GilbertHolmes, I agree.

Dear GilbertHolmes,

I don't know that it's possible to have a society that is democratic, ecologically sustainable and egalitarian. It may be possible. Whether it is or not I think ecological sustainabilty should get top priority.

GH:
<In my opinion we can witness in recent times a melting away of the negative polarity between the ideological positions of 'capitalism' 'communism'. The entire human population has had a pretty good think about it all and is looking for a new way. A way that is democratic, ecologically sustainable and egalitarian.>

This is pure fantasy. The chattering classes will hold to the hegemonic centre, and all this up-beat PC would collapse the moment their living standards looked like being compromised (look at the "action" on AGW). In any case the Keynesian experiment was always unsustainable and inequitable. The future prospect (varying from country to country) is one of worsening "austerity measures".
"The entire human population has had a pretty good think etc."
This is mind-numbingly Pollyannaish and parochial. Actually, half "the entire population" has been and is struggling for bare survival! And it's just as well as the planet could not support them in the style "we've" become accustomed to! Sooner rather than later, states will be forced to revert to capitalism's default mechanism: the devil take the hindmost!

Eric Hobsbawm, speaking of, "the collapse of the Golden Age hopes for world social improvement" said, earlier this year: "I never cease to be surprised at the sheer lunacy of the neocon project, which not merely pretended that America was the future, but even thought it had formulated a strategy and tactics for achieving this end".
Capitalism is in crisis and the world is in a period of monumental change and power-shift.
Good luck with the social engineering, GH. BTW, what's your plan for the third world?

Oh so the Marxist communists know better than everyone else the way to a fairer and more productive society, based on their superior understanding of economics?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

Admirers of Hegel and Marx who wish society were communist are just genocides waiting to happen - dangerous fools, that is all.

Poirot
Obviously either they don’t prefer subsistence life in a communal setting, or it’s not an option for them.

The fact remains that the traders and consumers of balloons are doing more than anyone else in the world – and far more than you, Grok or Squeers - for the living standards of the workers you claim to care about.

I saw Tim Costello once preening himself on having embargoed certain chocolate, because it was made in some poor African country with child labour. It never occurred to this pious fool that he was exchanging their condition of subsistence for one of starvation.

Capitalism has raised the living standards of the masses to the highest levels in the history of the world, and socialists like you have decried and deplored and opposed it every step of the way.

And now you’ve got the gall to say that the problem is that everyone in the world doesn’t have living standards like the workers under advanced capitalism.

Grim
As usual, a veritable slather of personal insult, bait and switch, misrepresentation, straw men, false attribution, evasion, double standards, and every kind of logical fallacy known to man.

And for all that, nothing that you have said gives any reason why socialism is preferable as any kind of response to the alleged problem of nonfeasance.

All
The common thread underlying all your argumentation is the idea that, if we see an economic problem of some kind of scarcity or poverty, government or socialism is the presumptive solution.

The Marxian ideas that capitalism makes the masses poorer, or that socialism makes them richer, are just inexcusable economic ignorance.

You don’t understand what you’re talking about, and it’s simple as that.

Any reply other than proving how economic calculation under socialism is possible, is mere intellectual dishonesty

Grok, Squeers, with science, if the facts don't fit the theory, you throw out the theory and keep the facts. With religion, if the facts don't fit the theory, you throw out the facts and keep the theory.

What you've got is religion.

Marxists spent the last 150 years saying that capitalism lowers the standard of living of the masses to subsistence level. Now you're saying that capitalism makes the standard of living too high! Which one is it?

Grok, you say 350 words isn't enough. But in this whole thread you haven't even begun to justify your laughable position that public ownership of the means of production would make the masses better off - or Squeers that it would be better for the environment.

Poirot, so you and causecast are going to employ those workers at the wage you think they should have, are you?

Gilbert, you are suffering under the same mistake as the Marxists - that there is no truth but ideology and that we can have any economic reality we want just by readjusting property titles. We can't. Reality kicks in eventually. For example, all the welfare states in the world have unsustainable welfare programs. It's only a matter of time - years or decades - before all of them collapse.

Democracy can't change the laws of economics. The majority can vote themselves something for nothing all they like. If your third way can't work without government making it happen, it means it's not a third way at all.

I sometimes watch "Venture" on Bloomberg tv, with Cris Valerio.

Commonly its about some freshfaced 20something kid with a great
idea, lots of fortitude and dreams, who sets out to create a
company from nothing. There are dozens of them, thriving in
the internet environment, changing the way we do things.
Billion $ companies like Facebook, Twitter and a host of others
are the result. Some write new applications for I-phones, some
create internet games that people can play online.

Its always inspirational, as it shows what just about anyone can
create, if they really want to and have a go. Simply by focussing
on what consumers might want.

The fact that in our society these opportunities are still there
for the taking, if people just get off their butts and have a go,
I find liberating.

What a sad day it would be if the likes of Squeers, Grok or Grim
ran the show politically and all this innovation was denied
to the world, as they followed their ideology of envy.