economy

[dmp]

Perhaps it wasn't clear, as I think you mean "make an ass of yourself" by writing "ASSume"
But maybe you should clarify, as you may just inadvertently always type ASSume when you respond to others?

Once again I guess I wasn't clear, I am speculating about whether that relationship would continue ("not sure that will hold up over time"), and the future worth of a degree due to current climate on many college campuses (safe spaces and suppressions of different or new  ideas).

Are you speculating or ASSuming?  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

Perhaps it wasn't clear, as I think you mean "make an ass of yourself" by writing "ASSume"

"You think I mean???"  Hey are you saying I am making an ass of myself?  Probably not the worst thing I'll hear today. Since it is my birthday I am getting mostly well wishes on social media (but from from actual friends).  :

But maybe you should clarify, as you may just inadvertently always type ASSume when you respond to others?

I almost always do when talking about assumptions because "assuming something" does not suggest thorough research and firmly established truths. The full classic saying is "ass-u-me makes an ass of u and me " , typing ASSume is my shorthand for the full quip. Looks like you got the message but only part of it.... Assuming makes an ass of both the presenter and acceptor of unvetted information.     

Are you speculating or ASSuming?  ;D

I was speculating, which is why I said I was speculating...

I was not literally calling you an assumer... but in hindsight i see how you might take it that way so mea culpa

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I don't want to be premature, but I hear rumors that congress is finally working to address  Fannie and Freddie (in 2018) that have been in government conservatorship for a decade, because of their risk to the private economy.

While the ideal libertarian solution is to just dissolve them, they have become a too significant part of the US mortgage market and home ownership such that everybody wants to see them kept healthy.

So the reform is likely to keep them intact in some fashion. It is unclear if the hedge funds that bought up their stock for pennies on the dollar will profit (maybe).

There is a fair argument for government supporting the mortgage market, while less so for exposing the taxpayers to huge mortgage liability risk. Maybe this congress will finally improve the situation which has just been kicking the can down the road for a decade now.

JR

PS: In the same vein the huge pile of non-performing student loan debt needs to be addressed. I do not favor just forgiving it, but perhaps a clever way to earn out of it with public service, or industry support in exchange for employment deals (no not indentured servitude, but feels a little like that.)

 

[tands]

Perhaps incarcerate students who won't pay in Foxconn-type low security prisons and have them make cellphones for 12 hours a day.

Or make students who won't pay work as interns 10 hours a day at wall street banks, getting coffee and bowing and scraping, with dormitory housing a 2 hour train ride away.

Or I know, just sell students who won't pay as slaves, as a threat to anyone who won't comply.

Any other ideas?

https://twitter.com/JohnBHume/status/943358358328930305

 

[fazer]

Easy just give a kidney. You have 2.  Pay that debt with one operation.

Or how about making collages responsible for a non earning student.  They take the money and run.  Why don’t they have skin in the game.

A 90k a year liberal arts teacher has to go on sabbatical because 2 classes with 8 students is ruining there ability to publish.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Easy just give a kidney. You have 2.  Pay that debt with one operation.

I hope you are kidding (I didn't see an emoticon). AFAIK that is illegal in the US.  In india you might get $20k, in China $40k. Even that will not bail out many students.

Or how about making collages responsible for a non earning student.  They take the money and run.  Why don’t they have skin in the game.

ding ding ding, we have a winner....

Make tuition payable over time as a fraction of lifetime earnings. A fair transaction would allow colleges to earn more if you have a very successful career, less if you earn less.

This would change the game and force colleges to be even more critical about what students they accept based on their real potential. Bad news for slackers.  It would also force them to teach merchantable skills... so basket weaving is out.

A 90k a year liberal arts teacher has to go on sabbatical because 2 classes with 8 students is ruining there ability to publish.

??

JR

PS: I am still learning details about the tax bill... they made one major change restricting business interest deductions.  This will impose a much needed discipline on some companies that have borrowed massively in this easy money (bubble?). Of course it will be painful for several companies ( like Dell) but not a bad thing for imposing better discipline on all business.

