Belly:>> We must one day confront the truth, we want no one to be without but some want to take not give back socialism alone is waste, our system refined and reworked may be the future but looking at the past for todays answers is not helping.<<

Comrade Belly, I want equity for all, but to achieve that the "all" must be as "one" with no segment of detractors who "take and do not give back" as you succinctly put it. How do we define in a single word what has failed us historically in regard to socialist societies, greed.

A single greedy self serving pleb could not disrupt a society as corruption requires networking. Do you see where I am going? There are a bunch of greedy baskets out there all looking for that little edge that gives them more than the guy next door.

It is an admirable dream, intersected by a reality tainted by human greed. Belly you told me some time back that the NSW Labor Right should be torn away and rebuilt, time for a change, a new broom. But what comes in the years following "the change"? The status quo does, and that is what the change removed. History is a teacher, and particularly correct in regard to the ongoing nature of humanity. The "power corrupts" adage is appropriate as a nutshell cause to the fall of most likely every society we have formed. History decrees the "perfect" passes, while tainted endures.

Stern/col

It is unfortunate that you have returned to type (name calling etc)
I had hoped that Like Polycarp you had learn from your absence.I'll ignore this lapse and treat you as I would an open minded individual.
(perhaps for the benefit for others)
You clearly can't see that the underpinning assumption of your comments is that humans and the motivations and therefore their reactions can't be predicted with precision. The only possible method of approximations can't prove individuals only possibilities.

You know or should know the future markets is predicated on those possibilities not absolutes.

Were it as accurate as you seem to imply then there would be no risk, no justification for high levels of profit.Especially given that degree of risk underpins all interest.

I also note that you are tending to over state the ability of economics, a non testable (in a scientific sense) topic.

My point is your methodology is flawed
I repeat I have no interest in proselytizing any solution simply because of the level of defensive galloping inertia that abounds here.
PS one can't prove something doesn't exist only that something does.
Therefore, you can't unequivocally declare that there isn't another way. Have a good life :-)

AGiR… of course it is always about people

Like someone said

“economics are the method, the objective is to change the soul”

Pericles I was wrong, I will correct myself…..
My weekly return ticket, Chesham to Baker St / Marylebone in the metropolitan line in 1983 was UKP35 and replaced by private coach service PND12/week

daily ticket is now PND6 or 7 (depending on cash or “oyster”) but that is one way, not return would be about PND70 less a bit for weekly return v one-way day (my error).

Strangely, nowhere near the same escalation as your example

GilbertHolmes “As for you, you do oversimplify, as did Adam Smith….”

Thankyou for including me in a statement along with Adam Smith… one of the nicest things anyone has ever said

Yes, the world is a complex place but some of us manage to swing between the “macro” and the “micro” with ease.

We cut through to real issues, it makes our reasoning seem "simplistic" because what you have difficulty grasping and perceive as “complex” really is not, it is just big and runs on very fast cycle but comes back to applying the right “mental model”…

Like dearest Margaret said “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.”

(some of us men have also managed our own household)

The problem with the collectivist model, it imagines we are like worker ants and part of an ant-hill colony, where the workers are uniformly equal and work for the benefit of the colony…..

The first problem of the collectivist “model” is in the basic biology

Ants do not have partners for procreation in the way humans do

One or a few queen ants have all the babies and the workers have none.

That is the start of the reason why collectivist theories never work….

So it is simply a matter of “biology”…..

And collectivists start from the wrong “biological” model

Leading to just one collectivist disaster after another collectivist disaster.

Examinator.. re "names" and

“I'll ignore this lapse and treat you as I would an open minded individual.”

I have not called you names so drop the "victim" posturing, it is petulant and childish

“You clearly can't see that the underpinning assumption of your comments is that humans and the motivations and therefore their reactions can't be predicted with precision.”

they cannot...

the multi-trillions of interactive variables from the 6 billion individuals on the planet

You neither have a clue to what might happen at any time in the future, regardless what your ego tells you.

you do not know what innovations are being developed to improve life nor what diseases mutating to threaten humanity or which despotic madman might decide to inflict his own horror next.


Re” You know or should know the future markets is predicated on those possibilities not absolutes.”

That is why I used them to illustrate what I wrote -

being “Capitalism “works” quite well without all knowing all the factors.... we call them “Futures Markets””


What is it Examinator… your pompous arrogance prohibits you from agreeing with me, forcing yourself to appear an idiot by trying to make it sounds as if you disagree with me?


“My point is your methodology is flawed”


clearly you do not comprehend my methodology, which really disqualifies you from judging it


“I also note that you are tending to over state the ability of economics,”

not at all,


but I do notice you lack the courage to present a view, merely criticizing what others are prepared to present.


“I repeat I have no interest in proselytizing any solution simply because of the level of defensive galloping inertia that abounds here.”


see my comment above


“Therefore, you can't unequivocally declare that there isn't another way. Have a good life :-)”

I never tried to

As I previously suggested “when you actually stoop to articulate one, we will doubtless be able to shoot it down in flames”


As for my life… it is rich and blessed, and trust me… it is


very, very, very Good

Stern,

Adam Smith was far from stupid. Neither was Rene Descartes. They simply built their systems on a flawed concept.

Descartes (I think therefore i am) said tha human consciousness is essentially separate from the rest of nature, and with that he began the rise of the 'enlightnement' and the cult of the individual that is only now beginning to subside into the background of a better future.

Smith, Ricardo and Thatcher in economics, Freud in psychology, Newton in physics, Darwin in evolution theory were all caught within this cult of the individual.

I am not saying that they or you are wrong, just that you are only representing half of the truth: As well as being indiviudals, we are also a community. We are both self-interested and benevolent, matter and energy, competitive and cooperative.

Paradox is everywhere!

By the way I wasn't calling you a bean-counting bureaucrat. I was actually referring to myself.

Stern you see the world from a very black and white perspective. That is, it either has to be all this or all that.

In the collectivist model you describe with the ant-hill analogy, the workers are all uniformly equal as far as the right to access the same opportunities which an ideal system would ensure as best as able, is egalitarian and not only presented to a priveleged group. This means a fair exchange for labour including for those who take risks, who invest and for the innovative and inventive among us.

Where there is a disparity, is where the few get to dictate to the rest of us based purely on economic power, and this is one of the risks inherent in capitalism. Without some regulation you have anarchy in the economic sense.

The risk in pure socialism is similar in that it assumes an equal input from all citizens for an equal return.

A mixed system that is not so black and white can work toward a fairer distribution of wealth that still rewards risk/innovation but not to the point of disenfranchising the majority for the benefit of a few.

Our view of economics is related to our view of human nature but that nature is complex. Adam Smith may have had a point about self-interest despite the fact that his own works were highly contradictory in the dichotomy between self-interest and morality.

Is the power of human empathy enough to ensure fairness?

At its best, human nature does aspire to that end, but at its worst the effects are keenly felt at the lower end of society. That is when the most vulnerable (those who lack power) are at the mercy of and beholden to their 'masters' goodwill.

The job of government is to represent the people. One way is via regulatory measures. It is time to mature out of the shackles of purist ideology (communist/socialist/capitalist) and look more pragmatically at a blend, what works and what sort of society we wish to build and why.