Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Rethink market capitalism?


myata

Recommended Posts

A discussion right now on TVO. However, I'd like to ask why rethink it? And what is it, what really needs rethinking here?

Someone invests tons of their time and money and creates a product that everyone wants and ready to pay for. What rethinking is needed?

Someone works week long in construction, fixing, small business, corner store, why rethinking?

As long as taxes are paid and the laws observed, what is it what needs rethinking in private market capitalism?

But maybe our public administration needs rethinking, to end the endless culture of outrageous privilege and dramatically improve responsibility and efficiency?

Maybe public service at all levels should be rethought to stop pretending being a monstrous entrenched corporation, while free of any market checks as well as responsibility to the taxpayer? Maybe it should become open, inclusive, lean, agile and efficient?

Maybe a whole new sector of economy, cooperative economy needs to be created to offer workers in essential services decent compensation and working conditions, as well as save taxpayers millions or billions?

I think rethinking is great. The question though is what needs rethinking and would lead to any chance of actual change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It REALLY needs to change.  There is a dramatic difference between "investing" (what markets SHOULD be for - i.e. IPOs and POs) and simply gambling (buying existing equities or artificial instruments such as derivatives to speculate on their value).   We have let the banksters move the movement of money from Main Street (funding that guy who MAKES the gizzmos) to simply trading speculative devices.  This is what allows them to re-distribute trillion$$ that must be covered by inflating the money supply to cover their speculative gains.  THAT is a direct liability to the taxpayer.  Also, shifting the flow of money from investing to speculating means that the barriers to access to market capital to business becomes very high - thus Main Street is de-funded while Wall Street takes the cake and eats it too.

We need to put people to work creating wealth, not re-distributing it.  The welfare bum in the corner house is no different from the Wall Street whiz kid = neither creates any wealth at all, just re-distributes it.  The difference that does exist is one costs the economy billions while the other costs trillions.  We SHOULD have had all this shit on the table in '08, but by then Goldman Sucks literally owned government, so instead of being dashed on the rocks for their treachery they were rewarded with unlimited access to the taxpayers back pockets and given complete run of the legislative and regulatory process that once brought them under control after 1929.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cannuck said:

We need to put people to work creating wealth, not re-distributing it.

I'm not really concerned about what people do with their own money. I am however worried if and when, especially often, MY tax money go to useless waste, outrageous entitlements, golden parachutes and such. If we don't find a way to rein it in and change it, in a short (in historic scales) time anything public here will stop working because the bureaucracy would spend all resources on itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, myata said:

I'm not really concerned about what people do with their own money. I am however worried if and when, especially often,

You NEED to be worried what people do with their own money.  It directly affects what value you money has (drastically dilluted by speculative gain, as the needed increase in the money supply is YOUR/OUR liability).  The useless tits in government are once again - no different from the welfare bum and the Bay Street mogul - they create no wealth (from which we all benefit and pay the bills) to simply re-distributing wealth - that simply costs us directly.   The more we shift our economy to wealth re-distribution from the speculative economy of Casino Capitalists to the re-distribution by the runaway army of total waste we call government - the greater the personal and government debt and the less value our meager earnings have to sustain it all.

In fact, YOU are the exact reason we are in such a mess:  worry about your own little world and not give a flying purple fuck about the rest of us.

For structural reform to work, we need to accomplish two things: reduce government to the job of legislating, regulating and enforcing - WITHOUT granting any special privilege to ANYONE - and stop the shift in economic efforts from productive work (that creates wealth) to speculative gain (that DOES NOT create any wealth - just inflation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You NEED to be worried what people do with their own money.  It directly affects what value you money has (drastically dilluted by speculative gain, as the needed increase in the money supply is YOUR/OUR liability).

This is an interesting conversation, and it could take us to many a tangent, for example: do stock markets work in creating "real" wealth? You can say no right away, but shouldn't "real" entrepreneurs be able to raise capital from willing investors as long as it's legal and legit and why not? So they go to the market sell their shares and that already created speculation and Bay street, etc. Is it different from your local produce market selling real food?

But I'd rather not head in the direction of changing the nature of the humanity and its been about accumulation of stuff from eons ago. However one can observe and attempt to improve management of something that is already there: public wealth and public resources. It's being in a dismal state in this country recently and very obviously it's not going to improve just by luck or a miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, myata said:

This is an interesting conversation, and it could take us to many a tangent, for example: do stock markets work in creating "real" wealth? You can say no right away, but shouldn't "real" entrepreneurs be able to raise capital from willing investors as long as it's legal and legit and why not? So they go to the market sell their shares and that already created speculation and Bay street, etc. Is it different from your local produce market selling real food?

VERY different.  