PPS: A minor tidbit... AT&T famously gave workers a $1k bonus in response to lower tax rates, but note that they made the distribution in 2016 so it can be deducted and offset against the higher current corporate tax rate, and not next year's lower rate...  Tens of millions more in tax savings than paying out the same money next year.

 

[fazer]

Kidding about kidneys.  It’s just the college spends money based on how much they can get and then walk away from responsible with what they teach.  It’s a  world changing where YouTube videos have better instruction then a lot of dribble taught in what now is a 5 year degree for a bachelors.  It really teaches persistence and maybe a ladder  up through social contacts. 

Also a bankster can make a miserable investment and file bankruptcy but a student is serfdom with no way out.    It’s a bulls**t system if u ask me.

Funny, nobody’s asking me.

 

[dmp]

Or how about making collages responsible for a non earning student.  They take the money and run.  Why don’t they have skin in the game.

A 90k a year liberal arts teacher has to go on sabbatical because 2 classes with 8 students is ruining there ability to publish.

For profit colleges have been the big problem with non-earning students saddled with debt. Research universities (where faculty publishes) are typically some of the best educational institutions AND contribute greatly to technology.

I'm curious if you went to a college or University that gave you that opinion?

I went to a public university and majored in both engineering and English, so got a taste for the liberal arts side too. it was a great curriculum. Not as good for career opportunities of course.
I can learn new skills well on my own these days from reading on the web but I'm not suresomeone could self-learned the base mathematics, physics,  etc...  that one gets at the University. Yeah, you can learn how to fix a toilet or understand an amp circuit, but that not the same as a 4-5 yr education in a field. The lack of interaction with a teacher / other students is another problem with self learning from videos I think.

The student loan deal is a travesty. Complete agreement there.  And the availability of debt just made colleges raise prices 7% a year.

 

[fazer]

I'm curious if you went to a college or University that gave you that opinion?

I went to a state collage.  Majored in Engineering and Business Minor. 

About 20 years later, I taught part time at a for profit school and could not believe the abuse those types of trade schools did.  So yes the trade schools have a lot of problems but at one time before student loans , many offered a reasonable service. 

Today there are mandatory classes in social and remedial studies which to me pointed to a poor education in high school and maybe a problem with allowing any warm body to enter the doors once they secure a loan check.   

Also I kind of like the Scandinavian system where kids are together taking classes till 7th-8th grade and then they divide those with college qualities and those with trade qualities or something to that effect.  God knows a plumber might do as well or better than a social worker with 4 year degree.

The world changes so fast these days that getting more than 5 to 7 years out of a particular field can be a challenge.  So a university my be an outdated model as well. 

There are math studies today on the internet like Khan Academy that might do a better job of teaching than teachers in high school do.  And my experience with Collage history classes were that I hated being packed into an auditorium with 300 others to basically end up hating history in collage that I love as a 7th grader. 

Im self motivated when it comes to learning but you get better at it when you have lived three quarters of a lifetime.   

 

[tands]

Michael Hudson: He Died for Our Debt, Not Our Sins

As many people turn towards their Christian and Jewish faiths this Christmas and Hanukkah in an attempt to make sense of the year that was, at least one economist says we have been reading the bible in an anachronistic way.


In fact he has written an entire book on the topic. In And Forgive them their Debts: Credit and Redemption (available this spring on Amazon), Professor Michael Hudson makes the argument that far from being about sex, the bible is actually about economics, and debt in particular.


”The Christianity we know today is not the Christianity of Jesus,” says Professor Hudson.

Indeed the Judaism that we know today is not the Judaism of Jesus either.


The economist told Renegade Inc the Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our sins even as we forgive all who are indebted to us’, refers specifically to debt.

“Most religious leaders say that Christianity is all about sin, not debt,” he says. “But actually, the word for sin and debt is the same in almost every language.”


