This is the place for all kinds of brainstorming. Anything goes. From time to time, the Sea of Chaos might also give birth to new forum categories.
By upadaria
#9890
Economics without an end is like a rocket without a guidance system, you never know where it will lead or what effect it will have. Most economic theory proposes to say what will happen if this or that happens, much as we might describe the forces that act upon the rocket, but the theory ends here and the rocket takes we know not to where!

If economics is a dismal science it is because it has removed itself from the individual, both in terms of being scrutable to the average mind and in terms of caring very much at all about that individual. When we speak of a personal economics, for instance, we do not merely ask "what is profit" but we ask the individual "are YOU profitable?"

I have done this exercise with Indian artisans in New Mexico who had been fooled into believing they must set a certain price for the products they offer retailers. What I quickly discovered was two things: these people were very intelligent but they were completely untouched by economic theory. Applying a "personal economics" I showed them how to calculate costs and add in profit. These costs of course included a basic decent wage for themselves. The greatest thing I did for them was to simply make them ask the question "am I profitable?" Most were not and soon enough retailers were forced to pay higher prices, although the retail price stayed them same because the retailers paid very little but charged very much.

Most every economic principle, or inter-relationship, can be applied for large scale entities and for individuals. The best and most immediate test of the validity of a theory must always be the benefit it brings to the individual and the community. Economics today does not even ask that question, it asks instead about averages, per capita statistics, and other numbers that mean nothing when we see very few with much and very many with little.

We know, most of us, of the failures of socialism but what of the failures of capitalism, that ownership model that is arbitrarily based on "capital"? Because of the free market capitalism is statistically superior to socialism, but for the individual the benefit of capitalism as opposed to socialism is much less significant because relatively few people achieve the ends capitalism sets for itself. The fact is that the end of capitalism is the market and in that regard capitalism beats socialism every time.

Because socialism denies the basic concept of the free market it simply cannot produce what is promises and because it relies on a hierarchy of government to manage the wealth that is generated it is highly inefficient. Accustomed as we are to the two-party paradigm in economics we smugly agree that capitalism is the best there is and go on in ignorance of the possible.

The raw truth is that capitalism fails over 95% of the people who labor under its dictates. Capitalism serves the market and it does so well, but when we replace the goal of the market with the goal of economic independence for individuals capitalism immediately begins to show serious flaws. While it is true that we cannot serve the individual without a healthy market economy it is not true that a healthy market economy always serves the individual. The flaw of capitalism is in its ownership model and in its monetary assumptions ( e.g. debt based currency) not in its production and distribution model so much.

Without a normative end that is firmly based on seeing the largest possible number of people and communities achieve economic independence capitalism gets way with its failure. Even its critics fail to truly grasp the failure, blaming the market economy itself rather then more important elements such as the ownership model and the monetary assumptions.

If therefore the normative economic goals are set at removing scarcity and poverty as much as possible by reducing hoarding so that the maximum number of people and communities can achieve economic independence then we must re-examine the ownership model and monetary policy. What is more, it is possible for groups of people to develop their own ownership models and even their own means of wealth exchange that allow them to escape the capital as ownership and debt as currency trap. Capital as ownership and debt as currency may seem indeed like investment but both promote hoarding: would be capitalists hoard wealth to become investors and owners and then use debt, the future production of us all, to monetize their claims to absolute control over all economic resources. Struggling workers, afraid lest tomorrow they have nothing, frivolously consume all they earn and even borrow to hoard possessions they do not need because they have no incentive to invest anything. Average investors who put money in the market are a new trend, but despite this trend the ownership ratio has not changed: still we see 5% own 90% of all economic resources because they control even the money average people invest! Where does this money get invested? Right into the hands of those who already own everything!

There is no need here for moralizing or supposing there is some evil plot afoot: the structure of capitalism tends to create the behavior and the results we see today.

Because the individual is ignored there is not even any way for the capitalist, even if they are of good will, to detect the problem. They see a strong economy humming along and say "all is well" and never notice that 95% of us who reach age 65 will basically be poor!

We do not have to say "we must change the ownership model and the monetary model", we need only say "we must make the individual and community the goals of economics and we must fix our intentions upon ending scarcity and poverty". Once we say this it inevitably and logically follows that the ownership model and the monetary model are inherently flawed.

It will no doubt surprise the reader to learn that once we realize these things the process of creating alternative ownership and monetary models is extremely simple and can be done as soon as even a few friends decide to become Concordians!

You are free to contact me for FREE info and help in coming up with ownership models that work for you or your group:
mailto:upadaria@yahoo.com

Reward: More money in the pockets of workers
By MartynStrong2006
#14877
Cap markets are unstable. In the past there was no way to make them stable. But today we have computer power that can be used to make them stable. By using the greater computer power of today we can have a much higher turn over of cap in the cap market. This higher turnover will make the market harder to game or control and the market will no longer have the unstable run ups or declines. Who can change or control the market when say 20% of the capital is trading each day. So now that we have the compute power to provide for all these transactions that will smooth out the market how to we force people to turn over at a rate of 20% a day? Easy, put a cap gains tax of 0% (zero) on all gains of 7 days or less and put a cap gains tax of 90% of all gains of more than 7 days. The likes of Yahoo Micosoft and/or Sun Micro Systems will give us the systems that will provide automated software agents to support turning over one's investments every 7 days (based on the specs you give the agent). A system like this will make the financial markets work as smoothly as the local fruit market.
OFFSHORE

Is there anymore need for physical cards? I suppos[…]

A Place for problems and solutions

This is a really good proposal. One title could be[…]

Team Innovating Forum

Are there forums for team innovating? Normally peo[…]

Whats your favorite Xbox game?

Mine is outrun2