First, you need to understand the proportion of Wall/Bay Street that is involved with IPOs and POs.  That is miniscule but their ONLY contribution TO business.  Once the placement is made, the Street has nothing to do with the company at all.   Go to a balance sheet and you will see clearly there is a P&L but the "Market Value" is something mentioned in a note and does not and can not appear on the balance sheet - as it has NOTHING to do with the company.   the Street then proceeds to trade the equity created by the placement.  And THAT is where it all falls apart.  We give a free ride to speculative gain, so the street plays with information (analysts) who get the brokers and traders to run the PERCEIVED value up and down like a toilet seat.   With the shift to where one has the POSSIBILITY to earn 10x, 100x or even 1000x their value from the speculative gain (that once again I need to point out creates NO wealth) people put their money seldom in the actual investment for the purposes of building and running the company, but buy the equity in the HOPES that they can bet on the value at the Casino and participate in that speculative gain - that of course COULD be many, many times greater than any actual profits the company makes and shares by paying dividends (which is wealth that HAS been created by operating the company).  Then there are the "synthetic instruments" (derivatives for one).  The size of that market is many, many orders of magnitude greater than the entire GDP of the WORLD.   What that does is move massive amounts of money and discretionary use of money into bank/finance hands.  As a result the barrier to entry for a company is OUTRAGEOUS and if you want to be funded - you sure as hell aren't going to Wall/Bay street until you are already a fairly significant business.  THAT is how we have allowed Main Street (where genuine wealth is created and real and productive jobs exist) to be de-funded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, cannuck said:

VERY different.  

First, you need to understand the proportion of Wall/Bay Street that is involved with IPOs and POs. 

But again, we can't prevent people from trading their commodity can we? And we need to sell oil, metals, minerals, gold etc and so on. Let's not turn this into a global reengineering of the humankind, as in this country even a tiny, minuscule change can be "such a huge can of worms".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

But again, we can't prevent people from trading their commodity can we? And we need to sell oil, metals, minerals, gold etc and so on. Let's not turn this into a global reengineering of the humankind, as in this country even a tiny, minuscule change can be "such a huge can of worms".

Wasn't humankind reengineered at some point so that one person was decided to own the rocks underneath the ground ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wasn't humankind reengineered at some point so that one person was decided to own the rocks underneath the ground ?

Definitely not. From ages descending into timeless void humans grabbed and consumed as much as they could see and carry. Nothing new here. Water and air only a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

For structural reform to work, we need to accomplish two things: reduce government to the job of legislating, regulating and enforcing - WITHOUT granting any special privilege to ANYONE - and stop the shift in economic efforts from productive work (that creates wealth) to speculative gain (that DOES NOT create any wealth - just inflation).

 

Good luck with that...governments are some of the biggest hogs in the casino...local, provincial, and federal...in equity and bond markets.   And on top of that, government retirement and wealth redistribution Ponzi schemes are heavily invested in the casino to finance future entitlements.   So no, government will not be reduced to your expectations...ever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Good luck with that...governments are some of the biggest hogs in the casino...

Some of the biggest stock market investors worldwide are pension funds, including those of public service. Guess who would be up in arms first at the first mention of rethinking of market speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rethinkining could simply mean what it has always meant:  government regulation to protect consumers and the environment etc, and different taxes or other measures to redistribute some of the wealth that the wealthy have to the non-wealthy.

The problem with a non-market economy is that nobody has ever figured out how to do it in a way that is anywhere near as productive or efficient as a market economy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I can go into the mine and take what I like ?  Cool.

I think you do by claiming a stake or something like that but don't quote me. Yet another one of those things that are "such a can of worms" and simply cannot be changes (ever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Rethinkining could simply mean what it has always meant:  government regulation to protect consumers and the environment etc, and different taxes or other measures to redistribute some of the wealth that the wealthy have to the non-wealthy.

Cool, I was just about to comment how the discussion reminded me of searching under the lantern. So the real problems and inefficiencies are in the administration of public resources but it's so impossible to do anything about it that we even stopped noticing.

But what if someone somewhere managed to create an economy that is an effective combination and cooperation of all sectors: private, cooperative and public? With free continuous education, widest choice of options for efforts and talents of the population in every area at stage of life. Of course nothing like that is possible here, but just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I can go into the mine and take what I like ?  Cool.

If you found it first yes.  But all the land on earth has been found and claimed.

Private property has been around as long as animals.  Squirrels fight over nuts.  40,000 years ago a human who found a fancy shiny rock would have others who wanted to steal it from him.  Even indigenous had territory they defended and fought over, and still clam their own territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Rethinkining could simply mean what it has always meant:  government regulation to protect consumers and the environment etc, and different taxes or other measures to redistribute some of the wealth that the wealthy have to the non-wealthy.

 

This is the kind of thinking that lead to Canada's third world status for covid vaccine development, testing, and manufacturing.    Big Pharma just gave Canada the bird.

 

Quote

The problem with a non-market economy is that nobody has ever figured out how to do it in a way that is anywhere near as productive or efficient as a market economy.

