Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What exactly is the "great reset"?


Recommended Posts

The Great Reset is an idea to reconfigure the world economy to make it better for everyone.  There's a book and here's a link: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

My opinion is that it has a snowball's chance in hell, but it does provide great fodder for conspiracy theorists to fearmonger about our imminent societal destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Communism was also a great idea to reconfigure the word economy to make it better for everyone. Communism was supposed to make things more equitable and inclusive.

Capitalism is also supposed to "make things better for everyone", and while that worked for a while, it seems to be going in the opposite direction now.   

The problem with any human-devised system is that people are involved, and people are prone to human failings, resulting in grasping for power and privilege at the expense of others.  IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the current problem capitalism or corporatism though?

Your saviors on the left are the current corporate friendly champions - from the Democrat party to globalists to China.

Right wing capitalism is supposed to emphasize right of the individual - property rights and such.

Left wing corporatism uses the corporates to establish what they call equity on the peons from above. 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Capitalism is also supposed to "make things better for everyone", and while that worked for a while, it seems to be going in the opposite direction now.

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism. I see a lot of definitions thrown around by critics of 'capitalism' and a lot of people saying 'capitalism' is bad with out providing a definition (or even people pushing the idea that capitalism is systemically racist so needs to be dismantled in order to create the inclusive and non-capitalist economy).

 

I would argue that any definition of 'capitalism' that does not involve the word 'capital' is probably wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism. I see a lot of definitions thrown around by critics of 'capitalism' and a lot of people saying 'capitalism' is bad with out providing a definition (or even people pushing the idea that capitalism is systemically racist so needs to be dismantled in order to create the inclusive and non-capitalist economy).

 

I would argue that any definition of 'capitalism' that does not involve the word 'capital' is probably wrong.

I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge on this; I'm not being sarcastic, either, I'm not very versed in economic systems and you've always struck me as someone who is.  So will you provide your definition of capitalism?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Great Reset" and "Build Back Better" come from the World Economic Forum, that weird globalist organization through which global elites meet every year in Davos.  Chrystia Freeland and Al Gore (and Yo-Yo Ma!) are members of the board of trustees.

It sounds like an excuse for governments to spend a lot of money to the great benefit of the world's big corporations and their globalist wealthy elites.  Neoliberalism and corporate handouts are alive and well.

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

EnUW5K2VkAAqnNj?format=jpg&name=large

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dialamah said:

I'm happy to bow to your superior knowledge on this; I'm not being sarcastic, either, I'm not very versed in economic systems and you've always struck me as someone who is.  So will you provide your definition of capitalism?

Thank you for your curiousity.

 

A variety of definitions of 'capitalism', 'socialism' and related words. But, I would argue that the most useful of these definitions are the traditional definitions, which you will still find some version of in dictionaries. Here are definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

The reason why I think the traditional definitions are the most useful is because they both deal with the allocation of capital within society, which is very important for the prosperity of society. In economics, physical capital would refer to things such as tools, buildings, computers, etc.; really anything physical that workers use to be more productive and produce goods and services. If a society has more physical capital, it can usually produce more goods and services as its workers will be more productive, resulting in a more prosperous society. There are other forms of capital, such as intangible capital (software, trademarks, patents, etc.) and human capital (the education/experience/knowledge of workers), although the traditional definitions of capitalism and socialism may often focus more on physical capital.

Since capital in society is a scarce resource, how it is allocated can affect the ability of society to produce goods and services. As an example, you might have 2 factories that produce crayons, but one might be more productive than the other (such as having a better manager, a more innovative production process, or a workforce with better mental health); as a result, the decision about which factory should be able to expand its production first could have consequences for the production of crayons within society. In addition, a society would (implicitly or explicitly) have decisions not just about which factories should get additional capital, but also which industries should get additional capital, and if some of society's productive capacity should be used to produce future capital goods rather than future consumption goods.

