter, please let us know about your reasons for it, so their pros and cons can be openly discussed in rational way.#1733037halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4948halcyon September 25, 2019 at 7:03 pm
And what happens to your savings when the economy crashes? Currently there are a number of countries that hold considerable debt. The following are the debt to GDP ratios of the top 10 in debt countries.
1, Japan 237.6
2. Greece 181.8
3. Lebanon 146.8
4. Italy 131.8
5 ………. down to
10. Egypt 103
These countries may survive as long as there is no serious economic downturn. But given the political instability in the world the potential for a recession can not be ignored.
And that is only considering the monitory situation. I have not even started to consider the human dynamic.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)#1733043jens September 25, 2019 at 10:01 pm
halcyon – if the economy crashes and all money saved becomes worthless – as it did e.g. in Germany in 1945 and in Czarist Russia 100 years ago – then – as long as private wealth ownership is still legally permitted – those who own tangible assets of any practical or even only imaginary value such as things considered to be very beautiful –
still retain a better position than those who owned nothing beside the attributes for their daily needs.
And yes, a social effort will then be organized to alleviate the situation, but rest assured it will be more successful the more individuals start saving and investment for profitable productivity.
Lenin in Communist Russia permitted private farming for a while in the early 1920-s to overcome a serious shortage of food production, and German economics minister (???Erhard???) very effectively accelerated economic recovery in Germany through a personal 10 year compulsory (retirement) estate ownership creative savings scheme in the late 1940-s or early 50-s.
And we in relatively debt free New Zealand hardly noticed the “great crash” of 10 years ago, did we ?
I actually believe that any bankrupting economic crashes will only make people more aware of the advantages of debt free assets ownership, don’t you also, halcyon ?#1733316jens September 29, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Well, halcyon – what do you think the “human dynamic” will be when there is a serious economic recession with many bankruptcies ?
Obviously, it won’t be “the end of the world” (?) – and life will go on.
Any clues about it in Orwell’s ” Animal Farm” book ?#1734825jens October 15, 2019 at 9:20 am
Well – while the easiest thing to do with the current budget surplus is to consume it via freely consumable tax reductions or increased welfare benefits – but would it not be more wise and responsible to save at least a (substantial) proportion for “rainy days” and investment (spending) on needed infrastructure construction and maintenance and profitable productivity ?#1735789jens October 24, 2019 at 8:25 pm
The question as above, which no one bothered to comment on one way or the other, can be put also this way:
What is a more altruistic, effective and socially beneficial way to help people out of poverty, who for whatever reason cannot earn the level of income they would like to have –
1. A certain poverty alleviating welfare grant for immediate consumption –
2. Or the same grant containing a component of wealth ownership creation ?#1735916TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Replies: 2274TedE October 26, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Well, Elle it’s now 9 years on from your initial post and I wonder what you got from the replies and how your project went.
A lot has changed in the intervening years and no doubt you will be busy with your career but I would be interested in your perspective.
TedE - Papakura -#1736133jens October 30, 2019 at 9:22 pm
A pity it looks like Elle for whatever reason could not inform us about the results of her study.
And yes, everything keeps changing, but it is always only within the limits set by the basics of the laws of nature, and I cannot imagine Elle having discovered anything new about feeling secure and safe economically and socially.
In view that usually (normally?) even the poorest display some material possessiveness as essential for even their modest welfare and security (!) –
would not all dissatisfaction, insecurity and fears on this subject matter be most effectively and fairly resolved through a systematic effort with participation by all towards at least a minimally meaningful level of personal wealth ownership by all?#1736204halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4948halcyon October 31, 2019 at 3:54 pm
Jens, your idea is dependent on the survival of our present capitalistic model. The question is “can we assume that capitalism will survive into the future?” There is certainly evidence to show a changing of attitudes, especially amongst the younger generations. The following extracts were lifted from a report prepared by the Pew Foundation and published on the CBN news website.
The YouGov/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation survey of some 2,100 young people ages 16 and over found that 70 percent of Millennials said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist.
Millennials’ birth years span from 1981 to 1996.
Of Gen Z, those born beginning in 1997 with the oldest now being 22 years old, 64 percent said they were somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist.
The trend toward a willingness to vote for a socialist candidate coincided with an apparent dwindling of support for capitalism, with 50 percent of Millennials and 51 percent of Generation Z having a somewhat or very unfavorable view of capitalism.
Socialism, according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, is a “centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.
May I suggest that we will experience a swing towards socialism within the next 10 years. This swing will be assisted by reducing the voting age to 16 and leveraged by the climate change movement.
This raises another question,” why continue to argue for a system that is doomed to collapse?”
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)#1736221jens October 31, 2019 at 5:42 pm
But halcyon –
Any govt or privately owned capital – including the means of production – cannot be created out of nothing , nor out of “debt free” credit nor overdraft or”Keynesian” credit backed by nothing, and even a pure primitive barter economy with no more capital ownership than perhaps reasonable rain and frost resistant living quarters –
contains already the seeds of more elaborate capitalism in the produce to be accumulated for bartering in larger quantities than daily or weekly consumption needs.
In other words, capitalism is a basic economic function without which we would be still cave dwelling hunters and gatherers.
State monopoly capitalism or Socialism as in the definition you quoted above – is subject to exactly the same economic basics as private capitalism e.g. for the purpose of building a house or producing something extra for consumption :
Someone must save or sacrifice consumption potential for something to be available for investment – and if the investment is unprofitable, it is unsustainable unless subsidized by profits or takings or expropriations from elsewhere.
Our young people possibly think that socialism means just being socially concerned as we already are under the mixed (public and private) capitalist Social Democratic Welfare State concept – and not as totalitarian State Monopoly Capitalism.
But yes – as Socialism has discredited itself through poverty for the people, and free market “neo-libertarianism” intensifies socio-economic polarization into Haves and Have-Nots, –
what else than “peoples capitalism” defined by moving towards at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership by all citizens eventually without prohibiting some people being more prosperous than others – can you, halcyon – think of – for a socio-economically more fairly egalitarian future ?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.