RobP “The balance between socialism and individualism I see in the same way. Socialism is the equivalent of damming up the flow so that the waters of individualism don't run through so fast they destroy the fabric and habitats of people in society.”

I THINK YOU MIGHT BE DESCRIBING SUSTAINABLE INDIVIDUALISM MORE THAN SOCIALISM Rob…

I think you might be describing “sustainable Individualism” (versus avarice/greed) more than “socialism” Rob…
And nothing generates a greater sense of sustainability and interest in the future than when that interest is manifest in one’s children…
Hence, we can see additional understanding and make more appropriate reference to Maggie’s words, the ones which Ho Hum, (like those who rely upon socialist beliefs), conveniently corrupted

“….And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour.”…

"I THINK YOU MIGHT BE DESCRIBING SUSTAINABLE INDIVIDUALISM MORE THAN SOCIALISM Rob…"

I think you're right.

However, don't bite my head off when I say that socialism had and still has to a lesser extent a legitimate place in acting as a bulwark and balancing agent against the exact opposite in the exploitative mercantile class.

As long as the socialists do not stifle those individuals who are really trying to live sustainably and make a positive difference, I don't have a problem. (The truth be known, even if socialists do their worst and run amok for a while, the rest of society will eventually see them as the emperor who has no clothes and stiffen their resolve against them. The socialists will then perish.)

RobP.. no bite intended LOL

I apologise for the uppercase.. I rewrote it (directly below) and forgot to erase the original

The point is we can have regulation without the collective monopolistic ownership which inevitably attends socialism as a fact.

For instance, corporate law regulates company reporting, share ownership and even the treatment of minority share holders with a high degree of success around the world and does not rely, one iota, on government ownership of anything.

To stifling individuals.. how is "Equality" ever achieved if not by stiffling the talented because, as sure as anything, you will never pull up the performance of the dullards to match even that of the able let alone the extremely or particularly gifted.

Col,

Certainly one of the bad aspects of socialism is that it stifles talent and initiative of the more talented, of that there is no doubt. While you were out of circulation for a while, Pericles, examinator and I triangulated to the conclusion that the right term was “equity” rather than “equality”. Of course, just like one can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, you can’t make people equal as they fundamentally aren’t to start with. Everyone is at a different stage of development and any attempt to give equality to those that either don’t need it or haven’t earned it is actually hindering their personal development (as well as stuffing up others). The idea of equity is to recognise people are at different levels and that they need a certain environment to develop themselves and then allowing them that proper space.

Goodness me, what a journey reading all that. I was on the verge of disagreeing, then found the author also disagreed.

Brilliant ideas, however bio-economics is a huge conceptual step that requires many assumptions; and logical or rational as they may appear, each needs to be verified or verifiable for the whole thing to hold water.

Given the misleading nature of the purely cognitive, my preference is for behavioural economics which already exists although it provides only part of the picture of global economics.

The flaw in Marko's argument is that researchers in any discipline have moved beyond grand theories. All one can hope for is to make sense of the world now and of what the future might hold by study and observation and testing from frames of reference of a range of disciplines and cross-disciplines - like the blind man and the elephant.

In these endeavours we are mostly off the mark, however we learn a lot about the subject in the process. One key thing to be learnt from the GFC is that neither neo-liberal ideology nor post-Keynesianism will give us all the answers we would like in order to stay safe and keep the wolf from the door.

Religion and philosophy are needed, to help people make sense of what at times appears to be an irrational world; or a world beyond our understanding.

At the end of the day people are driven by irrational beliefs; which at least give us a sense of purpose and keep us keeping things happening in the world.

As well as a rational science of economics we also need a value and belief system to guide and make sense of what we learn and experience. I don't see an alternative to this.

Philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. Were someone to feel they understood just one aspect of a research endeavour, some unforeseen factor would arise or change and it would be back to the drawing board. Or we'd be approaching old knowledge with changed values and beliefs.