The disagreement between capitalism and socialism under the traditional definitions isn't so much one of inequality of income in society, but rather a question of efficiency. Is a society more productive if it has a central planner (i.e. government) control the means of production and allocate capital, or is it better to have decentralized decision making and competition of capital? Socialists of the past argued that a central planner might be better able to coordinate the production of goods and services in society and might be more altruistic in the allocation of scarce resources within society. Capitalists of the past argued that that a central planner might not have perfect information, might not properly understand the preferences of the people (i.e. what goods and services do people actually want), might have limited ability to process all the complex information in society (whereas decentralizing decision making could better process all the information), and that the central planner might be susceptible to corruption. This was a dominant question during the cold war, and the results of the cold war suggest that the capitalists may have had the stronger position.

In present day North America, the definitions used have become various, vague, and/or shifted from their traditional definitions. People might often refer to 'capitalism' to mean 'free-market capitalism', an extreme form of capitalism with very limited state intervention in the economy. On the other hand, people might use 'socialism' to refer to any economic system with some state intervention in the economy (such as state provided healthcare services). One issue with these new definitions is that they remove the importance of the allocation of capital in society. A second problem is that these definitions allow people to use disingenuous bait-and-switch tactics to try to convince people to their economic position. Such as a socialist saying 'if you think that their should be some government intervention in healthcare then you must be against capitalism and for socialism' or a conservative saying 'if you support any government intervention in healthcare then you must be a socialist or communist'.

With respect to the issue of income inequality within society, while it is possible to have unequal capitalism (such as free-market capitalism) and egalitarian socialism (such as communism) it is also possible to have egalitarian capitalism and unequal socialism. A good example, of egalitarian capitalism would be Norway, where you have private ownership of capital, to take advantage of decentralized decision making and competition over the allocation of capital, but the government then taxes the economy somewhat to reduce income inequality and provide some goods and services for society. On the other hand, the various forms of fascism, such as nazism, are examples of unequal socialism, since they advocate for mass central planning and state control over the economy while simultaneously advocating for an unequal society. This is why nazi stands for national socialists (national socialist worker's party), and why fascist leaders such as Mussolini said things such as "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

To make things more confusing, there is also the usage of 'crony capitalism'. In crony capitalism, you might have corporations and supposedly private ownership of capital. But, corporations would only tend to do well if they are friends with the government in power (so get special treatment) or proclaim their ideological allegiance to the government in order to get special treatment. In a crony capitalist society, the government would pick and choose winners and losers, by taxing or regulating the losers, while giving special treatment to the preferred companies. While crony capitalism might appear to be capitalism according to the law, in effect it isn't capitalism since the society is not taking advantage of the decentralization of decision making within society nor of the competition over the allocation of capital. The fascist regimes of the past engaged in crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party also engages in crony capitalism, since only companies that proclaim their allegiance to the CCP will be allowed perform well. A cynic might even argue that many Canadian governments at the federal or provincial level frequently engage in crony capitalism, rather than allowing for competition to occur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are full of crap, because world poverty is on the rise faster than ever, thanks to COVID-19. Not only in the places that were already desperately poor, who are now plunged into a deeper hell (yeah, there was one!), but the fact that we the first world are financial wiped out as a whole, threatens to turn that poverty into a major crisis.

Or are these geniuses really saying, we need to make things a whole lot worse first, so's we can make it better? 
:wacko::wacko::wacko:


COVID-19 to Add as Many as 150 Million Extreme Poor by 2021

Extreme poor, got that? Not you. Not yet anyway. But it's gettin close. Abyss widening-
Eight out of 10 ‘new poor’ will be in middle-income countries
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2020 at 6:55 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

Thank you for your curiousity.

 

A variety of definitions of 'capitalism', 'socialism' and related words. But, I would argue that the most useful of these definitions are the traditional definitions, which you will still find some version of in dictionaries. Here are definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

 

The reason why I think the traditional definitions are the most useful is because they both deal with the allocation of capital within society, which is very important for the prosperity of society. In economics, physical capital would refer to things such as tools, buildings, computers, etc.; really anything physical that workers use to be more productive and produce goods and services. If a society has more physical capital, it can usually produce more goods and services as its workers will be more productive, resulting in a more prosperous society. There are other forms of capital, such as intangible capital (software, trademarks, patents, etc.) and human capital (the education/experience/knowledge of workers), although the traditional definitions of capitalism and socialism may often focus more on physical capital.

