- #1626494jens June 20, 2017 at 9:17 pm
The original “Third way” emerged over 100 years ago under the name of Social Democracy between overwhelmingly private enterprise based liberal “laissez-faire” capitalism and Communist/Socialist State Monopoly capitalism based Socialism/Communism – and became after WW2 the predominant advanced Western World mixed capitalism based way of governing the Welfare State, meant for the benefit for all.
But the Welfare State began to stall from the moment too many people began to rely more on welfare than on their own efforts, and even deliberately reducing or hiding their earnings so as to qualify for the welfare benefits available.
This is threatening derailment from the Centrist “Third Way” towards extreme free market libertarianism of the extreme “Right”, or/and towards substantially increasing the more centralized state capitalist proportion of the economy by the extreme “Left”. at the expense of “Third Way” ideals of prosperity, equality (of opportunity), and responsibility with participation by and for all.
This site invites examination and discussion of current political issues from the threatened “Third Way” point of view.#1626747jens June 21, 2017 at 8:59 pm
The advanced “Third Way” to tackle “corrosive inequality” is in moving beyond the limited potential of wealth consumptive income redistribution which practically encourages or subsidizes poverty preservation –
towards widening and accelerated wealth ownership creation through participation in the effort by all, and thereby eliminating the most basic inequality of Haves and Have-Nots in Western welfare democracies, by raising all citizens into Haves (starting with the $1000.- Kiwi Saver kick-start from birth), to achieve the economically egalitarian “Ownership Society” status with at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership by all citizens within 1 or 2 generations, similar to what was achieved in Singapore.#1627264jens June 24, 2017 at 2:24 pm
Now that it must be clear it is totally unrealistic to expect any human to be perfect and never “slip” – and quite hypocritical for us common fallible humans to make “mountains out of molehills” of only marginal personal mistakes and negligence by those in responsible positions – is it not time to consider more important long term policy issues with nation-wide long term consequences and sustainable poverty prevention and elimination –
whether to achieve it we should move more towards the libertarian/plutocratic free market Right, or the Socialist/Communist Left, or the Third Way upwards by all from the Centre of the political spectrum towards the visionary Ownership Democracy concept – or just “muddle along” a little bit longer at the stagnating current welfare society level, until economic realities will teach us all more convincingly, what needs to be done to achieve the elevated level of sustainable welfare for all –
that most of us desire ?#1627409jens June 25, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Is not he most effective empathy for the have-nots and incapacitated in the Third Way, because beside financing all the emergency relief services, it also includes a universal systematic and steady wealth creative factor with direct participation by the needy –
which raises national and personal productivity and earning power, and thereby beside preventing and “curing” have-nothing poverty, also eliminates the basic inequality of haves and have-nots ?
If that looks like extravagant “wishful thinking”, those that think the economics of the Right or left would deliver something better and more reliable, should be prepared to state their opinions and evidence in support of something else than the Third Way.#1628909jens July 2, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Since there is no rational critique on the “Third Way” so far, it seems as if it is rationally unbeatable, and therefore evaded or “killed” for discussion by our still strong plutocrat libertarian and anti-capitalist proletarian sectional interest groups ?#1629034jens July 3, 2017 at 1:31 pm
After 37 entries (3rd of June) of concern on the “Inequality as a corrosive force” thread, there still is no clear vision of what needs to be done in what way, to overcome the basic inequality between “Haves” and “Have-nots”.
All the proposals mentioned – for more empathy, charity, welfare, higher wages, education, housing, taxation (the Danish way) cannot be achieved without a higher savings or austerity rate at the expense of hand-to-mouth consumption potential to start with, before the benefits can be reaped.
I do not know in detail how the higher taxes in Denmark relate to their successful wealth creation and maintenance – whether primarily through a capitalist elite or a mixture of private and Govt. capitalism –
but in NZ the higher savings and investment rate needed can be achieved in a fair, simple and more than half-way operating way already through a proportion of higher taxation channeled into personal (retirement) wealth ownership creation, the “Third Way”, with participation in efforts and benefits by and for all.
The dream of a 100% “Property Owning Democracy” or “Ownership Society” will become reality.#1629275jens July 4, 2017 at 3:09 pm
On “who owns New Zealand”, the Third way represents explicit policy of more collective and personal New Zealand ownership by New Zealanders, with no one excluded and without.#1629283vale019MemberMember since: August 20, 2012
Replies: 21677vale019 July 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Very interesting, Jen.#1629414jens July 5, 2017 at 10:11 am
Yes valeo19, and is not the Third Way also a more promising and reliable way to be prepared for coping with climate change and increasing, stable or declining population prospects, compared to our current overwhelmingly short term sectional interests based politics ?
1. Does not reducing pollution in our current way of life require more capital investment per head of population to achieve relatively less polluting consumption ?
2. And even more investment with an increasing population ?
3. And also with a diminishing population to get the jobs done through less – both idle and active – labor power availability ?
4. And does not the latter raise the relative demand and earnings of labor power ?
5. And does not the Third Way through participation by all towards at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership creation by and for all citizens eventually, achieve the best preparation to cope with all these prospects ?
What else can be proposed ?#1629753jens July 6, 2017 at 8:12 pm
The corrosive force of inequality is natural and inevitable as long as we are divided into “Haves” and “Have-Nots”, especially if many of the population refuse or oppose to participate in the effort to become “Haves”, and think of wealth ownership as a “sin” to be evaded (while actually wishing to consume more of it!!!)
A 100% national effort towards at least some minimally meaningful personal wealth ownership by all citizens eventually will raise the national savings, investment and profitable productivity rates enough to enable higher payments for more services in a sustainable – not bankrupting – way.
This has to be repeated as long as it takes to be taken notice of for discussion –
and shown to be either wrong and irrelevant – or true, for adequate action to be initiated.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.