”‘Schuld’, in German, means ‘debt’ as well as ‘offense’ or, ‘sin’. It’s ‘devoir’ in French. It had the same duality in meaning in the Babylonian language of Akkadian.”


The idea harks back to the concept of ‘wergeld’, which existed in parts of Europe and Babylonia, and set the value of a human life based on their rank, paid as compensation to the family of someone who has been injured or killed.


”The payment – the Schuld or obligation – expiates you of the injury caused by the offense,” Dr Hudson said.

-


The economist says Jesus was crucified for his views on debt. Crucifixion being a punishment reserved especially for political dissidents.


”To understand the crucifixion of Jesus is to understand it was his punishment for his economic views,” says Professor Hudson. “He was a threat to the creditors.”


Jesus Christ was a socialist activist for the continuity of regular debt jubilees that were considered essential to the wellbeing of ancient economies.

-

Jesus’ first reported sermon in Luke 4 documents his announcement that he had come to revive the enforcement of the Jubilee Year. The term “gospel” (or ‘good news’) was used specifically to refer to debt cancellation which became the major political fight of the imperial Roman epoch, pitting Jesus against the pro-creditor Pharisees, (a political party and social movement that became the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism around 167 BC).

Jesus Died for Our Debt


-


The economist says that Christianity was reshaped by Saint Paul, followed by the “African” school of Cyril of Alexandria and St Augustine.


”Over the last 1000 years the Catholic Church has been saying it’s noble to be poor. But Jesus never said it was good to be poor. What he said was that rich people are greedy and corrupt. That’s what Socrates was saying, as well as Aristotle and the Stoic Roman philosophers, the biblical prophets in Isaiah.”


Neither did Jesus say that it was good to be poor because it made you noble.


What Jesus did say is that say if you have money, you should share it with other people.

-


”Today’s world believes in the sanctity of debt. But from Sumer and Babylonia through the Bible, it was debt cancellations that were sacred.”


The economist recommends replacing income tax with land, monopoly and natural resource tax, banning absentee ownership, and empowering the government to distribute land to the population.


”If you want to be like Jesus then you become political and you realise that this is the same fight that has been going on for thousands of years, across civilisation – the attempt of society to cope with the fact that debts grow faster than the ability to pay,” he says.


And Forgive them their Debts: Credit and Redemption will be available for purchase just in time for Easter on Amazon.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/michael-hudson-died-debt-not-sins.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYbavuReVF4

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have still been waiting for education to catch up with modern technology (in fact some already do offer online courses). The cost to share classic educational materials should continue dropping toward zero.  Absolutely no reason for degree costs to increase other than all the government help (too easy student lending).

Kids don't know how good they have it today. I have a pile of books I bought back in the 70s-80s that I needed to learn a bunch of new (changing) technology. Today I would just google what I wanted to find out for free...

Back on topic, for this veer.... there are some dedicated "for profit" education courses that teach a very narrow skill set (like computer programming) with a short intense educational curriculum, with very high success rate for graduates being hired. There are a few similar skills (like welding) that enjoy intense one skill only education, typically resulting in good paying jobs.

In fact some companies with an excess of open job positions will pay the fee for promising future employees to attend. I expect this trend to continue.


JR

 

[Scodiddly]

I have still been waiting for education to catch up with modern technology (in fact some already do offer online courses). The cost to share classic educational materials should continue dropping toward zero.  Absolutely no reason for degree costs to increase other than all the government help (too easy student lending).

Higher education not being 100% modern has been true for decades, though.  What I really got out of my university experience was the theoretical foundation that I needed to easily learn all the modern stuff as it appeared.  A vocational approach that just (say) teaches C web programming likely won't have that.