Since capital in society is a scarce resource, how it is allocated can affect the ability of society to produce goods and services. As an example, you might have 2 factories that produce crayons, but one might be more productive than the other (such as having a better manager, a more innovative production process, or a workforce with better mental health); as a result, the decision about which factory should be able to expand its production first could have consequences for the production of crayons within society. In addition, a society would (implicitly or explicitly) have decisions not just about which factories should get additional capital, but also which industries should get additional capital, and if some of society's productive capacity should be used to produce future capital goods rather than future consumption goods.

The disagreement between capitalism and socialism under the traditional definitions isn't so much one of inequality of income in society, but rather a question of efficiency. Is a society more productive if it has a central planner (i.e. government) control the means of production and allocate capital, or is it better to have decentralized decision making and competition of capital? Socialists of the past argued that a central planner might be better able to coordinate the production of goods and services in society and might be more altruistic in the allocation of scarce resources within society. Capitalists of the past argued that that a central planner might not have perfect information, might not properly understand the preferences of the people (i.e. what goods and services do people actually want), might have limited ability to process all the complex information in society (whereas decentralizing decision making could better process all the information), and that the central planner might be susceptible to corruption. This was a dominant question during the cold war, and the results of the cold war suggest that the capitalists may have had the stronger position.

In present day North America, the definitions used have become various, vague, and/or shifted from their traditional definitions. People might often refer to 'capitalism' to mean 'free-market capitalism', an extreme form of capitalism with very limited state intervention in the economy. On the other hand, people might use 'socialism' to refer to any economic system with some state intervention in the economy (such as state provided healthcare services). One issue with these new definitions is that they remove the importance of the allocation of capital in society. A second problem is that these definitions allow people to use disingenuous bait-and-switch tactics to try to convince people to their economic position. Such as a socialist saying 'if you think that their should be some government intervention in healthcare then you must be against capitalism and for socialism' or a conservative saying 'if you support any government intervention in healthcare then you must be a socialist or communist'.

With respect to the issue of income inequality within society, while it is possible to have unequal capitalism (such as free-market capitalism) and egalitarian socialism (such as communism) it is also possible to have egalitarian capitalism and unequal socialism. A good example, of egalitarian capitalism would be Norway, where you have private ownership of capital, to take advantage of decentralized decision making and competition over the allocation of capital, but the government then taxes the economy somewhat to reduce income inequality and provide some goods and services for society. On the other hand, the various forms of fascism, such as nazism, are examples of unequal socialism, since they advocate for mass central planning and state control over the economy while simultaneously advocating for an unequal society. This is why nazi stands for national socialists (national socialist worker's party), and why fascist leaders such as Mussolini said things such as "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

To make things more confusing, there is also the usage of 'crony capitalism'. In crony capitalism, you might have corporations and supposedly private ownership of capital. But, corporations would only tend to do well if they are friends with the government in power (so get special treatment) or proclaim their ideological allegiance to the government in order to get special treatment. In a crony capitalist society, the government would pick and choose winners and losers, by taxing or regulating the losers, while giving special treatment to the preferred companies. While crony capitalism might appear to be capitalism according to the law, in effect it isn't capitalism since the society is not taking advantage of the decentralization of decision making within society nor of the competition over the allocation of capital. The fascist regimes of the past engaged in crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party also engages in crony capitalism, since only companies that proclaim their allegiance to the CCP will be allowed perform well. A cynic might even argue that many Canadian governments at the federal or provincial level frequently engage in crony capitalism, rather than allowing for competition to occur.

Thank you for your clear and understandable explanation.  I like the way you've presented these systems as not being 'good or bad' in and of themselves; it's refreshing.

 I'm afraid my response is not going to give your explanation justice, other than to say that I believe that almost any system is subject to corruption and unequal (or even dishonest) results because people are involved.  

I wonder if there is a system that would work to provide a decent standard of living for all citizens, without also limiting the drive and ambition of those who want more than a 'decent' standard of living.  I think it's valid to ask why, in a rich country such as Canada, there are still homeless people or people who are not food secure.  I suppose that's what the 'Great Reset' is supposed to be about, but even assuming it's a completely foolproof plan, there'll be enough pushback, using true and false arguments, to scuttle it altogether or create a watered down version that would end up with the same extreme wealth inequality we have now.