 

Correct...and make no mistake here...government depends on the market economy for tax revenue, employment, development, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

But what if someone somewhere managed to create an economy that is an effective combination and cooperation of all sectors: private, cooperative and public?

Couldn't we say this is occurring now?  Anyone is allowed to start a co-op.  The problem is people don't because the people who do the legwork to organize the co-op would rather keep profits than share them.

Quote

With free continuous education, widest choice of options for efforts and talents of the population in every area at stage of life. Of course nothing like that is possible here, but just a thought.

Well everyone is allowed to go to the library and educate themselves for free.  Youtube and Google are also free.  If you're talking about diploma education, well that would be an interesting idea.  Encouraging people to go to school by making it free would probably make us smarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is the kind of thinking that lead to Canada's third world status for covid vaccine development, testing, and manufacturing.    Big Pharma just gave Canada the bird.

Every single country has wealth redistribution, taxes, and government regulation on the economy, including the US and Canada.  Countries only vary on the who, what, when, where, how.  So if you want to "rethink the market economy", just re-arrange redistribution/taxes and regulation to get "more ideal" outcomes for whatever you're looking to achieve.

A lack of government regulation is what led to Canada's inability to create vaccines because market efficiencies meant vaccine company facilities left.  The only thing that would bring back facilities is if a company chose to build one due or government built one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A lack of government regulation is what led to Canada's inability to create vaccines because market efficiencies meant vaccine company facilities left.  The only thing that would bring back facilities is if a company chose to build one due or government built one.

 

Quite the opposite...it was government decisions and regulation that led to the departure of large scale vaccine development and manufacturing in Canada, which use to be a world leader in such things.   Now Canada's government struggles to even meet domestic needs with foreign resources, let alone the exports of old.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

So I can go into the mine and take what I like ?  Cool.

This is actually a good, serious question and it is indicative of the real, big problem in this and many other matters. It is the question of balancing interests in a complex modern society. And I agree that no, it's not a given that anyone staking a claim should be entitled to dig and burn and expropriate. There had to be a process of reviewing, discussing and balancing these interests, individual, local community, broader community and the business. And we, citizens being occupied with our daily lives and daily entertainment decided to give away, outsource this responsibility to, generally, "politics". And so now it, politics will decide who owns the stuff under our homes and what will be done to them. Of course, it, the politics will dress it in democratic robes here, the law that your representatives wrote, and there, the government you elected. But that is beside and beyond the point that as citizens we have little control over the important matters, and decisions in the country.

And so realistically, if a gold or who knows what deposit is claimed under your house or your community (like that sacred cave in Australia, years after Avatar) it's just too bad. It's the democracy, silly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, myata said:

I think you do by claiming a stake or something like that but don't quote me. Yet another one of those things that are "such a can of worms" and simply cannot be changes (ever).

So I can't just take it ?  Seems like social engineering was required at some point....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1) Private property has been around as long as animals. 
2) Squirrels fight over nuts. 
3) 40,000 years ago a human who found a fancy shiny rock would have others who wanted to steal it from him. 
4) Even indigenous had territory they defended and fought over, and still clam their own territory.

1) Tell me about animal small claims court
2) Tell me about the squirrel supreme court
3) Tell me what happened to this urge to steal so easily ?  Something seems to prevent me from doing that, dunno
4) War does not equal trade

If my playful annoyingness is being annoying then I'll explain: "Let's not turn this into a global reengineering of the humankind"

Laws, taxation and trade itself is a reimagining of human activity that happened before those things came up so let's not stop ourselves from thinking about the future.

(I only do this for you Graham because you are a pal)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Quite the opposite...it was government decisions and regulation that led to the departure of large scale vaccine development and manufacturing in Canada, which use to be a world leader in such things.   Now Canada's government struggles to even meet domestic needs with foreign resources, let alone the exports of old.

Link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Laws, taxation and trade itself is a reimagining of human activity that happened before those things came up so let's not stop ourselves from thinking about the future.
 

What came first was somebody finding or making something that somebody else wanted, and then that somebody else stole it via sneakery, lies, and/or violence.  So then we made laws (rules) to govern behaviour, and courts to regulate whether rules were broken and decide punishment, and police to enforce them, and rule-makers to create all these things.  So yes, we can change laws or make new laws or get rid of laws.

So the question is, what changes should be made?  And are there any unintended bad consequences that could occur via changes that have never been tried before, such as happened under communism and free-trade?

Private property causes a lot of social problems.  Poverty, theft, violence, fraud, corruption, greed, jealousy, anger, resentment, frustration, depression/anxiety, suicide.  Eliminating private property would decrease or in some cases eliminate these problems.

But as we saw in the USSR, China and elsewhere, eliminating private property and a market economy also causes other problems.

Quote

(I only do this for you Graham because you are a pal)

Thanks buddy.  I send tender kisses!

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...