 

[dmp]

I went to a state collage.  Majored in Engineering and Business Minor. 
About 20 years later, I taught part time at a for profit school and could not believe the abuse those types of trade schools did.  So yes the trade schools have a lot of problems but at one time before student loans , many offered a reasonable service. 
Today there are mandatory classes in social and remedial studies which to me pointed to a poor education in high school and maybe a problem with allowing any warm body to enter the doors once they secure a loan check.   
Also I kind of like the Scandinavian system where kids are together taking classes till 7th-8th grade and then they divide those with college qualities and those with trade qualities or something to that effect.  God knows a plumber might do as well or better than a social worker with 4 year degree.
The world changes so fast these days that getting more than 5 to 7 years out of a particular field can be a challenge.  So a university my be an outdated model as well. 
There are math studies today on the internet like Khan Academy that might do a better job of teaching than teachers in high school do.  And my experience with Collage history classes were that I hated being packed into an auditorium with 300 others to basically end up hating history in collage that I love as a 7th grader. 
Im self motivated when it comes to learning but you get better at it when you have lived three quarters of a lifetime. 

I don't think public schools are perfect, but the for-profit schools have sure shown how much worse schooling can be. Maximizing profit, regardless of how terrible an education they were providing to people. Really they were conning people out of their money (aka signing them up for debt).
The idea of public school education for all was that a educated population would lift all boats, so to speak. And that is one thing that has really shown to be true over the last century. Unfortunately, we've seen a ideological mission over the past few decades to undermine public schools to create an opportunity for profit driven schools. This is actually motivated by an agenda of greed I think, by people in the business of for-profit schooling. It has directly contributed to the poor education of people in K-12 which then has required the remedial studies at higher education institutions. Less funding means larger classes and lower quality teachers.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have now taken a number of actions to defund and undermine the UW system, which is a great state University. It's a shame that such corrupt fools are doing so much damage. 

The most difficult part of K-12 education is motivation.  For the highly motivated kids, education is pretty easy. Even online options would be pretty good. The real difficulty is all the kids that don't care and have to be motivated to put in effort.

And as to fields becoming outdated, in my experience the real value I got in undergrad and grad school were the basic tools & problem solving: math, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc...
These skills don't go out of date.
But they are needed for understanding new technology.  I've been learning / working with machine learning in past year and I can learn it from books / web, but one needs the background education.

 

[Phrazemaster]

I don't think public schools are perfect, but the for-profit schools have sure shown how much worse schooling can be. Maximizing profit, regardless of how terrible an education they were providing to people. Really they were conning people out of their money (aka signing them up for debt).
The idea of public school education for all was that a educated population would lift all boats, so to speak. And that is one thing that has really shown to be true over the last century. Unfortunately, we've seen a ideological mission over the past few decades to undermine public schools to create an opportunity for profit driven schools. This is actually motivated by an agenda of greed I think, by people in the business of for-profit schooling. It has directly contributed to the poor education of people in K-12 which then has required the remedial studies at higher education institutions. Less funding means larger classes and lower quality teachers.  The Republicans in Wisconsin have now taken a number of actions to defund and undermine the UW system, which is a great state University. It's a shame that such corrupt fools are doing so much damage. 

The most difficult part of K-12 education is motivation.  For the highly motivated kids, education is pretty easy. Even online options would be pretty good. The real difficulty is all the kids that don't care and have to be motivated to put in effort.

And as to fields becoming outdated, in my experience the real value I got in undergrad and grad school were the basic tools & problem solving: math, statistics, physics, chemistry, etc...
These skills don't go out of date.
But they are needed for understanding new technology.  I've been learning / working with machine learning in past year and I can learn it from books / web, but one needs the background education.

I think the whole trouble is capitalism itself. Many argue its virtues, and of course any system can be gamed and corrupted, but at heart it brings out the worst in people, and we end up with a system based on need and greed. Wouldn't it be amazing  if we had schools that excelled because their sole goal was truly to educate their students? Without the soul-sucking motivation to run the place as a business, and therefore the true goal of those in charge is to simply garner more money, the institutions would be free to actually do what they ostensibly are supposed to be doing: teaching. Anything else is a distraction.