Edited by dialamah
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dialamah said:

I wonder if there is a system that would work to provide a decent standard of living for all citizens, without also limiting the drive and ambition of those who want more than a 'decent' standard of living.  I think it's valid to ask why, in a rich country such as Canada, there are still homeless people or people who are not food secure.  I suppose that's what the 'Great Reset' is supposed to be about, but even assuming it's a completely foolproof plan, there'll be enough pushback, using true and false arguments, to scuttle it altogether or create a watered down version that would end up with the same extreme wealth inequality we have now.

Ultimately, there are going to be some trade-offs between creating incentives for productive behaviour (such as incentives to work, incentives for capital investment, incentives to create new technologies, and incentives to increase human capital) and reducing income inequality through transfers. The incentives for productive behaviour are important since they allow for a society to produce and consume more goods and services, but some redistribution of income can be important since the value of an additional dollar to a poor person can be much more than the value of an additional dollar to a rich person. The approach of utilitarianism as advocated by the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill might be one way to deal with these trade-offs in order to maximize the well-being of society.

Regarding homeless people, one approach that could be taken would be to have a capitalist society, but you tax society somewhat in order to provide a universal basic income. A universal basic income has a number of attractive features, such as avoiding bureaucratic costs and the need for means-testing, being simpler, and avoiding strong disincentives to work that can occur with other welfare programs (for example, in Canada, some low or middle income people can face an 80% effective tax rate on the additional dollar of labour income earned). Many economists have advocated for universal basic income such as Milton Friedman and Greg Mankiw. It is not necessary to overthrow capitalism and embrace mass state planning in order to deal with homeless people, as some advocates of the Great Reset or the Green New Deal might advocate.

Similarly, to deal with other relevant issues, it is not necessary to overthrow capitalism. A capitalist system with some government intervention in the economy might be better since the system would still take advantage of competition over the allocation of capital. For example, to deal with climate change, one simply needs to impose a pigouvian tax on emissions of greenhouse gases; an approach that has long been advocated by various economists. But it appears that in public discourse, the only options being present to the public are to either do nothing or that they must embrace mass central planning of the economy and the government must pick and choose winners and losers by embracing crony capitalism (the government might prefer the term 'strategic partnerships') in order to deal with the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys seem to be having trouble with this question "What exactly  is the great reset?" so I thought I'd find you some help.

I don't know if you know who the YouTuber, Bearing is but he has a simplified yet novel and often humorous take on complicated social issues.

Here's his explanation of what the great reset is:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
On 11/27/2020 at 8:33 AM, -1=e^ipi said:

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism.

It would be very helpful if you could provide your definition of capitalism.

 

One of the principles of capitalism (or more properly free enterprise) is the invisible hand theory introduced by Scottish economist Adam Smith in the 18th century.

 

Definition The unobservable market force that helps the demand and supply of goods in a free market to reach equilibrium automatically is the invisible hand.

Description The phrase invisible hand was introduced by Adam Smith in his book 'The Wealth of Nations'. He assumed that an economy can work well in a free market scenario where everyone will work for his/her own interest.

He explained that an economy will comparatively work and function well if the government will leave people alone to buy and sell freely among themselves. He suggested that if people were allowed to trade freely, self interested traders present in the market would compete with each other, leading markets towards the positive output with the help of an invisible hand.

In a free market scenario where there are no regulations or restrictions imposed by the government, if someone charges less, the customer will buy from him. Therefore, you have to lower your price or offer something better than your competitor. Whenever enough people demand something, it will be supplied by the market and everyone will be happy. The seller end up getting the price and the buyer will get better goods at the desired price.

 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/invisible-hand

 

The benefit of free enterprise is that people are self motivated, and there is not a need for a large bureaucracy, which can consume resources while providing no goods or services. The downside of unrestricted free enterprise is that it distributes wealth unevenly, and doesn't provide by itself provide infrastructure (roads, electrical services sewers etc,), healthcare education and other things hat need to be provided by and for everyone. Free enterprise needs to be partnered with government, which taxes those able to pay them, and use the proceeds to provide the community with needed services.