The same could be said for every sector of society. Capitalism corrupts every known system eventually, and destroys it from the inside out. There. Has. To. Be. A. Better. Way.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think the whole trouble is capitalism itself. Many argue its virtues, and of course any system can be gamed and corrupted, but at heart it brings out the worst in people, and we end up with a system based on need and greed. Wouldn't it be amazing  if we had schools that excelled because their sole goal was truly to educate their students? Without the soul-sucking motivation to run the place as a business, and therefore the true goal of those in charge is to simply garner more money, the institutions would be free to actually do what they ostensibly are supposed to be doing: teaching. Anything else is a distraction.

The same could be said for every sector of society. Capitalism corrupts every known system eventually, and destroys it from the inside out. There. Has. To. Be. A. Better. Way.

That is a nice sentiment but more than a little optimistic. The ability to make a profit does not cause greed, that is intrinsic to human nature, and exists in all economic systems. Kim jong un does not appear underfed.

Profit is the engine of growth within a capitalistic economy, take away that profit motive and we slow/stop the cornucopia of new innovation (new inventions, new medicines, new stuff). Of course some regulation is needed to prevent the excesses of unfettered capitalism (but not so much that it throttles growth). We must always be alert for corruption from big business crony capitalism that perverts regulation and tax law to restrict competition by throwing around their economic might (drain the swamp).

Our founders who were no slouches studied all the forms of government that went before, and there were thousands of years to consider. I still believe they did a great job crafting our constitution, and we always have the option to incorporate changes with amendments (It has been amended 27 times, while some amendments ended up being reversed, like prohibition.) 

This is an extremely old debate and about the only new example of governance to consider (IMO) is modern China. After suffering economically under classic old school communism and inspired by Hong Kong's capitalist vitality, that reverted back to Chinese rule after the UK lease expired, china has tried to incorporate some aspects of a market economy to fuel growth. China is still a centrally planned government controlled economy (public sector is still larger than private sector, but fact that there is now a private sector is a positive change).  This is still a work in process and time will tell if they can have the benefits of capitalism without the free choice we take for granted, this experiment will take decades to evaluate. (Economists predict that central planning is inferior to free markets, but for now China enjoys above standard growth.)

Lately I have been reading about 50% history books and many of these "new" ideas are not that new at all.

JR

PS: We don't need history to see modern examples of failed socialism, while there are aspects of democratic socialism successfully practiced and widely embraced by some modern governments around the world today. Pick which socialist country to live in carefully.  ;D

 

[dmp]

I think the whole trouble is capitalism itself. Many argue its virtues, and of course any system can be gamed and corrupted, but at heart it brings out the worst in people, and we end up with a system based on need and greed. Wouldn't it be amazing  if we had schools that excelled because their sole goal was truly to educate their students? Without the soul-sucking motivation to run the place as a business, and therefore the true goal of those in charge is to simply garner more money, the institutions would be free to actually do what they ostensibly are supposed to be doing: teaching. Anything else is a distraction.

The same could be said for every sector of society. Capitalism corrupts every known system eventually, and destroys it from the inside out. There. Has. To. Be. A. Better. Way.

Yes, I agree with this. People mistakenly give Capitalism the credit for the increase in standard of living when actually it has been technology that has benefited humanity.
Capitalism determines how wealth is allocated and by looking at the data on wealth inequality, it is obvious it has been doing a terrible job. It allows power and wealth to be correlated so mostly the powerful accumulate more and more wealth. The 90% of Americans who are employed see a smaller share of the wealth, when their contributions to technology have actually been what generated the wealth. And I am saying this as a person who started and ran a technology business and benefits from the current system!

The economic system and the arguments between planned economies (Socialist) and Capitalist economies are stuck in fixed paradigms and have not let any innovation come to it. Perhaps there is a better method but we will not know as long as the people who benefit the most from the status quo are making all the decisions. 

Capitalism is a system that focuses only on profit and only optimizes a system for increased money. Like you say, with for-profit schools, it doesn't matter if schools are bad or good at serving students - it only matters that their revenue minus expenses is maximized.  For Capitalism to work, consumers need to be informed and smart at making financial decisions. In fact, people are often  irrational and make poor financial decisions and in reality have limited choices due to the power and sophistication of big business.

I value personal freedom highly and am not advocating a system that takes freedoms away or deincentivizes people from working hard to succeed. But we need a better system that allocates wealth commensurate with individual contributions.
I think that starts with people learning that the current form of Capitalism in the developed world is severely flawed.

 

[tands]

Capitalism not only allocates wealth, it also allocates power.

It is a system allocating power.

Capitalism is fascist in use.

https://twitter.com/planetepics/status/945917243589881857

 

[Phrazemaster]

That is a nice sentiment but more than a little optimistic. The ability to make a profit does not cause greed, that is intrinsic to human nature, and exists in all economic systems. Kim jong un does not appear underfed.

Point taken. I did say any system can be gamed or corrupted.

Profit is the engine of growth within a capitalistic economy, take away that profit motive and we slow/stop the cornucopia of new innovation (new inventions, new medicines, new stuff). Of course some regulation is needed to prevent the excesses of unfettered capitalism (but not so much that it throttles growth). We must always be alert for corruption from big business crony capitalism that perverts regulation and tax law to restrict competition by throwing around their economic might (drain the swamp).

And this is what I believe is a basic assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. We are not driven by "profit" - we are not born wanting money. We have a human spirit that has an insatiable lust for life and expansion. A mere economic system is not what spurs civilizations. It is intrinsic to our nature to DO things. Figure things out. BUILD things. (And unfortunately, destroy things too).

Think about yourself. You are always sharing stories of all the things you like to do, build, figure out - even sometimes at great cost to yourself. Why? It isn't because there's a money system. it's because you love to DO things. Money does nothing here but hinder life and regulate it. You'd still get up early one morning to build a bridge if you needed one, because you WANT TO. We expand our lives because we WANT TO - not because there's a money system that "motivates us" to do things.

In fact the motivation that comes from profit is, itself, the problem. When the motivation is to store up these imaginary "credits" so you can have power over others, which let's face it IS the core of capitalism, then the goal of the game is tyranny. To say otherwise is to miss the heart of the game.

I am not saying socialism or marxism is better - I am saying there IS a better way. One stab in this direction is Ubuntu Contributionism. There's a book on Amazon by that name if you're interested; it's about the "gift economy" wherein everyone does what they do because they want to.

There's an old saying: it's hard to convince a man of something, if his paycheck is tied to him not being convinced. We don't have a better system in this world because those in power are happy with the system, not because "there's nothing better. We tried everything else." We don't have a better system because the current system works quite well thank-you for those in charge. It's the Golden Rule." He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Our founders who were no slouches studied all the forms of government that went before, and there were thousands of years to consider. I still believe they did a great job crafting our constitution, and we always have the option to incorporate changes with amendments (It has been amended 27 times, while some amendments ended up being reversed, like prohibition.)

Yes and at this point it's an extremely well-crafted document that serves the interest of those at the top to ignore. How many violations of the Constitution can we find presidents making? How many conflicts of interest get around the grand three branches? If they wanted to make the Constitution work, they should have put in a proviso that congressmen/women must abide under the same rules as those they govern. As it is, there is one set of laws for the lawmakers, and another for the masses. What's good for the goose is apparently not good enough for the gander. There should also be a clause that prevents lobbying - the most corrupt under the table method for the rich to be stroked and the poor harmed - and another that no person shall be able to serve more than 2 terms ever. None of this "career politician" crap which invites even more corruption. And another still that prevents conflicts of interest - no industry ties to politicians. No congressmen making rules for big Pharma, and then becoming a highly paid executive of big Pharma.

Ah that last one - that's the rub. The monied interests always find a way to get in there and wreak havoc. Because that's what greed and corruption does.