 

Soscialism is a belief that wealth should be distributed more fairly, and there is an emphasis to tax more, and provide more services with less, or even no need for those receiving the benefits to pay for them. The downside is that it reduces the incentive for people to work as hard at providing goods and services, because they keep less of the benefits from their labours. Socialism also requires a larger bureaucracy, and results in more government control

 

Communism is the belief that all a nation's resources should be owned collectively with everyone sharing equally and the government providing all needed services and resources evenly. The downside to communism is that it provides the least amount of personal incentive. It also usually results in a very large bureaucracy, and a small elite power group with aauthority over almost everything. One problem that I saw with communism, was while visting Cuba. The Soviet Union was a major sponsor of Cuba, but when their economy was failing Cuba lost much of it's funding. Their respocse was to rely more on tourism. Under communism everyone was paid the same wether you were a bartender, or a doctor. The difference was that bartenders got tips. Many doctors stopped practicing medicine to become bartenders, lawyers became taxi drivers etc..

 

The great reset is a plan developed by a small elite power group tht meets in Davos Switzerland every year in January. It is called a plan to build a better post covid19 world. Of course this elite wants to controll this project. They are of course not elected by anyone.

 

The meeting brings together some 3,000 business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists for up to five days to discuss global issues, across 500 sessions.

 

The WEF's mission is stated as "committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 12:04 PM, oops said:

Soscialism is a belief that wealth should be distributed more fairly

 

Then how do you explain national socialists such as the nazis, along with other fascists? They were socialists because they believed that the means of production should be controlled directly or indirectly by the state. I don't think your definition of socialism is the most correct nor the most useful definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Then how do you explain national socialists such as the nazis, along with other fascists? They were socialists because they believed that the means of production should be controlled directly or indirectly by the state. I don't think your definition of socialism is the most correct nor the most useful definition.

Capitalism, socialism and communism are economic systems and do not address different styles of government such as democracy or dictatorship. Capitalism does not directly address roads, electrical systems ,border security water and sewer systems etc., because they are not in the sole interest of the individual. All the economic systems need to be partnered with a government that takes care of shared needs. With capitalism it is everyone for themselves, you make money and you keep it, and you take care of your own needs. With socialism there is usually a mix of free enterprise, and public enterprise (government owned businesses), and the government provides most of services such as education and healthcare. It does this through increased taxation, which is essentially a sharing of wealth, since the taxes are generally progressive. Under communism all enterprises are owned by the government and all services are provided by the government. Everyone receives a wage to purchase food clothing and shelter, and all infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. is supplied by the government. Socialism is largely a middle ground between capitalism and communism.

Nazi Germany was a military dictatorship, and economic systems were not largely designed to provide for the populous. The nazis were mainly interested in supplying the military, and partnered with businesses usually forming cartels, or monopolies that were easier for them to control. It is not a pure economic model, and is not typified by capitalism socialism or communism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, oops said:

Capitalism does not directly address roads, electrical systems ,border security water and sewer systems etc., because they are not in the sole interest of the individual.

No, you are confusing capitalism with free-market capitalism or laisser-faire capitalism. Free-market capitalism is a subset of capitalism, but is not the only form of capitalism. Capitalism is about using private competition to allocate capital within society. You can have more redistributive forms of capitalism such as in Norway.

 

16 minutes ago, oops said:

Socialism is largely a middle ground between capitalism and communism.

No, communism and nazism are subsets of socialism, at least under the traditional definition of socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free enterprise is a market system. Capital is what takes us beyond the barter system. Capitalism just means that is based on a monetary system, which is the capital. Self interested traders  looking out for their own needs, does not provide for police roads and hospitals though. This necessitates to be a group of people who will provide these shared (or public) needs, and managers to organize these people. They also need the ability to raise the necessary funds to accomplish all of this. This is of course government, and taxation.  Under capitalism government and markets are separate, but mutually beneficial.

Under socialism the government also provides medical care, pensions for the elderly, assistance for the unemployed and disadvantaged, and other social needs. Taxes are based on ones ability to pay,  Under socialism government does more, and the bureaucracy is larger.  The wealthy subsidize the poorer. With socialism there is usually some overlap between the markets and government.

Under communism the government owns all capital, controls all trading and provides for all the needs of society, there is no invisible hand. With communism the government is the market.

Edited by oops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...