This is an extremely old debate and about the only new example of governance to consider (IMO) is modern China. After suffering economically under classic old school communism and inspired by Hong Kong's capitalist vitality, that reverted back to Chinese rule after the UK lease expired, china has tried to incorporate some aspects of a market economy to fuel growth. China is still a centrally planned government controlled economy (public sector is still larger than private sector, but fact that there is now a private sector is a positive change).  This is still a work in process and time will tell if they can have the benefits of capitalism without the free choice we take for granted, this experiment will take decades to evaluate. (Economists predict that central planning is inferior to free markets, but for now China enjoys above standard growth.)

Lately I have been reading about 50% history books and many of these "new" ideas are not that new at all.

JR

Even the best "rules" or systems, implemented by the corrupt, themselves become corrupt. You cannot legislate fairness.

But you can try. And there are better ways. Another way to state all this is, if capitalism is so great then why does it intrinsically serve the interests of those in power? Sure, "anyone" can be president  :, and "anyone" can be rich." But really? Is it that cut and dried in this system? Can "anyone" buy a house these days, with down payments exceeding $100K? How long would it take for a young couple to earn that kind of money - that is, AFTER they have paid off their "student loans." (remember when college was free?).

Thanks for sharing.

Mike

PS: We don't need history to see modern examples of failed socialism, while there are aspects of democratic socialism successfully practiced and widely embraced by some modern governments around the world today. Pick which socialist country to live in carefully.  ;D

So my choice is socialism as previously implemented, or capitalism? There are other, better ways. We sent men to the moon. We can come up with a fair system of governance and economy. But not as long as those in power have a vested interest in preventing that, and in maintaining the stat quo.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Point taken. I did say any system can be gamed or corrupted.
And this is what I believe is a basic assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. We are not driven by "profit" - we are not born wanting money.

We are born wanting food and shelter, in modern culture money is the medium of exchange to secure that. Most (not all people) do not accumulate money just for the sake of having it. As the old joke says, "I give all my money away for stuff that I want more". 

We have a human spirit that has an insatiable lust for life and expansion. A mere economic system is not what spurs civilizations. It is intrinsic to our nature to DO things. Figure things out. BUILD things. (And unfortunately, destroy things too).

Philosophy has inquired about this for thousands of years and there are many opinions but few objective facts, while Maslow's hierarchy of needs seems pretty well respected (well repeated).

Think about yourself. You are always sharing stories of all the things you like to do, build, figure out - even sometimes at great cost to yourself. Why?

Because I can... I can because I worked hard, saved and invested wisely (enough, but could have invested better), and live frugally (in nowhere MS). This affords me the luxury to pursue projects, but cost-benefit always matters. 

I abandoned my novel outlet tester after it looked like it would cost me a few tens of thousands more to get agency approval, to then have an uphill battle convincing consumers it was OK to touch a metal contact on an outlet tester, only to compete with established product costing single digit dollars. I don't have that much money to waste. 

It isn't because there's a money system. it's because you love to DO things. Money does nothing here but hinder life and regulate it. You'd still get up early one morning to build a bridge if you needed one, because you WANT TO. We expand our lives because we WANT TO - not because there's a money system that "motivates us" to do things.

A principal strength here is rule of law and right to own property. In government systems where citizens are not allowed to own property (like keeping profits from work effort), there is little motivation to work harder and excel.

In fact the motivation that comes from profit is, itself, the problem. When the motivation is to store up these imaginary "credits" so you can have power over others, which let's face it IS the core of capitalism, then the goal of the game is tyranny. To say otherwise is to miss the heart of the game.

It seem we have divergent views about capitalism....  It is a terrible system, except for all the rest, that are even worse..

I am not saying socialism or marxism is better - I am saying there IS a better way. One stab in this direction is Ubuntu Contributionism. There's a book on Amazon by that name if you're interested; it's about the "gift economy" wherein everyone does what they do because they want to.

Back in the 60s there were hippies living in communes, Israel has had kibbutz (agricultural based communes) for over a century. Not exactly new concepts but often limited.

There's an old saying: it's hard to convince a man of something, if his paycheck is tied to him not being convinced. We don't have a better system in this world because those in power are happy with the system, not because "there's nothing better. We tried everything else." We don't have a better system because the current system works quite well thank-you for those in charge. It's the Golden Rule." He who has the gold, makes the rules.

And historically he who has the power takes the gold. It ultimately comes down to power.

Yes and at this point it's an extremely well-crafted document that serves the interest of those at the top to ignore. How many violations of the Constitution can we find presidents making? How many conflicts of interest get around the grand three branches? If they wanted to make the Constitution work, they should have put in a proviso that congressmen/women must abide under the same rules as those they govern.

indeed...  I can think of several new rules to put into an amendment or two. How about citizens going to jail for lying to congress, while politicians routinely lie to the public? In fact they would probably never get elected if they told us only truth.  : We want them to lie to use, making promises they know they can't keep.

As it is, there is one set of laws for the lawmakers, and another for the masses. What's good for the goose is apparently not good enough for the gander. There should also be a clause that prevents lobbying -

Actually lobbying is protected speech and comes from the provision that we are allowed to lobby our government to argue our self interest. This gets perverted by all the money thrown at lobbying by big business (crony capitalism). They have tried to regulate lobbying but politicians don't want to cut off the mothers milk for their re-election campaigns.  The only long term solution is to reduce the scale of government spending and regulation, that will reduce the attraction for big business to lobby in their self interest.

the most corrupt under the table method for the rich to be stroked and the poor harmed - and another that no person shall be able to serve more than 2 terms ever. None of this "career politician" crap which invites even more corruption.

+1  term limits make sense... Government service should be sacrifice, not a high paying career.  It makes sense for a millionaire or billionaire to enter government service after already rich, but how do all these congress people become millionaires from jobs that barely pay enough to keep them under a roof in DC?? They often trade on inside information that would get normal citizens arrested.

And another still that prevents conflicts of interest - no industry ties to politicians. No congressmen making rules for big Pharma, and then becoming a highly paid executive of big Pharma.

there are already rules about that. But it is a double edged sword at least for entering government service you want people who understand the industry they are regulating.

Ah that last one - that's the rub. The monied interests always find a way to get in there and wreak havoc. Because that's what greed and corruption does.

Even the best "rules" or systems, implemented by the corrupt, themselves become corrupt. You cannot legislate fairness.

Legislate "fairness",,, we can't even define it...   one mans fair is the others unfairness.

But you can try. And there are better ways. Another way to state all this is, if capitalism is so great then why does it intrinsically serve the interests of those in power?

have you ever been hired by a poor person?

Sure, "anyone" can be president  :, and "anyone" can be rich." But really? Is it that cut and dried in this system? Can "anyone" buy a house these days, with down payments exceeding $100K? How long would it take for a young couple to earn that kind of money - that is, AFTER they have paid off their "student loans." (remember when college was free?).

I do not remember college being free...  I dropped out at least partly because I felt bad about wasting my mother's money (I was not a good student).  She put my two brothers and one sister through college... they were more disciplined than I was (am).

Thanks for sharing.

Mike
So my choice is socialism as previously implemented, or capitalism? There are other, better ways. We sent men to the moon. We can come up with a fair system of governance and economy. But not as long as those in power have a vested interest in preventing that, and in maintaining the stat quo.

This sounds like the classic class warfare promulgated by Karl Marx (workers of the world unite). It is politically easy to target the rich because there are fewer of them so they lack power in simple democratic votes.

I don't think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, we have a good system that could be improved with a few minor tweaks,,,  while it is very difficult to improve a republic using democratic methods. Several amendment proposals are already trying to move us toward simple democracy, that has issues. Lynch mobs and some scary science fiction is based on simple democracy, or tyranny of the majority.  Our government is founded on the principle of protecting individual rights. 

JR

 

[tands]

Funny.